Right Minded

Take a Good Look, America

2010-05-24T12:17:00.001-07:00

"Six weeks of vacation a year. Retirement at 60. Thousands of euros for having a baby. A good university education for less than the cost of a laptop.

"The system known as the European welfare state was built after World War II as the keystone of a shared prosperity meant to prevent future conflict. Generous lifelong benefits have since become a defining feature of modern Europe.

"Now the welfare state - cherished by many Europeans as an alternative to what they see as dog-eat-dog American capitalism - is coming under its most serious threat in decades: Europe's sovereign debt crisis.

"Deep budget cuts are under way across Europe. Although the first round is focused mostly on government payrolls - the least politically explosive target - welfare benefits are looking increasingly vulnerable.

"'The current welfare state is unaffordable,' said Uri Dadush, director of the Carnegie Endowment's International Economics Program. 'The crisis has made the day of reckoning closer by several years in virtually all the industrial countries.'"

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100523/D9FSPCAO1.html

The other side of the problem, using Germany as the example:

"Germany is shrinking — fast. New figures released on May 17 show the birth rate in Europe's biggest economy has plummeted to a historic low, dropping to a level not seen since 1946.

...

"According to a preliminary analysis by the Federal Statistics Office, 651,000 children were born in Germany in 2009 — 30,000 fewer than in 2008, a dip of 3.6%. In 1990, German mothers were having on average 1.5 children each; today that average is down to 1.38 children per mother. With a shortfall of 190,000 between the number of people who died and the number of children who were born, Germany's birth rate is well below the level required to keep the population stable."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1991216,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

2.1 is considered replacement rate. And that still may not be enough to pay for an expensive welfare state.

More birth rate estimates for 2010:

UK: 1.66
Japan: 1.2
Spain & Italy: 1.32
Russia 1.41

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?countryName=Kazakhstan&countryCode=kz&regionCode=cas&rank=150#kz

Parallels

2009-07-30T09:30:00.000-07:00

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000010608.cfm

"Democrats Purport to Seek 'Compromise' on Abortion"

That's not compromise; you can't comprimise your principles if you don't have any.

Just as in the distant past some called for the gradual abolition of the slave trade (other terms used were "regulation" or "moderation"), so today some are seeking "common ground" on the issue of abortion.

The following quote is from the (altogether amazing) book Amazing Grace by Eric Metaxas and is about William Wilberforce, the member of British parliament a couple of hundred years ago who was the key player in ending the British slave trade, slavery, and many more social ills, and who was also the man who basically (re)created the idea of a social conscience:

"Wilberforce saw much of what the rest of the world could not, including the grotesque injustice of one man treating another as property. He seems to rise up out of nowhere and with the voice of unborn millions--with your voice and mine--shriek to his contemporaries that they are sleepwalking through hell, that they must wake up and must see what he saw and know what he knew--and what you and I know today--that the widespread and institutionalized and unthinkably cruel mistreatment of millions of human beings is evil and must be stopped as soon as conceivably possible--no matter the cost."

Sound familiar? The only part I disagree with is what I put in italics because we actually don't all see what he saw. As has happened many times in history--and despite general agreement that all men are created equal--we keep redefining 'man' such that there are always those inferior beings who are property, and thus treating them as such is not evil and we are told to only think of the high cost to personal freedom if we do anything about it.

While I'm talking of abolition and slavery, do also note how the British abolition movement was an almost exclusively Christian movement at the time. Politically active, often rich, and (what we would now call) fundamentalist Methodists (and don't forget the Quakers) were at the center of the movement when no one else was. Good examples of those who were generally opposed to abolition were those with financial interests in the Trade (nowadays that would be single mothers who cannot afford a child as well as those who profit from leaving abortion as is), those who did not want to take unpopular actions that would curtail the freedoms of their constituents (i.e. your average American politician), those who take advantage of other people and often believe that certain people (usually of color) are inferior and should be exterminated (Planned Parenthood), and finally, the guiltiest party, the Church of England, which staunchly retained "the outward trappings and forms of religion--which were all well and good and would help keep the lower classes better behaved--but... [denied] religion any real power" (which would be your average mainline Protestant "church" today).

Now, I wonder if there is any movement in response to a social ill that is almost exclusively the cause of "fundamentalist" Christians....

The many adventures of the Czars

2009-07-22T13:53:00.000-07:00

In case anyone is feeling particularly proud of the direction our current government is heading I'd like to rain on your parade by telling you of the many adventures of some of Obama's appointed and pending-appointment czars:

1) Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, the director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, "once floated the idea of forced abortions, 'compulsory sterilization,' and the creation of a 'Planetary Regime' that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet...."

It gets better. He "won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.

"He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.

"But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.

"The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.

"The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people. ['all' is apparently defined here as 'the ones we pick']

"Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.

"Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile. [Has anyone read Francis Schaeffer?]

"To help achieve those goals, they formulate a 'world government scheme' they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an 'armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force' to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty."

Of course Holdren now denies that he actually believed this, especially since the book is very old and was written by three authors, but as Fox News points out:

"While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in [one] case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot [practically] be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obamas-science-czar-considered-forced-abortions-sterilization-population-growth/

2) Obama's 'Green Jobs' czar, Van Jones, apparently has a long history with communism. A blog, the Dakota Voice, did the hard work [here] of shortening quotations from a 2005 news story for me. The following shows some of his many adventures:

But that wasn’t enough to assuage his anger. Convinced that American society needed a wake-up call on race, Jones abandoned his plan to become a journalist, concluding that he would rather make news than report it. “If I’d been in another country, I probably would have joined some underground guerrilla sect,” he said.

…while Jones was observing the first large rally since the lifting of the city’s state of emergency [during the Rodney King riots], he got swept up in mass arrests. It was a turning point in his life.
Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.“
In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia. They protested police brutality and got arrested for crashing through police barricades.

“I realized that there are a lot of people who are capitalists — shudder, shudder — who are really committed to…”

His new philosophy emphasizes effectiveness, which he believes is inextricably tied to unity. He still considers himself a revolutionary, just a more effective one, who has realized that the progressive left’s insistence on remaining a counterculture destroys its potential as a political movement.

His plan now is to drop traditional communism and marxism and go for utopia via the "green jobs" approach.

3) Finally, we have Cass Sunstein, Obama's appointment for regulatory czar. His appointment "hit a new snag in his Senate confirmation process -- a 'hold' by Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who's says he's not convinced that Harvard professor Cass Sunstein won't push a radical animal rights agenda, including new restrictions on agriculture and even hunting.

"'Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal "rights" for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts,' the Republican's spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com.

"Sunstein [has said that] he 'would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals,' and that he believes the "Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense.'"

Note that Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga, has said (after hearing the above promise) that "Professor Sunstein comes highly recommended by a number of folks from the conservative side of the philosophical divide in this country."

How encouraging.

"One of Sunstein's top jobs would be to review and provide guidance for draft federal regulations at different federal agencies. It is a wide-ranging and largely unrestrained position in the executive branch.

"That's a large part of the reason Sunstein's positions on animal rights have become worrisome to his critics. Despite his assurances to the contrary, Sunstein has spoken stridently in favor of allowing people the right to bring suit on behalf of animals in animal cruelty cases and to restrict what he calls the more horrific practices associated with industrial breeding and processing of animals for food. [Is unprocessed meat somehow less painful for the animal??]

"In a 2007 speech at Harvard, Sunstein also advocated restricting animal testing for cosmetics, banning hunting and encouraging the general public to eat less meat."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/obama-regulatory-czars-confirmation-held-hunting-rights-proponent/

There are reasons some conservatives like him. For instance, he believes in using cost benefit analysis when analyzing regulations. For instance, if this were applied to Global Warming regulations like Cap & Trade (which will never actually happen), it means we'd never do anything about it because it would cost more to regulate than it would be worth. However...

"Though he is generally described as left of center, Sunstein's academic interests in regulation have led him to raise questions about the constitutionality of liberal favorites such as workplace safety laws and the Clean Air Act. He has embraced a controversial "senior death discount" that calculates the lives of younger people as having a greater value than those of the elderly."

Some liberals are upset that he would dare to put dollar signs next to government regulations (to see if they are actually worth spending money on), but he's willing to take the concept much farther and decide what people are worth, dead or alive.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/26/nation/na-sunstein26

More info on Sunstein:

Some conservatives bristle at what they see as Mr. Sunstein's paternalism: that most people don't know what's best for them and need nudges from on high. Rural Republicans are alarmed over his statements on the wisdom of a hunting ban and his suggestion that animals may deserve more rights in court.

It is liberals who appear the most uneasy about Mr. Sunstein's track record. He is a strong advocate for weighing the estimated costs against the benefits of regulation, a position that advocates fear could weaken efforts to strengthen federal rules on health and safety.

Mr. Sunstein has argued that the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act, by giving too much discretion to federal agencies, could be unconstitutional. He has also been leery of the risks and rewards of strict measures to combat global warming.

"He thinks that people are irrational and overly phobic about risks," says Rena Steinzor, a legal scholar who directs the Center for Progressive Reform, a liberal group that focuses on regulatory issues.

"Mr. Sunstein, a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, is also well connected. Mr. Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, is an Obama foreign-policy adviser. Solicitor General Elena Kagan hired him at Harvard. And at some future point in the Obama administration, he is seen as a possible Supreme Court pick."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124683695891298003.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

And the best part of all of this is that two out of these three people are in power right now.

"CONTRACT AWARDED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RECOVERY.GOV"

2009-07-13T13:32:00.000-07:00

The federal website that supposedly is keeping track of the stimulus money, Recovery.gov, is getting a makeover. That is, up to $19 million dollars worth over the next 4 and a half years. Remember, this money is to revamp what is already there.

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=node/668

WASHINGTON—In a major step toward developing a state-of-the-art Recovery.gov website, a contract was awarded this week to Smartronix, Inc., a Maryland information technology firm. The company will build the new website for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, an independent agency that manages Recovery.gov and monitors spending under the $787 billion Recovery program.

The initial outlay, $9,516,324, covers many facets: redesign and construction of a new website; installation of hardware and software infrastructure; hosting and operations for the website; more robust data storage; an enhanced content-management system; and contract labor support and other features. If the Recovery Board exercises options under the contract, the cost could total $17,948,518 over a period ending in January 2014.

---

The only thing I like is this: "A mapping capacity that will allow users to search for spending all the way down to their own neighborhoods."

But I think an easier solution would be to outsource that money to individual spenders who will be responsible for the money and have to keep track of it themselves. That is, don't take the money from taxpayers in the first place!

Why scams don't go away (see why in 6 years and 10 months)

2009-03-25T23:39:00.000-07:00

Global warming. We're all going to die from it (they say). We're all going to pay to stop it (for sure). We all know it doesn't exist--or rather, that we aren't causing it. Now I don't want to go into a discussion on why this is. But frankly, one of the best reasons for me to think this is because the same people who love everything God hates are telling me that the earth will blow up in 6 years, 10 months, 1 day, and 16 hours. Yes, Rush Limbaugh does have a counter on his website counting down to when Al Gore said the earth will scorch.

But I digress. The reason I bring this up is because it bugs me how we're going to get out of this. If I may borrow a word from the environmentalist book, this trajectory is unsustainable. The media, scientists, and politicians will have to reverse course somehow when there simply is no argument to make anymore. However, these people will not be able to come out and say they were wrong. No one will be able to say that there isn't actually man-made global warming. Why? Because that would show the people that they cannot trust scientists and politicians in the first place to govern their lives!

We can't trust some agent from some lab in a white coat who comes out with some study that overturns 15 other studies that we long forgot telling us that peanuts are in fact harmful if we eat too many of them! Remember those kings of Israel who trusted in armies and bad council rather than God? Those kings didn't end up so well. Why do we consult lawyers to solve legal issues in the church? Why do we talk to "experts" with PHDs in Child Playground Equipment before going for a walk in the park? Those are exaggerations. However, have you ever watched the national news lately? There's a few stories on politics (sometimes the word 'stories' is all too appropriate), a story on a medical study that we must heed in order to live happy and healthy lives, there's always one with some expert giving some kind of advice, and then a sappy story at then about the life of a panda to tide people over to the next day.

Jeremiah 17: 5-10:

Thus says the LORD,"Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind
And makes flesh his strength,
And whose heart turns away from the LORD.
"For he will be like a bush in the desertAnd will not see when prosperity comes,
But will live in stony wastes in the wilderness,
A land of salt without inhabitant.
"Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD
And whose trust is the LORD.
"For he will be like a tree planted by the water,
That extends its roots by a stream
And will not fear when the heat comes;
But its leaves will be green,
And it will not be anxious in a year of drought
Nor cease to yield fruit.
"The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?
"I, the LORD, search the heart,
I test the mind,
Even to give to each man according to his ways,
According to the results of his deeds. "

I think the "heat" is coming and all of America will be found to be a bush in the desert.

All that to say.....government officials, politicians, etc. all need an emergency to get their agendas through and gain more power. In fact they admit as much. They ADMIT to want to take advantage of emergencies or "emergencies." Take that $600+ billion set aside for universal health care.....a program that doesn't even exist yet. It's all there "just in case." They need to always have emergencies so they will never be able to back down.

So the question is...what will happen when there's no logical argument? Not even an illogical one. I have no idea. Are there any politicians out there who can help answer this?

So yes, I've been reading about global warming in one of my radical "textbooks" and would rather write about it than read it.

Anti-Western Inconsistencies

2009-02-07T23:45:00.000-08:00

If you are going to be anti-Western, please be consistent. Promises Not Kept by John Isbister is not. It is a required book for a class that I now regret signing up for. As the title suggests, the book is all about how evil the western world is for creating empires and bullying the poor third world countries. While there is much truth in this, Isbister is far from consistent and uses flawed arguments.

He says that the indigenous societies that existed before the imperial powers were doing just fine before we ruined them. In fact, it even seems that these countries weren't poor until the evil Europeans told them they were poor. He admits that the pre-imperialized societies were in fact poor by our standards. He also says that they were just fine that way. But apparently once they were occupied and oppressed they became poor. In other words, we could sum up his opinion like so: "Poverty is evil. Of course, in traditional standards these people are not poor---their culture was rich, even though they were starving. If we only didn't tell them that..."

The real big issue I have with this worldview is that liberals are quick to decry Western influence in the Third World (yes, I used a politically incorrect term) but are the first to push for running into these nations and teaching everyone birth control methods and how great abortions are. For example, our new President's third executive order was to allow for federal TAXPAYER money to fund international abortions.

As if that weren't bad enough, people like Isbister say that "The imperialists brought with them public health measures that lowered mortality and caused the unprecedented population explosion in the third world." He actually thinks that that is a BAD thing! Seriously, he does. If you read the whole context of the chapter he is saying that LESS death is another imported evil western action. I'm sorry, I didn't know that valuing life was bad. But wait! He says the evil imperial powers killed countless millions....and that's bad, but of course only in the context of people over and below a certain age. Because we all know that those are the real people. Who needs the old, the weak, the young anyway?

Isbister also has a tendency to say, in effect, "The following are some suspect statistics that could be wrong but I am going to use in my argument anyway...." Oh, and I also love it when he basically says, "There's no data on this, but if there was, it would say_____."

And one must not forget religion! We have a moral responsibility based on common humanity, he says, to deal with poverty. The disease of poverty must be cured! After all, most conflicting religions say so. That's his opinion. Essentially, and I'm exaggerating a bit for effect, he's saying: "Because all religions believe that we should be nice to the poor, including religions that believe in one god, two, three, none, 66, and 205.1, we can therefore surmise that the United States government should increase its foreign aid, especially for abortions."

He also blasts trickle down and then admits that it works on like the same page.

All of this to say that I'm upset that this is required reading. And, my response: If you are going to decry the injustice of the Western, "Imperial" nations...please don't turn around and tell the third world to kill their young.

Guess what my other book's worldview is? If we only had the right policies the world would be perfect. The great modernist, Jeffrey Sachs...

The Second Amendment

2009-01-19T00:16:00.000-08:00

Last semester I wrote a constitutional law paper about the Second Amendment. I figured I'd share it seeing how I spent a whole week working on it and only two people in the world have read it. A waste of time, in my opinion.

I also happen to think it's an extremely relevant topic--if an imperfect paper. I know the formatting is messed up, but this ain't no word document.

The Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Amendment II of the United States Constitution.

The debate over the Second Amendment in modern times has typically been over whether it was created to allow the states to run militia organizations or to prevent the federal government from taking away the individual’s right to bear arms.[1] However, the original question during the deliberations over the Bill of Rights was whether or not the Amendment was even necessary to the constitution at all.[2] Even though the Second Amendment was merely created to console Anti-Federalists who were afraid of the potential power of the federal government, the amendment itself is unnecessary because the individual right to bear arms was largely assumed during the time of our nation’s founding; thus, while historically the Court has rarely ruled on the Second Amendment and even then not in any clear manner, its more recent interpretation of the amendment as an individual rather than collective right is taking into proper account the original intent of the Founders.

Constitutional Deliberation:
How to Best Protect Liberty

When the delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia on May 25th, 1787, one of the important issues that they had to settle was the extent of the new federal government’s military power.[3] The question was how to give the government enough authority to be able to properly execute its role but limit it so that the liberty of the people would not be in danger. The history before the Founders was clear: they had first-hand examples of how easily they could take the nation to the extremes of either too much or too little governmental power.
On the one hand, revolutionary Americans complained that the British were unfairly exercising power by, for example, quartering troops in their homes during times of peace.[4] Or as far as the right to assemble a militia, “Americans remembered that General Howe’s redcoats marched out of Boston to seize the militia’s gunpowder and weapons.”[5] It was for these reasons and more that Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776, listing at length the “repeated injuries and usurpations” committed by King George against the colonies.

