Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Obama: No Friend of Freedom; In Honduras or Iran

It is with utter disgust that I write this about the newly seated poseur in chief occupying the White House in what I supposed to be the leader of the free worlds seat. Barack Obama has shown his weakness and allegiance to tin horn dictators and oppressive leaders everywhere, even worse that that we saw in the late 1970’s under Jimmy Carter, unarguably the worst president ever in the history of the United States of America, until now.

In what a blind person could see was a rigged election, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was retained in power over that theologically oppressed nation.

Supporters of challenger Hossein Mousavi took to the streets in Tehran in protest, only to be met by thugs who beat and killed them by the scores.

Although they begged for help and support in over a week of protests, the beatings and killing persisted, eliciting a weak voice of “displeasure’ from Obama, issued after days of silence and calling for everyone to just accept the election.

North Korea’s Kim Jung Il thumbs his nose at America and starves his own people while amassing weapons and building nuclear weapons in violation of nuclear treaties. He threatens even to annihilate America and Obama imposes more financial sanctions upon the starving military nation.

But, what takes the cake is his demand that Honduras reinstate their deposed president, in spite of him being removed under the authority of their constitution and by court and congressional order.

Aligning himself with Marxist dictators, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, Obama calls on Hondurans to reinstall ousted president Manuel Zelaya, calling his constitutionally sanctioned removal an illegal coup.

Zelaya was removed from the presidency by members of the Honduran Military, ordered by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress after he illegally attempted to rewrite the Honduran constitution on his own, which the Supreme Court there ruled illegal.

Not to be thwarted, Zelaya called upon Marxist buddy, Hugo Chavez to send him the ballots he wanted voted on and ordered the Military to disperse those ballots. When that order was refused, Zelaya fired the Commanding General, who refused due to orders from the Supreme Court, who also ordered the general be reinstated. Zelaya refused and led a group to break into the warehouse where the ballots were stored to disperse them and force a vote on his referendum, even though the Congress and Supreme Court ruled it illegal.

For this, Zelaya was arrested and placed on an airplane to Costa Rica. The Military turned the country over to the Congress who swore in a new president, Roberto Micheletti to finish Zelaya’s term, with a promise of free elections at that time to choose a new president.

You can read the full story at Honduras Defends Its Democracy.

Clearly, Honduras acted within their constitution and with full sanction of their law and political leaders. Past Military Coups in Central America were known for bloodshed and deposed leaders being killed.

That did not happen here and all went peaceful and in accord with law and order. For Obama to now state, “It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections,” is ludicrous.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chimed in with, “We do think that this has evolved into a coup.”

No, Mrs. Clinton, it is the evolution of a free people following their constitution to retain their freedom.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs says, “the [Obama] administration had worked in recent days to try to prevent the coup from happening, and our goal now is on restoring democratic order in Honduras.”

Remember that Obama refuses to meddle in Iran where Iranians stood up for a free voice and free elections, but he now sees no problem in meddling in Honduras where a free people took constitutionally mandated steps to remain a free people?

Recall too that all communist nations refer to their oppressive regimes as “democratic order.”

Perhaps Obama fears the American people may wake up to his own putsch toward Marxist socialism and he will be removed from office as per what is left of our own constitution?

Hondurans acted within their constitution in a legal and peaceful way to retain their freedom and keep their constitution and laws intact. They must be applauded and supported, not condemned. Only a small minority of Zelaya supporters has tried to create unrest while upwards of 95% of Hondurans support this move.

Obama is off base and out of order in his demands upon Honduras, as is the rest of the world who cries foul for the Honduran people acting within their constitution.

Democracy and law and order prevail in Honduras. Honduran people, not outside forces and not by bloodshed, have removed a power mad wannabe dictator peacefully. The small country retains its dignity and democracy.

Perhaps American citizens could learn much by looking to Honduras.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Media Mum on Latest Duke University Rape Case

Who can forget the media frenzy when the Duke University Lacrosse team was accused of raping a Black woman they hired to dance at a party. The media had those boys convicted long before any investigation was completed.

The team was even cancelled for the season as public outrage fueled by a vociferous media tried and convicted the team members in the court of public opinion.

An embarrassment to the state media was that they were innocent and eventually all charges was dropped and the District Attorney forced to resign.

No such measure was placed on the irresponsible media who abused their freedom of press in biased coverage against the White team members.

Enter 2009 and the revelation of another person at Duke University offering a 5 year-old boy up for sex and other than he has been arrested, key factors of this crime are left unreported.

Information unreported in this latest case is that the child is Black adopted son being raised by a Gay Couple.

The accused, Frank Lombard, is the associate director of Duke's Center for Health Policy who offered the child up online under the screen name, “perv dad for fun.” Lombard is said to have admitted to molesting the child himself.

Lombard, White, was asked online how he gained easy access to such a young child and reportedly replied, “Adopted, not so hard ... especially for a black boy.”

While this incident shouldn’t be used to condemn all gays, need I remind you how 88 professors signed a statement accusing the players of both racism and rape based off of erroneous coverage and accusations leveled against the team?

Apparently, our state media spares no effort at condemning White Heterosexuals, but can’t bring themselves to be truthful with the public when the accused is a Gay Pedophile.

For Frank Lombard, he deserves prosecution to the fullest extent of the law and then some. You bring shame not only to Gays, but to Whites as well in your seeking pleasure at the expense of a child.

Neither the gay community nor the straight community is served by hiding such facts from the public in reporting crimes as this.

Any wonder so many ignore the state media today?

A Farewell To Chrysler

It was with mixed emotions that I read and hear Chrysler Corporation announcing reopening plants in Canada and the U.S. While I am sure many are elated that the plants will reopen and Union workers will be returning to work, for at least a short time, to assemble Chrysler Vehicles, many others are not.

I am one of those “many others.”

I have been a loyal owner of Chrysler products for the past 43 years and have worked at various Chrysler and Dodge dealerships over the past 32 years, being at the last one for 19 1/2 years.

We were one of the 789 carefully chosen by White House officials to lose their franchise.

I obtained my first Chrysler vehicle shortly after graduating High School, a 1956 Plymouth Belvedere. Although 11 years old at the time I obtained it, it was stout and dependable. Unlike others cars in Southeast Florida, it was not rusted out by the salt air we had at the time.

That was the beginning of my loyalty to Chrysler Corporation that I held until June 16, 2009, as I was told my technician experience and skills learned at many Chrysler factory technical schools were no longer needed, after the dealer I had been at for so long lost their franchise.

I first hired on at a Chrysler dealer in 1977 shortly after my US Army enlistment ended. We weren’t permitted to own private vehicles in Viet Nam, but after finishing my tours there and being transferred to Germany and having sold my 1965 Plymouth Belvedere II prior to Viet Nam, I took a portion of my Army Reenlistment bonus and bought my first ever brand new car through the PX, a 1971 Plymouth 340 Duster, later swapping it for a 1970 Plymouth Road Runner.

Leaving the Army in 1977 and going to work for a Chrysler dealer, I fell in love with the Chrysler LeBaron and ended up buying one brand new in 1978 as the 1979 models were coming out.

Two years later I obtained a brand new Dodge Van which I tricked out, as was popular at the time.

During this time period Chrysler suffered their first difficulty financially. As the workmanship of the late 1970’s cars declined and concession’s were made to remain in business, the dealer I had been working at ended up laying off several of us, eventually being sold to another owner.

I went through a 8 year absence of working for Chrysler dealers, but retained my loyalty as an owner, losing the LeBaron in a divorce, but gaining a 1979 Plymouth Volare a few years later while keeping the Dodge van.

