Conservative Dynamics

Canyon County Republicans' 32nd Annual Republican Roundup June 10th!

2011-05-18T15:34:00.001-06:00

Come join the Canyon County Republicans for their 32nd annual Republican Roundup at the Ste. Chapelle Winery in Caldwell!

Tickets are $30 each with children 6-12 $15 and those 5 and under are free.

Come join the fun and support the Canyon County Republicans in their efforts. I hope to see you there.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Great Article by Reason Magazine About the Nationwide Movement of Education Reform.

2011-05-03T08:51:00.001-06:00

This is a great article from the May 11th issue of Reason Magazine regarding the national move for education reform and its greatest opponent, teachers' unions. The article well thought out and written and is a must read for anyone interested in the subject.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/18/education-showdown/2

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Excellent Piece by Congressman Raul Labrador on How Tax Day Should Remind Us That We Don't Need More Taxes

2011-04-15T13:43:00.001-06:00

labrador.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv...gen=1

"As we prepare to file our income taxes it is important for all of us not to lose sight of the principles our nation was founded upon, not least of which were limited government and the rejection of an overwhelming tax burden."

This is a great piece by Congressman Labrador. He understands the problems we face financially as a country and will do anything in his power to help fix those problems and get this great country back on the right track.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Test Message

2011-04-15T11:55:00.001-06:00

It's been awhile since I have posted anything to this account so I just need to check and make sure things are still up and running.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

A Twitter account named Union Thugs, which claims to be speaking for Idaho's teachers, wants to follow one of my Twitter accounts!

2011-02-20T20:31:00.001-07:00

I love it! A Twitter account named Union Thugs, which claims to be speaking for Idaho's teachers, wants to follow one of my Twitter accounts. The major extent of their tweets are sending messages of a sarcastic and browbeating nature to legislators and supporters of Superintendent Luna's reform efforts. You would think that intelligent teachers could be a little more rational than that.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Text of Obamacare Repeal Legislation

2011-01-04T12:23:00.001-07:00

Download now or preview on posterous

Obamacare Repeal Bill.pdf (33 KB)

Here is the text of the legislation designed to repeal Obamacare. An amusing sidenote is that the bill is only 2 pages long whereas the Obamacare bill was over 2,000. The debate on the bill is scheduled to begin Friday January 7^th and the final floor vote is slated for Wednesday January 12^th. This should provide some of the best political television aired in the recent past.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

U.S. vs. Assange/Wikileaks: Avenues and Pitfalls to Potential Criminal Prosecution (CRS Paper)

2010-12-08T12:39:00.001-07:00

With all of the media attention on Julian Assange and Wikileaks that has been going on for the last several months, here is an informative Congressional Research Service report entitled Crimimal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified Defense Information. It sheds some interesting light on the potential legal avenues and pitfalls that the U.S. Government may experience should they try to criminally prosecute Assange and/or his media collaborators over previous or future releases of Defense and State Department classified documents.

Download now or preview on posterous

Criminal_Prohibitions_on_the_Publication_of_Classified_Defense_Information.pdf (266 KB)

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

A Good Introduction to the Congressional Appropriations Process

2010-11-13T16:51:00.001-07:00

This is a good introduction to the Congressional Appropriations Process. If you ever wondered how Congress decides on how much they will spend, this is a good initial way to learn about it.

Download now or preview on posterous

Congressional_Appropriations_Process_-_An_Introduction.pdf (687 KB)

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Kick a Dog One Too Many Times and They Will Bite! "Blue Dog" Turn on Nancy Pelosi With a Vengence.

2010-11-12T13:49:00.001-07:00

Less than a year ago, Nancy Pelosi still appeared to be untouchable as the top Democratic leader in the House. Now she has found herself facing stiff opposition to her attempts to retain a position of power in the Democratic caucus. Many of these "Blue Dogs" are still angry over being forced into unpopular votes over issues such as stimulus spending, healthcare reform, Cap and Trade, and the subsequent pounding their ranks took from voters over these votes. "Blue Dog" Democrats are now doing all they can to either defeat her efforts to win Minority Leader or severly curtail her power should she win the position. This should be an interesting struggle that will be publicly played out over the next couple of months between Pelosi, her liberal supporters and the remaining "Blue Dogs." Despite who wins this internal power struggle, it will leave the House Democratic Caucus divided, embittered, and in disarray for at least the next year or two. The moral of the story here is that if you kick a dog one too many times and they will bite. Apparently Nancy Pelosi hasn't learned that lesson, yet.

Here are just a sampling of articles talking about the stiff resistence that Nancy Pelosi is facing regarding her attempt to become the Minority Leader in the House:

Nancy Pelosi faces new resistance from Democrats http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44969.html

Top Blue Dog calls for Pelosi to quit http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44710.html

Anti-Pelosi lawmakers target DCCC http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3CBA06AE-D646-97A9-49791FB86BA5E0EA

Democrats pressing Pelosi to step aside http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111105582.html

Term limits for Pelosi's allies? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111107834.html

Democrat Not Supporting Pelosi For Minority Leader http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/08/democrat_not_supporting_pelosi_for_minority_leader.html

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

A Simple Way to Start Reforming the Way Congress Works

2010-11-09T11:14:00.001-07:00

House Republican lawmakers, as well as many Republican congressional candidates, have made a variety of promises they intend to carry out should they be given control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Two documents can be considered capstones of these Republican promises. A Pledge to America appeared on the political scene during the election and then Rep. Cantor’s Delivering on Our Commitment coming shortly after the mid-term election was over. Both of these documents contain excellent proposals and add to the Republican rhetoric about changing the way Congress does business, making government more efficient and accountable, and doing the work the voters sent them there to do. However, one very simple, yet powerful, reform is missing.

This simple reform is nothing more than only allowing germane amendments to a piece of legislation or appropriations bill. This idea is neither novel nor rarely seen. Many states have this prohibition in place. In some states (Washington being an excellent example), if a piece of legislation or voter initiative addresses more than one issue it can be, and usually is, ruled unconstitutional by the court system. So if a legislator wants to create a carbon tax by amending a must pass bill addressing a serious yet unrelated issue it would not be allowed. By only allowing germane amendments, unpopular ideas and proposals that could not pass on their own accord are prevented from being concealed in popular or must pass pieces of legislation at the state level and would do wonders at the national level.

If the states see the necessity of a requirement for germane amendments, why doesn’t Congress? Currently any amendment can be added to any bill regardless of whether the amendment addresses the same issue or not. This tactic has been a way for unpopular or controversial items to be limped through the legislative process with little to no opposition or debate. By adding an amendment on an issue opposed by one party’s legislators into a bill relating to an issue those legislators have agreed to support, it creates a catch 22 situation. If they vote for the bill, they will be beaten up by their constituents for allowing such an issue to get past them. On the other hand, if they vote against the legislation because of the issue amended in, these legislators will be excoriated for not being willing to support the special interest or its funding they had agreed to support. For example, language repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is addressed in the military appropriations bill. What does repealing DADT have to do with military appropriations? Nothing. But the military appropriations bill is seen as must pass and an easy way to jam DADT with little resistance due to its inability to be passed as an individual piece of legislation. This creates a problem for Republicans and some moderate Democrats. If they don’t support the military appropriations bill then the merciless attacks of being unsupportive of the military will come from the press and others during the next election cycle. Should they vote for the bill with DADT repeal language securely embedded, they run the risk of angering sections of their base and could find themselves in serious trouble the next election cycle (as well as receiving phone calls from constituents and supporters expressing their frustration and anger over its passage in the meantime).

So what can Congress do about this backdoor tactic used to pass unpopular and controversial legislative items? Two options come to mind. First, create a House rule prohibiting the use of this tactic. This is the easiest and mostly a temporary remedy. Under such a rule no amendments would be considered at the committee or floor levels that don’t meet the criteria for a germane amendment. However, as we have seen over the last two years, rules can be suspended, easily changed, or outright ignored by the majority party when attempting to force through legislation that experiences strong opposition. A House rule would be a suitable stopgap until either legislation is passed prohibiting the practice or, ideally, getting a Constitutional Amendment ratified creating a permanent ban.

The second option would be to require some sort of constitutional authority statement on each piece of legislation. This option has previously garnered support among House Republican during the elections. Such a statement would include the article, section, and verbatim language from the Constitution stating where Congress derives the authority to enact the legislative mandate addressed in the specific piece of legislation. This statement should not be a multi-page dissertation, but a couple of paragraphs of discussion clearly outlining where Congress’ authority comes from and how the legislation fits into that authority. The problem with this option is that an amendment may vaguely follow the constitutional authority statement but not the letter or spirit of the original legislation. Thus it would be much more difficult to keep non-germane amendments, due to the potential for a myriad of grey areas for the amendment language to hide behind, from being amended into a piece of legislation than if the first option was in place.