On the other hand, the Confederation, the first attempt the Americans made at government, failed because it was entirely too weak and thus could not govern the largely independent states:

How is the government under the Articles of Confederation to be
classified? In some respects, it was like [Benjamin Franklin’s] “league of
friendship” or loose confederation among independent states, each with
practically undepleted sovereignty. The Articles
specifically provided for the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of the
separate states, evidence that the states were regarded in theory as the
ultimate repositories of sovereignty.[6]

According to James Madison’s records of the debates of the convention, one of the delegates, Mr. Randolph of Virginia, listed the “defects” of the Articles of Confederation:

...First, that the Confederation produced no security against foreign invasion;
Congress not being permitted to prevent a war, nor to support it by their own
authority. Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to shew
[sic], that they could not cause infractions or treaties, or of the law of
nations to be punished; that particular states might by their conduct provoke
war without control; and that, neither militia nor drafts being fit for defence
[sic] on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could
not be executed without money.[7]

Thus, some of the questions the delegates faced during the debates of the Constitutional Convention were how much power the federal government should have over the militia and if it was to be the only military force in the country. Mr. Gerry, for one, believed that the “existence of the State” may depend on the nature of the militia under the new constitution.[8] He and other Anti-Federalists were on exactly the opposite side of the spectrum from Alexander Hamilton, who proposed giving the federal government complete control of the militia.[9] Doctor McClurg raised the question of how the President would enforce the laws: “Is he to have a military force…or to have the command of the militia, the only existing force that can be applied to that use?”[10] Mr. Mason “hoped” there would be nearly no peacetime standing armies and thus argued that the militia should be federally regulated and “prepared for the public defence [sic].”[11] Arguably, Mr. Mason also intended the militia to be the enforcing-arm of executive authority. As the debate continued, one proposal was made to limit the army to a set amount of men, another delegate again brought up the idea of having no standing army, and then another a proposal to just limit the appropriations available to build an army.[12] Eventually the majority came to accept that a standing army, while still highly feared, was necessary as the militia had a history of lacking uniformity across the states and were believed to be ineffective at achieving results.[13] In the end, despite strong opposition from those who feared the stripping of state authority (Mr. Gerry, Mr. Dayton, and Mr. Luther Martin—to name a few), virtually all power over the militia was handed over to the federal government—with the exception of reserving the appointment of officers and “the authority of training the militia according to the discipline of Congress” to the states.[14]

In sum, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention created what might appear to be a threat to liberty, as it chose a unified, federally controlled militia over the relatively weak and diverse state militias while at the same time granting the federal government the power to build peacetime armies. However, the Constitutional Convention did not attempt to solve this dilemma.[15] So how then would the liberties of the people be secured?

The Original Assumption of the Right to Bear Arms

Quite simply, “An armed people remained a free people because they are the last redoubt against a hostile government’s tyrannical advances.”[16] This was an understanding largely assumed by the Founders and thus not widely spoken of; however, there are various reasons why it is more than simply reasonable to infer from the original intent of the Constitution and Second Amendment the individual’s right to bear arms.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, three of the most important proponents of the Constitution, argued the case for ratification in a series of pamphlets that soon became known as The Federalist Papers.[17] In Number 46, James Madison claimed that the people are the factor that controls the power of both federal and state governments as they have the advantage “over the people of almost every other nation” of being armed. [18] Further, if a “regular army” were formed, “still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”[19] The relative size of the forces that would rise up, he argued, would vastly outweigh such an army.[20]

Similarly, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Number 29 that “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped….”[21] To this end he even went on to say that the militia should be assembled once or twice a year and believed that this kind of well regulated militia would be used in addition to the standing army for national defense and the protection of liberty from a powerful federal government.[22] Since he was well aware that the militia was to be regulated by the federal government, it is clear that he meant the same individuals who participate in the militia—the people—would be well trained and armed in case of any need to defend liberty.

It should also be noted how the Anti-Federalists believed the militia would be run into the ground in neglect. In case this were to happen, George Mason wished that “there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power.”[23] Similarly, at the ratification convention in Virginia, the well known Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry said, “The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it.”[24] By that he meant simply that a well regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. He opposed the ratification of the constitution because he thought the militia would be abandoned by the federal government. To counter this, the Federalists argued that the state and federal governments had the concurrent power of arming the militia. At the same Virginia convention Mr. Nicholas wrote:

But it is said, the militia are to be disarmed. Will they be worse armed than
they are now? … The power of arming them is concurrent between the general and
state governments; for the power of arming them rested in the state governments
before; and although the power be given to the general government, yet it is not
given exclusively…. It is, therefore, not an absurdity to say, that
Virginia may arm the militia, should Congress neglect to arm them.[25]

By no means does the evidence end here. Some Founders explicitly stated that there is an individual right to bear arms. For example, Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”[26] George Mason said, "…divine Providence has given to every individual…the means of self defence [sic]."[27] He further asked, “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people….”[28] “The militia,” agreed Samuel Adams, “is composed of free citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights.”[29] George Washington, one of the nation’s foremost Founders, wrote: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite.”[30] Patrick Henry also had something to say about this: “the great object is that every man be armed….Every one who is able may have a gun.”[31] Finally, Noah Webster, perhaps better known as the author of the dictionary in his name than as a Federalist, wrote of the right to bear arms:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce
unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and
constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any
pretence, raised in the United States.[32]

In addition, some state constitutions prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights already contained guarantees similar but clearer than that in the Second Amendment. For example, Pennsylvania’s Constitution provided that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state….And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”[33] Similarly, the 1792 constitution of Kentucky quite simply stated: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence [sic] of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”[34] Numerous other states had other provisions, such as that of Mississippi’s 1817 constitution: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence [sic] of himself and the State.”[35] In sum, nearly all states—45, to be exact—have enacted constitutional provisions guaranteeing a right to bear arms: “Nearly all secure (at least in part) an individual right to keep some kinds of guns for self-defense. Some date back to the Framing; some have been enacted in the last four decades.”[36]

The Constitution was written vaguely enough that, without some sort of guarantees of personal freedom, it could be interpreted to give the government ever increasing powers.[37] Thus as the Federalists were pushing for ratification of the Constitution in at least the minimum of nine states, they were only able to convince enough hesitant votes by promising that the first national congress would pass a Bill of Rights preserved to the people.[38] For example, Madison was only elected to the Virginia state ratifying convention by assuring the Virginia Baptists that such legislation would be pursued.[39] Thus having the security of an armed populace was not enough in order for the Constitution to pass and the Anti-Federalists had to be assured of the curtailing of the federal government’s power. The Federalists were willing to do this, but they argued that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because “the draft Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to infringe on fundamental rights, an enumeration of certain rights may imply a lack of protection for others, and Americans would not allow their rights to be infringed despite the lack of a bill of rights.”[40]

Without even looking at the development of law, it is already clear how unreasonable it is to deduce from history that the Second Amendment was only reserving the right of the people to bear arms solely in the militia. After all, the delegates to the convention themselves granted the federal government the power to decide how to arm the militia. Mr. King—part of the committee that took into consideration the clause that became Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 granting Congress the power to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining” the militia—responded to Madison’s claim that ‘arming’ did not “extend to furnishing arms” by clarifying that it included the power to:

Provide for uniformity of arms, but included the authority to regulate the modes
of furnishing, either by the militia themselves, the State Governments, or the
National Treasury; that laws for disciplining must involve penalties, and every
thing necessary for enforcing penalties.[41]

Thus it is clear here that although the militia could be allowed to bring their own firearms to serve, the federal government could provide all that they need while in service and certainly could prescribe which weapons were acceptable. Therefore, claiming that the Second Amendment only grants those in the militia the right to bear arms is illogical, as it could have been more clearly stated by saying: “The right of the militia to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Further, since the Anti-Federalists were already upset that the Convention took most authority over the militia away from the states and gave it to the federal government, it seems dubious that they would then oppose the Constitution on the grounds that the militia might be disarmed, as Luther Martin argued and as has been previously discussed.[42] In sum, the militia consisted of the people who bore arms, could be called into service by federal government and thus subjected to rules and regulations of Constitution while in service, but still could bear arms regardless. As William Bennett summarized, “The Second Amendment—still controversial in our day—meant what it said.”[43]

The Supreme Court’s Approach to the Second Amendment

Unlike many other areas of Constitutional law, the Supreme Court has tended to avoid dealing much with the Second Amendment. There have only been a handful of rulings that have touched on the interpretation of this amendment—some only indirectly.[44] First it should be noted that although most of the Bill of Rights amendments have been incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the exceptions is the right to bear arms: “If the Court does extend its reach to the states, that decision will generate a great many questions about the appropriate balance between public safety and private liberty that the Framers of the Second Amendment had no reason at all to consider.”[45] But even if that is so, it may be the only way to restore the individual right to bear arms to the way it was. In an article in the Missouri Law Review, Michael Anthony Lawrence argued that when the Court limited the Second Amendment to the federal government in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), it “betrayed the will of the people” and continues to do so to do this day. [46] “The Court's proper role in this scheme is to act as merely a guardian of the Constitution.”[47]

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) reaffirmed Cruikshank but recognized some limitations on the states:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the
reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of
the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well
as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional
provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing
arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for
maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their
duty to the general government.[48]

Presser, like other cases, can be interpreted both ways: by some as precedent for the collective rights understanding of the Second Amendment,[49] and by others as promoting the individual rights viewpoint.[50]

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was for hundreds of years the Supreme Court’s “only important decision interpreting the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.”[51] Its ruling was the first to deal with the question of the Second Amendment and the federal government by upholding the National Firearms Act of 1934, “which prohibited possession of,
among other weapons, a sawed-off shotgun without first paying a federal tax.”[52] In Miller, the Court evaded making a clear ruling one way or another on regarding a collective or individual right—instead, it concluded:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a
"shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time
has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right
to keep and bear such an instrument.[53]

The Court ruled not in favor of the collective rights argument, but that the Second Amendment should be interpreted in the context of the militia. In recent years, lower Courts have begun to formulate clearer decisions regarding the Second Amendment and interpreted Miller, Cruikshank, Presser, and other cases to match their approach. In particular, they have interpreted the amendment as a guarantee of an individual right. In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals “issued a lengthy and scholarly opinion that rejected the states’-rights interpretation adopted over the years by all of the other courts of appeals that had ruled on the issue.”[54] The Court held that Miller was decided not on the basis that there was no individual right but that a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” was not intended to be one of the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.[55] The Court explained:

…the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and
bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and
are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether
the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia.[56]

Finally, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), the Court held that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”[57] The ruling, according to the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia, overturned a Washington D.C. statute making it a “crime to carry an unregistered firearm,” banned further registration of handguns, and also required “residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, ‘unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device’ unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities.”[58] In his conclusion, Scalia recognizes the problem of violence associated with firearms, but makes it clear that there are other constitutionally valid methods for Washington D.C. to solve the problem, such as regulation.[59] He wrote:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is
perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this
Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.[60]

It should be noted that this case did not do more than recognize the original intent of the Second Amendment. Washington D.C. is not a state. The next logical step in the development of Second Amendment case law is to incorporate it through the Fourteenth Amendment, as many other rights have already been done.

With the historical evidence available, “the closest one can come to a collective right model,” George Mocsary wrote in the Fordham Law Review, “is that the founders intended the tools of violence to be in the hands of individuals, who can come to the aid of their states if the states are threatened by the federal government.”[61] There simply is no solid historical argument for interpreting the Second Amendment as only guaranteeing the right to bear arms in the context of the militia, as some claim.[62] Furthermore, logically it would seem that the right to bear arms can only be considered a collective right if it is first an individual right. In other words, the point at which the government threatens to take away an individual’s right to properly defend himself from a threat is the point at which he is most in need of his last means of defense. What the Supreme Court has begun to recognize about the right to bear arms is that it is the one constitutionally preserved right that all others depend on. Once the people no longer have the right to bear arms in the defense of liberty, the American Experiment is at an end.

Footnotes

[1] George A. Mocsary, "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right," Fordham Law Review, 76, (2008): 2113-2175, 2114.
[2] Nelson Lund, "To Keep and Bear Arms," in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Edwin III Meese, Mathew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., 318-322 (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), 318.
[3] William J. Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, (Nashville: Nelson Current, 2006), 117.
[4] Robert Allen Rutland, The Birth of the Bill of Rights: 1776-1791, (Durham: Seeman Printery, 1955), 25.
[5] Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, 142.
[6] Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, the American Constitution: its Origins and Development, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1948), 103.
[7] James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, Special Edition (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1898), 60.
[8] Ibid., 132-133.
[9] Ibid., 187.
[10] Ibid., 397.
[11] Ibid., 551.
[12] Ibid., 555.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid., 590-591, 754.
[15] Nelson Lund, "To Keep and Bear Arms," 318.
[16] Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, 142.
[17] Ibid., 127.
[18] James Madison, “Federalist No. 46,” in The Federalist, ed. by Sherman F. Mittell, 304-312 (Washington D.C.: National Home Library Foundation, 1937), 310-11
[19] Ibid., 310.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist No. 29,” in The Federalist, ed. by Sherman F. Mittell, 175-182 (Washington D.C.: National Home Library Foundation, 1937), 178-179.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Jonathan Elliot, Elliot's Debates. 2nd Edition. Vol. III. V vols., (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & co.; Washington, Taylor & Maury, 1836), 380.
[24] William Wirt Henry, Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), 529.
[25] Elliot, Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III., 391.
[26] B. L. Rayner, Sketches of the Life, Writings, and Opinions of Thomas Jefferson, (New York: A. Francis and W. Boardman, 1832), 259.
[27] Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792, (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892), 410.
[28] Elliot, Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III, 425.
[29] David C. Williams, The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment, (London: Yale University Press, 2003), 61.
[30] Robert J. Cottrol, ed., Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment, (Routledge, 1994), 611.
[31] Mackubin Owens, "Organizing the Militia," in The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Edwin III Meese, Mathew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., 141-142 (Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), 141.
[32] Paul Leicester Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, (Brooklyn: B. Franklin, 1888), 56.
[33] David M. O'Brien, Constitutional Law and Politics, 7th Edition. Vol. II, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008), 374.
[34] Eugene Volokh, “State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms,” Texas Rev. of Law & Politics, 11 (2006): 191-217, 208.
[35] Ibid., 209.
[36] Ibid., 192.
[37] Mocsary, “Explaining away the Obvious", 2116.
[38] Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, 127.
[39] Ibid., 129.
[40] Mocsary, Explaining away the Obvious, 2118.
[41] James Madison, Journal of the Federal Convention, 589.
[42] Jonathan Elliot, Elliot's Debates. 2nd Edition. Vol. I. V vols., (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & co.; Washington, Taylor & Maury, 1859), 372.
[43] Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, 142.
[44] Lund, “To Keep and Bear Arms,” 321.
[45] Ibid., 320-321.
[46] Michael Anthony Lawrence, “Second Amendment Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses,” Missouri Law Review, 72, (2007): 1-72, 4-5.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), 265.
[49] Lawrence, “Second Amendment Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses,” 69.
[50] Mocsary, "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right," 2157.
[51] Lund, “To Keep and Bear Arms,” 321.
[52] Mocsary, "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right," 2136.
[53] U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), 176.
[54] Lund, “To Keep and Bear Arms,” 321.
[55] United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), 224.
[56] United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), 264.
[57] "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008)," The Oyez Project, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/ (accessed December 05, 2008).
[58] District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008), 1.
[59] Id., 64.
[60] Id.
[61] Mocsary, "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right," 2174.
[62] Nathan Kozuskanich, "Originalism, History, and the Second Amendment: What did Bearing Arms Really Mean to the Founders?," University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 10, (2008): 413-446, 415.

Bibliography

Bennett, William J. America: The Last Best Hope. Nashville: Nelson Current, 2006.
Cottrol, Robert J., ed. Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment. Routledge, 1994.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008).
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008)." The Oyez Project. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290/ (accessed December 05, 2008).
Elliot, Jonathan. Elliot's Debates. 2nd Edition. Vol. III. V vols. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & co.; Washington, Taylor & Maury, 1836.
—. Elliot's Debates. 2nd Edition. Vol. I. V vols. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & co.; Washington, Taylor & Maury, 1859.
Elliot's Debates: The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. Vol. 3. 5 vols. Washington D.C.: United States Congress, 1836.
Ford, Paul Leicester, ed. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States. Brooklyn: B. Franklin, 1888.
Hamilton, Alexander. "The Federalist No. 29." In The Federalist, by Sherman F. ed. Mittell, 175-182. Washington D.C.: National Home Library Foundation, 1937.
Henry, William Wirt. Patrick Henry: Life, Correspondence and Speeches. Vol. III. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891.
Kelly, Alfred H., and Winfred A. Harbison. The American Constitution: its Origins and Development. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1948.
Kozuskanich, Nathan. "Originalism, History, and the Second Amendment: What did Bearing Arms Really Mean to the Founders?" University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, no. 10 (2008): 413-446.
Lawrence, Michael Anthony. "Second Amendment Incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses." Missouri Law Review, no. 72 (2007): 1-72.
Lund, Nelson. "To Keep and Bear Arms." In The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, by Edwin III Meese, Mathew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., 318-322. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005.
Madison, James. "Federalist No. 46." In The Federalist, by Sherman F. ed. Mittell, 304-312. Washington D.C.: National Home Library Foundation, 1937.
—. Journal of the Federal Convention. Special Edition. Edited by E. H. Scott. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1898.
Mocsary, George A. "Explaining Away the Obvious: The Infeasibility of Characterizing the Second Amendment as a Nonindividual Right." Fordham Law Review, no. 76 (2008): 2113-2175.
O'Brien, David M. Constitutional Law and Politics. 7th Edition. Vol. II. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2008.
Owens, Mackubin. "Organizing the Militia." In The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, by Edwin III Meese, Mathew Spalding, and David Forte, eds., 141-142. Washington D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).
Rayner, B. L. Sketches of the Life, Writings, and Opinions of Thomas Jefferson. New York: A. Francis and W. Boardman, 1832.
Rowland, Kate Mason. The Life of George Mason, 1725-1792. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892.
Rutland, Robert Allen. The Birth of the Bill of Rights: 1776-1791. Durham: Seeman Printery, 1955.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).
United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)
United States. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Volokh, Eugene. "State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms." Texas Rev. of Law & Politics, no. 11 (2006): 191-217.
Williams, David C. The Mythic Meanings of the Second Amendment. London: Yale University Press, 2003.

Atkinson 2010

2009-01-08T18:46:00.000-08:00

Let's get this show on the road.

During his convalescence [leg injury], Atkinson said, he's thought a lot about running for governor. He has yet to officially throw his hat in the race, but he's preparing for it.
"I'm training for a big race in 2010," he said.
He said the grassroots organization for his 2006 primary campaign is still intact and will help if he decides to run again.
"I've kept our work alive," he said.

YES!!!

Another State Sen. who has worked with Sen. Atkinson has also told me that he thinks Jason will run again. Of course he could be planning to run for another office--such as Congress, as was suggested as a possibility on Blue Oregon--and I'll support him anywhere, but we need him as Governor. It's also said U.S. Sen. Gordon Smith and Congressman Greg Walden are potential candidates. So the coming year or so will be really interesting.

I might even come out of my hole and blog again. I'll be working at the Capitol for some months and I get the feeling that being around there, I can't help but be overflowing with political opinions. That is, more than normal.