By 1987 I hired on at another Chrysler dealership, staying there until returning to the Pacific Northwest in 1988, where I hired at another dealership and remained until January 1990, when I moved to the current one that just lost their franchise.

Along the way I obtained a 1986 Chrysler New Yorker, a 1995 Plymouth Voyager and my current ride, a 1998 Dodge Dakota.

As you can see, I have been a loyal owner and liked the vehicles enough to hire on at Dealerships to repair others vehicles, gaining much knowledge, both from hands-on and attendance at more factory sponsored tech schools than I care to recall at this moment.

Technicians’ remaining at one dealership for nearly 20 years is almost unheard of in the Automotive Mechanics trade, but many others and I did just that. A change in Service Manager led others to leave last year, leaving me as the oldest employee in the shop and the Dodge technician with seniority. Being non-union, that part is meaningless, naturally.

It is well known that I do not support the current administration, but I never expected that even Obama would direct sending so many people to the unemployment line or a company like Chrysler complying with such a directive.

As expected, the administration denies such action, but evidence suggest differently. I also do not expect anything to come of it, either.

So here I sit, approaching 61 years of age, highly trained in Chrysler vehicle repairs and unemployed as younger less experienced techs fill what few positions may become open, as there is now a glut of factory trained Chrysler Technicians in the jobs market and not enough dealerships for all of us.

Owners in many markets now must travel a much farther distance to receive service or warranty repairs, discouraging many from buying or keeping their Chrysler vehicles. To a man, every one that I worked with agrees that they have purchased their last Chrysler vehicle. Many others across the country join us in deciding to take our few remaining dollars to spend elsewhere, most likely foreign, as a socialist government and unions now own the American Automakers.

While I'm sure others will continue to buy Chrysler, once they see the shoddy workmanship directed by the UAW and Fiat, don't be surprised to see Chrysler still struggling in the near future.

You dug your own hole, Chrysler.

I bid you a not so fond farewell.

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Where Are The Jobs?

You were promised "change you can believe in," but what have we gotten?

We have soaring deficits projected for years ahead,

And unemployment of American citizens rising to near record levels,

This "change we are supposed to believe in" reminds me a little joke I heard many years ago.

A country Preacher is baptizing a man in the river. He dunks him under the water and pulls him back up asking him, "Do you believe?"

The man says, "no, not really."

The Preacher dunks him back under and holds him down a little longer before pulling him back up and asking, "Do you believe now?"

The man answers, "No, not yet."

The Preacher dunks him back under and holds him down for a long time before raising him back up. The man comes up, sputtering and spitting water while shouting out, "I believe, I believe now."

The Preacher asks him, "And just what is it you believe?"

He answers, "I believe you are trying to drown me!"

Saturday, June 27, 2009

Eight Republicans

Friday, June 26, 2009, a disastrous piece of legislation narrowly was approved in the House of Representatives. HR 2454, also known as the Waxman Markey Bill, or more commonly known as Cap and Trade, was approved by a vote of 219 to 212.

Right In A Left World outlined Representative Brain Baird's YES vote on the bill here. However, much anger and dismay is being expressed towards 8 Republican Representatives from across America that crossed over to vote YES, giving the Democrats the needed votes to approve the measure.

Brent Boger, Vancouver, Washington Senior City Attorney and Republican State Committeeman for Clark County submitted the following analysis as to why the 8 may have voted as they did,

When I looked over the list of the 8 Republicans who voted for the cap and trade, cap and tax bill, my impression was that most of them had tough districts that could easily flip Democrat and they voted for their political survival. Spending a couple of hours researching this, my impression appears largely true.

We should not take issue with the eight just because they failed to vote the same as the 168 Republicans who voted against the bill. The calls should address why their reasons for voting for the bill are wrong. Their votes were not in the interest of: (1) sound public policy; (2) their political future; or (3) their constituents.

Most important of these reasons is the evident collapse in the global warming so-called scientific consensus. The overall vote was driven by dogma and a desire to raise revenue to support Obama's reckless spending. See Friday's editorial in the Wall Street Journal that discusses the signs of collapse in the international scientific consensus:

"The collapse of the 'consensus' has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html.

I am not a scientist. Nor are any of the eight congressmen scientists--and Al Gore's journalism degree does not give him much in the way of credentials on this issue either. My own training has been in economics and the law. Perhaps my economics training is what makes me particularly note that absent from the discussion on climate change is any serious discussion of cost and benefits. Even if global warming is man-made, might it not be more cost-effective and might we all live better if we deal with its effects rather than pass legislation like King Canute decreed (who was thought to be so great he could command the tides).

There are other reasons besides the merits of the bill that might have driven the votes of the eight. My approach to political analysis is to understand political behavior. I mostly focus on the electorate's behavior, but I also try to understand why elected officials vote as they do. I think I can explain their votes based on three factors.

1. They think the vote was better for them politically.

Obama carried seven of the eight districts and Kerry three of the eight over Bush. None of the districts are safe Republican seats. One district is represented by Obama's nominee for Secretary of the Army. At least seven of the eight members of Congress could have reasonably concluded that their vote was to their political benefit.

No one likes a politician who abandons principle and cravenly votes solely on their political interests but certainly it is something that should be considered. Yet 27 Republican members of Congress who voted against the bill also represent districts Obama won. Most of these 27 members, however, represent districts that only barely went for Obama and can be expected to flip back our way in the next election. A Republican Congressman representing a district Obama won by 2% would be expected to look at their prospects for survival differently than one who represents a district Obama won by 14%, like Reichert. Three of the five represent districts Obama won by more than 10% (including Reichert). Three represent one of the six districts in the country won by John Kerry in 2004 currently represented by a Republican in the House: Reichert, Mike Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois. Castle and Kirk could take the Senate seats abandoned by our current President and Vice President next year.

If the Republican members voted based on political calculation, they should note the collapsing scientific and understand that what looks popular now may look foolish in the future.

There is another, less cynical way to look at their votes but related to political self-interest discussed next.

2. They are representing their districts, or they think they are.

Seven of the eight wayward Republicans represent suburban districts and seven of the eight had to run ahead of our national ticket to win. Generally suburban districts still favor Republicans and conservative positions on many issues. One general area suburban voters depart from general Republican views is on environmental issues (or perhaps better expressed as environmental dogma). Unfortunately, many suburban voters come to these positions not from any serious analysis but simply reacting to the relentless global-warming drumbeat emanating from the mainstream media and pseudo-scientists. As noted above, the dogma is starting to collapse, but word of that has not reached enough of their constituents yet.

The eight should have considered that what they think their constituents like now will change when prices go up to pay for the hidden tax, small business fail because of the legislation, and we get a couple of cold winters. (It is interesting to note that only Bono-Mack's Palm Springs district has a more pleasant winter climate than Dave Reichert's wintertime cold and rainy Washington district).

3. They really believed the bill was good public policy.

Five of the eight members had fairly high ratings from the League of Conservation Voters (a somewhat dogmatic, though not always, environmental political organization). Thus, their votes on this bill are not out-of-line with the positions they had had taken in the past. This could be because they really believe in these environmental issues or for the two reasons listed above. In particular, I would like to point out Chris Smith of New Jersey who initially was elected to Congress on a very pro-life platform but has otherwise taken pretty moderate positions. Some in the evangelical Christian community have also taken general positions justifiably protective of the environment but I am not sure they are embracing global warming dogma. Though I sharply disagree with Smith on his vote, I still have a great deal of respect for him as a politician who stands on principle.