Ideally, both of these options will be implemented to protect the American people from bad legislative mandates slipping through the system as an amendment rather than being dealt with on their own merits. Banning the practice of adding non-germane amendments to any and all legislation would go a long way in creating a more open and transparent Congressional process. After the last two years, the American people need as transparent a Congress as they can get. Hopefully the Republican leaders heading up the U.S. House of Representatives will catch on to this idea and implement it. It would go far in showing the American people how serious they are about what they have promised.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Great Ad from the College Republicans entitled "The Break Up"

2010-09-29T15:09:00.001-06:00

Download now or watch on posterous

The Break Up College Republicans Ad.wmv (3091 KB)

This is a great ad that was created by the College Republicans. It really shows, in my opinion, the change of heart by the younger generation that was so giddy over Obama in 2008. Live and learn I guess.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Soon to be Speaker Boehner Speaking with George Stephanopoulos on GMA Regarding Two-Point Job Creation Plan.

2010-09-08T13:43:00.001-06:00

The two points are cut spending and renew the Bush tax cuts. What a concept to get government roadblocks out of the way and allow the private sector to do what it does best.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Republican Study Committee Supports Two Point Plan of Spending Reduction and Prevention of 2011 Tax Hikes Outlined by Rep. Boehner Today

2010-09-08T11:55:00.001-06:00


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
9.8.2010

Price Renews Call for Immediate Spending Reduction, Prevention of 2011 Tax Hikes
Supports Two-Point Plan Outlined Today by Leader Boehner

Washington, Sep 8 - Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement in strong support of the bipartisan two-point plan to address the economy and spending outlined by House Republican Leader John Boehner earlier today. The RSC has been at the forefront of efforts to roll back next year’s spending to 2008 levels, save families and businesses from the looming 2011 tax hike, and prevent a Lame Duck Congress from overriding the will of the American public.

“Unrestrained deficit spending is a tsunami that threatens to drown America’s prospects for future prosperity,” said Chairman Price. “The red ink is so overwhelming that this year Democrats cancelled the budget altogether. Such recklessness weakens confidence in America’s fiscal health and puts families and businesses on the defensive. Sanity demands that spending be immediately rolled back to where it was before the bailouts, government takeovers, and stimulus boondoggles.

“The job-killing tax hikes set to take effect next year threaten our economy just as much as the Democrats’ wild spending spree. If left unchallenged, this tax hike will confiscate forty percent of many small businesses’ income. That is a huge drag on our economy’s main producers and job creators. We must act quickly to save families and businesses from the destructive effects of the largest tax increase in American history.

“Most Americans can see the common sense in these proposals, and the Republican Study Committee has long urged their adoption. Time is running out, however, and any further delay from President Obama will leave our economy struggling for air. We must not allow a Lame Duck Congress to push through more bloated spending and job-killing tax policies after the November election.”

Note: For the past two years, the RSC has introduced concrete, balanced budget proposals that would prevent the impending 2011 tax hikes and set spending at pre-bailout, pre-stimulus (Fiscal Year 2008) levels. Additionally, the Lame Duck Resolution authored by RSC Chairman Tom Price forced House members to go on record for or against using a Lame Duck session of Congress to enact job-killing legislation – such as more bloated spending, tax hikes, card check, and a national energy tax – against the will of the American public.

###

Congressman Tom Price is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Should the Elite of Republican Party Worry About Tea Party Victories in November as Much as the Democratic Elite? I Would Be.

2010-09-05T11:02:00.001-06:00

This is just another example of voter frustration. One party doesn’t listen to what the voters want and then demean them when they get upset. And the other makes big claims and then, upon gaining power, loses its nerve when attacked by their opponents and their media lapdogs. The common view is that these new faces may actually have the fire to do what the voters want regardless of the uproar from the elitists and their allies demanding to go down a road that this country was never intended to be on in the first place. The liberal democratic leadership will be no longer in control and I suspect that many of the current Republican minority leadership will be in for a fight for control of the caucus and its agenda. The established elite of both parties are not well liked by voters and may find themselves looking in from the cold come 2011 when the tea party victors arrive in D.C. This is one of the most interesting election cycles since 1994 when the Republican Revolution and Contract for America propelled Republicans into control of the House of Representatives and cleared the way for more Republican victories to come. Let’s just hope that this one doesn’t crash and burn like the 1994 group did.

Republican New School Flexes Clout Ahead of November

By Judson Berger

Published September 05, 2010 | FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/05/republican-new-school-flexes-clout-ahead-november/

Democrats aren't the only incumbents in trouble this November. With a crop of feisty, fresh-faced conservatives making noise in the House and a wave of Tea Party-backed newcomers determined to join them, senior Republicans could have a mutiny on their hands.

The gap between the old and new schools of the GOP has become apparent as Election Day nears and polls show Republicans increasingly likely to pick up seats -- lots of seats.

Election guru Larry Sabato, at the University of Virginia, released new projections showing a possible 47-seat GOP pickup in the House. Gallup's latest generic poll showed Republicans with a 10-point lead over Democrats in the fall, the largest gap in 68 years.

The opportunity for a shakeup is ripe, but so is the opportunity for a makeover of the Republican Party itself.

"The Republican caucuses in the Senate and the House will change," Democratic strategist Kiki McLean said. "A dangerous place for Republicans to be is establishment leadership."

Establishment leadership likely were not thrilled to read about the contents this past week of the upcoming book being published by self-proclaimed "Young Guns" Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy -- three ambitious young members of Congress who've been heading up recruitment of other like-minded wunderkinds for the party.

Their book, "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders," is due out Sept. 14 -- a blueprint for America in the same vein as the policy book then-Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released in 2008, only with the opposite prescriptions.

A summary in Politico.com based on an advance copy said House Republican Leader John Boehner is mentioned just three times in the book. House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., is not mentioned at all, and other heavyweights like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell are similarly disregarded.

A promotional video paid for by Cantor's political committee, set to inspiring music, looks like an introduction for the starting lineup of an Olympics dream team. The video bluntly depicts the authors as a different kind of dream team -- the future of the Republican Party.

"There is a better way and a new team is ready to bring America back," the narrator says.

Ryan, R-Wis., has attracted considerable attention in the Obama years as the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. He's considered the policy wonk of the lot and played a big role laying out the economic argument against the health care overhaul at the height of that debate. He's also put out his own economic recovery blueprint, which he calls "A Roadmap for America's Future."

Both he and McCarthy, R-Calif., were named in a recent list of the top five most powerful House Republicans compiled by GQ magazine. (The list intentionally excluded those in leadership positions.) The list also included Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the oversight committee Republican notorious for pursuing investigations into whatever bothers him -- and more importantly, bothers Democrats.

The three "Young Guns" lawmakers lead a program of the same name through the Republican National Congressional Committee that identifies and supports select conservative candidates.

Boehner and Cantor, the House GOP whip, denied friction between them in an interview with Fox News in July following a report that suggested Cantor posed an upstart challenge to Boehner's command.

"This is nothing but high school gossip kind of reporting," Cantor said at the time.

"We work very well together," Boehner said, acknowledging differences.

Cantor also has said publicly that he would support Boehner for speaker if Republicans seize the majority.

A GOP leadership aide said Boehner is not worried.

The Republican leader has stayed consistently visible and relevant in recent weeks, driving debate during the congressional recess and challenging the Obama administration.

When Vice President Biden delivered a speech touting the stimulus last month, Boehner used his address that day to call for President Obama to fire his economic team. Other Republicans have since echoed that demand.

And before Obama delivered his Oval Office address Tuesday marking the end of combat operations in Iraq, Boehner delivered an Iraq war address before the American Legion convention in Milwaukee. He called for the president to avoid "arbitrary deadlines" for withdrawal in Afghanistan, something other Republicans repeated after Obama delivered his speech.

But sitting lawmakers aren't the only ones who could be waiting in the wings.

Some of the most prominent voices in the Republican Party this season are on the campaign trail, several on the Senate side -- Republican Senate nominee Marco Rubio in Florida, Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul in Kentucky and Republican Senate nominee Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania.

Chip Saltsman, former campaign manager for 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, cited all three conservatives in describing the new face of the GOP.

"We're seeing a different type of candidate," he said, noting that the resounding theme of their campaigns is fiscal conservatism, government restraint and job creation. "The country's just about had enough and I think that's why you're going to see a new face of Republican politics out there, and it's one of fiscal control."

He said candidates like Paul and Rubio would "lead that charge" in November.

Dozens of new Republicans could enter on the House side. McLean said the changing makeup could pose a serious problem for sitting Republican leaders.

"The most endangered incumbent this year is really John Boehner, the House Republican leaders, because I think as you see a lot more of the Tea Party candidates come into their caucus, when they go to their leadership elections, they're not going to stand with establishment leadership," she said.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

RSS Feed Test

2010-09-01T16:49:00.001-06:00

RSS FEED TEST TO VERIFY PUBLISHING

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

rss feed test

2010-09-01T16:20:00.001-06:00

This is an rss feed test

Now They are Listening to the People: Rank and File Democrats are Tripping Over Themselves to Get Away From Their Voting Records

2010-08-21T11:12:00.001-06:00

Here are two great articles about rank and file Congressional Democrats who are running scared over their voting records, especially the bailouts and healthcare reform. Another great example of why listening to the voters after the fact can be hazardous to one’s political health. Voters are angry over what the Democrats have jammed down their throats and the holier than thou aristocratic way it was done. Now that they are finally listening to the voters, too little too late in many cases, Democrats are astounded by the reactions and are scrambling to wrap themselves in conservative clothing while distancing themselves from their votes.