Republicans at this time are in a dismal state ('state' as in 'condition', but I suppose one can interpret that to mean the State of Oregon as well). But our weakness will be our greatest strength because we can only go up. We "hold no statewide office for the first time since 1859" and the House and Senate are controlled decisively by Democrats. So what have we got to lose?

Now's our chance to clearly define our values and policies, choose strong, charistmatic candidates (have I mentioned State Sen. Jason Atkinson yet?), and set them before the people of Oregon.

Does Obama have a racial challenge or is the media racially challenged?

2008-05-23T22:40:00.000-07:00

Even as he closes in on the Democratic nomination for the presidency, Sen. Barack Obama is facing lingering problems winning the support of white voters--including some in his own party. In a new NEWSWEEK Poll of registered voters, Obama trails presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain 40 percent to 52 percent among whites. Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama's challenger for the Democratic nomination, also trails McCain among white voters but by a smaller margin, 44 percent to 48 percent.

I wonder. Is it whites being racist by not choosing Obama or blacks being racist by choosing a black over a white person? I have no idea what the answer really is and frankly I don't think it matters. The media's constant pursuit of biases reveals a rather limited worldview. I rarely think about the fact that Obama is black, or that Hillary is a woman, or how old McCain is until they bring it up. I wonder why we can't just look at these people in light of their records and platforms instead of using differences that don't change how they would be president.

And does the media think that constantly bringing up the fact that some people won't vote for Obama because he's black, for example, will change anything? If people are racist, they are racist and its up to them to get over it. Obama can't just woo racism right out of people, even if he can hire fainting women.

Obama is black, Hillary is a woman, McCain is old. Get over it Newsweek.

Question from a gas guzzler

2008-02-25T23:33:00.000-08:00

If gas prices are supposed to rise during the winter because of increased demand for heating oil, and if gas prices are supposed to rise during the summer (not to on mention on holidays) because of increased traveling and other reasons, when are they not supposed to rise? The media couldn't possibly be wanting me to be in fear of rising gas prices 24/7/365, could they?

Believe me, I understand the problems with high gas prices. I literally pay between $150 and $200 a month on gas due to my v6 Chevy and a decent commute. Of course the car was free so I'm not going to complain, I just want you to know I have as much right to whine about the evil oil companies as the next guy if I would so choose to.

NEWSFLASH: MCCAIN, OBAMA LOOKING TO WIN PRIMARIES

2008-02-19T10:10:00.000-08:00

THIS JUST IN:

Wisconsin and Hawaii become the latest battlegrounds in the struggle for the Democratic presidential nominee Tuesday, while Republican Sen. John McCain is looking for victories to finally knock his last remaining major rival out of the race.
In the Democratic presidential race, Sen. Barack Obama is looking to increase his lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in the race for delegates with wins in the Wisconsin primary...

Isn't it sad when that's the beginning of a news story? Because the headline ALREADY says the contests are in Wisconsin and Hawaii, all of the text above is worthless to anyone who has watched 10 minutes of news in the last couple months. No, I could not have guessed that McCain is looking for victories. No, I could not have guessed that Obama is looking to increase his lead. I suppose most people who read\watch CNN are ignorant, or at least that's what CNN must think.

When life = true, blog = false

2008-02-15T22:44:00.000-08:00

So I've been virtually non-existent here for about a year and I think it's about time that I reestablish some sort of claim to this blog. I figure that I should at least remove myself from the COBRA and other blog rolls if I'm not actually writing, but I'd rather attempt to get back in the habit of using what little I know about politics to write opinions here. I also want to reinstitute the policy of attaining political news from more than talk radio and MSNBC.com (hehe) so I'm going to start up (or at least attempt) regular blog reading at the very least.

What happened is life I suppose. College has a way of sapping time, especially for one who takes extra long to complete assignments. Also, whenever I get angry enough at the media or government to write an opinion, being a member of generation Y, any rant is liable to end up on Facebook--not here. I was also a little politically apathetic for a while when I was neither involved in an amazing campaign such as Atkinson's, nor was I taking any sort of political science class (which always inspires opinions out of me).

But now I'm going to George Fox University studying political science. I'm also commuting a little over a half hour each way--leaving plenty of time to input talk radio. I'm also taking a poli-sci course with a former legislator and have been following the primaries closely of late. So while I haven't found an amazing political candidate to hit the streets for (and get inspiration from) at this point, I've still been feeling more in tune with times of late.

What I'm saying is that I feel like I want to get back into the game to the best of my ability. I can't expect much because before I know it I'll be assaulted by a test or paper, but one can hope, no?

I'm also really wanting to participate a lot more in the political process, be it volunteering at the county GOP HQ like I've done before or an internship with the first left-wing legislator I can find. ;-) Speaking of county GOP...anyone have any info for me on Washington County? I recently moved here so I'm unfamiliar with the political terrain (not that I was especially in tune with Clackamas County). That is, other than the fact that I need to learn Spanish...FAST.

Congress working hard

2007-10-29T08:57:00.000-07:00

...to keep their 11% approval rating:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — Shortly after winning a majority last year, Democrats triumphantly declared that they would put Congress back to work, promising an “end to the two-day workweek.” And indeed, the House has clocked more time in Washington this year than in any other session since 1995, when Republicans, newly in control, sought to make a similar point.
But 10 months into the session, with their legislative agenda often in gridlock with the Bush administration and a big election year looming, the Democrats are now planning a lighter schedule when the 110th Congress begins its second year in mid-January.
The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.
...
“Is this a reward for our accomplishments in 2007?” asked Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip.

Mr. Blunt knows how to get to the point...

Greenspan Criticizes Republicans

2007-09-14T23:36:00.000-07:00

And rightly so (from reading the beginning of the article):

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.
...
Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

What a clear and excellent way to put why we have an even worse congress right now. And of course a lack of fiscal discipline is just one problem that the RINO congress had..

'08

2007-08-13T00:17:00.000-07:00

I've basically narrowed down my choices for president in 2008 to one of these three candidates:

Mitt Romney
Fred Thompson
Mike Huckabee

I definitely know more right now about the first so I'm no where near decided yet. Each has his own pluses and minuses of course. Some are more electable than others (which I think should not be a deciding factor in the primaries at least), and some at least appear more conservative than others.

Although I am far from deciding, I can make a couple of observations. I think Mike comes across as the most trustworthy and honest of the three right off. I am 75% sure Romney would make a great president--but not so sure the other guys won't be better because of some positions on issues that they have which I might agree with better. All of them seem to have at least decent chances at making it through the primaries....but Mike definitely has an uphill battle. In other words, I think it's possible for him to win the primary...but not very likely. But as I said, that won't stop me from supporting him if need be.

The Revolution of the Hierarchy Conception

2007-07-26T00:17:00.000-07:00

"An excursus into how things used to be, and what has become of traditional thought in Western culture."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jcNBkQXpY0

By Joel Martini. A voice of reason in an age of nonsense. This is an excellent 8 minute video by a great friend of mine done for his senior project in high school. Please leave a comment on Youtube if you appreciate his hard work as much as I do.

Apologies

2007-07-20T13:12:00.000-07:00

I know I've said this before, but I'm going to say it again. I'm sorry I've gotten way out of the loop on all things blogging (and political as well), but I'm going to try again to get back in touch. Part of the problem is I am most interested in politics when I am taking a Poli-sci class, and that hasn't happened for quite a while.

However, next month I am transferring to George Fox University in Newberg where I will be majoring in Political Science. So you can expect to be hearing from me in years ahead. I hope to meet Former Senator Mark Hatfield while I'm there because I know he still teaches, or is at least a guest speaker in some classes.

I might as well make it known now that I am not solidly in any one's camp as far as the 2008 elections. I'm thinking Fred Thompson is a good possibility while Mitt Romney is the best of the leading moderates. But I really don't have someone I'm ready to buy a t-shirt from yet, if you know what I mean. Last year it didn't take much for me to be convinced State Senator Jason Atkinson was someone to support in the governor's election. I'm hoping I'll be as convinced of one of these people in time as I was (and still am) of him. My only fear is there's no one like him in the Presidential arena, and so far I think that fear is not unfounded.

"10 things you should know about gas prices"

2007-06-07T16:05:00.000-07:00

10 things you should know about gas prices

"If you believe the experts, the oil companies aren't lying to you; it really is supply and demand. And no, it isn't price gouging by any legal definition; it's just the normal profit taking. "

I agree with almost everything in this well written article on MSN of all places. And to think it is on the front page of MSN! There's still a little bit of a problem at the end but for the most part it is excellent.

Pork-cutting Democrats, hard at work

2007-04-23T11:43:00.000-07:00

Good to know your vote counts for something. Here are the choicest parts of an article by the AP: (wait until the best part at the end)

WASHINGTON - Defying a fresh veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass legislation within days requiring the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq by Oct. 1, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday.
The legislation also sets a goal of a complete pullout by April 1, 2008, he said.
...
Negotiators for the House and Senate arranged a late-afternoon meeting to ratify the timetable that Reid laid out. The demand for a change in course will be attached to a funding bill that is needed to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
...
There is no doubt that Republicans in Congress have the votes to sustain Bush's threatened veto.
That would require Congress to approve a second funding bill quickly to avoid significant disruptions in military operations.
...
Democratic officials have also said they intend to add a minimum wage increase to the war funding bill. Key lawmakers announced agreement late last week on a package of business tax breaks to accompany the boost in the wage floor, which would total $2.10 cents an hour in three equal installments.
Apart from the clash over war policy, Bush has pledged to veto the funding bill if Democrats go ahead with plans to include billions of dollars in domestic spending.

Yes, let's pass a bill that includes funding for the troops, a timetable to pull them out of Iraq, a hike in the minimum wage, tax breaks for businesses, and a plenty of bridges to nowhere all at the same time! Efficiency at its finest.

Of course, any decent President (i.e. most or all Democratic Presidents before the 60s and most or all Republican Presidents throughout U.S. history) would veto this bill, so Congress is setting the military up for a funding collapse that will be their responsibility to deal with.

FYI

2007-04-18T22:10:00.000-07:00

Here's an e-mail I just received:

On behalf of Free to Choose Media, I wanted to send a belated thank you for your online comments this past January regarding Milton Friedman. We are the producers of the Free to Choose series and The Power of Choice biography.
I'd also like to alert you to our newest documentary titled "The Ultimate Resource," which will premiere on HDNet next Tuesday, April 24 at 10PM EST. I apologize for the short notice, but I was hoping you might share this with your readers. In short, we travel to China, Bangladesh, Estonia, Ghana, and Peru and show examples of how people (thank you Julian Simon) - when given the incentives and the tools - are proving they can apply their free choice, intelligence, imagination and spirit to dramatically advance their well-being and that of their families and communities. The program features 2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, Hernando de Soto, James Tooley and Johan Norberg.
For more information including pics and video previews, visit us at http://www.freetochoosemedia.org
Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Rick
Rick Platt
Free to Choose Media / www.freetochoosemedia.org
2002 Filmore Avenue, Suite #1
Erie, PA 16506 USA
email: rick@freetochoosemedia.org
main office: 814.833.7140
www.freetochoose.net / www.ideachannel.tv / www.ideachannel.com / www.izzit.org
Our mission: "To use easily understood and entertaining popular media to reach inquisitive minds regarding the value and interrelationship of personal, economic and political freedom sustained by the rule of law."

Bank of America Boycott

2007-02-16T10:28:00.000-08:00

A few days ago I wrote this post about Bank of America making credit cards available to people without Social Security Numbers. Well, here is an interesting e-mail I just received about that:

Illegal Immigration Coalition to Boycott Bank of America!
February 16, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
(866) 329-3999 or WilliamG@alipac.us
http://www.bankofamericaboycott.com/
http://www.illegalimmigrationboycott.com/
The National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition (NIIBC), which includes over 100 organizations, is launching a boycott of Bank of America because of the bank's offer to issue credit cards, mortgages, and accounts to illegal aliens in the US.
"People are already canceling cards and accounts with Bank of America over this news," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "The goal of the boycott is to get tens of thousands of Americans to complain to BOA, ask Congress for action, and to cancel their accounts, until this bank respects public opinion and federal law."
Several online polls show over 80% of the American public disapprove of Bank of America's decision to offer credit cards to illegal aliens, with no Social Security numbers and no credit history.
"It is a slap in the face to every American struggling with credit card debt and rocky credit scores," says William Gheen. "Bank of America needs to realize that the citizens of America run this nation, not big business and the current law state it is a felony to aid and abet illegals inside the US. We want Bank of America charged and the decision makers responsible for this to face fines and jail time. We want the Rule of Law restored in America!"
The NIIBC launched a boycott of Miller Brewing and their London based parent company SABMiller six months ago. Since that time, Miller's American sales have dwindled.
The netsavy anti-illegal immigration groups are launching a website to assist the boycott at http://www.bankofamericaboycott.com/ Citizens are encouraged to visit the site, sign the petition, and take action!
The coalition is comprised of over 100 non-racist organizations such as 9/11 Families for a Secure America, The Conservative Voice, Latino Americans for Immigration Reform, USAPAC, IllegalAliens.us, and many others.
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) is now one of the largest national organizations fighting against illegal immigration and serves as Director of the NIIBC. ALIPAC is a multi-ethnic organization that enjoys the support of many LEGAL immigrants. Supporters are organized in all 50 states. For more information, please visit http://www.alipac.us/
###
Paid for by Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
http://www.alipac.us/
Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 329-3999
FEC ID: C00405878

Now, I don't necessarily agree with everything they are saying (like trusting in online polls alone), but I'm on board with the general idea.

The Middle East's forgotten democracy

2007-02-15T16:57:00.000-08:00

Can you believe this:

To date, no coalition solider has died or even been wounded in the northern territory controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government.

I knew it is not nearly as bad in the north as in Baghdad, but I didn't know that. You want to know more? Read "The Middle East's forgotten democracy," by State Senator Jason A. Atkinson from here in Oregon.

It's well worth the time.

Credit for illegals

2007-02-13T12:25:00.000-08:00

That's right, according to today's Wall Street Journal, Bank of America now offers credit cards to people who don't have Social Security numbers. I don't have an online version of the story, so all I can quote is what I can type before Spanish class, ironically:

In the latest sign of the U.S. banking industry's aggressive pursuit of the Hispanic market, Bank of America Corp. has quietly begun offering credit cards to customers without Social Security numbers -typically illegal immigrants.
In recent years, banks across the country have begun offering checking accounts and, in some cases, mortgages to the nation's fast-growing ranks of undocumented immigrants, most of whom are Hispanic. But these immigrants generally haven't been able to get major credit cards, making it hard for them to develop a credit history and expand their purchasing power.

Well, maybe I should burn my SSN and apply at Bank of America because I haven't been able to get a credit card from Paypal due to my lack of any credit history (i.e. I'm not in debt).

Anyway, I believe the story says that applicants pay a fee around $99 that they will get back 3 to 6 months later, if they make all their payments and stay within the $500 credit limit. It also says their APR is 21.24%. So, not the best credit card out there by a long shot, unless you are like me and don't plan on going into debt--which is not likely according to the stats...

But the point is...here's a company taking advantage of an opportunity that shouldn't be there. Am I saying that Bank of America is not at fault for meeting a need? NO! What they are doing is rewarding illegal behavior. But the issue isn't their fault, they are just making it worse.

By the way, there is a Bank of America location here in Oregon that has signs that are ONLY in Spanish. Talk about target market analysis gone wrong. I would encourage them to reconsider the name of their bank. Try: "Bank Of The Americas" because that's what they are becoming.

An Inconvenient Spelling

2007-02-11T22:45:00.000-08:00

Here's a Myspace message asking people to sign a petition requesting Al Gore to run for President in '08. It was written marvelously:

Sign the petition here...
Because it just makes sense to have an environment-concious, all ready rightfully elected, nobel prize nominee to be the leader of the United States of America!

Well, OK, it's just a simple little recruitment message\spam. But...it should prove to be amusing to examine it more closely:

1) "Concious" is not the correct way of spelling "conscience," but that's OK; everibody m4k3s spelin’ amd gramer erors sumetimes.

2) Being "environment-concious" is no big deal, assuming Global Warming is to be feared. Lots of people say climate change is a problem. Does that mean they are going to do anything about said fiction? Not likely. Not even Gore will stop his gas guzzling, as we all know already. So being "environment-concious," if correctly spelled and everything else, is like either saying, "nice earth we've got here," or "nice earth we used to have." Making a "concious" thought about something doesn't make a world of difference. Although in this case I couldn't care less, though I always prefer politicians of whatever stripes to act the way they speak. That makes it easier to be for or against them.

3) "...All ready rightfully elected..." Last time I checked it was spelled: "already." Despite that, lots of Presidents have been rightfully elected, surprisingly enough. Even the Presidents who chose the Supreme Court Judges who ruled the verdict that eventually led to the current President being elected were themselves elected by those people with the paper thingies...you know, those sometimes-in-Spanish (at least here in Oregon) things they call ballots. So yeah, some president Gore would be if he doesn't accept the fact that there is a Constitution.

4) "...nobel prize nominee..." Oh my! We have a nominee! Now we must all hail him. No really... Why didn't people vote for Milton Friedman while he was alive? I think someone who actually won the Nobel Prize in Economics would have made a more capable President than someone who was just nominated for a nobel. Good for Gore for getting nominated, but don't vote for him because of it.

Well, it is fun to be back to blogging. I hope to delve into this world frequently once again. I'll admit, it's a lot easier to tear apart other people's arguments than to try to solve the problems of the world on my own. It's not that I haven't tried, but it's that I haven't yet succeeded.

And I'll also admit that I probably use spell checkers a lot more than the guy who wrote the above statement.

The minimum wage and me

2007-01-10T15:21:00.000-08:00

MSNBC BREAKING NEWS E-MAIL:

"The Democrat-controlled House voted Wednesday to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, bringing America's lowest-paid workers a crucial step closer to their first raise in a decade."

ha. ha. ha. That smells of approval.

I would add to that sentence the following:

"...and bringing inflation to the doorstep of consumers everywhere."

Of course here in civilized Oregon we've already advanced to a minimum wage of something like $7.80 or whatever. I don't even care. I've been trying to get a job for a number of weeks now and I really wish I didn't have that silly law in the way. Why? Since I am looking for a low-level job to start with, I wish they could start me out without much in the way of wages so that I could get raises based on how well I preform, not based on how many Democrats in Salem have legislative power.

"...bringing America's lowest-paid workers a crucial step closer to their first raise in a decade." (from the news alert)

And making it harder for people like me to get out of the 4.0% unemployment waiting list and get into the private sector.