I wonder whether the members understand that the scientific consensus is less of a consensus now than it was. Have they noted the trouble the Labour Party government has had in getting a global warming bill through the Australian Senate? Do they know many in Europe are growing skeptical about the validity of the science behind climate change-theory? Have they considered a cost-benefit analysis and that should be expected of all members of Congress, especially Republicans?

What about the high number of Democrats who voted against the bill? Lost in our focus on the eight Republicans are the 44 Democrats who voted against the bill. 28 of these Democrats represent districts won by John McCain and 36 represent 2004 Bush districts. Not surprisingly, we find among the remaining 8 Democrats those who voted against the bill because it didn't go far enough like Dennis Kucinich (OH), Peter DeFazio (OR), and Fortney Stark (CA). The remaining Democrat "no" votes come from Democrat industrial along with a couple heavily-minority agricultural districts especially impacted by the bill. Do these Democrats see something coming that the eight Republicans do not?

We should also not get carried away in our criticism of the eight. Remember that the eight Republicans have been with us on important issues. For example all 8 voted against the Obama stimulus package. So unless we are willing to say that Dennis Kucinich is better than Dave Reichert because Kucinich voted right on this bill and Reichert did not, we probably ought to cut them some slack. I am pleased that Reichert is still in Congress and not the angry left's Darcy Burner. From what I know of the Democrat challengers to the other seven districts, I would expect we are better off that the Republicans are there as well.

I conclude with the political situation each of the 8 Republicans find themselves in. While I understand their votes and would probably still support them, I am disappointed.

Reichert, WA.8

David Reichert represents a traditionally Republican suburban district that has trended noticeably to the Democrats over the last 10-15 years with both Obama and Kerry winning the district--Obama by 14%. The district is composed of eastern King and Pierce counties. Republicans have been largely wiped-out in legislative seats in the King County portion of the district--holding only the 5th, and two seats in the 31st. The district has an environmentalist tilt. According to the National Journal, Reichert has had a moderate voting record that is only a bit more conservative than average. He does have fairly high ratings from the League of Conservation voters.

2008: Reichert (R) 53%, Burner (D) 47%; Obama (D) 56%, McCain (R) 42%
2006: Reichert (R) 51%, Burner (D) 49%
2004: Reichert (R) 52%, Ross (D) 47%; Kerry (D) 51%, Bush (R) 48%

Bono-Mack, CA.45

Bono-Mack is Sonny Bono's widow and was the only Republican to vote for cap and trade in committee. She represents a district that includes Palm Springs and fast-growing LA suburban areas in Riverside County's Moreno Valley. I personally experienced the district's environmentalist tilt during my time on the staff of California Governor George Deukmejian. The district voted strongly for Bush in 2004 but went to Obama in 2008. Bono-Mack has a moderate voting record but is clearly more right than left. Her ratings from the League of Conservation voters have not been high.

2008: Bono-Mack (R) 58%, Bornstein (D) 42%; Obama (D) 52%, McCain (R) 47%
2006: Bono (R) 61%, Roth (D) 39%
2004: Bono (R) 67%, Meyer (D) 33%; Bush (R) 56%, Kerry (D) 43%

Castle, DE-AL

Mike Castle is Delaware's lone Congressman. Prior to being elected to Congress in 1992, he served as the state's governor for eight years. He is being mentioned as a potential candidate for the US Senate against Joe Biden's son, Beau, next year. Castle has been ahead in the polling. Delaware is a state dominated by New Castle County, which is effectively part of suburban Philadelphia. The state recently has been reliably Democratic giving comfortable margins to the Democrats for president since 1992. Castle's record has been moderate and perhaps slightly more left than right. The League of Conservation voters gives Castle high ratings.

2008: Castle (R) 61%, Nagel (D) 38%; Obama 62%, McCain 37%
2006: Castle (R) 57%, Spivack (D) 39%
2004: Castle (R) 69%, Donnelly (D) 30%; Bush 46%, Kerry 53%

Kirk, IL.10

Mark Kirk represents a suburban Chicago district along the north shore of Lake Michigan. Kirk is likely to run for the US Senate next year and runs well in the polls in Obama's home state. The north shore suburbs have been trending against the GOP since the 1990's and both Kerry and Obama won Illinois 10--Obama in a home state blowout. The Chicago suburbs are not the same place they were in 1964 when the suburban "collar" counties stuck with Goldwater in the Johnson landslide--including local resident at the time and "Goldwater Girl" Hillary Rodham. According to the National Journal, Kirk's voting record is middle-of-the-road: slightly right on economic issues and slightly left on social issues. He has high ratings from the League of Conservation voters.

2008: Kirk (R) 53%, Seals (D) 47%; Obama 61%, McCain 38%
2006: Kirk (R) 53%, Seals (D) 47%
2004: Kirk (R) 64%, Goodman (D) 36%; Kerry 53%, Bush 47%

McHugh, NY 23

Obama nominated New York Congressman John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army and he is awaiting Senate confirmation. McHugh has had a clearly right-of-center voting record but is generally considered a moderate. He has high ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. McHugh has had no problem at the polls even as his district was going for Obama. In a more normal political year, the district can be expected to go Republican at the presidential level. McHugh is the only congressman of the 8 defecting Republicans whose district is not suburban--it is rural and small city in the far north of upstate New York.

2008: McHugh (R) 65%, Oot (D) 35%; Obama (D-WF) 52%, McCain (R-C) 47%
2006: McHugh (R-Ind-C) 63%, Johnson (D-WF) 37%
2004: McHugh (R-Ind-C) 71%, Johnson (D) 29%; Bush (R-C) 51%, Kerry (D-WF) 47%

Lance, NJ.7

Leonard Lance was elected to Congress in 2008. He represents a suburban New Jersey district that runs across northern New Jersey from almost the Newark Airport on the east to just across the Delaware River from the Leigh Valley area of Pennsylvania on the west. The district was designed to be Republican, which explains its contorted boundaries. Even with these boundaries, former Congressman Mike Ferguson only barely held on to the district in 2006 and the district went narrowly for Obama in 2008. Against Ferguson's 2006 opponent, Lance had an easier time, running well ahead of McCain. As a newly elected member of Congress, Lance has not yet established a record.

2008: Lance (R) 50%, Stender 42%; Obama (D) 50%, McCain (R) 49%
2006: Ferguson (R) 49%, Stender (D) 48%
2004: Ferguson (R) 57%, Brozak (D) 42%; Bush (R) 53%, Kerry (D) 47%

LoBiondo, NJ.2

Frank LoBiondo represents a south Jersey district that includes Atlantic City, exurban areas near Philadelphia, some small industrial cities and agricultural areas. The district went for Gore and Obama by about the same nearly 10% margin but Bush managed to eek out a win over Kerry in 2004. LoBiondo has had little trouble holding this marginal district. According to the National Journal, LoBiondo has had a generally moderate voting record more conservative on social issues than on economic issues. LoBiondo has high ratings from the League of Conservation voters.

2008: LoBiondo 59%, Kurkowski (D) 39%; Obama (D) 54%, McCain (R) 45%
2006: LoBiondo (R) 62%, Thomas-Hughes (D) 36%
2004: LoBiondo (R) 65%, Robb 33%; Bush (R) 50%, Kerry (D) 49%

Smith, NJ.4

Chris Smith is the only one of the eight who represents a district that John McCain won. Smith was elected to Congress in 1980 with prior experience as the Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life. His record is generally moderate but more conservative on social issues. Smith has long had high ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. The district straddles the invisible line between north Jersey (which watches New York television) and south Jersey (which watches Philadelphia television). It is getting more distant suburban growth (exurban) from both Philadelphia and New York, which probably explains why it is, rare for the northeast, trending Republican.