I predict this will be the most unsuccessful wolf in sheep’s clothing political maneuvers in American History. The voters are seeing right through them and don’t want another two years, or more, of being told they won’t know how good a piece of legislation is until it is passed and implemented. It looks like the Democrats have underestimated how far they can degrade and push voters around and will pay dearly with it come November.

There are several great lessons that can be learned by political candidates everywhere. One, don’t push through highly unpopular legislation with an arrogant and dismissive attitude. This only angers and irritates voters. Two, make a strong, logical argument for the legislation while listening to voters’ concerns and disagreements. Voters don’t want to be whitewashed and talked down to and don’t respond well when that happened. Three, no amount of third world strongman rhetoric meets Madison Avenue propaganda style publicity blitz will effectively turn the tide of heavy voter disapproval no matter how often you push it. Voters know snake oil when they see it no matter how pretty the packaging is. Four, you may be able to get into power and try these three things once. But come the next election, there will be a great deal of former elected officials standing in the unemployment.

Endangered Dems quiet on key votes http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41207.html

Dems retreat on health care cost pitch http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41271.html

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Things are Looking Good for November: Poll Shows GOP Tide Starting to Roll

2010-08-12T09:33:00.001-06:00

More good news for conservatives in November and the direction of the country. This is really no surprise with all of the arrogance shown by liberal Democrats and their leaders over the past 20 months or so and the avalanche of bad press that has hit in the last month or more. Reid’s comments about Hispanics and the Republican Party, Rangle and Waters’ ethics violations (and subsequent up yours, bring it on attitudes), Rangel’s defiant rant on the House floor, and Michelle’s “Marie Antoinette” Spanish vacation and general attitude about it are all coming home to roost. People are sick and tired of those in Washington D.C. thinking they are the aristocracy of America. They have forgotten that they work for We the People. Now it looks like they are going to pay the price for their attitudes and behavior. This should also serve as a warning of those who are battling to be elected in these people’s place. If you act the same way, We the People will get rid of you too. We are sick and tired of our elected officials who do not do the will of the people. Do the will of the people, get out of the way, or get run over.

Poll Shows GOP Tide Starting to Roll

Lee Ross | August 11, 2010

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/11/poll-shows-gop-tide-starting-roll#ixzz0wPB4RQSI

By most historical metrics it would seem impossible for Republicans who currently hold 41 seats in the U.S. Senate to win enough races in November--with only 37 seats are up for grabs-- to take control of the chamber, but a new poll shows GOP candidates in 13 battleground states holding a collective commanding edge over their Democratic counterparts.

The eight-point spread is a considerable advantage 84 days until the election.

The poll was conducted by Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies and commissioned by American Crossroads, a group headed by Fox News Contributor Karl Rove and former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie. It is not a generic ballot poll which asks respondents about their party preference but rather mentioned specific candidates by name. The 47% - 39% margin comes from polls in 13 battleground states: Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.

"The landscape that has tilted so dramatically toward Republicans in the House is continuing to move in a dramatic way on the Senate side as well," said American Crossroads communications director Jonathan Collegio in a statement announcing the results. "People often think that only House races can get swept up in an electoral wave, but this survey shows that Senate may very well get swept over in the same wave."

Perhaps the data that most suggests a huge wave of support for Republican candidates is the support for GOP nominees from Independent voters who say they favor Republicans 47%-25%.

According to its website, the mission of American Crossroads is to "make Main Street values-individual liberty, limited government, free enterprise and strong national security-once again the top priorities and guiding ethic of American governance."

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Commentary on the Eight Hallmarks of a Rovian Campaign. How Candidates and Grassroots Supporters Can Be Successful.

2010-08-11T18:37:00.001-06:00

I am currently reading Karl Rove’s book Courage and Consequence and whether you admire or hate the guy, he truly knows how to run a successful campaign. In his book, Rove discusses his eight tenets of a “Rovian” campaign. These tenets or “hallmarks,” as Rove calls them, can assist both the candidate and his grassroots supporters in increasing the likelihood of ultimate success. In 2006 I had a short stint as a state legislative candidate and was completely unaware of these points. So to help others who are involved in a campaign whether they are the candidate or the grassroots supporter, I will provide the eight tenets that Karl Rove has used with amazing success and make some observations of my own focusing generally as well as on the candidate and grassroots supporters specifically. I know that this is an exceptionally long post, but I believe it will be worth your time to read. I wish I had known this when I did my campaign. These tenets can be found on pages 65 and 66 of Courage and Consequence.

Tenet One: “The Campaign must first be centered on big ideas that reflect the candidate’s philosophy and views and that are perceived by voters as important and relevant.”

This is an important part of a campaign when selecting the major issues that will be focused on during the campaign as well as influence campaign strategy and direction. If a candidate doesn’t have this down it can have major consequences on their campaign as it may be viewed as unorganized, the campaign’s message may be confusing to voters, and the issues focused on can seem randomly and haphazardly chosen.

Candidates: Do you have those big ideas? Can you lay them out quickly and clearly to supporters and potential voters? If not, why don’t/can’t you?

Grassroots: Do you know what your candidate’s big ideas are and be able to explain them clearly and quickly to anyone you talk to? If not, ask you candidate what they are? If they don’t know, encourage the candidate to develop them.

Tenet Two: “The campaign needs to be persistent in pursuing this strong, persuasive theme in a way that resonates with what voters know. This requires a campaign to have a clear awareness of the electorate’s attitudes, and its candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as those of its opponent.”

This is where a candidate and a campaign can get into real trouble. If the research and refining is not correctly done on the issues and message the candidate can have a real difficult time reaching, gaining support of voters, and ultimately being victorious should the message not resonate with the voters. If the theme and the subsequent message supporting it are not focused on the candidate’s strengths it may be viewed as disingenuous, weak, or pandering for votes. If the theme inadvertently falls into an area that is a strong suit of the opponent, this will put the candidate at a disadvantage. One never attacks at a point of strength only at those which are weak.

If a campaign has not analyzed the strength and weaknesses of both the candidate and the opponent, there is an inherent problem that needs to be fixed because the most simple and obvious of research areas has not been done and places the candidate at a disadvantage. This type of research should be done long before a candidate declares their candidacy. Campaigns are difficult enough. There is no reason to add to that difficulty unnecessarily.

Candidates: Does everything you say or print consistent with your overarching theme? Can the average voter look at your literature and speeches and understand your theme? If not, what do you need to change?

Grassroots: Does your candidate’s statements, literature and positions consistent with the candidate’s overall theme of his campaign and is done in an easily understandable way? If not, talk to the candidate with ideas about how to improve their message so they can remain consistent with their theme.

Tenet Three: “The campaign is driven by historical data. Past races can help you understand what might happen in the next.”

This is another area where new candidates don’t do their due diligence (including myself when I ran for State Representative in 2006). The research on what has happened in past elections regarding the office the candidate is seeking isn’t done or, if it is, not done well. Historically mid-term elections have a lower voter turnout then during a presidential election cycle so understanding what mid-terms over the last several cycles look like is very important. What is the turnout for each of the elections? How is it changing? What major shifts in voter behavior towards the parties occurred? This can tell a candidate and the campaign a great deal about what needs to be done and what kind of fight they are in for.

Candidates: Do you know what the numbers look like? How much of a shift do you need in your favor (or your opponent’s) to affect the outcome of the election? What areas do you need to focus on and which ones are safe? Do you share this information with your grassroots supporters so their efforts are focused where they are needed the most? All of these answers should be yes or there needs to be some changes made at the campaign level.

Grassroots: You need to have an idea what these numbers look like as well. Do you live in a safe area for your candidate or do you have a lot of work to do? Are there areas near you that need more work than others? If you don’t know, ask the campaign they should be able to tell you fairly quickly. If they don’t know ask them to find out so you can be as effective to the campaign as possible. No need to expend (waste) efforts in a safe area when a nearby precinct or neighborhood needs a voter shift in your candidate’s favor.

Tenet Four: “The use of sophisticated modeling to identify potential supporters and match them with issues that will persuade and turn them out. All kinds of publicly available information about voters can be used to predict which party or candidate someone will support, what issues will win them over, and the likelihood they will actually vote. There is no piece of data that can predict the behavior of a voter: it’s the relationship between all kinds of data points that can be revealing. Modeling is complex and difficult to do, but it can make a huge impact by allowing a campaign to focus its energies on voters who are truly up for grabs and on those who need extra encouragement to turn out.”

While this can be extremely time consuming for campaign staff and potentially expensive, this is where a campaign can really dial in where their efforts would be best focused. Much of the information can be researched out from the Census Department or general statistics that are publicly available. The cost generally will be getting someone who understands this type of statistical analysis or paying staff to sift through massive amounts of data to glean the necessary information desired. Tenet three gives a broad base of information and generally where to focus. This type of research allows a campaign to not only tailor the message, while keeping in sync with the overarching theme, but also down to a neighborhood level who can be shifted to the candidate’s favor and where efforts may be stymied or less successful. It also will show pockets of support for the opponent and may open up a possibility to pick off a couple of their supporters from time to time.