Let it be known that I want the minimum wage laws to be ABOLISHED. The definition of a market economy includes the fact that there are big winners and big losers, based on how well each member performs. It's up to individuals, charities, churches, and especially the losers themselves to help the people that failed to harness the power of capitalism the first time around.

Sheehan to take Caribbean vacation

2007-01-06T19:28:00.000-08:00

HAVANA - American “peace mom” Cindy Sheehan called for the closure of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as she and other activists arrived here Saturday to draw attention to the nearly 400 terror suspects held at the remote site. {Like drawing attention to global warming I suppose...} Caribbean
Sheehan is among 12 human rights and anti-war activists who will travel across this Caribbean island next week, arriving at the main gate of the Guantanamo base in eastern Cuba on Thursday — five years after the first prisoners were flown in.
“Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not afraid of anything,” Sheehan said when asked about the possibility of U.S. sanctions for traveling to communist-run Cuba, which remains under an American trade embargo. {One can hope...}
“What is more important is the inhumanity that my government is perpetrating at Guantanamo,” she told reporters.
...
Sheehan arrived in Havana early Saturday evening with trip organizer Medea Benjamin of the California nonprofit groups Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace.
Benjamin said group members believed they were exempt from U.S. travel restrictions on Cuba because they were traveling as professional human rights activists who will attend a daylong international conference in the Cuban city of Guantanamo on Wednesday, the eve of their protest.

She's not a "peace activist." "If you want to have peace, prepare for war." - Winston Churchill.

I wish I can see her interview on Hannity's America on Sunday.

No one told me

2006-12-30T14:29:00.000-08:00

Somehow I never heard this story until I found it accidentally today:

Milton Friedman, retired professor of economics at the University of Chicago and one of the world’s leading proponents of the importance of the free market, died Thursday, Nov. 16, in San Francisco, where he lived with his wife and fellow economist, Rose Friedman.
He was the premier spokesman for the monetarist school of economics and a pioneer in promoting the value of free market economics when the position was not popular.
...
“He was clearly the most important economist of the 20th Century,” said Gary Becker, University Professor in Economics, University of Chicago and 1992 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. “He had enormous influence in economic science and indirectly on public policy. He clearly had important influence on President Ronald Reagan and other presidents as well as leaders in both parties through his work on the flat tax, school vouchers, flexible exchange rates, stable monetary policy, and the voluntary military. He was on President Nixon's commission to study that issue and was one of the strongest advocates for a voluntary enlistment. He had lots of good ideas and suggested practical ways to implement them.”
...
Friedman’s work reached people outside academe in ways that few economists ever do. He wrote a column for Newsweek, for instance, from 1966 to 1984. The 10-part series “Free to Choose” was broadcast on PBS in 1980. It attacked welfare dependency and centrally planned economies, and prompted a national debate about economics.
...
“Milton was an intellectual entrepreneur, with an insatiable curiosity and a passion for clear thinking,” said Bob Chitester, who produced Friedman's popular PBS television series “Free to Choose,” and whose new biography of Friedman “The Power of Choice,” will air nationally on PBS stations on January 29, 2007.
“He set forth ideas without regard to their popularity or acceptability. He has been equally tough on himself and others in his search for tools of analysis that consistently and accurately predict outcomes in both micro and macro economics. And he has never compromised the resulting analysis to please those in power. Such courage is essential to the survival of a free society,” Chitester said.
He is survived by his wife and colleague of many years, Rose Director Friedman, a daughter, Janet, and son, David.

I didn't know much about him until I saw the documentary "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy," that originally aired on PBS. It was a mini-series that is surprising balanced and very informative. I would recommend getting the DVDs from the library, or you can watch the whole show online, although it is small and compressed somewhat. Watching it, especially the first DVD, will give you a good idea of the ongoing debate in the 21st century between Keynesian and Free Market economic theories.

But in any case, I was very impressed with the interview of Mr. Friedman and with the scholars in general at the University of Chicago. It seems Friedman was only out ranked by Friedrich Hayek, a more prominent figure early in the century.

But, just watch the DVDs if you haven't taken any classes on the subject. I'll let them do the explaining for me.

Merry Christmas! (e-mail forward)

2006-12-25T13:03:00.000-08:00

For My Democratic Friends:

"Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. And without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes.

By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher."

For My Republican Friends:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

That's why I don't live in Portland

2006-12-08T12:06:00.000-08:00

HT: Victoria Taft

Urges Cessation of Combat Operations in Iraq and the Return of US Troops
(Resolution)
WHEREAS, the Portland City Council supports the men and women deployed in Iraq, and honors the memory of those who have lost their lives in the war; and
WHEREAS, U.S. involvement in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, and the wounding and disabling of more than 21,000 U.S. military personnel to date; and {Right there is the first problem. It's the same as saying: "We support the troops and honor the memory of those died but we want to ensure that they died in vain."}
WHEREAS, the costs of the call-up of Oregon National Guard members for deployment in Iraq has been significant, as reckoned in lost lives, combat injuries, psychic trauma, disruption of family life, financial hardship for individuals, families and businesses, interruption of careers and damage to the fabric of civic life in many Oregon communities; and {This paragraph makes it clear they wouldn't support any war because these would still be the results.}
WHEREAS, the war and occupation have also cost as many as 600,000 Iraqi deaths, including men, women and children, according to an October 11 study by published by the British medical journal the Lancet; and {Yes, and explain how Saddam putting people through meat grinders was a good thing? And I don't know this for sure, but it is more than likely that those 600,000 include the enemy that we are trying to kill. Of course the liberals that wrote this don't see a difference between a civilian and a terrorist...}
WHEREAS, countless more Iraqis have been maimed, traumatized and wounded, or have suffered the destruction of homes, schools, sanitation and water treatment plants, hospitals and the environment; and {Once again: This is a war. Also, Saddam wasn't your average environmentally friendly dictator. Need I remind you of his little oil burning field trip in Kuwait?}
WHEREAS, more than $343 billion has been appropriated by Congress to fund military operations and reconstruction in Iraq to date, rather than to fund desperately needed education, health care, housing, nutrition and other social services in the United States, and humanitarian assistance abroad; and {"We want to reconstruct the World," says Portland City Council, "just not Iraq. Oh, and we here in Portland strongly believe that educational programs designed to tell rich kids to eat less and poor kids to eat more are much higher priority than, say, that little thing called national security."}
WHEREAS, the more than $419 million spent by Portland taxpayers to date on the war and occupation in Iraq could have provided one year’s Head Start for nearly 56,000 Portland children; or one year’s medical insurance for more than 250,000 Portland children; or one year’s salary for over 7,000 public school teachers in Portland; or more than 3,700 additional housing units in Portland, or over 20,000 four year scholarships at public universities in Oregon, according to the National Priorities Project; and {"...or over 1 years worth of pointless resolutions passed by us."}
WHEREAS, the Oregon AFL-CIO, in October, 2005 in convention, approved a resolution including, "…because there can be no more rapid return than now, the Oregon National Guard be immediately returned to their homes and families and that the health care benefits they receive while serving their country be continued upon their return home as long as they have no other source of equally comprehensive health care benefits," and {So why is this even included? Since when should a union be deciding national security issues? And if you turn around and ask the same question of me, let me tell you that I am not recommending military actions. I prefer to leave it up to the generals and White House officials who actually know what they are doing. I am just talking about the insanity of others who think they know something that they don't. Wars should not be fought on the basis of economic opportunity costs.}
WHEREAS, in October 2002, the United States Congress adopted a Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces in Iraq on the basis of imminent
threat of attack by Iraq, possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein and the role of Saddam Hussein in the 9/11 attacks on the United States, all of which have subsequently been disproved; and {I read that resolution. I don't believe there were any "and(s)" in there. I believe it included a whole list of "whereas(es)" like this resolution and then it authorized force. I'll look it over sometime but I don't believe it had much in the way of conditions. There already were mountains of reasons to oust Saddam.}
WHEREAS, the war and continued occupation have resulted in the devastation of Iraq’s physical and social infrastructure and led to widespread and continuous resistance to US occupation that threatens the lives of Iraqi civilians, and the men and women who compose the ranks of U.S. and other occupying forces; and {A little redundant, don't you think? Essentially they say our presence in Iraq is causing the resistance. I wish some liberal could explain to me their reasoning as to why U.S occupation of countries only sometimes causes resistance. We have troops in Germany right now and there is no violent resistance. Our troops in Afghanistan aren't causing "widespread resistance" either, nor were our troops in Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea. We even still have troops in the UAE and Saudi Arabia.}
WHEREAS, the presence of United States forces in Iraq and the alleged torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other facilities have diminished our moral authority, and inflamed anti-American passions in much of the world; and {But what has Cuba got to do with Iraq?}
WHEREAS, 65 percent of people in the Portland area disapprove of the way President Bush has handled the war in Iraq according to a September 2006 Oregonian/KATU poll; {Seeing how Oregon is typically on the lower end of most any measurement other than environmental, I don't see how this little poll will influence anybody. If 65% of the people are usually wrong, don't start listening to them now.}
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Council of the City of Portland, on behalf of the people of Portland urges the United States government to immediately commence an orderly and rapid withdrawal of United States military personnel from Iraq, and support efforts to rebuild Iraq; and {Whoa! Did I misunderstand that? Withdraw and then rebuild? Sorry, but that's idiotic. How could we pullout and reasonably expect to be able to rebuild without troops? It will be a civil war! So how and why would rebuild when everything will only be destroyed again?}
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the financial resources used to prosecute the war be redirected to address the urgent needs of the most vulnerable portions of our population, including education, health care and full benefits for returning veterans; and {Yeah, whatever. Redirect money from Iraq to Portland so more welfare checks are available to replace those unnecessary things called jobs. Benefits for veterans can be a good thing, but it's not likely much of that money would be spent on that.}
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That a suitable copy {in other words this version isn't suitable} of this resolution shall be sent to George W. Bush, President of the United States, the members of the Oregon Congressional delegation, the Oregon State legislature and Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski. {Just in case Ted didn't know the people of Portland elected him.}
Adopted by the Council:
Commissioner Randy Leonard
Sara Petrocine :sp
November 30, 2006

Let it be known that I belong to the 35 percent of Portland area residents who think this resolution is stupid.

The List

2006-11-30T13:29:00.000-08:00

Even if you don't like Rock (and I typically don't) if you are a conservative, chances are you will love this song:

The List (player will start after a few seconds)

It's by the group The Right Brothers. I've blogged about them before. They typically dabble in the country genre, but their latest CD, "No Apologies," set to release December 5th, is decidedly rock but is as right-wing as ever. Songs include "Bush Was Right," (click to watch the video) "Enemy Within," Stop Global Whining," and "I'm in Love with Ann Coulter".

Rangel on the Draft: More troops, less war

2006-11-21T13:40:00.000-08:00

Yeah, that's part of his argument:

Americans would have to sign up for a new military draft after turning 18 under a bill the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee says he will introduce next year.
Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said Sunday he sees his idea as a way to deter politicians from launching wars.
...
“If we’re going to challenge Iran and challenge North Korea and then, as some people have asked, to send more troops to Iraq, we can’t do that without a draft,” Rangel said.

Well that makes a lot of sense. We need more troops so that we won't go to war as often. And not just that, but:

He said having a draft would not necessarily mean everyone called to duty would have to serve. Instead, “young people (would) commit themselves to a couple of years in service to this great republic, whether it’s our seaports, our airports, in schools, in hospitals,” with a promise of educational benefits at the end of service.

Oh, yes, draft me so I can operate on you with no experience whatsoever. What a brilliant suggestion! Never mind that hospitals have nothing to do with the military. Never mind that this same Charlie Rangel brought this same bill into congress a couple years ago....and then voted against it while blaming Republicans for being in support of the draft. Never mind that the statistics say we have enough military personnel.

Go figure

2006-11-10T19:29:00.000-08:00

Always good to know the "ruling" party is endorsed by the enemy.

On the audio tape made available on militant Web sites, the al-Qaida in Iraq leader also welcomed the Republican electoral defeat that led to the departure of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
...
“The American people have put their feet on the right path by ... realizing their president’s betrayal in supporting Israel,” the terror leader said. “So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections.”
Describing President Bush as “the most stupid president” in U.S. history, al-Masri reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning the war in Iraq faster than expected due to U.S. policies.
...
“I swear by God we shall not rest from jihad until we ... blow up the filthiest house known as the White House,” he added.
Challenging the Bush administration, he said: “I tell the lame duck do not rush to escape as did your defense minister ... stay on the battleground.”

It's time..

2006-11-07T18:00:00.000-08:00

Connecticut

Candidate Votes % of votes
Ned Lamont (DEM) 3,352 44%
Joe Lieberman (CTL)* 3,346 44%
Alan Schlesinger (REP) 846 11%

1% of precincts reporting

Wow. In the time it took to write that, Lieberman pulled ahead by about a 1,000 votes.

Random thought

2006-10-27T21:38:00.000-07:00

To be in politics, you have to first learn to be annoyed, then learn to be annoying. In the end, whichever side is more annoying, has more annoying people, and has annoyed more people wins. However, the art of political annoyance is not applying guilt to non-action, but implying benefits to action.

Election post #2

2006-10-27T15:41:00.000-07:00

One hour later...

YES ON 41

Election post #1 of many

2006-10-27T14:39:00.000-07:00

So I'm starting to finally fill out my ballot. I'm not relying that much on the opinions of others, but I am looking at a couple voters guides. PEAPAC is one, and the other is Lars's commentary. Then of course there's the voters guide(Bradbury edition) and a pile of campaign literature (if I choose to look at it).

So I've basically just gone over measure 40 so far and it's a clear yes vote. To read everything in the voters guide and every word in the measures would give me a B on my take-home Speech midterm due Monday, but I am reading what I can until I get to the point where it's very clear which is the best choice. In the case of Measure 40, the arguments against reek of entrenched special interests. And of course the arguments in favor are more logical.

And if you are thinking that I am just going to vote along the lines of what Lars or PEAPAC says...you are mistaken. I've looked ahead and know that I am going to disagree with Lars, for example, at least on 45. I'm going to vote NO, he's all for YES. I just looked and PEAPAC is recommending a NO, but that didn't give me the idea.

So, at this point:

YES ON 40

Deterrence of Nuclear Weapons vs. chance of another WW2

2006-10-26T11:04:00.000-07:00

I'm reading an article by John Mueller called "The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World" in my poli-sci class. I don't agree with all that he says, in fact his whole general idea that nuclear weapons aren't much of a deterrent to war is questionable, but there is some truth to his argument to be sure. Take a look at this sentence:

"It is probably quite a bit more terrifying to think about a jump from the 50th floor than about a jump from the 5th floor, but anyone who finds life even minimally satisfying satisfying is extremely unlikely to do either."

In other words, an all out nuclear war between the USSR and the USA (this was written in 1988) might be absolutely horrible, but a repeat of WW2 without nuclear weapons is scary enough as it is.

Debate Notes

2006-10-19T00:04:00.000-07:00

Last night I recorded the KGW Governor's debate and right now I just watched almost all of it. Here are a few thoughts:

First, the negative:

Ron Saxton came across as somewhat avoiding the questions, looking at the reporters way more than the camera, and perhaps using his hands too much. He also sounded as canned with his "let's be clear about this" line as he did during the primary. And when Ted attacks, Saxton usually doesn't directly prove him wrong. He also relied a little too much on newspaper endorsements. That said, a lot of these are problems with the delivery of his "speech," not his content (can you tell I'm taking speech 111?)

Ted Kulongoski always looks like he's out to get Saxton, which is true. Also, on some issues he seemed to me to completely bomb on his answers (what does alternative energy have to do with a spending limit??? And if we already have a spending limit, like he says, why did he follow that up by saying: "we now need to actually invest in education and healthcare and making Oregon a better place for all of us"???)

The positive:

Saxton, despite his own problems, does have a certain appeal when compared to a "spend more money to get it fixed governor." (Remember, I am talking about the debate last night, not the candidates in general.)

Kulongoski took command of the podium really well. As if this counts, he does look a little more like a governor. Of course that is probably because he has been one for four years. This kind of "issue" doesn't very much at all to me, but these little things could have an effect on the election...

About their conclusions:

Kulongoski's didn't go so well. Especially when he stole part of his script.
Saxton's was more of the same.

I think today's Oregonian was right about this debate: Both candidates stuck to their script.

Overall, this debate didn't change my mind one bit about who I'm voting for (Saxton), but it has reminded me why he wasn't my first choice. Compared to Sen. Atkinson, Ron sounds as career-politicianish as the next guy. But that's all irrelevant now; this is the general election and Ron Saxton is still light years ahead of the other guy.

Vote Saxton.

Meet Linda Flores

2006-10-16T20:57:00.000-07:00

TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:

The Clackamas Community College Republicans are hosting State Representative Linda Flores (House District 51) on Wednesday the 18th at 5:30 PM. Whether or not you are from her district or are even going to vote for her you are welcome to come. Here are the directions:

Oregon City Campus:
19600 S. Molalla Avenue
Oregon City, Oregon 97045
503-657-6958
Google Map

We will be meeting in the Fireside Lounge in the Community Center building. For info on where that is, consult the map on this CCC page: http://www.clackamas.edu/inside.asp?content=0120

She has plenty of experience from being a State Representative for many years now so come and learn from her.

I hope to see YOU there.

And how do they get away with this?

2006-10-06T18:10:00.000-07:00

Did anyone see the ridiculous story on the news about Arnold Schwarzenegger's comments? It was one of the stupidist stories I have ever seen on NBC Nightly News. Watch their webcast to see for yourself. I managed to find a blog post on the LA Times about it:

The single most important issue to voters — immigration — has received relatively minor attention from Arnold Schwarzenegger's and Phil Angelides' campaigns. Today, Schwarzenegger neatly illustrated why the subject is so difficult to discuss.
Schwarzenegger appeared in L.A.'s Chinatown to celebrate the midautumn Moon Festival and promote bean paste moon cakes. He called them a "fantastic cultural tradition in our Asian American community" and praised Asian Americans as "hard-working" and "smart." Soon afterward, however, he was asked about the assimilation of immigrants into the American culture. The secret of success, he said, was to "immerse yourself."
He singled out Mexican immigrants:
"And that is very difficult for some people to do especially, I think, for Mexicans because they are so close to their country here so they try to stay Mexican but try to be in America so there's this kind of back and forth and what I'm saying to the Mexicans is you've got to go and immerse yourself and assimilate into the American culture become part of the American fabric. That is how Americans will embrace you. That was my, I think, the secret, if there is one, to success."
This immediately sparked condemnation from opponents like Democratic Party chairman Art Torres. He called it a "calculated political insult to all immigrants" and compared it to former Gov. Pete Wilson using the issue of illegal immigration in his 1994 campaign.
...
"Californians of all backgrounds are living the California dream while maintaining their culture, customs and languages," Torres said. "It is not the governor's place to dictate to new Californians how much of their language to speak, how much of their culture to keep or how quickly to assimilate."