2008: Smith (R) 66%, Zeitz (D) 33%, McCain (R) 52%, Obama (D) 47%
2006: Smith (R) 66%, Gay (D) 33%
2004: Smith (R) 67%, Vasquez (D) 32%, Bush (R) 56%, Kerry (D) 44%

(The information above comes from Congressional Quarterly and the Michael Barone's Almanac of American Politics)

Brent Boger
Washougal, WA

I would like to add to Brent's analysis that European countries that jumped headlong into such "Green" legislation years before we in the Unites States have are seeing the folly of their ways. An April 9, 2007 Washington Post article, Europe’s Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases outlines the negative affect such plans had on European Country's.

A brochure has been assembled outlining the negative impact on Jobs such moves has had in Europe and is available in a pdf file HERE.

Our Representatives should have been aware of such economic affects before they voted for such a piece of legislation. I will be curious to see how, if at all, each justifies their YES vote on such a monstrous bill.

Baird Sells Out Constituents….. Again

Brian Baird, six term Representative from Washington States Third Congressional District and author of the infamous “72-Hour Rule” has once again cast a YES vote for a massive bill, without even reading it fully or studying it.

Baird says, “Our votes have consequences. My congressional colleagues and I owe it to both our constituents and to this institution to know what it is we are voting for.”

With his YES vote on the massive “Stimulus Bill” earlier and now voting YES on the Cap & Trade Bill, which received a 300 page amendment in the final hours, raising the number of pages in it to over 1200, why does he continue to vote against his own words?

By his own claims, if he has not had adequate time to study such a bill that will have dire consequences on America and his Washington State constituents, why in the hell does he continue to vote YES!

In selling us out, he explains it away as he gained concessions on use of dead and diseased trees to be used for energy in what is known as “bio-mass.”

Baird then says, “It’s not my way of approaching this problem if I was given the choice.”

What does he mean by “if I was given the choice?” Isn’t voting NO a choice and one that should be used?

He goes on to say, “With the Earth heating up and oceans becoming more acidic, ‘Inaction is not a starter.’”

With all due respect, Representative, BULLSHIT!

Why does he continue to tout this canard when there is ample evidence coming out every day that the earth is not warming up and is actually in a cooling stage?

We know we can no longer count on the state owned media to publish factual matters when it comes to Democrats selling America down the drain, so we often have to turn to publications such as the Wall Street Journal and foreign media to get some truth.

The Wall Street Journal has been doing an excellent job covering such matters as The Climate Change Climate Change where Kimberly Strassel let’s us know, “The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”

We also have the Investors Business Daily in what they refer to now as Carbongate informing us of the Environmental Protection Agency actually suppressing a report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute that shows how this heavy taxation on American Citizens will cause much damage and how the earths temperature has actually been cooling for the last decade.

Going back to the March 9, 2009 Wall Street Journal, we find an article Who Pays for Cap and Trade?

Who pays? How about the 95% that were promised a tax cut during the 2008 campaign by the current resident of the White House?

Supporters of this disastrous bill brag about how it will create jobs. But, where, China?

A report out of Spain, who jumped heavily into the “Green Jobs” canard years ago, tells us that 9 jobs are lost for every 4 created.

The report may be seen HERE.

House Republicans tried in vain to amend this largest tax increase in our history to suspend it should it prove as harmful as we know it will be, all denied by the Socialist Democrat Cabal in control of the House.

Previously, another House Democrat, Representative John Dingell of Michigan admitted to the nation, “Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.”

Is Brian Baird unaware of that too?

At a time that unemployment is reaching its highest in several decades and Baird’s constituents are hurting all over the Third Congressional District, and the rest of America, shouldn’t we have a Representative who actually places us first, over special interest deals made in smoke-filled back rooms?

Baird has proven himself to be no friend to Washingtonians once again.

We now have two really good candidates filing to unseat Baird, Jon Russell and David Castillo.

I fully expect to see more in the weeks and months ahead, but only time will tell.
What I do know is it is time for Baird to go. He has gotten too comfortable off of our backs and now that he has once again sold us out for special interests, we need a Representative that will actually represent us in Washington D.C.

A note to Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. We are watching and should you rubber stamp this massive tax increase, your seats in the Senate will become very precarious as well.

In closing, I’d like to bid goodbye to Washington State Representative for the Eighth District, Dave Reichert, who crossed the aisle and joined in with the Socialist Democrat cabal in rubber stamping this monstrosity of a tax increase.
I hope you enjoyed your time in the House.

Washington residents, it has come time to take the country back.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Numbers Of Climate Change Skeptics Swelling!

As Obama and his Democrat cabal work to Rahm through the heavily flawed Cap & Trade Bill, aka Waxman Malarkey, other countries that were pushing for similar legislation have backed away from similar laws.

Today's Wall Street Journal Online has an article, The Climate Change Climate Change detailing others growing skepticism over the claims of man-made Climate Change.

From the article we see,

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

What is driving this "collapse of consensus?"


Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Waxman-Markey: A Bad Bill At A Bad Time

Much ado is being made over the folly of California Representative, Henry Waxman’s bill aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Waxman, teaming with Massachusetts Edward Markey, another Democrat, continue to tout the bill as “clean energy legislation that will create jobs, help end our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and combat global warming.”

To obtain need votes and support from fellow Democrats, as Republicans are expected to firmly oppose this bill, difficult negotiations had to be entered in to.

Since it is touted as such a needed and beneficial bill, we must wonder why it has had such a difficult time being sold even to fellow Democrats.

Jack Gerard, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute sent a letter to Congress addressing concerns over this flawed piece of legislation that ought to be taken into consideration. API accurately tells us, “the bill will cost Americans billions of dollars in higher costs, kill jobs and will not deliver the environmental benefits promised.”

I believe most all of us are desirous of a clean planet to live on and agree that we must live achieve a balance with our environment to protect it and to continue progressing society forward. But, knee-jerk legislation such as Waxman-Markey achieves neither and ends up harming everybody.

Waxman-Markay first and foremost is a tax increase, a massive tax increase on every single American citizen. With our unemployment exceeding 10% and growing and our economy in decline, can we afford to feed our families with a tax increase estimated to reach $1.9 trillion on top of all the other taxes we are strapped with today?

As Mr. Gerard says in his letter, CBO estimates indicate this could add 77 cents to a gallon of gasoline over the next decade. Of course, this would be on top of current taxes and cost at the pump.

Can an unemployed parent afford to seek employment with gasoline costs increasing 74% in the future years?

Also very telling in the folly of pushing this bill forward is noted left-leaning environmental groups have withheld their endorsement of it for various reasons.

Rep. Darrell Issa tells us this legislation “belches from the caldron of liberal ideology, a potent potion of across-the-board tax hikes and job losses, putting the final choke on an already suffocating economy.”

Additionally, the national Mining Association has put together a map showing approximately how much more most states will end up paying for utilities under this flawed bill. View the map here.

Mark Hendrickson, writing in the Christian Science Monitor tells us, “By the EPA's logic, either God or Mother Nature (whichever creator you believe in) seriously goofed. After all, CO2 is the base of our food chain. ‘Pollutants’ are supposed to be harmful to life, not helpful to it, aren't they?”

As we learned in Junior High School Biology, plant life depends on and thrives on Carbon Dioxide, not dies from it. Greeners continue to remind us our plant life is disappearing daily, yet they advocate a bill that would remove a needed life element from our plant life?