Candidates: This is where you decide of this level of specificity is worth the effort and cost. In other words, is the cost worth the benefit you will get out of it? If you are in a tight race or are the underdog, it may mean the difference between winning and losing.

Grassroots: You need to have an idea what these numbers look like as well. Ask the campaign if they have this information. If not, maybe this is something you can help collect and compile so the campaign staff can focus on other areas that need attention.

Tenet Five: “The campaign understands that there are right and wrong ways to criticize an opponent. Too many campaigns spend too much time going after their opponents in a scattershot way and on trivial issues.”

Criticism of an opponent, their actions, and their positions is a vital part of any campaign. But it can be done effectively, ineffectively or in a way that makes the campaign look petty and childish. Spending too much time criticizing an opponent can become ineffective and detrimental by causing the dilution of the message the candidate wants and needs to convey. It will also turn off potential swing voters a candidate may need. Be very careful dragging family members into the fray, it will backfire more often than not. Criticism of an opponent should be specifically related to issues relevant to the campaign or the ability of the opponent to effectively do the job. If a clear case cannot be made in this regard, think twice before publicly airing the criticism or a campaign risks the voters backlash or a so what attitude from voters thus again diluting the message.

Candidates: Never criticize in an emotional manner. It will backfire and you will look like the lesser person regardless of the validity of the charge you are making. Always be logical, accurate, and clear on why your opponent needs to be criticized and how it related to the campaign or the opponent’s ability to do the job properly. Don’t criticize just to criticize, it will lose its effectiveness after awhile and can eventually turn on you. Save it for important issues or behaviors for the best impact with voters. When criticizing your opponent, make sure to contrast your positions or behaviors with theirs. Avoid sarcasm at all costs.

Grassroots: When jumping on the bandwagon and criticizing your candidate’s opponent, be clear, deliberate, accurate, and logical. Avoid criticizing from an emotional direction, it very rarely succeeds and generally makes you and your candidate look bad.

Tenet Six: “The campaign has a strategic plan, discipline, and a bias for action. It is structured to keep momentum. Second-guessing, or allowing warring factions to develop inside a campaign, is destructive. A Rovian campaign sets goals and repeatedly checks performance against those goals.”

Having an effective strategy and plan is vital to a campaign’s success. It keeps the campaign going in the right direction and a good plan creates momentum in its implementation. Without a plan there is no direction for the campaign, staff, or grassroots supporters. By not having a plan, stagnation will become innate and the campaign will stall and potentially fail in the end. A lack of a plan can create confusion and frustration among the grassroots supporters making them less motivated and less inclined to help. Without a defined direction a perception that the campaign is adrift and leaderless can appear creating doubts in voters’ minds as to whether the candidate is actually qualified for the position. If the candidate can’t run a campaign, how can they be an effective elected official?

The absence of a plan, discipline, and momentum creates an atmosphere and environment for internal conflicts and power struggles. Everyone will have their ideas of how the campaign should be run and what direction it should be headed in. A good plan will not always deter such conflicts but it will go a long way in keeping them from becoming an issue that needs to be dealt with.

As with any good plan of action, there needs to be goals and performance evaluations. If you don’t know where you are going, how do you know when you get there? By evaluating the performance and accomplishing of goals, a campaign can see what is going well, what is not, and adjust accordingly before it becomes a crisis.

Candidates: Planning and evaluation is paramount to a successful campaign. You need to be meeting with your campaign staff regularly and discussing how the campaign is going. Allow your staff to speak freely and without fear of recrimination so you can get a clear picture of what is going on with the day to day efforts of the campaign. Trust your grassroots people when they come to you with a concern about your campaign plan. They are your eyes and ears on the ground. Be willing to make necessary changes to the plan when something in it doesn’t work.

Grassroots: If you see something that isn’t working say something. However, do it in a way that is constructive and always have a potential solution or two on how to fix the problem to offer up as well. Don’t get discouraged if your advice is not heeded. Maybe there is something there that you don’t know about and a change in the plan is not possible.

Tenet Seven: “The campaign depends on the broadest possible use of volunteer-friendly technology. Have enormous respect for and utilize Net Nerds, Applications Junkies, Tech Heads, and Data Dudes.”

Technology has become a vital part of campaigns. Ignoring it can prove fatal. Along with using technology in the campaign office, social media is becoming a growing factor in elections as well where a campaign’s presence is quickly becoming mandatory. Gone are the days where a campaign website was sufficient. Now a serious campaign needs to be on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube at the very least. But a presence alone is not enough. Tech savvy voters want up to the minute information regarding the campaign, the candidate engaged in the conversation, and easily sharable posts. With the majority of people embracing and spending a great deal of time involved in social media activities, a poorly organized social media effort can be detrimental to a campaign. Such an effort by a campaign can be viewed as old-fashioned, out of touch, and not a serious contender. Done correctly, a social media effort can reach more potential voters than could have been done previously. It also gives an air of sophistication and legitimacy to even the poorest and smallest of campaigns providing the opportunity of bringing in new supporters.

Candidates: Beware. Ignoring or half-baking your social media efforts should be done at your own risk and peril. Make sure you spend some time each day personally joining in the conversation on your social media sites. Answer questions, comment on other’s comments, thank supporters, etc. Spending a little of your scarce time here can have enormous benefits.

Grassroots: Another area to get involved in. If a campaign you are working with and supporting is lacking in realm of social media, offer your assistance to get it up and running smoothly. If the campaign is already heavily involved in this area, create your own independent effort to support the campaign. Start a Facebook page or group either by yourself or with other showing support for your favorite candidate to help get the word out. Keep it classy and above board. Sarcastic or inappropriate comments about the opponent will have negative effects on the campaign you are supporting regardless if what you say is true or not (remember tenet five). Just make sure that you are very clear whether the page/group is affiliated with the campaign or not.

Tenet Eight: “The campaign is focused on collecting three vital resources: knowledge and information for the candidate; volunteers to persuade and get out the vote; and the money to make the other elements of the campaign possible.”

What more is there to say here? Information, volunteers, and money are the lubricants of a great campaign. A campaign needs all three to be successful.

Candidates: There is no reason you should find out about a major event that directly affects your campaign or the office you are running for from an outside source. Your staff, or a very select group of grassroots supporters, should be doing the research, watching the various media outlets, and notifying you of anything you need to know ASAP.

You should have a staffer whose sole job is to coordinate and organize grassroots supporters into an efficient asset for your campaign. Without an organized and motivated grassroots organization you and your staff will work yourselves to death doing okay in many areas without doing great in a few. There are many areas where grassroots supporters can take the pressure off of you and your staff. Let them!

Money is the root of all campaigns. With plenty of it much can be done with media buys, mailings, professionally printed literature, and additional staff. Without it, it will be much more difficult to get the word out effectively, have/run a campaign office, and many other activities will be curtailed or non-existent. While successful campaigns have been done on the cheap, money always makes it easier to do. Whether you like it or not, as candidate, you will spend a great deal of time dialing for dollars in an attempt to obtain as much funding as possible.

Grassroots: You should be involved in all three of these areas. This is where you will be the campaign’s biggest asset. Just find out where the campaign needs assistance in these areas and get to work.

Regardless of how you feel about Karl Rove, these tenets make complete sense and should only be ignored at the candidate’s own risk. A candidate should be willing to take advice and effective strategies from wherever they can find them and grassroots supporters can be involved and use many of the same principles and strategies that the campaign they support uses. Go forth, fight well, and be successful.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Lame Duck Resolution Introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) Will Be Voted on Tomorrow!

2010-08-09T22:49:00.001-06:00

Download now or preview on posterous

Lame_Duck_Resolution.pdf (37 KB)

Rep. Tom Price has introduced a privileged resolution in the House to try to block a potential lame duck session. There is no way for Pelosi and her cronies to avoid a vote on this resolution thus putting the liberals in the House on record and it is supposedly going to be voted on tomorrow. However, the question remains whether it would even be followed should it actually pass.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals - Gallup Poll

2010-06-25T17:34:00.001-06:00

PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

The 2010 results are based on eight Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June, encompassing interviews with more than 8,000 U.S. adults. The 42% identifying as conservative represents a continuation of the slight but statistically significant edge conservatives achieved over moderates in 2009. Should that figure hold for all of 2010, it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup's history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992.

The recent rise in conservatism's fortunes follows a decline seen after 2003; liberalism has experienced the opposite pattern. From 1993 to 2002, the ideological trend had been fairly stable, with roughly 40% identifying as moderate, 38% as conservative, and 19% as liberal. Before that, the presidential bid of independent candidate Ross Perot may have contributed to a heightened proportion of Americans (43%) calling themselves moderate in 1992.

Partisans Maintain Their 2009 Ideological Leanings

There are no significant changes so far in 2010 compared with 2009 in how Republicans, Democrats, and independents characterize their respective political views. Consistent with the patterns seen last year, nearly 4 in 10 Democrats call themselves liberal and a similar proportion of Democrats say they are moderate.

Longer term, Democrats have grown increasingly liberal in their political orientation.