Can you believe that? It's insane. The media thinks (or more likely: wants us to think) that this little TRUE comment by Arnold is going to somehow jepordize his campaign. But what's even dumber is the response by Torres!

I didn't really like Arnold that much and I still don't, but the insanity of his opponents makes him look a lot better.

Lunch with Lars

2006-10-04T23:54:00.000-07:00

Win a lunch with Lars Larson!

Who wouldn't love to talk one on one with him?

T minus 9 months

2006-09-25T21:28:00.001-07:00

Today was the first day of college. That of course means less time-off, but--as I've probably said before--school has a way of motivating me to write political stuff on here (especially when I'm taking 1 or 2 Political Science classes). So, expect me to write at least as often as I have been doing the past couple weeks (which isn't that great), but perhaps it'll be a little more interesting. I'll see if I can't capture some of the sometimes-stimulating debates that often arise in Poli-Sci classes.

Although I might have to drop one, right now I am registered for both International Relations and Political Ideologies, along with other classes like Spanish and Speech. Regardless, I'll no doubt learn something that is worth repeating on here in the coming months.

That said, I don't know how much I'll be paying attention to current events so that might be a drawback. We shall see...

Change of philosophy?

2006-09-22T00:29:00.000-07:00

NO!

I just want to make sure everyone knows: No matter who I vote for, I still believe that just because an office or majority of a House is occupied by Republicans, it doesn't mean we are going to be much better off. Just look at the fat and lazy Congress in Washington! The borders are still open, the government is still, uh, fat, babies are still being killed, the welfare state is still growing, taxes are still too high, and ALL THAT IS BECAUSE OF RINOS IN CONGRESS. Are they better than Democrats? Absolutely. Would a Republican minority made up only of real Republicans be better--meaning the Democrats are in control? No....we'd be worse off. But people wouldn't be looking at Congress and saying: "Your not doing so much to control spending\taxes," etc.

(To be fair, one of the not so many good things this Congress has done is to sort of help the war effort.)

So...I kind of think that this "RINO watching" stuff should be done on a case-by-case basis. Is a Republican governor more important right now than long term progress?.......I'm 51% sure. Are any of the other candidates better? I thought so, then I thought not, now I have no clue.

Is there more to this than RINO versus horrible Democrat? Some say there is more about Saxton than all that I've discussed. But since I have so little political knowledge\experience I don't really have a way of knowing for sure.

My conclusion is once again that there is a 51% chance I will vote for Saxton, but if I were to tell people about him I would basically cause him to lose a vote. In other words, don't expect me to to tell you how great he is.

Expect more ranting and raving on this subject through November.

Change of plans

2006-09-16T16:09:00.000-07:00

I am here to announce that I have finally decided to support and vote for Saxton. I know, I know, after all I said. Now don't get me wrong, it's not because of anything he did. In fact, I still think the same of him, it's just that some people helped convince me that Mary Starrett is no better. So if Kulongoski is horrible and Starrett won't make a good governor either, there isn't much choice is there but to go for Saxton?

I was convinced of this at the Clackamas County Republican Party meeting today. It was a great meeting and I had the chance to meet some candidates, including Linda Flores (who is very impressive) and Bruce Broussard (who is also very impressive). I was also impressed by the grassroots feeling that was pervasive in the new Clackamas office. But this meeting is what ultimately caused me to jump on the bandwagon.

Many might be wondering how I reconcile this with what I've said before, so I'll say it again clearly:

I will never deny what's wrong with Saxton, but I feel that there is NO ONE running who is any better. So this is not about him being so wonderful, but that there really is no major OR minor party candidate who is really good. Thus I would not be the perfect person to go door-to-door for Saxton since I would probably make it worse for him in the long run ("Hello. Vote for Ron Saxton because he is the best of the worst!")

So, go ahead and look up my previous posts about this subject and tell me I'm wrong.

FELLOW CONSERVATIVE IN TROUBLE

2006-09-14T12:44:00.000-07:00

Does anyone remember Vernon Robinson? He's from North Carolina and he's running for national Congress. More specifically, he is the very conservative black Republican who has been churning out the most atypical campaign ads I have ever seen. I wrote about him here, and here. I get his campaign e-mails, and the following is part of one that I received on Tuesday. There are some very interesting developments in that race to be sure:

As many of you have heard by now, this past weekend our campaign was yet again the victim of apparent sabotage when the large moving van we were using to move seven thousand yard signs burst into flames and was consumed by fire as the result of the fuel line's mysterious rupture.
The episode has been like something out of a horror movie for all of us.
Campaign Director Jeff Mixon and Intern Ted Busiek were able to leap from the cab to escape a fiery death, but only because a freak wrong turn had caused them to pull off the road to check directions.
When they pulled off, fellow motorists began screaming at them to leap from the vehicle, as unbeknownst to them it was on fire underneath, where the witnesses saw fuel streaming from the partially-severed fuel line.
Less than a minute after they leapt from the cab, it was consumed in a full-fledged conflagration. Can you imagine?!
The fire department responded quickly, but the vehicle is a total loss.
It is too early to know how much if any of the cargo may be salvageable. We think we will be able to use the wire supports from the signs, but we know from the firemen that the load itself was on fire, and at least some of the signs were consumed.
Frankly, that is a minimal consideration. Signs can be replaced. I have thanked God many times in these last hours that His hand was on Jeff and Ted to make them take that wrong turn that took them off the road in time to escape before the whole thing went up.
Unfortunately, this kind of thing is nothing new to us. We get a steady diet of threatening calls and nasty emails here, and it gets predictably worse when we put out a new television ad or radio spot. That's when the fun really starts.
I'd like to think that people would not stoop to this level. However, most of you know I have had my tires slashed, my wife's van was thoroughly vandalized, and they have even threatened my children to the point where my wife has asked that their pictures not be included in any more political advertising that we send out.
I have honored my wife's wishes in this regard, but if these miscreants and thugs think they are going to wear us down with this kind of behavior, then they have another thing coming.
We know these people monitor our emails to our supporters (because they signed up pretending to be supporters), so we know they will get this email as well, and I have a message for them: We will not be deterred from standing up for what we know is right no matter how much vandalism you try to inflict on us. And one day you are going to slip up, and we are going to catch you and bring you to justice, so you better watch your step. It's not funny any longer.
I am especially reminded today of those heroic men and women aboard the September 11 airline flight that crashed in the Pennsylvania field - the flight where the Americans fought back and wouldn't let the plane be flown into the Capitol building. I hope I can keep that same fighting spirit about me, and not surrender to these thugs, and not let them distract our campaign from its business.
And what is that business? Replacing the most liberal white congressman in the south with a conservative Reagan Republican (who happens to be black) who will force the Congress to confront our issues...

Interesting, no?

A New Look

2006-09-12T16:28:00.000-07:00

Who says the left can take the color blue for their own? It so happens to be my favorite color. So, unless any readers don't like the new look, I believe I'll keep it this way. Afterall, I want to be a little different from the esteemed NW Republican and Daniel Is Right so as not to confuse people.

The ability to change theme colors here on Blogger is one of the new features in their Beta program that I just joined today (thus the changes you see). There are a LOT of pluses to joining, including many new design tools, new templates, and new features (such as labels for posts and the option of making a blog private). But--like most Betas--there are still bugs so it might not yet be the best path for someone who wants to keep life simple. Also, you lose any changes you may have made to your template when you switch. I had made a lot of changes, but I copied the whole thingy to notepad, just in case.

If you are on Blogger and want some new features, consider switching to the new Blogger in Beta. You can find the link on the right-hand side on http://www.blogger.com/start once you are signed in. I'm hooked already.

So, I'm not yet sure if everything is the way I want it to be yet, but hang on and we'll get there eventually. For now, take a look around if you will. You might appreciate the new look they gave the archive list on the sidebar (scroll down).

Freedom, set to music

2006-09-11T17:45:00.000-07:00

I know I've recently written a couple of posts about music, so you might be thinking that that's all I'm going to write about for now on. But fear not, I shall resist for a while after this one. It's just that today I felt like I should suggest music that is not only appropriate for 9/11, but also tops my listening charts.

First, is the CD, Freedom (cover art is above), by Michael W. Smith. This is my #1 favorite album by any artist. Michael is a Christian singer\song-writer\composer, but this CD is instrumental--my favorite style--so you oh-so-tolerant people won't be offended by the truth. It ranges from heavily piano, to orchestra, to more contemporary sounding music with a little drums, guitars, and so forth. Best of all, it's not rock! As for purpose, Michael intended this CD to tell the story of a Civil War soldier fighting for freedom. Regardless of the story, freedom means the same thing now as it did back then.

Also by the same artist is the song, "There She Stands," a song that was inspired by President George W. Bush. Michael W. and George W. met in the White House a few days after 9/11 and Bush suggested that Michael needed to write a song about what happened. So "There She Stands" is about Old Glory still standing through it all. All in all, a nearly perfect song (FYI: it is from the album Worship Again).

Finally, if you haven't yet, you should check out music by The Right Brothers. I talked about a free song relating to 9/11 (available until the 14th) HERE, and the group in general HERE.

Fly the flag virtually by listening to the previews that are available by clicking through the links above.

"Clinton to ABC: Don't Air 9/11 Film"

2006-09-10T20:58:00.000-07:00

Unless I am mistaken, "The Path to 9/11" miniseries is still rolling on ABC right now. But I won't know for sure until I watch the recording later if Bill Clinton was successful in stopping it from showing. Well, it's not like I have any faith in the guy, or his lawyers:

Lawyers for former President Clinton penned a letter to ABC on Friday demanding that the network correct what they consider "fiction" regarding 'The Path to 9/11' docudrama or decide not to broadcast the program. {Haha. Like they can make any last minute changes!}
...
They claim, on behalf of Clinton, that the "Path to 9/11" docudrama set to air Sunday and Monday nights on ABC uses disinformation that harms Clinton's legacy. {I didn't know he had a legacy. I mean a good legacy.} This is achieved by distorting Clinton's {already questionable} record with regard to the possible capture of Osama bin Laden prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks five years ago.
...
The Clinton team chastised ABC for not making the necessary changes to the docudrama or pulling the series entirely in view of the outrage expressed by the former president and his supporters.

Ooooooooh. So, since when are the opinions of a former president some kind of law?

Freedom Is Not Free

2006-09-08T14:03:00.000-07:00

Click the above picture to download the free song, "Freedom Is Not Free," from The Right Brothers.

Endorsements mean little if...

2006-09-06T22:05:00.000-07:00

...they are done for the wrong reasons.

I've been thinking that if Oregon Right to Life and the Oregon Family Council so easily endorsed a candidate for governor who is not pro-life, what in the world does that tell us about these organizations? Their reason is that Saxton is "more electable" than Starrett.

Give me a break! It's the same reasoning some used (including OR Right to Life I believe) in the primary. How could someone be electable if no one is willing to take a risk to support them? If they believe that Mary Starrett holds better positions on abortion and would be a better governor than Ron Saxton, they should support her! It's quite simple. Sure she has a an uphill battle, but they could at least help.

Now don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I'm throwing in my chips with Starrett or taking them away from Saxton. My problem is that I'm in the "eternally undecided" ring because I can't be sure of the character of either of them. But I do know that--unless he is elected and turns out to be a great governor--I cannot hit the streets for Saxton. More specifically, I cannot and will not try to convince the many friends and family members that I previously told to NOT vote for Saxton, to do just that. And it's not because my primary choice didn't make it. It's because after all I said about him, if I changed my mind when he's the only Republican on the ballot then my reasoning for telling people to not vote for him before was bogus.

I also feel that--of course--Saxton would be a nice improvement to the current administration. But I talked all about that last week, so just read my "election theory" here.

But I'm getting off topic. When it comes to ORTL (or is it ORL?) and the OFC, they can certainly consider electablity, but that should be one of their last concerns. More important is the candidate and what he will do in office.

This is a Democracy, not a R vs. D game only. That said, I'm still registering as a Republican as soon as I'm 18 on Oct. 12th. And who knows....maybe I'll even vote for Saxton in the end. Just think things through before voting for a candidate solely because he is an elephant.

Meanwhile, I'm getting used to always being in the minority. Hey....maybe I qualify for afirmative action!!!

Kind of makes them look stupid

2006-09-03T21:57:00.000-07:00

Remember this? That was the frontpage story on the U.S. News section of MSNBC.com on Sunday, April 9th. "New questions arise over Bush's role in CIA leak case."

I complained about it here. The media looks even more stupid now that we know who did "leak" the non-secret.

Starrett on Fox News

2006-09-02T14:19:00.000-07:00

Now that the internet is working after almost two days without it, I was able to find a Video Clip of the Fox News story about Mary Starrett--thanks to Rino Watch.

It's quite interesting to see it from an out-of-state perspective.

That's not to say I agree with every thing Starrett stands for. Here is one problem (direct from her website):

Mary Starrett Says:

"The Oregon National Guard has been illegally deployed to fight - and die - in foreign wars. As governor, I will demand the immediate and unconditional return of our troops."

Election Theory--or mine, that is

2006-08-31T21:12:00.000-07:00

For a long time I've been thinking about elections, since the inspiring days of supporting Atkinson to the feeling of voter apathy that occurred after his loss in the primary, and I've been trying to come to some conclusions. I haven't got that far, but I have been thinking.

For example, I've been pondering the role of the primaries in weeding out RINOs from elections. Are the primaries the only time to ensure that only conservatives get the vote, or should the result of May 16th tell every Republican who they need to vote for?

Well, I've made up a couple election scenarios to help me get to the bottom of this, with 2 possible choices and the pros and cons of each. It starts a little obvious, but hold on to the end and then give me your advice, whether or not you care for the conservative cause like I do. Oh, and don't mind the grammar shortcuts please; I don't want to take all day.

Situation 1: Don't know anything about either candidate

Problem: Can't make informed decision

Possible Action 1: Vote Republican

Pros: Helps Republicans. It's that simple.

Cons: Not the best example; is the epiphany of party politics (not very democratic), party label rubberstamps everyone. No guarantee Republican is a real Republican. Encourages RINOs to pop-up like weeds.

Conclusion:Don't have this problem by simply researching everyone.

Conclusion Problems: Takes a lot of time.

Conclusion Pros: Duh, that's part of being a citizen

Possible Action 2: Vote Democrat

Pros: Not playing the party game.

Cons: Stupid because most of the time the Dems don't get it right. The good Ds are the exception.

Conclusion: Better to err on the side of the Rs.

Conclusion Problems: Again, encourages the sprouting of RINOS (AKA wolves in sheep's clothing)

Conclusion Pros: Less likely to go wrong

-------------------------------------------------------

Situation 2: Researched both candidates, R is a RINO but not obviously a "bad" person

Problem: Is it better to help party in short run and choose best of the worst (process of elimination), or better to help party image in long run by not letting RINOS into office, EVER? (Choose best candidate in general election--including from minor parties)

Possible Action 1: Vote Republican

Pros: More likely to convince a RINO to do the right thing than a Dem; the Dem is much worse than a RINO; "moderates" (supposedly) have more chance of getting in office; the result of the primary is the party's choice: live with it; other options are political suicide (i.e. voting for minor party candidate) and won't get you anywhere if you expect the backing of the party later for anything.

Cons: Once again encourages RINOs to pop-up. If people always voted for the best candidate, we wouldn't have this problem.

Conclusion: Fight for the best in the primary, and then (if he loses) decide on an individual case basis which way is better in the General.

Conclusion Problems: Because the Republican electorate is sleepy, it is less likely that the primary will comb out all the bugs.

Rhetorical Question: Should the General be used to try to comb the bugs out again?

Conclusion Pros: Machine politics at its finest: If you don't do your part supporting the party's choice, don't expect its help later.

Rhetorical question: Just because a RINO won the primary. does it mean you have a moral obligation to vote the party way?

Possible Action 2: Vote and fight for the BEST person, whether Dem, Libertarian, Constitution, or other.

Pros: Makes political point; can cause RINOs to lose, thus encouraging real Republicans; preserves the GOP like it should be; encourages Rs to stay conservative AFTER the primary; can discourage and clean out liberal Republican voters

Conclusion Question: Is short or long term more important?

Conclusion Answer: Long, because it makes way for a more conservative party

Conclusion Problems: Yeah, but we have to live with (for example) Kulongoski for another 4 years, if not some other Dem for 4 or 8 more!

Conclusion Pros: If the voters of Oregon see a waffler and (very possibly) ineffective governor like Saxton (also for example) in office, they might assume all Republicans will be like that and then WANT the Kulongoski types back.

-------------------------

That's all for now. Sorry for the confusing layout; I would have used a table but that wouldn't have fit.

You know, to me this looks more like a brainstorming session for a college paper than a blog post...

The Right Brothers

2006-08-28T15:39:00.000-07:00

If you haven't listened to these guys yet, you're missing out. I have never really liked rock or country, yet I love listening to The Right Brothers. They have been described as "the Sean Hannity Show put to music" and they truly are. Take a look at the lyrics for their most popular song, "Bush Was Right," and tell me if it doesn't sound familiar:

Freedom in Afghanistan, say goodbye Taliban
Free elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein locked up
Osama's staying underground, Al Qaida now is finding out
America won't turn and run once the fighting has begun
Libya turns over nukes, Lebanese want freedom too
Syria is forced to leave, don't you know that all this means

Chorus
Bush was right!
Bush was right!
Bush was right!

Verse 2
Democracy is on the way, hitting like a tidal wave
All over the middle east, dictators walk with shaky knees
Don't know what they're gonna do,
their worst nightmare is coming true
They fear the domino effect, they're all wondering who's next

Repeat Chorus

Ted Kennedy wrong!
Cindy Sheehan wrong!
France wrong!
Zell Miller right!

Verse 3
Economy is on the rise kicking into overdrive
Angry liberals can't believe it's cause of W's policies
Unemployment's staying down, Democrats are wondering how
Revenue is going up, can you say "Tax Cuts"

Repeat Chorus

Cheney was right! Condi was right!
Rummy was right! Blair was right!
You were right! we were right! The Right was right and
Bush was right
You got that right
Bush was right
------------------------

And the best news is that this song is free. Watch the music video Here. Their songs range from pure folk\country to rock. But they all have conservative lyrics. You can also listen to a few of their songs for free Here.