Hendrickson points out the folly of the Green movement with their claim of, “Forget about the plants. What we’re trying to control is how warm Earth’s atmosphere gets.”

As we see our economy teetering on collapse, do we really need to rush into a new unproven policy that will obviously bring our struggling country more harm than good?

As API’s Gerard said, “the legislation would discourage the use of clean-burning natural gas and does not sufficiently pre-empt existing regulations, leaving open the potential for overlapping and inefficient requirements, costs that also would fall on consumers.”

We cannot afford to take such drastic steps and just as when the ill-fated stimulus package was ram-rodded through congress, leaving no one time to read and study what is in it, this bill too is on the fast track before those who will blindly vote for it to even consider the consequences of it.

Waxman-Markey is imperfect and flawed. Self proclaimed environmentalist Al Gore tells us that an imperfect bill is better than no bill at all.

No, Mr. Gore, an imperfect and flawed bill is just another imperfect and flawed bill.

As Unemployment Edges Up, Democrats Desire New ‘Guest Worker’ Program

Hardly a day goes by that we don't hear either the new president or another top Democrat telling us how the economy is in crisis and more American citizens are unemployed. B HO himself has even come out now saying, “People are going through a very tough time right now and I don’t expect them to be satisfied” as he expresses unease over the poor results of the $787 billion economic stimulus he rammed through Congress.

Unemployment in the United States is reaching levels not seen in decades as Republicans remind us that nearly 3 million jobs have been lost this year. House Republican leader John Boehner says,

The president did not lay out a clear path for how his administration will keep its promise to create jobs for middle-class families and small businesses.”

How could he, Representative Boehner? Democrats ensured not even their own party members had time to read the massive spending bill before voting on it.

As we look out across America we can see that we are falling on rough times as another policy of the newly elected Poseur in Chief closed or will pull franchises of nearly 3,000 Auto Dealers.

Democrats successfully took control of both the House and Senate in the 2000 elections by demeaning the economy then, bashing President Bush, his policies and the Republican Party. Their party slogan was “A New Direction For America.”

Obama ran in 2008 and captured the White House by the same platform promising “Hope and change.” We were led to believe that they and only they could correct what they said was the worst economy we have seen in decades.

Looking back at Unemployment Rates we see that during the Bush years, unemployment never exceeded 6%. Democrats cried that was unacceptable and a “New Direction” was needed.

Five months into their “New Direction” we see 9.4% unemployment as a national average with several states already exceeding the double-digit mark. Looking at the chart linked above, unemployment jumped more than a full percent in 2008, the year the Democrats pushed through their long desired minimum wage increase.

The closest jump to it was immediately after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001.

Given the above it is with total dismay and utter disbelief that I read Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to enact a new guest worker program as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

During the campaign in 2008, Obama led Latino’s & Illegals to believe He would grant some sort of amnesty to those in our country Illegally.

Speaking before the National Council of La Raza, Obama said,
Yes, they broke the law. And we should not excuse that. We should require them to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship - behind those who came here legally. But we cannot - and should not - deport 12 million people.”

And now we have Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, another top Democrat, advocating not only a “sweeping comprehensive bill that will include not only amnesty for illegal aliens,” but also a “decent guest-worker program.”

While Democrats show concern for “bringing 11 million people out of the shadows,” what about the 15 million American Citizens currently without jobs?

What do Democrats propose for us? We are encouraged to “volunteer” ourselves under Obama’s United We Serve program. We are being encouraged to work for the state for free while they desire to bring more immigrants into the country, who will be paid money!

Obama sent out an email announcing his Volunteer Program saying,
Last week, I announced United We Serve - a nationwide call to service challenging you and all Americans to volunteer this summer and be part of building a new foundation for America.”

And when I say "all," I mean everyone - young and old, from every background, all across the country. We need individuals, community organizations, corporations, foundations, and our government to be part of this effort.”

I find it unacceptable that when taxpayers’ unemployment is approaching record highs, we should expect citizens and taxpayers to volunteer and go without while bringing in foreign workers to fill jobs and be paid!

I could support a decent guest worker program if we enjoyed very small unemployment rates, but when our unemployment rate is rapidly exceeding double digits, does it make sense to dump on the citizens, the very voters who elected these clowns and instead bring more people from foreign countries to work?

It doesn’t make sense to me.

Sometimes, I wonder just whose side Democrats are really on.

Monday, June 22, 2009

Washington and Oregon, You Make No Sense About Suicide

It was with much fanfare that proponents for Oregon and Washington States Assisted Suicide Law boasted about gaining voter approval of the measures.

Oregon was the first to pass such a measure in October 1997 with challenges making it to the United States Supreme Court, who gave the practice the SCOTUS stamp of approval in January 2006.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor even likened the measure to Court mandated Executions of criminals when she pointed out “doctors participate in the administration of lethal injections to death row inmates.”

In November 2008, Washington State followed suit when voters approved Initiative 1000 by a margin of 59% to 41%, legalizing Assisted Suicide in our state now too.

Oregon and Washington State remain the only two states in the country that have declared Assisted Suicide legal.

Given that suicide has been embraced now by the neighboring states, it was with some surprise I read the article appearing in the June 21, 2009 Columbian newspaper, I-5 traffic resumes after police take man into custody.

Portland Oregon’s KGW 8 ran the incident as Suicidal man with bow and arrow closes I-5 bridge for hours.

For those who do not know, the I-5 Bridge mentioned is the main arterial between the two states, crossing the Columbia River between Portland Oregon and Vancouver Washington.

As the articles state, bridge traffic was stopped for 4 hours while Police and Fire Rescue personnel dealt with the unidentified man until they convinced him to surrender, holding him for mental health evaluation.

I cannot applaud the actions of Emergency Workers enough in preventing this man from committing Suicide.

But, I am left with a quandary as to why do we decide to show such care and concern over an obviously depressed and despondent person considering ending their life, yet pass a law legalizing other people who are also despondent and depressed in ending their life.

Many say suicide attempts are actually a despondent person reaching out, seeking some compassion, some attention and they don’t really seriously desire to end their lives. How do we know that those choosing Assisted Suicide weren’t also despondent, reaching out due to the pain of hearing a doctor say they were terminal and instead of true compassion, heard only the “Death With Dignity” crowd crying out “jump, jump, jump?”

Yes, Assisted Suicide is supposed to be only for those who are terminally ill, but when someone is considering suicide on a bridge or at home, do we know they too aren’t also terminally ill and wish to end their life prematurely due to that reason?

Personally, I voted against Initiative 1000, as I do not believe suicide is an appropriate answer for any reason. Obviously, the majority of voters disagreed with me. Even the Columbian, the newspaper reporting on the effort to save the suicidal man yesterday, endorsed passage of Initiative 1000 in October 2008.

Maybe I’m just a simple minded old man, but I simply can’t grasp how people, voters, who vote to legalize, and even encourage Assisted Suicide, justify shutting down the main arterial for the whole west coast for 4 hours to talk another out of ending his life prematurely.

With the majority seeming to think suicide is now a viable means to deal with life’s worst troubles, does it really make sense for them to also call for compassion for others choosing suicide as well? Is this consistency?

Perhaps this incident will plant a seed in voter’s minds that they were misled last year and the left’s continuing culture of death will begin coming to a halt.

Suicide is a very permanent solution to what is often only a temporary problem. Even the terminally ill can still contribute to their loved ones and society.

If we can justify shutting down the west coast of the United States for 4 hours to help a despondent person choose life, surely we can reach out to those who have been convinced their lives have become meaningless and that death is their best answer.

Death comes soon enough, my friends. I can’t see hurrying it along.