Seven in 10 Republicans continue to call themselves conservative, similar to 2009, while most of the remaining Republicans identify as moderate. Since 2002, however, the percentage conservative has increased by 10 points.

Independents today are slightly more likely to say they are moderate than conservative, with fewer than 20% identifying as liberal. While this is similar to 2009, it represents an increase in conservatism among this group since 2008.

Bottom Line

The ideological orientation of Americans seen thus far in 2010 would represent a record-high level of conservatism (since at least 1992) if it is maintained for the full year. This follows an increase in the percentage of conservatives in 2009 that was fueled by heightened conservatism among independents, a pattern that continues today.

Survey Methods
Results are based on the combined findings of eight separate Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June 2010. For results based on the total sample of 8,207 national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.

Party breakdowns for 2010 are based on 2,395 Republicans, 3,134 independents, and 2,565 Democrats. For results based on samples of these sizes, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone-only). Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone-only respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, education, region, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2009 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in continental U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit http://www.gallup.com/.

via gallup.com

It is interesting that once liberal Democrats take power and show their colors then their support fades quickly as people understand their true intentions of bigger government and less freedom. It would be interesting to see what the numbers would look like if there were to be a true smaller government conservative Republican administration and Congress in power. Not the spinless RINOs and moderate Republicans running around now.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals - Gallup Poll

2010-06-25T16:56:00.002-06:00

PRINCETON, NJ -- Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.
The 2010 results are based on eight Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June, encompassing interviews with more than 8,000 U.S. adults. The 42% identifying as conservative represents a continuation of the slight but statistically significant edge conservatives achieved over moderates in 2009. Should that figure hold for all of 2010, it would represent the highest annual percentage identifying as conservative in Gallup's history of measuring ideology with this wording, dating to 1992.
The recent rise in conservatism's fortunes follows a decline seen after 2003; liberalism has experienced the opposite pattern. From 1993 to 2002, the ideological trend had been fairly stable, with roughly 40% identifying as moderate, 38% as conservative, and 19% as liberal. Before that, the presidential bid of independent candidate Ross Perot may have contributed to a heightened proportion of Americans (43%) calling themselves moderate in 1992.
Partisans Maintain Their 2009 Ideological Leanings
There are no significant changes so far in 2010 compared with 2009 in how Republicans, Democrats, and independents characterize their respective political views. Consistent with the patterns seen last year, nearly 4 in 10 Democrats call themselves liberal and a similar proportion of Democrats say they are moderate.
Longer term, Democrats have grown increasingly liberal in their political orientation.
Seven in 10 Republicans continue to call themselves conservative, similar to 2009, while most of the remaining Republicans identify as moderate. Since 2002, however, the percentage conservative has increased by 10 points.
Independents today are slightly more likely to say they are moderate than conservative, with fewer than 20% identifying as liberal. While this is similar to 2009, it represents an increase in conservatism among this group since 2008.
Bottom Line
The ideological orientation of Americans seen thus far in 2010 would represent a record-high level of conservatism (since at least 1992) if it is maintained for the full year. This follows an increase in the percentage of conservatives in 2009 that was fueled by heightened conservatism among independents, a pattern that continues today.
Survey Methods
Results are based on the combined findings of eight separate Gallup and USA Today/Gallup surveys conducted from January through June 2010. For results based on the total sample of 8,207 national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.
Party breakdowns for 2010 are based on 2,395 Republicans, 3,134 independents, and 2,565 Democrats. For results based on samples of these sizes, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones (for respondents with a landline telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell phone-only). Each sample includes a minimum quota of 150 cell phone-only respondents and 850 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents for gender within region. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, education, region, and phone lines. Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2009 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in continental U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
For more details on Gallup's polling methodology, visit http://www.gallup.com/.

via gallup.com

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

The Gathering Revolt Against Government Spending (from the Washington Examiner)

2010-05-24T10:55:00.003-06:00

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
May 23, 2010

This month three members of Congress have been beaten in their bids for re-election -- a Republican senator from Utah, a Democratic congressman from West Virginia and a Republican-turned-Democrat senator from Pennsylvania. Their records and their curricula vitae are different. But they all have one thing in common: They are members of an Appropriations Committee.Like most appropriators, they have based much of their careers on bringing money to their states and districts. There is an old saying on Capitol Hill that there are three parties -- Democrats, Republicans and appropriators. One reason that it has been hard to hold down government spending is that appropriators of both parties have an institutional and political interest in spending.

Their defeats are an indication that spending is not popular this year.
So is the decision, shocking to many Democrats, of House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey to retire after a career of 41 years. Obey maintains that the vigorous campaign of a young Republican in his district didn't prompt his decision. But his retirement is evidence that, suddenly this year, pork is not kosher.
It has long been a maxim of political scientists that American voters are ideologically conservative and operationally liberal. That is another way of saying that they tend to oppose government spending in the abstract but tend to favor spending on particular programs. It's another explanation of why the culture of appropriators continued to thrive after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 and during the eight years of George W. Bush's presidency.
In the past rebellions against fiscal policy have concentrated on taxes rather than spending. In the 1970s, when inflation was pushing voters into higher tax brackets, tax revolts broke out in California and spread east. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts were popular, but spending cuts did not follow. Bill Clinton's tax increases led to the Republican takeover and to tax cuts at both the federal and state levels but spending boomed under George W. Bush.
The rebellion against the fiscal policies of the Obama Democrats, in contrast, is concentrated on spending. The Tea Party movement began with Rick Santelli's rant in February 2009, long before the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts in January 2011.
What we are seeing is a spontaneous rush of previously inactive citizens into political activity, a movement symbolized but not limited to the Tea Party movement, in response to the vast increases in federal spending that began with the Troubled Asset Relief Program legislation in fall 2008 and accelerated with the Obama Democrats' stimulus package, budget and health care bills.
The Tea Party folk are focusing on something real. Federal spending is rising from about 21 percent to about 25 percent of gross domestic product -- a huge increase in historic terms -- and the national debt is on a trajectory to double as a percentage of GDP within a decade. That is a bigger increase than anything since World War II.
Now the political scientists' maxim seems out of date. The Democrat who won the Pennsylvania 12th Congressional District special election opposed the Democrats' health care law and cap-and-trade bills. The Tea Party-loving Republican who won the Senate nomination in Kentucky jumped out to a big lead. The defeat of the three appropriators, who among them have served 76 years in Congress (and whose fathers served another 42), is the canary that stopped singing in the coal mine.
Will Republicans come forward with a bold plan to roll back government spending? The natural instinct of politicians is to avoid anything bold. The British Conservatives faced this question before the election this month. When Britain was prosperous they promised no cuts at all. When recession hit, they were skittish about proposing cuts and mostly unspecific when they did.
That may have been why they fell short on May 6 of the absolute majority they expected. Now they're in a coalition with the third-party Liberal Democrats, who proposed more cuts, and the cuts they've announced have been widely popular. Boldness seems to work where skittishness did not.
Unlike the Conservatives, Republicans have no elected party leader. But House Republicans like Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Peter Roskam are setting up web sites to solicit voters' proposals for spending cuts, while Paul Ryan has set out a long-term road map toward fiscal probity. Worthy first steps. I think voters are demanding a specific plan to roll back Democrats' spending. Republicans need to supply it.
Michael Barone, The Examiner's senior political analyst, can be contacted at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/mailto:mbarone@washingtonexaminer.com. His columns appear Wednesday and Sunday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

What more can I say? Michael Barone said it all. This is one of the biggest issues among the electorate this election cycle and promises to be a big factor in the 2012 cycle as well. It will hurt the Democrats for sure, but will not help the Republicans unless they have a comprehensive answer and plan.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Pics from This Morning's Sarah Palin-Vaughn Ward Event Here in Boise, Idaho

2010-05-21T15:46:00.001-06:00

Here are the pics that actually turned out from this morning’s rally/fund raiser for the Vaughn Ward for Congress Campaign featuring Sarah Palin. She was as authentic and energetic as ever. She had the crowd excited and energized as only she can do.

If you are in the Idaho 1^st Congressional District, you should check out Vaughn Ward’s campaign site at http://www.vaughnward.com. This is a guy that can return the district to the “R” column. Vaughn truly means what he says and his positions are right in line with those of the district.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Fox News Poll: States Should Have Right To Make Immigration Laws

2010-05-20T14:48:00.002-06:00

Amid the ongoing controversy over Arizona's new immigration law, voters by a 2-to-1 margin think individual states should have the right to make their own immigration laws. And a majority of voters would like their own state to follow Arizona's lead.
A Fox News poll finds 65 percent of American voters think states should have right to make their own immigration laws and protect their borders "if they believe the federal government has failed to act," while 32 percent disagree. Moreover, a 52 percent majority favors their own state passing a bill similar to Arizona’s new immigration law. Some 31 percent would oppose it and another 18 percent is unsure.

Those living in the Midwest (56 percent) and the South (54 percent) are more likely to favor a law like Arizona's in their state than those in the West (49 percent) or the Northeast (45 percent).
The key provisions of Arizona's immigration law receive significant support. Over two-thirds (65 percent) favor allowing local authorities to question anyone who they think may be in the country illegally, while 76 percent favor allowing local officials to detain anyone who cannot prove their immigration status.
Fully 84 percent favor requiring people to show documents proving their immigration status, if officials have reasonable cause to ask for them.