As for buying, they only sell their music independently off of their website: http://www.therightbrothers.com You can download individual tracks for 99 cents each like I did, or just order CDs in the mail.

I strongly suggest you at least listen to some of the song previews on this page. These guys are great.

I Heart the U.N.

2006-08-19T22:29:00.000-07:00

A contingent of 49 French soldiers landed in the south Saturday, providing the first reinforcements for the 2,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping mission known as UNIFIL that has been stationed {doing nothing} in the region for years. About 200 more were expected next week.

Wow! I'm sure the Lebanese feel safe now. 49 more soldiers!

Really Kofi, if 2,000 won't do anything, what makes you so sure 2049 will? Or 2249 for that matter? Of course, there will *eventually* be more troops (and missiles) in Lebanon:

They were the first additions to what is intended to grow into a 15,000-soldier U.N. force to police {only part of} the truce with an equal number of Lebanese soldiers. France leads UNIFIL and already had 200 soldiers in Lebanon before the reinforcements.

Well, the 15,000 Lebanese soldiers promise to NOT stop Hezbollah, and the 15,000 U.N. soldiers are slow to come, so....what's the point? I'm not saying to cancel it, but they should ramp it up. Tell all participating countries--like France--to send in all 100 or 1,000 troops (whatever it is) within a month, no later. Also require the Lebanese to fire at any people smuggling in weapons, people, money, etc. from Iran or Syria. If they get caught NOT doing it....Israel is declared sovereign ruler of Lebanon.

Simple, but it will never happen. Forgive me if I read part of that somewhere. I have a nagging feeling that someone has said something like that somewhere but I can't place it. Anyway, the story was actually about something else, which you probably know about already:

Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold deep in Lebanon on Saturday, engaging in a fierce gunbattle, and the Lebanese government threatened to halt further troop deployments in protest as the 6-day-old U.N.-brokered cease-fire was put to a critical test.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the operation a violation of the U.N. truce, according to a statement from his spokesman.
...
But with Europe moving slowly to provide more troops, Israel warned it would continue to act on its own to enforce an arms embargo on the Lebanese guerrilla group until the Lebanese army and an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force are in place.
“If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo,” Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. “Once the Lebanese army and the international forces are active ... then such Israeli activity will become superfluous.”
...
The Foreign Ministry spokesman rejected the characterization of the raid as a truce violation, saying the Lebanese army and U.N. peacekeepers must take control of Lebanon’s border with Syria to ensure arms don’t reach Hezbollah.

Sounds like Israel is doing the right thing. One side of the cease-fire is already not being kept, thus the Israelis have to do what they can to prevent another war.

New Vernon Robinson for Congress radio ad

2006-08-17T11:54:00.000-07:00

It's called "Beverly Hill-Miller" and it's worth listening to. This guy might not be from Oregon, but I sure wish he was...

The people today

2006-08-14T22:48:00.000-07:00

Oil production capacity to surge

2006-08-12T13:47:00.000-07:00

I got an e-mail today from NewsMax with an interesting bit of news (I have no direct link, but you can try NewsMax.com /money). Here's the good part:

Oil and natural gas production capacity should surge by 25% to 110 million barrels per day by the year 2015 - the result of investments in new and unconventional petroleum sources like oil-sand deposits and oil shale, according to a study conducted by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA).

The report flies in the face of most predictions of peaking oil output that is threatening economic stability.

But the research firm's forecast, if accurate, "would ease the current perception of taut supplies that have driven oil prices up 25% so far this year and 285% since the end of 2001," according to Investor's Business Daily.

While presently, there are only approximately 2 million barrels worth of spare crude capacity - considerably less than the amount available just 10 years ago - Cambridge predicts there will be some 12 million by 2010.

And here's the bad news:

The group's report does acknowledge the probability of continued oil production declines in the U.S. and Europe's North Sea, but it anticipates considerable increases - especially among OPEC member nations.

I guess I should have seen that coming. There will be more oil around, but more from the wrong places. Go figure.

On another note, I found it intriguing when I heard on the news the other day that Iran is having some kind of a gas shortage due to refining shortages. I don't suppose they have have tree-huggers preventing the building of new refineries over there too?

Ben Westlund is out!

2006-08-10T19:04:00.000-07:00

...and so is Saxton:

In a stroke of good luck for Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski, state Sen. Ben Westlund said today he has dropped out of the gubernatorial race.
At a hastily called press conference, the central Oregon independent told reporters that he didn’t want to be a “spoiler” candidate — in other words, skimming off just enough votes from the Kulongoski camp to give Republican challenger Ron Saxton the victory.
“We have rekindled Oregon’s political center. We have shown tens of thousands of Oregonians that they may once again take the helm of their own ship of state,” Westlund said. {...only at a later date.}

Saxton, you've lost some of your conservative voters, possibly your hard-earned Lars Larson, and now your official vote stealer. In short, you're going down.

Interesting read...

2006-08-08T19:57:00.000-07:00

"The last of the liberal Republicans?" by Tom Curry on MSNBC.com

This article talks about the Rhode Island race for the Senate on the Republican side. The incumbent is moderate\liberal (I'm really not certain which) Sen. Lincoln Chafee, while the opposer is conservative Steve Laffey.

"Less than 100 days... "

2006-08-01T16:21:00.000-07:00

Latest E-mail From Vernon Robinson for Congress (North Carolina):

To my loyal supporters:

Brad Miller is trying to run out the clock. You see, he doesn't think anyone is paying attention to his liberal record and hoping that no one calls him on it.

Well Brad Miller is wrong!

We have less than 100 days left to tell the voters about Brad Miller's liberal record, and I hope you'll join me today so I can continue getting my message out. The DCCC just attacked me on their blog this weekend, and as the big guns on the Left continue to shoot at me, I need your support today so I can fire back!

You and I know that we can't win this election by hiding from our core values or shirking the responsibility of challenging Brad Miller's radical liberal policies. I'm working hard each and every day to make sure voters know all about Brad Miller's record - and our campaign is building momentum every day.

In business if someone isn't performing in their job, you fire them. Well unfortunately, we have to wait 100 more days before we as citizens can stand up and tell Brad Miller, "You're fired!"

The truth is Brad Miller has voted FOR open borders, FOR amnesty for illegal aliens, FOR homosexual marriage, FOR flag burning, FOR higher taxes, FOR extreme gun control, FOR partial birth abortion, and FOR taking"under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, and FOR allowing foreign alien child molesters to migrate to the United States.

That doesn't sound like a Congressman who is performing his job of serving the people of his district and his country. It sounds more like a Congressman who cares more about the support of his radical left-wing friends than he does about the people he supposedly serves!

But we can't wait to act or in less than 100 days Brad Miller will get his wish and return to Congress without having his liberal record exposed. You can help ensure this does not happen - please make a generous donation today to my campaign and make sure Brad Miller is running scared for the next 100 days!

Yours in freedom,

Vernon Robinson

PS - 100 days isn't very much time so I need your help immediately! Please don't delay and send me your most generous contribution right away.

Paid for by Robinson for Congress | www.vernonrobinson.com
P.O. Box 272 | Winston-Salem, NC | 27102 | (336) 499-4370

Just want to say...

2006-08-01T16:16:00.000-07:00

I really was considering throwing my chips in with Saxton after all.

No longer.

Diplomacy at its finest

2006-07-31T10:41:00.000-07:00

MSNBC Breaking News: U.S.'s Rice says Mideast cease-fire could be forged this week.

My first thought was: thanks a lot, Rice. That will solve the world's problems. Great work.

But then I saw this encouraging news on MSNBC.com:

Thankfully the Israelis (unlike some people) know that a cease-fire would accomplish nearly nothing at this point in time.

THE EARTH IN 2050: The Americas, EU, Chinaland, and the IE (Islamic Wasteland)

2006-07-27T15:30:00.000-07:00

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq."
In a taped message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri said the terrorist organization would not stand idly by while "these (Israeli) shells burn our brothers.
"All the world is a battlefield open in front of us," said the Egyptian-born al-Zawahri, second-in-command to Osama bin Laden.
"The war with Israel does not depend on cease-fires ... . It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere." Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims until they were driven from the country at the turn of the 16th century.

Islamic Fascists: The war will not end until our religion prevails. (...or until Israel is wiped off the map, which ever comes first.)

The West in general: Please be nice, Israel. Have your fun for 10-14 days and then apologize.

"Comfy" Annan: Please define S-E-L-F_D-E-F-E-N-S-E for me.

Now, who do you think will win at this rate?

Look, although Al-Qaida has similar goals, it is not exactly incorporated with Hezbollah, and yet it is still claiming that there will be no cease-fire. So why do we think that one side--the Israelis--can possibly call a cease-fire while the other side keeps fighting?

What I'm trying to say is that if the enemy is this determined, why aren't we? Bill O'Reilly said it (almost) right:

"So now the world faces an onslaught... [from] Islamic fascism with no credible international body to stand in its way. The left in the USA and Europe have no solution to the growing menace, and the right is on the defensive because of the bloody stalemate in Iraq." {Well, it's not exactly a stalemate...Bill isn't always correct, you know.}

As for the reason why I made up such a weird title for this post:

Zawahri wants a kingdom from "Spain to Iraq," much like Saddam wanted to rule all of the Middle-East. Of course, if that were to happen, the land would be a total wasteland by the time they conquered Israel (picture the nuclear war that would occur before the end.) These people can't expect to have anything left by the time they get their little 16th Century Caliphate installed. Thus, the Islamic Wasteland.

Have fun playing in the sand!

Bill O'Reilly mentions the Oregonian

2006-07-27T01:34:00.000-07:00

...in the Most Ridiculous Item of the Day segment.

Watch it online.

Israel: “We have no timeline”

2006-07-20T11:33:00.000-07:00

Secretary-General Kofi Annan had some words to say about the Mid-East crises at the U.N. today. According to some of "his own contacts" and a "three-member U.N. team" in the region, Kofi believes that Israel must make "a far greater and more credible effort ... to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure."

He had more to say:

Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Thursday for an immediate halt to the escalating conflict between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah militia but said there were "serious obstacles to reaching a cease-fire."
Annan said Hezbollah's actions in launching rockets into Israel and abducting Israeli soldiers "hold an entire nation hostage" and set back prospects for Middle East peace.
But he also condemned Israel's "excessive use of force" and collective punishment of the Lebanese people, saying it had triggered a humanitarian crisis.
"While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, and Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned," he told the Security Council.
...
Annan said the number of civilians affected by the conflict is now at 500,000...
...
Israel's U.N. Ambassador Dan Gillerman told reporters immediately after Annan's speech that there would be no cease-fire.
"We will do whatever is necessary," he said. "We have no timeline."

I know a lot of people who are from the Middle-East and are disturbed (to say the least) over the violence. That's good, because everyone should be. But just because there is turmoil, it doesn't mean it needs to be stopped. Better the Israelies respond to a few soldiers captured and some misguided missles now than a later attack that could cause much more damage to Israel--not that what has happened wasn't bad enough, though. And let it be known that a cease-fire would be incredibly stupid because all of this carnage would have accomplished 0!

Robinson for Congress (in NC)

2006-07-14T22:25:00.000-07:00

"Paper clip guy to get his house"

2006-07-08T23:56:00.000-07:00

After one year, Kyle MacDonald--the guy whose goal was to trade a red paper clip for a house--has reached his goal. He got a two-story farmhouse in Saskatchewan after 14 internet trades. In one year this guy became somewhat of a celebrity--including TV air time. He has also had 3,63o, 730 visitors on his blog.

All I can say is I'm not throwing away any more paper clips...

...One second thought, I can say more: You can count on this guy writing a book within the next couple of years.

ScrappleFace: "We Report. You Decipher."

2006-07-08T11:29:00.000-07:00

I'm glad I noticed this comment on NW Republican. It alerted me to ScrappleFace.com, a blog that rewrites the news stories of the day in a humerous way, done by Scott Ott. Here is his story on Bill Gates (partially) stepping down from Microsoft:

Gates to Focus on Charity, Apple Cures AIDS
by Scott Ott

(2006-06-16) — Just a day after Microsoft founder Bill Gates said he would begin stepping back from day-to-day operations at the software giant to focus on his philanthropic work, Apple CEO Steve Jobs told a spellbound crowd that he had developed the cure for AIDS, and expects to ship the cure for cancer in the fourth quarter of 2006.
Mr. Jobs said his AIDS cure is “fast, easy to use and comes in a cool white package that’s so hip people will want to wear it.”
Critics, however, immediately noted that Apple’s iDose HIV-buster medication is expensive, and won’t work at all if the patient is taking any other drug by another manufacturer, even Tylenol.
Patients using iDose will also have to buy a new drinking glass and special water made only by Apple in order to swallow the medicine.
Physicians won’t be able to prescribe the drug, since it will be available only through Mac.com, and from iDose stores in four major cities nationwide.
Meanwhile, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation celebrated Mr. Gates’ announcement with a press release saying, “It will be good to have Bill’s complete attention at the Foundation. Thanks to Microsoft, he brings a wealth of expertise in preventing the spread of viruses.”

That is so true. Apple is so exclusive. Scott not only seems to be very much on the Right, but he is pro-Microsoft too! It can't get much better than that.

One cartoon says it all

2006-07-04T13:18:00.000-07:00

Click HERE to see the latest Gaggle cartoon.

In case you are wondering....

2006-06-28T08:35:00.000-07:00

I'm sort of on an early summer hiatus from blogging, partially because I've got a GED test to study for. So..........I'll be around soon enough.

Rather be out

2006-06-20T12:33:00.000-07:00

NEW YORK - Dan Rather, the hard-charging anchorman who dominated CBS News for more than two decades but whose final months were clouded by a discredited story on the president's military service, is leaving CBS after 44 years, the network announced Tuesday.

The 74-year-old Rather has complained of being virtually forgotten at CBS Corp. since his exit as anchor last year, six months after the story on President Bush's military service aired. He has said he is considering an offer to do a weekly show at the HDNet high-definition network. {Story is right.}

...

For more than two decades, Rather dominated broadcast news along with NBC's Tom Brokaw and the late Peter Jennings of ABC. They were the faces seen every evening and whenever big news broke.

Rather always considered himself a reporter first, and the habit of news anchors to travel to the scenes of big stories is largely his legacy. His interview with Saddam Hussein in 2003 was the last given by the Iraqi leader before he was toppled.

With his intense on-air demeanor, Rather also had his detractors, and his broadcast was a distant third in the evening news ratings at the time he stepped down. CBS News' ratings have rebounded under short-term successor Bob Schieffer; Katie Couric will take over the broadcast in September.

Crime doesn't pay--both in cash from good ratings and in job opportunities.

2006-06-13T21:21:00.000-07:00

~~FINALS~~

Coulter is a "hatemonger," similar to terrorist and might have her book banned in NJ

2006-06-11T16:19:00.000-07:00

Two New Jersey Democrats are pushing to have Ann Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," banned from all bookstores in their state because she criticized four 9/11 widows known as "the Jersey Girls."

In a joint press release issued Friday, New Jersey Assemblywomen Joan Quigley and Linda Stender say they want New Jersey retailers to "ban the sale of [Coulter's] book throughout the state."

So much for free speech Democrats. Of course it's not like I think the way Coulter said what she said is anything to be proud of, even if her whole point about the women is true, but it's better than what the libs have been saying. This is just another case of liberal selective outrage; they select one prime conservative suspect, run a week of worthless attack stories, then toss them by the side of the road. Another article:

Top Hillary Clinton aide-turned-congressman, Rahm Emanuel, is blasting conservative author Ann Coulter for her critique of four 9/11 widows in her new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" - after Coulter humiliated Mrs. Clinton last week.

"While freedom of speech is one of the things that makes our country great, it also means we have to endure the words of a hatemonger like Ann Coulter," Emanuel complained on the House floor Thursday.

...

The one-time Hillary lieutenant told his House colleagues that Coulter was really little different from an al Qaeda terrorist, explaining: "The hate she spews is the same kind of hatred we are battling in the war on terror. As a country of thought and reason, I urge all of us to reject it."

And don't forget that Brian Williams is wondering if Coulter has no shame.

Maybe Gore wasn't the only inventor of the internet

2006-06-08T22:39:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON - As the U.S. military announced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death, al-Zarqawi's lieutenants did the same, with a statement on his own Web site, with a highly positive spin.
"We are bringing the good news of the martyrdom of our Sheikh," reads the site. "What hit us {literally} is a blessing to our nation. ... It will encourage us to continue waging Jihad."

LOL. Okay then, show yourselves and be a blessing to "your" nation when you end up dead like Zarqawi. Turn over your precious bin Laden. Incidentally, Zarqawi was Jordanian--unless he somehow "became" Iraqi. Maybe they also have an open border\amnesty-for-all policy.

Jihadi bulletin boards and chat rooms were quickly overwhelmed. Al-Zarqawi's photo was posted, adorned to glorify his death. One posting said: "Zarqawi's blood will serve as fuel to burn the invaders and the apostates."

It is fitting for a man who experts say pioneered the use of the Internet as a powerful tool for terrorists.

Is it just me or is MSNBC mourning the death of Zarqawi? Not that I'm surprised though (although apparently CBS was much worse). I recorded NBC nightly news today to watch later because I'm curious how they "reported" his death; more specifically, I'm curious what Brian Williams said.

In response, counterterrorism officials told NBC News, bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, will likely release a new video or audiotape of their own embracing al-Zarqawi and his mission.

But privately, the officials said, the leaders of the worldwide al-Qaida movement will not be mourning his death. Al-Zarqawi, they said, actually caused more problems for the movement than he solved, by stealing attention from bin Laden.

Yep, we should have left him in his hut. The poor guy didn't mean anything. Besides, he had a rough childhood. But, I suppose they do have a good point in that bin Laden wasn't 100% behind Zarqawi--at least at the start.

I'm nothing but a flip-flopper

2006-06-03T23:20:00.000-07:00

Yes, I have done it. I have caved in to the liberals' demands. Despite all I have said about them, THEY ARE RIGHT!!!!!!!! I mean left, but correct, politically, that is. What I mean to say is that they have got the correct idea about something.

After years of putting up with the media assaults on my IT values (you'll understand in a minute), the endless demonizing from the likes of Ted Kennedy and his ilk, the threats from the anti-capitalists, the naggings of those long-haired people from the Republic of Hollywood, the sermons on absolute relativism from college professors, the whinings of the comrades...