Walpin-gate expands, Conflict of Interest at Obama Justice Department

Obama’s stated reasons for firing Americorps Inspector General, Gerald Walpin, appear to be unraveling as now the Federal Bureau of Investigation has launched their own investigation into the program formerly ran by Sacramento Mayor, Kevin Johnson, a friend of the Obama’s.

The investigation lends credence to Inspector Walpin’s numerous irregularities cited in St. Hope Academy’s use of AmeriCorps funds.

On the same day Obama fired Walpin, St. Hope's executive director, Rick Maya, left his job at St. Hope charging several St. Hope board members with numerous ethical violations.

On Jan. 22, 2009 Obama issued Executive Order 13493 appointing Attorney General Eric Holder co-chairman of the Special Task Force on Detainee Disposition of Guantánamo detainees.

This presents a conflict of interest in that Holder’s Law Firm has represented Detainees in Guantánamo, requiring Holder to recuse himself, as per Justice Department Regulations, which Holder has yet to do along with a dozen or so similarly conflicted attorney’s at Obama’s Justice Department.

Are these examples of Obama’s promise of transparency and rule of law being the “touchstone of his administration?”

Sunday, June 21, 2009

The Power of Words

President Obama loves words, and he has a most eloquent way of conveying those words to the public - provided his teleprompter is on and functioning properly.

I also love words. Big ones, little ones, size truly makes no difference. However, my greatest pleasure comes from finding meaning behind those words, not just empty monologues.

In reading this amazing letter this evening, I had an actual visceral response - and I knew deep down inside that, regardless of which path of destruction our "leaders" in government have deigned to drag us along, they will not crush our spirit.

These are words that have meaning.

H/T Taxes, Stupidity, and Death

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Barack Obama - Super Hero

"Here he comes to save the day, that means that Mighty Barack is on the way,,,"

JibJab Video

Friday, June 19, 2009

Iraq Was A Just War

An article appearing in the Australian, written by an Iraqi citizen, Omar Fadhil Al-Nidawi, who along with his brother Mohammed run the weblog Iraq the Model.

Iraq was a just war

Omar Fadhil Al-Nidawi | June 02, 2009

THE war in Iraq is officially moving to an end. Six years after Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, several coalition members have ended their missions in Iraq - including Australia, which pulled out its troops 12 months ago - and the US is preparing to wrap up its military involvement in the country.

Many still ask: Was it worth it?

If we examine the question from an American, British or Australian perspective, then it would be difficult to present an answer that could convince all critics. For the coalition members this was a war of opportunity, not a war of necessity. Going to war or not was never an issue that could affect the existence of a coalition member, nor was winning or losing.

For Iraq and its people however, this war was the beginning of a struggle for rebirth, a very difficult but necessary one, for sure.

People of my generation who were born in democracies may take the freedom they enjoy for granted. This is certainly not the case for me or my people. I was born a decade after the murderous Ba'ath Party grabbed power in Baghdad in the sinister coup of July 1968. To us, the war brought an end to that 35-year-long nightmare and the beginning of an era of freedom, thanks to our friends in the coalition.

For me and many Iraqis, it was certainly worth it. Life is better today than it was before 2003. That is even though we were on the receiving end of this war in all its phases, from initial invasion through the bloody sectarian violence and terror that paralysed the country for years. Despite the high price in blood, today is brighter than yesterday. Above all, we have hope - something we did not have under Saddam's dictatorship - that tomorrow will be even brighter.

Excerpt, Read the rest HERE

The Iraqi people have discovered what all too many Americans seem to have forgotten, that freedom isn’t free and it comes at a high price.

The Iraqi’s now have a strong foothold in self-determination and setting their country on a path they see fit to.

Americans and coalition forces paid a price for their freedom and the Iraqi’s paid an even higher price. Mistakes were made and heavy opposition ensued. Yet, as Omar shows, freedom persevered and Iraq is now on its way to being the model for the rest of the Middle East.

Nowhere is this seen any better than in Iran, where disillusioned protesters take to the streets demanding a full and proper vote for president, in spite of beatings, mayhem and murder by Iranian Officials and their supporters.

Other nations have spoken out against the government’s treatment of Iranian citizens, while our own newly elected president turns his head away from the struggle.

As American and Coalition forces begin or continue their withdrawals from Iraq, I’d like to point out that there is not a single drop of Iraqi oil being carried out by them. All the cries of “No Blood For Oil,” accusing President Bush of “stealing their oil” were erroneous and what oil we do receive from the Iraqi’s in the future will be obtained legally and by payment.

As Socialism is thrust upon the American citizens, I hope our own citizens wake up and see what Iraqi’s were willing to pay to gain it and instead of fighting to get our own back years from now, help us keep it today.

Bush Was Right

They Call Me Senator!

Seeing a recent exchange between California Senator Barbara Boxer and Army Brigadier General Michael Walsh, I recalled a single line from the 1967 movie, “In The Heat Of The Night,” starring Sidney Portier and Rod Steiger.

Steiger, playing a Southern Sheriff in the waning days of Southern Segregation, with a murder on his hands, suspecting Portier, playing Virgil Tibbs, who the Sheriff doesn’t realize is a Philadelphia Police Detective.

Upon learning that, Sheriff Gillepsie asks Portier, “what do they call you up there?” This elicits the indignant reply of, “They call me Mr. Tibbs.”

Senator Boxer now treats us to her own Virgil Tibbs moment as she makes a request of the General she is questioning, who has just called her “Ma’am,” “Do me a favor. Could say ‘senator’ instead of ‘ma’am?’ It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you.”

I always thought referring to a female as “Ma’am” was respectful and in the Military, proper etiquette for superior officers or elected officials. Males are referred to as “Sir,” a similar title of respect.

It is understood that Mrs. (oops) Ms. Boxer “worked hard” to get where she is and who all she stepped on getting there is unknown. But, does she think the Brigadier General didn’t work even harder to get where he is?

Does she forget that as an elected official, she works for us, the people? She seems to wear the title of “Senator” as one would see “Queen,” “Duchess” or even “Princess,” a sign of Royalty, not a servant of the people.

Titles seem to be very important to the Socialist Demokrats, for some reason, they wear them as a crown or tiara. Less important to them seems to be what is best for the country.

Mrs. (oops) Ms. Boxer, rated as one of the top 24 House members implicated in the 1992 House Banking Scandal, also did not seem to extend the “courtesy’ she requested to former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice as she referred to Secretary Rice as “Ma’am” three times in a hearing questioning her and as she dressed Secretary Rice down for being a childless woman.

Condolezza Rice too has worked very hard to arrive where she did and unlike Mrs. (oops) Ms. Boxer, had to overcome racial prejudice that Boxer can only give lip service too.

Given Boxer’s long and lengthy leftist history of undermining the very fabric of our nation, I can think of a title better suited to her, that I’ll leave to your imaginations.

Perhaps, had she shown a little respect for the General and made such a polite request in private instead of in Committee Chambers before the world to see her treating such a dignified General Officer this way, he would have complied and we would not see her mounting her broom to fly off.

Babs, ‘Ma’am,’ we’ve worked long and hard too to make America the shining beacon of freedom around the world and one of the more prosperous nations history has known. We’d greatly appreciate if you’d stop trying to destroy that. It’s just a “thing” with us, too.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Obama Impressed With His Fly Swatting Expertise

If you recall, many people were not too pleased with President Bush when he offered B HO some hand sanitizer last year. It appears Bush was right to want to sanitize his hands.