Click here to read the poll
Democrats split over states having the right to make their own immigration laws: 45 percent say they do and 50 percent disagree. Even though a majority of Democrats favor the individual elements of the Arizona law, by a 17 percentage point margin they are more likely to oppose passing a similar law in their state.
Large majorities of Republicans favor the law's basics, and nearly three-quarters favor (73 percent) having an immigration law like Arizona's in their state. Independents favor the law's provisions and over half would support it in their state.
Arizona's new law goes into effect at the end of July. Some groups and businesses that disagree with the law have announced they are boycotting trips and business with the state. Over two-thirds of voters -- 66 percent -- oppose the boycotts.
President Obama said at a press conference Wednesday with Mexican President Calderon that the United States needs to fix its "broken immigration system" and he supports "comprehensive immigration reform."
Only about a third of voters -- 34 percent -- think the country’s immigration laws need to be overhauled completely. Sixty-one percent think instead the country needs to enforce the existing immigration laws.
Varying majorities of Democrats (51 percent), Republicans (73 percent) and independents (61 percent) think enforcing the country's current immigration laws is the right course of action.
The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from May 18 to May 19. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
On immigration in general, more people think immigrants help make the country a better place to live (41 percent) than think they hurt the country (31 percent). Another 25 percent say it depends.
Thirty-one percent think the country should increase the number of legal immigrants allowed to move to the United States, 43 percent think that number should decrease and 17 percent would keep it at its current level.
There's much more agreement on the issue of border security. Most people -- 76 percent -- think the current level of security at the country’s borders is not strict enough. Eighteen percent say it's about right and hardly any -- 2 percent -- say "too strict."
Shocking News
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder -- who publicly questioned the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law -- recently admitted in Congressional testimony that he hadn't read the law.
A large 83 percent majority of Americans voters thinks it is "shocking" for the attorney general -- the country’s chief law enforcement official -- to question a law he hasn't read. For 12 percent, it's not a big deal.
Overall views of Holder are mixed: 36 percent of voters approve and 27 percent disapprove of the job he is doing as attorney general. Nearly 4 in 10 are unable to rate him (37 percent).
Click here to see the raw data

via foxnews.com

Americans overwhelmingly believe that states should have the right to protect their own borders and have their own immigration laws if the states believe that the federal government has failed to do so.
This comes on top of the Congressional Democrats standing ovation after President Calderon slammed the Arizona immigration law in front of OUR supposed representatives.
While Obama and the Congressal Democrats are sucking up to this two bit leader from south of the border who can't even get control of his own country, average Americans wholeheartedly are telling President Calderon to mind his own business.

Posted via web from Conservative Dynamics

Here Comes the Next Massive Taxpayer Bailout: State Pension Funds

2010-05-20T13:57:00.001-06:00

“Joshua Rauh, associate professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University said that, without reform, some state pensions might run out within the decade. By 2030, as many as 31 states may not have the money to pay pensions. And, if these funds exhaust their assets, the size of payments for the benefits they have promised will be too large to cover through taxes, putting pressure on the federal government for a bail-out that could potentially cost more than $1,000bn, he says.”

This is potentially a one trillion dollar or more taxpayer bailout because state governments can’t keep their hands out of the cookie jar. I can’t wait for the unions to apply a heavy hand to Congress and the President while demanding these retirement funds are bailed out by us the taxpayers of this nation. We are not an unlimited ATM machine but apparently many in power have forgotten that fact. Where and when will it stop?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9d90504-6379-11df-a844-00144feab49a.html

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

House Republican Letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Opposing the VAT Tax Option

2010-05-20T12:35:00.001-06:00

The last thing America needs right now is more economic recovery killing taxation. 154 Republicans signed the letter sent to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform opposing the VAT Tax. Kudos to these Republican members of the House who signed onto this letter.

"In a depressed economy, the number one priority of government should be to stimulate job growth. With unemployment at nearly 10 percent, Americans cannot afford the burden of a new job killing tax. But this is exactly what a VAT will do. A VAT will increase the cost of goods and services for all Americans, including the lower and middle classes. It will tax our manufacturers, sending even more jobs overseas. And, it will decrease consumption, which will deepen the recession and suppress entrepreneurialism. This is exactly what has happened in Europe where increased government spending and taxation has led to consistently high unemployment and suppressed economic activity."

“Disappointingly, some in Washington still believe that we must grow our government and the tax base to fix the debt crisis. Recently the President’s own advisors have suggested that a VAT could be good for America. Not even a 19 percent VAT was able to save Greece from a full-blown crisis. We should not expect different results in America.”

http://www.house.gov/pitts/documents/PittsLettertoDebtCommission.pdf

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Conservatives, Liberals, and the Application of Equality

2010-05-19T08:46:00.001-06:00

Both conservatives and liberals believe in equality.

However, they disagree in its application.

Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity.

Liberals believe in equality of outcome.

This is a small but ideologically important difference.

Equality of opportunity mandates that the government stay out of the way and let the individual do all they can to succeed on their own merits and effort.

Equality of outcome requires the government to be involved in every facet of life to guarantee that the end result for each individual is equally successful regardless of effort applied.

In the end, one creates a free society and the other tyranny and despotism.

Which way do you think this country currently headed?

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Text of the Kerry-Leiberman Cap and Trade Bill

2010-05-12T22:55:00.001-06:00

Download now or preview on posterous

APAbill.pdf (1200 KB)

I haven’t had time to read this through yet but wanted to get it out for those who might be interested

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Repealing the 17th Amendment or Imposing Term Limits?

2010-05-12T20:55:00.004-06:00

Here in Idaho there has been a recent dustup regarding the 17th Amendment and comments made by two Republican candidates for Congress. (Idaho Press-Tribune article, editorial) This made me realize here was one area of the Constitution that I was not familiar with the original intent of. So I did some research on the topic and decided that the time had come to seriously look at repealing the 17^th Amendment or, at the very least, constitutionally mandating term limits.

Originally, the Constitution provided that those who served in U.S. House of Representatives would be chosen by the people and those serving in the U.S. Senate would be chosen by the individual state legislatures. The method of choosing U.S. Senators changed when the 17th Amendment, proposed in 1912 under the Taft Presidency, was ratified in 1913 during the Wilson Presidency. With the Amendment’s ratification, those who serve in the U.S. Senate would from that time forward be elected by popular vote. By changing the way a Senator was elected the states, who up until that point had a say in the activities of the Federal Government, no longer had any voice representing them and lost a great deal of sovereignty in one quick act.

Federalist Papers numbers 62 and 63, written by James Madison, speak to the reason behind the state legislatures having the power to appoint Senators. In Federalist Paper 62, Madison states two major reasons that it was decided to have the state legislatures appoint the senators. The first is that “the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty” and that “the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.” Madison’s second reason regarding the Senate method of election is that “the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.”

Thus Federalist Paper 62 states that part of the original intent concerning the state legislatures choosing those who would represent them in the Senate was to enshrine the sovereignty that the states retained after the adoption of the Constitution. By the state legislatures having the authority to elect/appoint the Senators representing their state, the states had a voice in the actions and creation of law at the federal level. Any legislation put forth in Congress had to receive the majority approval of both the people and the states. This power sharing between the people and the states allowed for the keeping of improper or bad legislation from seeing fruition.

In Federalist Paper 63 Madison argues that by having the state legislatures choose those who serve in the Senate provides a check that “may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.” Knowing human nature and how people can be whipped into a frenzy over an issue through the use of an emotional appeal, Madison claims that the means in which Senators are chosen will provide an effective block to such events or at least slow the process down enough in order for logic to take hold and override any emotional frenzy that may be occurring over a specific issue.

Madison’s logic behind this type of check being effective against such irregular passion, illicit advantage, or misled is “that a people spread over an extensive region cannot, like the crowded inhabitants of a small district, be subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures.” Madison comments at the question of “how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?” However Madison warns that “this advantage ought not to be considered as superseding the use of auxiliary precautions.”

With the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, the reasoning behind original intent was ignored and overridden with the states eagerly following along. With this one act the states gave up much of any remaining semblance of sovereignty guaranteed them in the Constitution. The federal government no longer was beholden to the states desires because the states no longer had a voice. There was no way for the states as sovereign entities within the republic to stop any legislation that impacted them. There was also no protection from a sudden surge of irregular passion among the people or illicit advantage of political parties or interest groups. The people were left to their own devices whether for good or ill now that they alone decided who would populate the entirety of Congress. What this Amendment has done is to allow the federal government to constantly and consistently chip away at what little sovereignty the states have to do the will of the citizens of their respective states on a local level through unfunded mandates, federal regulations that inhibit the states’ ability to do what is best for their respective citizens, and extorting compliance through the threat of withheld federal funds to a wayward state. It has also allowed the federal government to whittle away the people’s liberties and freedoms in exchange for unsustainable levels of handouts, benefits, and false illusions of equality. With this emotion rather than logic mindset we have seen the passage healthcare reform, massive bailouts, increased social spending leading to increased national debt, and now the possibility of economy busting Cap and Trade legislation becoming law. It has even gone so far as a Congressional Bill looking to rectify the inequality of women’s restroom access in federal buildings as compared to that of men.