(Well, you can forget that last one. I have yet to meet a genuine communist comrade from the dear old USSR.)

Yes, after all of that.........I have gone and downloaded FireFox.

I know I've spoken against Mozilla before, but nothing has really changed.....really. It's just that I had downloaded IE 7 Beta and, despite some great features, it runs TOO SLOWLY. I kept thinking I had some kind of a low-level virus. So I just got FireFox. I've tried it before, but it's now my default browser and........I'm, as some would say, impressed.

Coming from a conservative, pro-Microsoft household where 60s style browsers that flout tradition are frowned upon has certainly kept me from turning to the dark side ('till now). But no, the "progressives" had it right all along. Traditional, old, conservative, grey-bearded browsers are so out of date; plain archaic for that matter. Nope, Affirmative Browsing is the way to go.

Now that you made it this far, I might as well say that FireFox has some neat features, but ultimately loses to IE7 on that scale. So once the new Internet Explorer is totally completed I will probably switch back, IF IT RUNS QUICKER!

Until then, I'm voting Democ.........I mean, Mozilla. (But I'm NOT getting a Mac!!!)

Capitalism at work

2006-05-26T18:28:00.000-07:00

An Ashland man has won a national award for his invention, a device that creates building material from straw.
David R. Ward won the Modern Marvels Invent Now Challenge, a contest sponsored by television’s the History Channel and Invent Now, a subsidiary of the National Inventors Hall of Fame Foundation.
He will get a $25,000 grant, and his invention will be featured on “Modern Marvels,” a History Channel series that showcases inventors. The show airs at 11 p.m. Saturday, and the segment on Ward and his invention is set to run at the end, just before midnight.
Ward’s invention is the Strawjet, a machine that gathers waste straw from fields and binds it into bundled “cables,” which can then be used as building material. The straw cables are clustered together and coated with an adobe-like substance to create blocks and beams.

From the History Channel website:

The Strawjet is a farm implement that processes straw (wheat, flax, sunflower, tobacco, hemp, etc.) in the field (after the plant has been harvested) into a mat, similar to a large bamboo window blind. This is used to construct composite building panels in much the same way as fiberglass or carbon fiber; however, the Strawjet uses a binder made from paper pulp, clay and cement rather than plastic resin.

I just thought I'd throw that out. I'm interested to see what comes of it.

Yeah, well...I guess Saxton can read

2006-05-25T19:38:00.000-07:00

Alright, so I said here that the Saxton campaign took down their Issues page on VoteSaxton.com and replaced it with a questionable: "This Section is Being Updated". And I said "it shows what kind of a candidate Ron is if he has to update his issues list after the primary."

Well, after 6 days of that, the Saxton team put the old page back up. It doesn't appear to have changed. When it was first back online I compared the word count to the old version and examined many sentences. It appears to be EXACTLY the same. They even left the typing errors in there!

What does that say? Well, I think it could mean two things:

One: They have some goons watching these blogs and noticed the little bit of buzz generated over Saxton's potential flip-flop.

Two: They were (frankly speaking) stupid enough to quickly update some pages with major changes while taking down others for days without altering a word.

I'm fairly sure it's the former, and I think they will be making changes as soon as we stop watching. However, I do regret that I mentioned this when they first took down the issues without waiting to see what changes they would make.

And by the way, they still have Lars Larson off the list of endorsements. I don't expect to see him on there again...

Was it like this with Scott McClellan?

2006-05-25T00:12:00.000-07:00

I was just watching a recording of a White House press briefing from May 23rd. It swiftly became obvious to me that Tony snow lightens things up a bit. But I was surprised when Helen Thomas gave him an.............apple.

Yep, an apple. Let me explain:

After some disagreement between the two over Hamas being a terrorist organization, there was this:

Q: {HELEN} And they were democratically elected.
MR. SNOW: They were democratically elected and they're still a terrorist organization.
Q By your designation.
MR. SNOW: Yes. Thank you very much, Helen. They are, in fact, by the designation of this government, this administration, and prior administrations. So let me continue my answer.
Q Go ahead.
MR. SNOW: Thank you. (Laughter.)
Q You're welcome.
MR. SNOW: By the way, that's a nice apple, and congratulations on the book. {Does anyone know what book he is talking about?}. I want to get all that done. But, look --
Q Here. (Laughter.) {She apparently holds up the apple for Mr. Snow.}
MR. SNOW: Come here. (Laughter.) {Snow leaves the podium and takes the apple from Helen.} Whoever thought Helen Thomas would kiss up to me. An apple for the teacher. (Laughter.)
Q Hardly. Hardly. (Laughter.)
MR. SNOW: Now, where was I in this? Okay, what we --
Q Still spinning.

I would suggest watching the video to see for yourself. Skip about 1/5 into the clip. I found it quite interesting.

Saxton courted the OEA

2006-05-20T22:51:00.000-07:00

Buried in an article on OregonLive about the Oregon Education Association's endorsement of Kulongoski, you find this little jewel:

On Friday night...union representatives voted to endorse Kulongoski over Republican rival Ron Saxton, who won Tuesday's GOP primary, and independent contender Ben Westlund, who's collecting signatures in hopes of earning a spot on the fall ballot.
...
Kulongoski, Saxton and Westlund all made separate appearances before OEA representatives Friday night in a bid to win the union's endorsement.
...
{OEA President Larry} Wolf said the union members roundly oppose Saxton, largely out of concern that Saxton wants to reduce their pension benefits and privatize various parts of school district operations.

You can draw your own conclusions. I think that Saxton knew he wouldn't get it. So why did he risk the anger of conservatives? Just another attempt to please liberals?

I knew it

2006-05-20T00:17:00.000-07:00

Ever since the primary ended I've been watching the websites of all three Republican candidates for changes. So far the Mannix and Atkinson campaigns haven't altered a letter so far as I can tell, but sometime today Saxton did. And boy did he do it.

Take a look at his Issues page. Here is how it now reads:

"This Section is Being Updated"

Isn't that something? It shows what kind of a candidate Ron is if he has to update his issues list after the primary. Undoubtedly his "beliefs" are now changing, or at least taking on a more "moderate" look.

I don't know, am I reading too much into this? I just think that if Atkinson won the primary and subsequently re-wrote his "15 Reasons" document I would be livid.

Oh, and if you are reading this Felix, don't mind me. Just keep up the good work....

The Fellowship is NOT broken

2006-05-17T14:16:00.000-07:00

This, straight from Gullyborg:

Well, yesterday was a big disappointment for real conservatives in Oregon. But one bad night doesn't kill a movement. My chosen candidate may be out of the race, but there is still much to do to advance conservative principles and reform Oregon government. Therefore...
The "Atkinson Bloggers" are transitioning. We are now the "Conservative Oregon Blog Roll Alliance." Yes, that spells COBRA, and this cobra is ready to strike!

So, did Republicans miss their chance? Yes. But, as Gullyborg made it clear, the conservative movement in Oregon is far from over. And I'll support any other Reagans that popup in politics.

As for Jason Atkinson: He'll still be in the state Senate for a couple more years (thanks for the clarification Ken) and I'll support whatever political moves he has planned after that.

As for Saxton: I want to make it clear that I will support him if and only if he can stay conservative through the next few months (as crazy as that sounds). But I know he won't so I might as well say I won't vote for the next governor this fall.

Atkinson has done his homework on PERS

2006-05-15T16:43:00.000-07:00

I just got an e-mail from Jesse Villarreal, Jr. of PERS Help, asking me to blog it. So here it is, in its entirety:
(Warning: Message is lengthy)
-----------------------

FACTS concerning PERS Forum with Atkinson and Mannix on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 hosted by State Representative Linda Flores (R- Clackamas & Jesse Villarreal, Jr., Founder - PERS Help.

Each candidate was given ample time to answer identical questions.
Mannix was allowed much more time to answer each question than Atkinson.
Atkinson worked on several PERS related bills during the last session. In total we worked on eight Senate, House and Priority PERS related bills that were all stopped by Senator Kate Brown and Governor Kulongoski. I received an email from Representative Dennis Richardson on July 28, 2005 that said, “Sorry you got rolled today. It was decided by those in power that it is just too late in the session to take on serious PERS reforms. The Governor made it clear he would veto any additional amendments beyond the one that was adopted today.” This was in response to our last effort for PERS improvements at the end of the session. Kulongoski, Senator Brown and union lobbyists kept at least eighteen legislators that were helping us tied up for months because they wanted SB 1000 passed and wouldn’t let anything move forward without SB 1000 getting passed.
Each candidate has their PERS reform plan posted on their respective websites. Check each candidate’s website for Mannix’s 25 words, Saxton’s 9 words and compared them to Atkinson’s 188 words, (Atkinson only posted his top six PERS improvement ideas on his website, but they were from a list of twenty-three.)
Saxton decided not to attend our PERS Forum, but sent as many as four representatives to the forum who said nothing.
Saxton’s plan after 5 years and $5 million guarantees a loss to Kulongoski. Saxton’s plan to terminate all state employees won’t work.
Mannix’s plan after 5 years and $3 to 4 million is incomplete and leaves the problems of PERS in place.
Atkinson’s plan after 7 months and $300,000 is comprehensive, protects members and taxpayers from the legislature, PERS agency, PERS Board and the Oregon Investment Council. It is a plan that will save taxpayers up to $500 million annually while protecting member’s earned benefits.

The only misrepresentation that was discovered as a result of the PERS Forum was to learn about a candidate’s claim to have a plan to reform PERS, to claim knowledge of a plan and in reality to be caught with neither.

Please consider posting this to your website,

Jesse Villarreal, Jr.
Founder – PERS Help
503-720-0937

p.s. Please see May 2006 issue of BrainstormNW magazine for background information on PERS Help research article on PERS. http://brainstormnw.com/featuredstory.html

Please also see yesterday’s, Bruce Broussard interview with Jesse Villarreal, Jr. of PERS Help on Oregon’s PERS on Oregon’s Voters Digest on channel 11 from 4:30-5:00 PM.

And attached to the e-mail was a document containing the following:

------------------------------------

Atkinson is our best choice to Improve PERS: Results of the PERS Forum

By Jesse Villarreal, Jr.

Founder – PERS Help

The purpose of getting the top Republican candidates together today was to discuss their PERS reform strategies and gain clarification and insight to an ongoing complex problem that hasn’t gone away.

Today’s PERS Forum was the last time all three leading candidates had a chance to share a stage. Jason Atkinson and Kevin Mannix did a wonderful job of explaining their plans. The third candidate, Ron Saxton chose not to participate in a discussion to reform PERS.

Atkinson and Mannix were cordial towards each other and shared a few similarities regarding their PERS reform tactics. The biggest item each candidate shared, called for the implementation of a defined contribution plan, most commonly referred to as a 401(k). This plan would give members complete ownership of their savings. Unlike the current Individual Account Program (IAP), or Tier 3 as some people refer to it, the new 401(k) would consist of numerous investment options giving each member the ability to control the level of risk they assume, as well as education: which would allow each member to make an informed financial decision.

Mannix would like to offer incentives to entice current Tier One and Two members to leave their old plans for a new one. Incentives could possibly include Long-term Care insurance or the issuance of annuities. Details of the costs involved to accomplish this task were not disclosed.

Conflicts of interest issues have been an ongoing problem within PERS and the Oregon Investment Council (OIC). Mannix said, “It’s too easy to engage in improper activity” and would like to see “political accountability.” This is a crucial point for voters to understand and this is where the similarities ended.

Whereas Mannix wants to remove the wrongdoer from their position within state government, the PERS board or OIC, Atkinson plans to hold PERS board and OIC members personally liable for wrongdoing. “We need to clean house and remove dishonest and fraudulent activities and people. As Governor, I will require Board Members to carry ‘Errors and Omission’ insurance, paid for by the state, that if honest mistakes are made, insurance covers by default, however if self-dealing, Breach of Fiduciary Responsibility or fraud occurred we will go after those members personally.”

Atkinson would also like to shut down loopholes that award favored members like legislators and judges with outlandish retirement benefits at the cost of other PERS members and the public. He would also like to do away with the old practice of “Double-Dipping” and move to a “one job, one check” practice. Atkinson is the only candidate that will remove the PERS practice of paying favored PERS members two checks for one job. “Double-Dipping” was first approved by the legislators in 1959. According to Atkinson, PERS refuses to disclose how much was paid to “Double-Dippers” prior to calendar year 2004.

Atkinson would also like to break the PERS monopoly and open the administration and recordkeeping up to institutional money managers that efficiently manage other state’s retirement plans. “We drop expenses dramatically and increase efficiencies by opening up the plan to competition” says Atkinson. He would also like to see the Attorney General do a complete audit of PERS.

The most disappointing fact was the absence of Ron Saxton. It is also frustrating that Saxton has not developed a plan to reform PERS. Saxton was one of the candidates that brought up the need for PERS reforms five years ago. After five years of telling people he will reform PERS, the only comment Saxton has on his website regarding his plan is, “PERS will be reformed before it bankrupts our state.” For further detail pertaining to Saxton’s strategy to reform PERS one has to go back a year ago for Saxton’s infamous call to “terminate” all state employees and hire them back as he stated in BrainstormNW magazine. It is disturbing to know Saxton has not developed any plan to “fix”, “reform” or “improve” PERS after five years.

Saxton has offered no other details and his plan to “terminate” all employees would result in massive lawsuits costing at least tens of millions of dollars in lawyer fees and decades of court battles. The unions have vowed to fight him every inch of the way and the state would be thrown into chaos. If Saxton and Kulongoski were to face each other in the general election this fall, Saxton would face the wrath of at least 311,000 PERS members, plus one family member, plus at least one friend which would be one million people voting against a man who claimed to have a plan but simply didn’t do his homework.

Mannix’s plan to offer a “freshly designed” 401(k) as a fourth retirement plan may be a step in the right direction but it is an expensive one. His soft stance on simply removing violators of rules and regulations from their political office is no better than the current environment. His desire to maintain the state as the provider of administration and recordkeeping promises the same old, same old. As any PERS member that has tried to get help in deciding when to retire, how their plan works and which retirement option to choose will tell you, it’s time to bring in a professional, unbiased provider of accurate and timely information.

It is evident Atkinson has studied PERS and has developed a comprehensive plan to protect PERS members from PERS and save Oregonians from excessive fees, loopholes and self-dealing.
Specifically Atkinson’s comprehensive strategy to improve PERS would require the PERS Board and members of the OIC to carry “Errors and Omission” insurance to protect against fraudulent activities and personally penalize those that violate members and taxpayers best interest. “No more free pass to do as they please,” says Atkinson.

Atkinson said, “The elimination of ‘Double-Dipping’ is long overdue and will save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run. One job should equal one check.” Current and former politicians have protected the practice of “Double-Dipping” to reward themselves and favored state employees. “We should have one set of rules that apply evenly to everyone,” says Atkinson.

Atkinson’s plan to overhaul the new “IAP” with a real “401(k)” is cost efficient and utilizes existing rules and regulations. “We can finally give PERS members the ability to control the amount of risk they assume by offering a variety of investment options and we can use market forces to drive costs down.” Atkinson went on to state, “Replacing the state controlled PERS agency with professional administrators and record keepers will insure members receive timely and accurate information enabling them to make informed decisions. Members deserve to know where there money is and what the best method to receive it is.”

Like most complex issues, on the surface Atkinson and Mannix’s plans appeared similar in some regards. Like Saxton, Mannix has had five years to study PERS and formulate a strategy to improve PERS. It is only when you focus on the details can you see why Atkinson deserves to be Oregon’s next Governor. Atkinson clearly understands the many issues and problems surrounding PERS. Atkinson is the only one who has developed a comprehensive strategy to improve PERS and drop expenses dramatically. “These savings could help pay for education, healthcare and social services without taking anything away from PERS” added Atkinson.

MINUTEMEN TO BUILD ARIZONA-MEXICO BORDER FENCE

2006-05-13T23:23:00.000-07:00

I know I'm really late on this, but I only recently got an e-mail from Newsmax filling me in on some of the details. The MinuteMan Civil Defense Corps is going to be throwing up a wall on the border with Mexico in an effort to show politicians just how easy it is to do.

They are building it on the property of six landowners (as of right now) and are trying to keep the costs within $150 per foot. It will be built by volunteers and with donated money.

Surveillance cameras on the fencing will be monitored via computer by registered Minutemen across the country. We have chosen a fence design that is based on the Israeli fences in Gaza and on the West Bank that have cut terrorist attacks there by 95% or more. In order to be effective, a fence should not be easy to compromise by climbing over it with a ladder, cutting through it with wire cutters, ramming it with a vehicle, or tunneling under it undetected. No fence can be a 100% impenetrable barrier—but a good design will be time-consuming enough to get through that Border Patrol agents can be alerted to get to a point of attempted intrusion before the intrusion can be completed. We thank Colin Hanna and We Need A Fence.com for the design concept.
Two construction companies to date have offered to inaugurate groundbreaking, coordinate volunteer construction crews and donate the use of the necessary heavy construction equipment.
The groundbreaking will begin in Arizona on Memorial Day weekend, unless in the interim President Bush deploys National Guard and reserve troops to immediately secure the out-of-control southern border.

What do you think? Will the President do it? I believe he probably will. He will move troops to the border, while pushing for eventual amnesty. But I hope the MCDC will have the opportunity to build the wall either way.

Isn't this the greatest tribute to capitalism? Imagine citizens getting together to protect the border when under communist rule:

"Would anyone care to donate your welfare checks so we can build a wall? We are the MinuteMan Civil Defense Corpse and we are here to take your money."

Another little poll

2006-05-13T23:07:00.000-07:00

Has anyone seen the GOPUSA Oregon poll? Last time I checked, Saxton was winning. Now it's a close race between Mannix and Atkinson. It's got to be inaccurate, to say the least, but nonetheless interesting:

Kevin Mannix: 39%
Jason Atkinson: 37%
Ron Saxton: 21%

And the only other candidate with a percentage:
Gordon Leitch: 1%

Total votes: 266

VOTE NOW!

It is also interesting to note that they say on the Oregon page that "GOPUSA has not endorsed any candidate in this race." But it seems to me that they are leaning a little Mannix.