During an interview with CNBC's John Harwood, Obama became pestered by a fly, a common ordinary house fly. It wouldn't go away, like flies are noted to do. With all skill of a world leader, Obama laid his bare hand up as a trap and waited for the pesky bug to light on his hand, then swatted it, with his bare hand.

What is ridiculous is that it was caught on camera and as you watch Obama, he is very impressed with himself over swatting an ordinary fly.

He did not wash his hands afterwards, either.

Many of us have swatted flies, barehanded or with a swatter, newspaper or what have you. Who of us has ever turned to those around us to point our expertise?

Who is not enamored with the novice's expertise is PETA, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals. They are sending him a Katcha Bug Humane Bug Catcher to trap the next housefly and then release it outside.

What is silliest is that any of this even made the media.

UPDATE: On second thought, perhaps the real intent of this coverage is to send a clear message to all enemies of the state. "Mess with Obama and get squashed like a bug!"

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Castillo For Congress, 3rd District, Washington State

Brian Baird, move over, you are soon to meet your match in David Castillo, Republican running to unseat you in Washington State’s 3rd Congressional District.

I had the honor of personally meeting David Castillo Saturday, June 13 and having the chance to speak with him personally and get to hear where he stands on issues. Needless to say, I was impressed and believe me, I am a hard one to impress.

David comes from a background, not of privilege, but hard work. He grew up as the only son of a single Mom with 3 sisters. Money was tight, as it was for many of us. His Mom and grandparents taught him the value of hard work, to aspire to better things than accepting or relying on government handouts, that education was key to any success he would find in life and that America is a great nation with great possibilities for those who are willing to work hard.

He learned those lessons well.

He joined the United States Navy in 1986, spending 4 years as an enlisted man with Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron SIX in San Diego. As a former United States Army helicopter Crew Chief/Mechanic myself, I can verify the hard work and tedious nature of Helicopters and what an important function they have with our Armed Services.

Receiving an NROTC scholarship in 1989, he attended the University of Washington where he earned a Bachelors Degree in Political Science, moving on to earn his Masters Degree in Organizational Leadership from Gonzaga University.

David is a Veteran of Operation Earnest Will, when President Reagan assigned the United States Navy to escort and protect Kuwaiti Oil Tankers from Iranian attack as they steamed through the Persian Gulf during the Iran/Iraq War on the 1980’s.

A native Washingtonian, born in Centralia, he served various posts in our State Legislature including as Chief of Staff to the House Republican Caucus and as Legislative Assistant. He also served at the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Labor and was Deputy Assistant Secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs under President Bush.

He recognizes that in today’s world, there exist some extremely evil people who wish only to kill Americans and because of that, we must remain vigilant. To bring normalcy to Afghanistan, he feels we must remain on the offensive, push back the Taliban and that establishing a friendly government is imperative.

David is extremely concerned over the growing threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea and their potential to thrust the world into a nuclear war and that Iran’s president Ahmadinejad wants to do just what he says he wants to do - wipe Israel off the map. Continuing sanctions against Iran, insisting on inspectors, and continuing to build up US and Israeli missile defenses is a better defense than the empty platitudes currently being sent, which are ignored.

As China is North Korea’s only real trading partner, they must be encouraged to engage with North Korea in ending their quest for nuclear weaponry.

David supports ending earmarks along with scrapping the current tax system in favor of a more flat tax, of some sort. Lowering corporate taxes and reducing payroll taxes will lead to much needed job creation in our country and Washington State. Fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal budget must be addressed and ended to bring us back to fiscal sanity.

Don’t forget that current Representative, Brian Baird touts his proposed 72-hour public review period for major spending legislation, yet when the recent stimulus plan was presented to the House with mere hours to review it, Baird voted yes and like others, did not even read it!

And now, we hear Vice President Biden come out and say, “everyone guessed wrong.”

Being a Financial Advisor with Edward Jones Investments, David Castillo wouldn’t necessarily have made a simple “guess” in such an important matter, following every other Republican in the House who voted NO on such a massive bill without any knowledge of what was in it.

David sees that the safety of the citizens is the paramount duty of government and the security of our borders is priority one. Then, we can decide appropriate steps that should be taken in the matter of Illegal immigrants. He has some ideas in dealing with this and is open to listening to any legitimate ideas others may have. But first, “our borders must be secured,” he says.

A man of varied heritage who knows how it is when money is tight and “church and friends were a vital resource,” David Castillo is ready to give Washington States Third Congressional District “A new voice. A voice for people who believe that government is growing too big and taxes are too high. A voice for people who believe that America remains an exceptional country and that our best days lie ahead.”

He would like to “ensure that our children and grandchildren have the same opportunity to succeed that he had; to work to return fiscal sanity and the concept of savings to the US Congress; and to help create a climate in which businesses can thrive, succeed, and grow.”

Washingtonians, please join with me in supporting this fine man in his run for the US Congress. In these troubled times, his is a new voice with sound ideas that can only help keep America safe, prosperous and free.

Support and vote for David Castillo, Washington States Third Congressional District. Donations to his campaign may be made online at the link provided or sent to “Castillo for Congress, PO Box 247, East Olympia, WA 98540.”

Let’s all get behind David Castillo, for the betterment of Washington State and America.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Obama: Bulldoze Neighborhoods To Save Cities

Reminiscent of scenes aired by nightly news against the Troops in Viet Nam, GI’s setting thatched huts on fire, the Obama administration is considering bulldozing entire neighborhoods in a “shrink to survive” scheme to combat economic decline.

Originally the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County in Michigan, the Obama administration and charities have approached Kildee to apply this “radical experiment” in other areas of the country. Kildee had earlier outlined this proposal to candidate Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Kilde says he will concentrate on some 50 cities around in the “rust belt,” declining former industrial cities, of America's Mid-West and North East, including Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

Flint, Michigan has already began with this experiment, purchasing homes in more affluent areas to offer to remaining residents in neighborhoods they have targeted for destruction and to be given back to nature.

Targeted neighborhoods currently house mostly lower income minorities and abandoned homes.

Flint has been gradually demolishing older homes for a couple years now, once they have sat vacant for a predetermined length of time and condemned. Tax foreclosed properties have been sold to neighbors for a dollar or churches paid to maintain them.

Left unsaid is how displaced homeowners receive these new homes in “more affluent neighborhoods” or how property owners that may own those homes displaced minorities may live in are compensated, if at all.

Currently, abandoned homes are foreclosed on by tax delinquency and given to county land banks to dispose of. A change in state law a few years ago gave counties this method of rapid disposal of run down homes, instead of letting them sit idle and decaying due to lack of care over legal restraints.

Jobless families abandoned homes over time as jobs in these cities dried up. No effort is being made to create new jobs or encourage industries that abandoned communities for various reasons, government regulations, union demands and increased taxes included.

Instead, decaying homes have been being bulldozed and now it is proposed to remove existing residents and completely raze entire neighborhoods around the country, returning home plots and complete neighborhoods to nature.

Some developers have bought some properties at foreclosure auctions and will undoubtedly hang on to them awaiting values to increase in the future.

As the Obama “shrink to survive” policy spreads to cities, we can expect billions of taxpayer dollars to go into paying destruction crews to raze these neighborhoods. Displaced families moved into other neighborhoods may end up eventually having to be moved again as jobs are shipped overseas by corporations seeking to remain profitable and population centers in large cities will undoubtedly increase, possibly creating the very crime ridden projects of people cramped together in low income housing.

Will those too end up being demolished and returned to nature as well in a few years?

It wasn’t all that long ago many were condemning Israel for bulldozing homes where missile attacks were launched from or where terrorists planned and carried out attacks against them.