The 17^th Amendment has been a major force in getting America into the position that it is today: broke and overstepping its Constitutional bounds. To begin fixing the problems that we as Americans face today, this Amendment will have to be revisited either through complete repeal or through modification. Despite returning to the original intent of the Senate and providing an additional backstop to the ever increasing federal power over the states and the people, complete repeal does not have the necessary popular support needed for repeal. Trying to take the ability to vote for Senators away from the people and place it back into the hands of the state legislatures will not sit well with the American people so at this time repeal is not a serious consideration.

However, a Constitutional Amendment is a real possibility. The popularity of term limits has been increasing over the recent past. In a recent Fox News poll, 93% of respondents supported term limits for Congress. While this is an unscientific poll, it speaks volumes for the American mindset. Any legislative action at the state level has already been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thorton (93-1456)). The majority in this 5-4 ruling stated that: “State imposition of term limits for congressional service would effect such a fundamental change in the constitutional framework that it must come through a constitutional amendment properly passed under the procedures set forth in Article V. Absent such an amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers.” Therefore a Constitutional Amendment adding term limits very well could have the requisite popular support to be ratified. It must be well understood that such an amendment would not survive going through both chambers of Congress. The possibility of even clearing one chamber with the requisite percentage of votes is highly unlikely. Many of those currently in Congress see it as a life long career and have no intention of supporting or doing anything that will jeopardize it. Thus We the People must get our state legislatures to begin the dialogue moving in that direction rather than expecting Congress to do it on their own.

If strong, vocal, popular support can spread into enough states across America, we can succeed. Then We the People can begin the process of cleaning up the mess created by the status quo career politicians and bureaucrats and take back our country from those who seek the continual growth of power, regardless of party affiliation. With this being a campaign year, attend public events with candidates and ask them about their position on the subject while expressing yours. It won’t be the repealing of the 17^th Amendment, but it will be a good, solid start.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Black Hopefuls Pick This Year in G.O.P. Races ( NYT)

2010-05-05T21:26:00.002-06:00

The House has not had a black Republican since 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma left after eight years.
But now black Republicans are running across the country — from a largely white swath of beach communities in Florida to the suburbs of Phoenix, where an African-American candidate has raised more money than all but two of his nine (white) Republican competitors in the primary.
Party officials and the candidates themselves acknowledge that they still have uphill fights in both the primaries and the general elections, but they say that black Republicans are running with a confidence they have never had before. They credit the marriage of two factors: dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, and the proof, as provided by Mr. Obama, that blacks can get elected.

“I ran in 2008 and raised half a million dollars, and the state party didn’t support me and the national party didn’t support me,” said Allen West, who is running for Congress in Florida and is one of roughly five black candidates the party believes could win. “But we came back and we’re running and things are looking great.”
But interviews with many of the candidates suggest that they felt empowered by Mr. Obama’s election, that it made them realize that what had once seemed impossible — for a black candidate to win election with substantial white support — was not.
“There is no denying that one of the things that came out of the election of Obama was that you have a lot of African-Americans running in both parties now,” said Vernon Parker, who is running for an open seat in Arizona’s Third District. His competition in the Aug. 24 primary includes the son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, Ben Quayle.
Princella Smith, who is running for an open seat in Arkansas, said she viewed the president’s victory through both the lens of history and partisan politics. “Aside from the fact that I disagree fundamentally with all his views, I am proud of my nation for proving that we have the ability to do something like that,” Ms. Smith said.
State and national party officials say that this year’s cast of black Republicans is far more experienced than the more fringy players of yore, and include elected officials, former military personnel and candidates who have run before.
Mr. Parker is the mayor of Paradise Valley, Ariz. Ryan Frazier is a councilman in Aurora, Colo., one of four at-large members who represent the whole city. And Tim Scott is the only black Republican elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives since Reconstruction.
“These are not just people pulled out of the hole,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a black conservative group. That is “the nice thing about being on this side of history,” he said.
He added that the candidates might be helped by the presence of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee who is black and ran for the Senate himself in 2006.
“Party affiliation is not a barrier to inspiration,” Mr. Steele said in an e-mail message. “Certainly, the president’s election was and remains an inspiration to many.”
But Democrats and other political experts express skepticism about black Republicans’ chances in November. “In 1994 and 2000, there were 24 black G.O.P. nominees,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic political strategist who ran Al Gore’s presidential campaign and who is black. “And you didn’t see many of them win their elections.”
Tavis Smiley, a prominent black talk show host who has repeatedly criticized Republicans for not doing more to court black voters, said, “It’s worth remembering that the last time it was declared the ‘Year of the Black Republican,’ it fizzled out.”
In many ways, this subset of Republicans is latching on to the basic themes propelling most of their party’s campaigns this year — the call for smaller government, less spending and stronger national security — rather than building platforms around social conservatism.
“Things have evolved,” said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who is heavily involved in recruiting Republican candidates. “I think partly the level of hostility to Obama, Pelosi and Reid makes a lot of people pragmatically more open to a coalition from the standpoint of being a long-term majority party.”
Many of the candidates are trying to align themselves with the Tea Partiers, insisting that the racial dynamics of that movement have been overblown. Videos taken at some Tea Party rallies show some participants holding up signs with racially inflammatory language.
A recent New York Times/CBS News poll found that 25 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters think that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites, compared with 11 percent of the general public.
The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”
There is also some evidence that black voters rally around specific conservative causes. A case in point was a 2008 ballot initiative in California outlawing same-sex marriage that passed in large part because of support from black voters in Southern California.
Still, black Republicans face a double hurdle: black Democrats who are disinclined to back them in a general election, and incongruity with white Republicans, who sometimes do not welcome the blacks whom party officials claim to covet as new members.
This spring, Gov. Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia was roundly attacked for not mentioning slavery in his Confederate History Month proclamation, which he later said was a “major omission.” Black candidates said these types of gaffes posed problems in drawing African-Americans to their party, but also underscored their need to be there.
“I think what the governor failed to do was to recognize the pain and the emotion that was really sparked by the institution of slavery,” said Mr. Frazier of Colorado. “As a Republican, I think I have a responsibility to continue to work within my party to avoid those types of barriers. The key for the Republican Party is to engage every community on the issues they care about and not act as if they don’t exist.”

via nytimes.com

This is a good sign. It shows that the MSM is completely wrong in its painting of Tea Parties and the Republican Party as all white groups that were anti-minority. Bet this will be the only place in the MSM to admit what the NY Times just did.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics' posterous

Report: Congress Makes Too Many Vague Laws (Yahoo! News)

2010-05-04T17:23:00.002-06:00

WASHINGTON – A conservative think tank and criminal defense lawyers are forming an unusual alliance to try to get Congress to quit writing criminal laws so loosely that they subject innocent people to unjust prosecution and prison.
A new study by the Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers finds that nearly two dozen federal laws enacted in 2005 and 2006 to combat nonviolent crime lack an adequate provision that someone accused of violating the laws must have had a "guilty mind," or criminal intent.
"It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that, before criminal punishment can be imposed, the government must prove both a guilty act and a guilty mind," the groups said in the report.
Even when Congress includes a "guilty mind" provision in a law, "it is often so weak that it does not protect defendants from punishment for making honest mistakes," or committing minor transgressions, the report said.

The Supreme Court is reviewing three cases involving prosecution under a federal fraud statute that Justice Antonin Scalia has described as a potent tool in the hands of "headline-grabbing prosecutors" in pursuit of behavior that may be unappealing or ethically questionable, but not necessarily criminal.
Scalia said the law is so vague it could be employed against a mayor for using political clout to get a good table at a restaurant or a salaried employee who phones in sick to go to a ballgame.
Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., chairman of the House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee, said too many bills get through Congress without enough study or refinement.
"You can't prosecute somebody for something they didn't know was a crime," Scott said. He and Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, the senior Republican on the panel, held a hearing on the issue last year.
Among examples of the problem, the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act of 2005 makes it a crime to include false statements in an application for leave and could be applied to simple mistakes, such as a woman entering the wrong year when asked for her hiring date, the report said.
Heritage and the defense lawyers say lawmakers can take a few steps to improve matters, including requiring the House and Senate judiciary committees to review all proposed criminal laws and writing into law that defendants should get the benefit of the doubt when laws are not written clearly.

via news.yahoo.com

This just doesn't happen in criminal law but in all other aspects of legislation. Having worked as a lobbyist I have seen this occur for two reasons. One is that it is sometimes tough to write a bill that closes all the loopholes intended and becomes too strict making it impossible to fully cover the intended area of concern. The second is an intentionally vague writing of a piece of legislation (Cap and Trade, Healthcare Reform, etc.). It is the second intention that is so dangerous. This is done as to leave enough wiggle room so unpopular actions can be taken under the "authority" granted in the bill without having to spell it out clearly and risking a public backlash.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics' posterous

Happy Meal Toys Could be Banned in California County

2010-04-27T17:46:00.003-06:00

Happy Meal Toys Could be Banned in California County
Tuesday, April 27, 2010

County supervisors in California have proposed that toys included in fast-food restaurant meals for kids be banned, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Officials in Santa Clara are convinced that luring kids into eating foods with high sugar, sodium and fat by using toys will make them overweight and cause long term health problems.
This proposal is believed to the first of this type, and would ban the inclusion of a toy in any kids meal with more than 485 calories, 600 mg of salt, or high amounts of sugar or fat. These guidelines would cause all McDonald’s happy meals—even those with apple sticks instead of French fries—to be served without a toy.
Supporters of the ban argue that it will force restaurants to offer nutritious foods to kids. Others have said this is another case of the government getting too involved in parenting decisions.
Click here to read more from the Los Angeles Times

Welcome to the end result of Obamacare folks! Anything that could be deemed a health "crisis" will be harshly dealt with by the bureaucrats who think they know better than you do. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.