"Bush plans immigration speech as debate heats up"

2006-05-12T14:28:00.000-07:00

...and might possibly send troops to the border:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President George W. Bush will push for a broad overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in a prime-time address on Monday that comes after weeks of nationwide rallies and a revived Senate effort to pass a bill.
The White House announced the Oval office address as a Defense Department official said the Pentagon was considering options for possibly sending troops or equipment to help with security on the U.S.-Mexican border.
Bush backs a guest-worker program that would let immigrants work temporarily in the United States, which has cost him support among some conservatives. As part of what he calls a comprehensive approach to immigration, he is also pushing measures to tighten border security.
The White House is asking major television networks to carry the Oval Office speech live at 8 p.m (midnight GMT). "The president will be laying out his comprehensive proposal for immigration reform," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

Well let's hope he sends troops to the border with our without the worst of his "comprehensive proposal" passing in Congress. (HT: Drudge Report)

By the way, does anyone know when (if at all) CSPAN 1 or 2 runs White House briefings? Is there any schedule? I haven't seen him at all, though maybe I haven't missed much because he apparently hasn't had a very good week so far.

Midterms

2006-05-08T23:05:00.000-07:00

That's all I can say. Be back around Friday or later.

Ron Saxton = Big liar?

2006-05-06T12:42:00.000-07:00

Here it is folks!

Ron Saxton at his finest

If anyone listened to Lars Larson yesterday (Friday, May 5th), you will know that Ron did another little flip-flop. Well, I've got the audio for it this time.

Background

In a debate at the Portland City Club on April 14th, Ron Saxton said to the crowd of mostly liberals that he would not support any crackdown against employers who hire illegal immigrants. But he only said that once he was pinned down by the moderator to directly answer the question.

Fast-forward to yesterday, when Ron called into the Lars Larson Show to at least attempt to clear up some questions. Lars asked Saxton the dreaded employer question.

Can anyone guess what Saxton said?

Listen to it all HERE. *EDIT: LINK BROKEN!*

***The link above stopped working for some reason. I couldn't find any perfect host for free-of course-but THIS one should work OK, I'm just sorry for the ads. If that link also stops working go HERE. Just in case, I also uploaded the MP3 to another server and it is HERE. Sorry for all the trouble.***

(1.74 MBs MP3 file. Duration: 1:54 minutes)

I put the quote from yesterday first, then the one from the PDX club debate. Listen to it closely MANY times. I left in the part where Ron did the run-around at the city club so you have to listen until the end to hear his actual answer.

But let me paraphrase the best parts for those of you who don't want to bother downloading the audio:

PART 1: (ON THE LARS LARSON SHOW)

Lars basically said: Would you advocate for a law (not just sign) that would tell the Oregon Department of Revenue to tell employers they can't deduct the wages of people whose names don't match their SSN(s)?

SAXTON: "I think that makes a lot of sense, YES."

============================

PART 2: (AT PDX CITY CLUB)

QUESTION: "Do you favor new penalties and tougher enforcement measures against farmers and others who hire illegal immigrants?"

SAXTON: "I do not favor the state taking those kind of actions and I have no opinion on federal policy here."

Now I think that's a clear flip-flop, commonly known as a lie. Certainly a law that would "tell the Oregon Department of Revenue to tell employers they can't deduct the wages of people whose names don't match their Social Security numbers" is a "new penalty" or a "tougher enforcement measure" against employers.

NBC

2006-05-04T17:54:00.000-07:00

A few notes after watching a little of NBC Nightly News:

When oil prices go up, they have stories on how it will cause huge spikes in gas prices; how people will end up on the street; in effect, how we all are going to die. But when oil prices drop, they say "no word yet if that will cause a drop in gas prices at the pump." (Or something like that)
The President will do WHAT!?!? He will actually veto something? Good for him, he is going to prevent the creation of pork as our national food. Or, I should say, the national budget.
It looks as if it is possible that Ted Kennedy's son is just like his Pop. Either that or he needs glasses.

All for today. I just had to vent a couple things here....

Saxton campaign = Unenergetic

2006-05-04T16:05:00.000-07:00

So much for Ron Saxton. He's got a full-blown attack against him on the TV and radio, and I think it is a good way of ensuring that both he and Mannix lose out, because the attacker and attacked could look bad in the voters' eyes. But (from what I've seen) the ads are true, even if they are intentional smears.

In any case, I get Saxton's so called campaign updates in my inbox (each one is hardly any different than the others). Most essentially announce a few campaign events and say that I should vote Saxton. So what was today's e-mail message?

Dear Fellow Oregonians,
Yesterday our campaign won its fourteenth newspaper endorsement and the message from all has been the same - our positive campaign can win in November.
I would be honored to have your vote
To view all endorsements click here. These highlights include:

Positive? Is his campaign really positive?

And then they list the Oregonian, Portland Tribune, Medford Mail Tribune, and so on. After some inconsequentially typical campaign e-mail content, it reads the following:

Show Your Colors
If you would like a bumper sticker, yard sign, or campaign materials, please e-mail us.........We have yard sign pick-up locations across Oregon, and we would be happy to mail you a bumper sticker.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: They only offer 1 bumper sticker. Hey Ron! Where's your $1.6 million? How is it that the Atkinson campaign can ship out a box full of promotional materials when a volunteer asks but you only send a bumper sticker? Well, this isn't a big issue, I just find it funny. Also, I still haven't heard from the campaign about the official dropping of Lars from the endorsements list. I sent two e-mails from different addresses. No real answer yet.

Anyone care to ask them? Just send an e-mail to info@votesaxton.com asking why they don't list Lars with the other endorsements on their website.

As for the e-mail: I just sense a lack in energy. They can put out some issues in their e-mails, but apparently they don't have a very energetic team.

Brian Williams at his finest

2006-05-01T21:43:00.000-07:00

I noticed this when watching Nightly Bias with Brian Williams, but thanks to NewsBusters I can report it.

CBS and NBC on Monday night couldn't resist reminding their viewers of President Bush's “Mission Accomplished” speech.
...
NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams read this relatively short item, in part over "Mission Accomplished" video:
"Today marks the third anniversary of President Bush's so-called 'Mission Accomplished' speech aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. On that day he declared, 'the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free.' Today the message was less upbeat, with the President pronouncing Iraq's new unity government quote, 'more determined than ever to succeed.' The remarks came after a meeting with Secretary of State Rice and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, who traveled to Baghdad last week. The President acknowledged there will be more tough days ahead. By the way, the U.S. death toll in the war is nearing 2,400."

I don't need to tell you what the problem is with what he said.

And yes, I watch Nightly News. I don't get Fox News so I have little choice when it comes to TV. But I do like to keep tabs on what the left considers news. In fact, I used to really like Nightly News, back when Tom Brokaw was in power. Even though NBC was biased then and now, Brian is so EXTREMELY negative that it drives me mad. ABC's Elizabeth Vargas over at World News Tonight has a more cheerful bias that only infuriates, but doesn't totally drive you insane (also, ABC can sometimes throw out a decent story, but they are few and far between.) In any case, Brian constantly reads the obituaries on air and doesn't know the meaning of the word: "positive". He should talk to Tony Snow, whose positively positive attitude got him somewhere.

What a waste of $1.6 million

2006-04-30T16:48:00.000-07:00

I'm not getting a real answer to my question from the Saxton campaign. So I've been telling EVERYBODY about the latest Ron Saxton flip-flop. In any case, does he really think he can win the general election when he's using these tactics? In 16 days he'll be known as a moderate; right now he is known as a conservative, though he is preparing to change that; but to those who know him well (such as the good people over at the Oregonian), Ron Saxton is nothing but another Portland liberal.

So.....let's just say that somehow Ron wins the primary, as sickening as that sounds. He will quickly anger the conservatives that helped him win after he flips, but the liberal vote will be split between him and the Democrat, with most going to the blue guy, of course.

But we shouldn't have to worry about that, since Ron will have his difficulties winning the primary. Because he is running as a conservative until after May 16, all 3 will split the vote. May the best man win.

Raid rumors spark fear among immigrants

2006-04-29T15:00:00.000-07:00

I found this out over at Max Redline and thought it is too good to not say again. Here's the pathetic story:

MIAMI - Rumors of immigration roundups have prompted thousands of illegal immigrants to stay home this week and are making some afraid to participate in a national immigration protest planned for Monday.
Though federal immigration officials said they were unfounded, rumors of random sweeps were rampant from coast to coast Friday, prompting thousands of immigrants to stay home from work, take their children out of school and avoid church.
The absences caused the rumors to build, as some thought their missing friends and co-workers had been arrested. Construction and agriculture were among the industries most affected. {Good. It will drive the costs up for those hiring illegals and make LEGALS more viable workers.}
Len Mills, executive vice president of the Associated General Contractors of South Florida, said he estimated at least 50 percent of workers on construction jobs in the region hadn't shown up for work. He said he believed even some legal workers were afraid.
"This is costing millions of dollars a day, and I don't know who is going to pay for it," he said. {An obvious question with a more obvious answer...}
Katie A. Edwards, executive director of Florida's Dade County Farm Bureau, said nearly a third of farmworkers didn't come to the fields earlier in the week.
Mari Ramos, a Peruvian nanny whose tourist visa ran out in 2003, listened when friends warned her not to take public transportation or risk arrest. {So why did she give out her name?}
...
"Everybody's edgy," said Chris Ruske, owner of a southern New Jersey nursery. "People are worried, and we're worried. There's an awful lot of rhetoric, and you wonder what's true. You wonder if the immigration Gestapo are coming to get you."

To that, all I can say is: LOL. This is just too funny. It looks like those employers are being punished already, and without any government action whatsoever! It's too good to be true. But I really hope the illegals can participate in their May 1st party. I want to see them all out there, I want every REAL American to see all the criminals and the unscrupulous companies that hire them on live TV (assuming the networks have the guts to cover this the right way).

At Max Redline, Jay makes the point that if so many illegals are not showing up to work now, why isn't the U.S. economy already on its deathbed? And I would also like to know where they get the "at least 50 percent" statistics? I thought these people are supposed to be "undocumented".

"U.S.: Iraq ‘moving away’ from civil war threat"

2006-04-27T19:25:00.000-07:00

REUTERS
Updated: 1:07 p.m. ET April 27, 2006

BAGHDAD - The U.S. military said on Thursday Iraq was moving away from the risk of civil war and insurgent and sectarian bloodshed would fall dramatically when a new government of national unity is formed.

Attacks on civilians had jumped 90 percent across Iraq since a Shiite shrine was bombed in February, but “ethno-sectarian” bloodshed had more than halved in Baghdad in the past week, U.S. spokesman Major General Rick Lynch told a news conference.

I wonder if the reporters actually buy that or not.

E-mail: About Saxton's endorsements

2006-04-26T20:31:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: READ THIS FIRST)
--------------------------------
From: David
To: info@votesaxton.com
Date: Apr 26, 2006 5:27 PM
Subject: About Saxton's endorsements

I noticed that your endorsements page no longer lists Lars Larson. What happened there? Did he drop the endorsement?

--------------------------------
From: info@votesaxton.com
To: David
Date: Apr 26, 2006 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: About Saxton's endorsements

Nope.

He is as supportive as ever.

--------------------------------
From: David
To: info@votesaxton.com
Date: Apr 26, 2006 5:27 PM
Subject: About Saxton's endorsements

So may I ask why he's not listed as an endorsement all of a sudden?

(NOTE: I just sent that reply, we'll see if they have any good reason. By the way, I wasn't sure whether to leave my blog link and voting preferences in my e-mail signature. I left it in, for better or for worse.)

Saxton dropped Lars?

2006-04-26T12:49:00.000-07:00

Remember my post about Ron Saxton listing Lars Larson on his endorsements page? Well Lars is off the list now. That seems awfully strange to me. Was Lars's endorsement replaced by the Oregonian's? Certainly Lars can't change his mind, considering the crazy things he has said about Jason Atkinson, and also considering some of Mannix's positions.

Anyone know what's going on?

What a day!

2006-04-25T18:30:00.000-07:00

First off, I just got this FNC e-mail alert: "TONY SNOW TO BE ANNOUNCED AS WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY WEDNESDAY MORNING, FNC CONFIRMS"

That is amazing. I can't wait to see him on TV, fighting the good fight. He brings very good experience as a journalist, so I don't doubt that he'll know how to deal those more dishonorable members of his profession.

Secondly, and most importantly: Jason Atkinson.

I walked out of my Environmental Geography class today at Clackamas Community College (yes, I said environmental), and I was very surprised to see the signs advertising a meeting with Jason on campus today. For once I was able to attend, seeing how I was already on campus. And was it ever worth it.

I've had the privilege of meeting the Senator once before, but the more I see him, the more I am convinced that there is no one better for the job. He's the kind of candidate that might appear to be the same old, same old when you read about him, but in person there is no rival. Maybe it's just me, but for someone who travels 3,500 miles a week, meets countless individuals on the way, hasn't had any time to go home since Easter, and probably feels like sleeping for 3,500 hours straight; to remember just another college Republican and say "Hey Blogger!" tells me something about their character. And not just that, he actually recognized the name of my blog. Not that many friends of mine would remember that, solely because I don't really tell them. So why would he care? I certainly haven't done anything special. It tells you that he values everybody.....and that includes people who aren't old enough to even vote for him in the primary.....namely me. (Side note: I got my registration returned to me today from the Clackamas County Elections Division since they thought I was registering so I could vote on May 16th. I just wanted to make sure I could vote in November, that's why I sent it in so early, but they told me to send it back in after I'm 18. Can't complain, though I wasted tax dollars on the postage for them to mail my registration card back.)

Anyway, he spoke shortly about his campaign, the "movement" that he is a part of, endorsed a candidate for Student Body President (when politely pressured,) shared his vision for Oregon, gave historical info on how small groups of people (such as the people in his grassroots campaign) can have a profound affect on society, talked about believing again, and answered questions. All in all, he acted like Jason Atkinson. Who could ask for more?

He got very passionate when he talked about how arrogant special interests make law in Salem. But he made it clear that he has no problem with lobbyists in general, only when they step beyond their boundaries. The Senator pointed out that there are 30 Senators and (if I am not mistaken) about 350 registered lobbyists in Oregon. **EDIT: I got it wrong. The number of lobbyists is actually 650. Thanks to the frontpage article in the CCC paper, The Clackamas Print, for the correct facts.**

By the way, I would have taken plenty of pictures if I knew to bring my camera to the event. However, representatives from the college newspaper (The Clackamas Print) and the Medford Mail Tribune were there so I'm sure there were some good photos taken. I'll post 'em later if I can get a copy.

To wrap up, here are some, not so word-for-word, quotes of Jason Atkinson that I wrote down during the meeting:

"Everything is against you believing. So don't give up!"

"One of my opponents has name I.D., the other has piles of lobbyist money, but I have people's hearts."

After mentioning his going door to door in Multnomah County for votes, he joked that "I should get a star for that!"
-------------------
Finally, here are some quotes that I received in a campaign e-mail from people who watched the debate last night. They are something else:

"I have never been as inspired by a debate as I was this evening. It's about time Oregon heard a fresh voice." - Victoria, Portland

"I am an independent-voting, semi-retired Vietnam vet. I thought you handily won the debate tonight on KGW." - Charles, Portland

"I was very proud of the way you handled the questions and you came across confident and forthright." - Tootie, Molalla

"I want you to know that I like your style, clear, concise, and honest." - Brian, La Grande

"You appear to have substance, not just another memorized sound bite!!!!" - Gail

"I am a lifetime Democrat who has voted in every election since I was eligible to over forty years ago. I watched you on the Republican party debate tonight, and then visited your website. As a result, tomorrow I am going to the Clackamas County Elections office in Gladstone in order to change party affiliation to Republican in order to vote for you in the May primary." - Ed, Milwaukie

"I am a registered Republican and did not know who I would vote for before tonight's debate. I was very impressed with Jason. I felt he answered the questions honestly without the "fluff" and came across with a very common sense approach for fixing the mess of our State." - Amanda, West Linn

"You were great in the debate! You are the one to lead Oregon out of this mire we have been in for years." - Craig & Tamara, Salem

Thanks for sticking to the end of this long rant.

Debate Part VII

2006-04-24T20:40:00.000-07:00

In summary, Jason Atkinson WON, fair and square.

I think there are a number of reasons why. But I won't say that he gave his best answer to every question, that's just not human for him to do. While the other two aren't human either, they did worse, just not more than I expected of them.

First, Mannix and Saxton seemed to sometimes follow his lead in their answers (especially for the closing remarks!), while Jason came out with clear, consistent, and original answers most of the time. I also think the other two sounded more like politicians. Or maybe I should say, more like lawyers?

One thing's for sure, Saxton hid his position on abortion when he was pinned by Brad Cain of the Associated Press on his 2002 to 2006 flip-flop. He explained that he was the same Saxton as the one in 2002. He then listed a few issues (including abortion) and said that he's the same on them all as before. The only problem is that what he said to the Portland City Club's mostly liberal audience was that he has the same position on abortion today as before--and that position is pro-choice. Notice how that wasn't mentioned on statewide television...

Still, Saxton didn't totally mess up. But he did the worst because you could see through his charades. For example, take the answers of Mannix and Saxton on the smear ad issue and compare them with Atkinson's. Jason not only came out looking clean and free from political baggage (make that garbage), but Mannix put the pressure on Saxton to say whether or not anything in the smear ad was true. Answer? No surprise: He didn't say, he just passed the blame back to Kevin. They are unloading garbage trucks on each other while Jason gets away with the golden poll numbers.

Mannix, as noted at Rino Watch, was "same 'ol -- same 'ol". They gave him a tie vote with Atkinson, but I'd say Mannix got 2nd. He really had nothing original to say. He and Ron both have the sound of perpetual politician-ness. Jason is not only a fresh face but also doesn't have the traditional responses to the traditional questions. For example, his answer to the question about the K-12 budget was roughly the same as what he has said in the other debates, but it sounds much more refreshing and new than the other guys.

The rest of my family was also impressed with Jason. A few family members have been skeptical of Jason Atkinson just because I support him (a policy that sounds wise enough to me). But I think that has changed now. My mom, for example, thought Mannix and Saxton were "wishy-washy" while Jason was more "absolute". And she especially liked it when he talked about not wanting to be governor, but to serve as governor.

You can watch the entire debate here, and read a pretty much unnecessary preliminary article here. There doesn't seem to be any more responses right now, but be sure and see what the Oregonian has to say about the debate tomorrow (good or bad.)

www.AtkinsonforGovernor.com/

Debate Part VI

2006-04-24T19:59:00.000-07:00

Question: Biggest environmental issue?

Mannix: Water pollution, we should reduce air emmissions.

Atkinson: Willamette River is disaster, conservation effort is lost.

Saxton: River's important, salmon affects us all.

Debate Part V

2006-04-24T19:53:00.000-07:00

On Salmon:

Mannix: Disaster relief, and I will go out there and listen.

Atkinson: Disaster relief, and more fish.

Saxton: Disaster relief, and why is this happening?