Now, many of those same people applaud an American plan to bulldoze entire neighborhoods and simply “return them to nature.”

Democrat Rep. Laura Richardson of California seems to have abandoned her Sacramento home, angering neighbors there as it decays and is neglected. Will her property also be bulldozed and allowed returned to nature or sold off to neighbors for a dollar?

Think back to New Orleans after the flooding of Hurricane Katrina. Whole neighborhoods there sit idle as recovery efforts slowly grind away still. Perhaps this would be a prime target for Obama’s bulldozers instead.

After all, potential future bulldozer czar Dan Kildee said,

“The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we’re all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way. Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity.”

Couldn’t that also apply to a city with as much destruction as New Orleans? Could Hurricane Katrina have been nature’s way ot taking that below sea level city back to itself?

Then again, there is a small concentrated and highly populated area along the north bank of the Potomac River Basin where much of America’s real problems seem to stem from. Perhaps more bulldozing within Washington D.C. and returning that River Basin to nature would allow our nation a more dignified “shrink to survive” plan with less government breathing down our necks.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Best MSNBC Interview Lately

In regards to the growing flap over David Letterman’s hateful comments about Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin and her daughter, John Ziegler received a call from governor Palin and proceeded with a 16 minute interview.

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer, apparently unable to access the governor, asked Ziegler to appear on her show for an interview. As can be seen in the resulting video, Ms. Brewer had her DNC handed to her.

Audio of the Sarah Palin interview.

Brewer was thrown off at the beginning and never adequately recovered.

For Letterman’s outrageous comments, background and audio can be seen at Pathetic Leftist Letterman Attacks Sarah Palin.

For all the defense of Letterman’s comments as “only jokes,” I fail to recall the same defense of Don Imus over “nappy headed Ho’s.”

What do Obama and God have in common? Neither has a birth certificate.

Do you know the difference between Obama and God? God does not think he's Obama.

Another difference between Obama and God? Liberals love Obama.

Yet another difference between Obama and God? God only asks for 10% of your money, God's plan to save us is actually written down for people to read and God actually gives us freedom to live as we choose.

Hey, they’re “only jokes.”

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Pathetic Leftist Letterman Attacks Sarah Palin

Last evening David Letterman proved beyond any shadow of doubt what a clueless twit he is. How anybody can find him "funny" is beyond me.

We all saw how the left mercilessly attacked Alaska's Governor, Sarah Palin, during the 2008 campaign and how they went after her daughter, Bristol, like a pack of attack dogs.

Even after their boy won the election and has began dismantling our constitution and rapidly imposing Socialism on us, the pit bulsl of the left mask their hate of Mrs. Palin as humor as they once again attack her and her daughter.

David Letterman leads off with his claim she has a "Slutty Flight Attendant Look."

If that wasn't offensive enough, he followed up with his nightly Top 10 list about her recent trip to New York,

10. Visited New York landmarks she normally only sees from Alaska

9. Laughed at all the crazy-looking foreigners entering the U.N.

8. Made moose jerky on Rachael Ray

7. Keyed Tina Fey's car

6. After a wink and a nod, ended up with a kilo of crack

5. Made coat out of New York City rat pelts

4. Sat in for Kelly Ripa. Regis couldn't tell the difference.

3. Finally met one of those Jewish people Mel Gibson's always talking about

2. Bought makeup from Bloomingdale's to update her "slutty flight attendant" look

1. Especially enjoyed not appearing on Letterman

His number one makes me think she declined to appear on his show, which these socialist elite thinks is owed them.

After the mistreatment they dished out to her and her family, why should she appear on any of their shows and increase their ratings?

Video's may be seen at Newsbusters.org

Is this what the Democrat Party has degraded to, sending out surrogate non-funny comics to slander and attack women and their daughters?

I recall the outrage expressed for days over President George H.W. Bush referring to Al Gore as "ozoneman" for days on end in 1992.

Those same will not utter even a whimper now over such defaming comments.

Is this what America is now about? Do the Socialist Democrats feel they must utterly destroy any and all opposition and remove all checks and balances in our government? If so, we are in a headlong rush to becoming a communist nation.

Mostly, how do you leftists out there justify and excuse these outrageous comments while feigning such offense at any comment against homey?

George W. Bush was literally demonized during his 8-year term. Vice President Cheney received the same treatment, as did Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Secretary of State COndoleeza Rice and now, apprently, any candidate who comes forward and embobilizes the conservative base.

You socialist on the left should wake up to your vitrioloc words and realize that the American people don't stay asleep forever. You can convince the state owned media to ignore these doings, but the internet is still out here and words of this over the top mistreatment of Governor and her family will not rest well with 'we the people' for long.

The mean-spirited message and conduct of the Democrat Party will not stand. You will be exposed and eventually deposed.

We have a very long history of embracing freedom and liberty and even though you have lulled a great many into a slumber as you strip us of them, we will stand and fight you.

We will restore freedom and liberty to America.

Sarah Palin has more style, more class in her pinky than all of you leftists combined. All your rabid attacks will not remove that from her or block honest Americans from seeing it.

UPDATE: Letterman continues to "excuse" his reprehensible behavior by describing it as "just jokes." Wasn't Don Imus cast off the air over "just jokes?"


Is it really okay to "joke" about raping an 18 year-old over a 14 year-old?

I'd pay to see Todd Palin meet Letterman and "discuss" this matter, "man to whimp!"

CBS should take Letterman off of the air, just as Don Imus was taken off the air.

An Open Letter To Obama

From an email that has been floating around lately and has now been confirmed to correctly be attributed to Lou Pritchett, former vice president of Procter & Gamble and who spent 36 years with them before his retirement in 1989. He is the author of the 1995 business book, "Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat."


By Lou Pritchett

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett


No surprise, he sent this to the New York Times, who refused to print it.

Monday, June 08, 2009

"I saw God before me"

The media adulation over Obama is taking on ridiculousness when they seek out and quote people equating the first termer to God.

France gets its Obama moment

This past Friday, Newsweek's editor Evan Thomas said on MSNBC,

"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Ken Blackwell says it best when he said,
"The Washington Post last year admitted that it had “leaned” toward Barack Obama in the presidential race. That’s ridiculous. The Leaning Tower of Pisa leans, but it still stands. The Post and the rest of the liberal media fell over flat for him."

Come to think of it, if we are to look at Obama as 'God,' can we impeach him over separation of church and state?

Nahum 1:2 A jealous and avenging God is the LORD; The LORD is avenging and wrathful. The LORD takes vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserves wrath for His enemies.

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Muslim Protester Crashes Memorial For Pvt. William Long

This woman states over and over how she respects everyone, but did she have the respect to allow people to commemorate the murder of Pvt. William Long without interference?

Fortunately, this woman does not represent mainstream Islam I feel.

One thing I learned many years ago, if you want respect, you have to first give it. Interfering and protesting at a memorial where a United States Soldier was murdered inside America is not the way to gain it.


Saturday, June 06, 2009

Roosevelt’s D-Day Prayer

June 6, 1944, then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt announced to the nation an ambitious undertaking that would bring about Victory in World War Two, the invasion of Europe.

He went on the radio and led the nation in prayer that the undertaking be successful and tyranny be brought to an end.

What a stark contrast to today when Democrats abhor public prayer under Separation of Church and State.

Roosevelt's D-Day Prayer

On June 6, 1984, then President Ronald Reagan traveled back to the beaches of Normandy to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the D-Day invasion.

His inspiring speech may be seen here.

God Speed and protect those who today are once again in harm’s way fighting against an even more brutal enemy than we faced 65 years ago.