G.O.P. Threatens Seats Long Held by Democrats

2010-04-25T19:44:00.002-06:00

Mr. Obey is one of nearly a dozen well-established House Democrats who are bracing for something they rarely face: serious competition. Their predicament is the latest sign of distress for their party and underlines why Republicans are confident of making big gains in November and perhaps even winning back the House.
The fight for the midterm elections is not confined to traditional battlegrounds, where Republicans and Democrats often swap seats every few cycles. In the Senate, Democrats are struggling to hold on to, among others, seats once held by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Democrats are preparing to lose as many as 30 House seats — including a wave of first-term members — and Republicans have expanded their sights to places where political challenges seldom develop.

“It’s not a lifetime appointment,” said Sean Duffy, a Republican district attorney here in the Northwoods of Wisconsin, where he has established himself as one of the most aggressive challengers to Mr. Obey since he went to Washington in 1969. “There are changes in this country going on, and people aren’t happy.”
Mr. Obey, who leads the powerful Appropriations Committee, is one of three House Democratic chairmen who have drawn serious opposition. Representatives John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, who oversees the Budget Committee, and Ike Skelton of Missouri, who runs the Armed Services Committee, have been warned by party leaders to step up the intensity of their campaigns to help preserve the Democratic majority.
These established House Democrats find themselves in the same endangered straits as some of their newer colleagues, particularly those who were swept into office in 2008 by Mr. Obama as he scored victories in traditionally Republican states like Indiana and Virginia.
Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said he would consider anything short of taking back the House a failure. Republicans say they have not recruited strong candidates in all districts, but both parties agree that Republicans are within reach of capturing the 40 additional seats needed to win control. Republicans also are likely to eat into the Democratic majority in the Senate, though their prospects of taking control remain slim.
Democratic Congressional officials — well aware that a president’s party typically loses seats in midterm elections — have long been preparing for a tough year. But that Mr. Obey here in Wisconsin and other veteran lawmakers like Representative Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota suddenly find themselves in a fight reflects an increasingly sour mood toward the Democratic Party and incumbents.
“He’s supporting the party line of the Democrats, which is not consistent with North Dakota,” said Rick Berg, a Republican state representative from North Dakota who is challenging Mr. Pomeroy. “In the past, we’ve been more conservative at home than the people we send to Washington.”
Asked if this was a good time to be a Republican candidate, Mr. Berg laughed and said, “I sure think so.”
Mr. Pomeroy, who has served for 18 years as the state’s only congressman, won two years ago with 62 percent of the vote. Now he is among the top targets of House Republicans and is fighting without the help of one of the state’s incumbent Democratic senators on the ballot, since Byron L. Dorgan chose to retire.
“Some cycles are more challenging as a candidate than others,” Mr. Pomeroy said. “This should be in the range of challenging cycles.”
Democrats worry that some lawmakers who have avoided tough races in the past could be at added risk of defeat because they are out of practice, slow on their feet and often reluctant to acknowledge the threat they are facing. The chairman of the House re-election effort, Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, has called mandatory face-to-face meetings with vulnerable members to monitor their campaigns.
In the Seventh District of Wisconsin, which covers 17,787 square miles from the middle of the state to Lake Superior, signs of Mr. Obey’s service in Congress are found in new bridges, highway expansions and countless other projects. Yet there are fewer signs of Mr. Obey himself. At the Democratic Party office in Wausau, his hometown, campaign placards hang in the window for Senator Russ Feingold, but none for Mr. Obey.
When asked to discuss his re-election bid, Mr. Obey declined, saying that it was too early to begin talking politics and that he was focused on his legislative duties. “I have never met anyone who thought political campaigns were too short,” he said.
Mr. Obey, 71, was elected two years before Mr. Duffy, 38, was born. Mr. Duffy is widely seen as leading in the Republican primary — his opponent is the candidate who lost to Mr. Obey two years ago by 22 percentage points — and his race has drawn support from party leaders in Washington, Tea Party activists and Sarah Palin.
He has been elected four times as the district attorney of Ashland County, but the attention surrounding him began in 1997 when he was on MTV’s “The Real World: Boston.” He also is well-known here as a champion lumberjack sports competitor.
He said he decided to challenge Mr. Obey because of his leading role in the economic stimulus bill, health care legislation and the growth of government. “I know that I can have a serious impact on the direction of the country if I could take out Obey,” he said.
But Mr. Obey, who has a campaign balance of $1.4 million compared with $400,000 for Mr. Duffy, is also emblematic of a bright spot for Democrats: a financial advantage.
Mr. Sessions, the Republican re-election committee chairman, acknowledged that his party might raise less money, but said Republicans would sweep away dozens of Democrats because of the searing intensity of their voters, which he said exceeded the conservative spirit of 1994. When Republicans won control of Congress that year, the tide claimed several top Democrats, including Speaker Thomas S. Foley.
In the Senate, Republicans also are looking to make major gains, though their hopes of winning control were set back when Tommy Thompson, a former Wisconsin governor, decided against challenging Mr. Feingold, who is seeking a fourth term. Democrats control the Senate by 59 to 41 seats.
To win the majority, Republicans would essentially have to run the table in races across the country: fending off Democratic challenges to four vulnerable Republican seats in Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio, and capturing 10 seats now held by Democrats. Even in this climate, Republican officials concede that an error-free year is unlikely. Republicans appear to have a shot at winning races in Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, North Dakota and Pennsylvania.
They would also have to pick up the seats of decidedly more entrenched — though not unbeatable — incumbents, like Senators Barbara Boxer of California or Patty Murray of Washington.
But the Republicans have suffered a series of setbacks that could complicate their efforts in the Senate. In Florida, the possibility that Gov. Charlie Crist might abandon the Republican primary and run as an independent could create a three-way race, putting a state in play that Republicans thought they would not have to worry about.
Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said that while he was expecting losses, he saw signs of a turnaround, including increased contributions and enthusiasm from core Democrats.
“I’m not euphoric — don’t misunderstand me,” he said. “I just get a sense that we are moving in a better direction. I don’t think Republicans are taking either one of them, but I’m damn sure they are not taking the Senate.”
Jeff Zeleny reported from Ashland, Wis., and Adam Nagourney from Washington. Carl Hulse contributed reporting from Washington.

via nytimes.com

This is what happens when a political party in power ignores the desires of the people. The Republicans faced it in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democrats face it in 2010 and possibly 2012.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics' posterous

Running on the Promise to Repeal Obamacare is Short Sighted and Dangerous Strategy for Republican Candidates

2010-04-24T20:30:00.003-06:00

Before I start getting hate mail/comments or being told I am not a true conservative, hear me out. I didn’t support Obamacare and would like to see it repealed as much as anyone. However, it isn’t going to happen anytime soon for two BIG reasons.

First, there is the requirement to obtain a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress in order to override a Presidential veto in Article I Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution. I have not seen a poll that shows Republicans taking a two-thirds control of both chambers of Congress and I strongly doubt if any Democrats will cross party lines in order to help override an Obama veto. So even if the Republicans can gain enough seats in both the House and Senate come November to pass a repeal bill, there is little chance that they will be able to muster the necessary number of votes to override an Obama veto in one chamber never mind doing it in both. Thus it will become a colossal Republican failure that Obama and the Democrats, with the enthusiastic help of the lapdog mainstream media, will capitalize on and make sure is well publicized.

Second, no political party in history from my recollection has ever repealed a major piece of social legislation. It doesn’t matter if it is the Democrats, Republicans, Bull Moose Party, etc. NO ONE HAS DONE IT! Each piece of social legislation creates its own constituency group and advocates thus creating a dangerous predicament for those who wish to be re-elected at some point. Those doing such a thing would be demonized viciously and unmercifully on a regular basis in a variety of venues. One has to look no further than the media coverage on those who opposed Obamacare running up to and after its passage into law.

Should Republican candidates across this great nation keep repeating the repeal now mantra all the way to Congress, they will find that they have made a grave error. Continuing to follow this strategy to its endgame would be a godsend for Democrats in 2012. As everyone knows, American voters are tired of being promised the moon by candidates they send to Congress only to get a grain of sand in return. If Republicans are swept into power in November under this slogan, it will come back to haunt them and voters quite possibly could sweep them back out of power in 2012. If this happens, the chances of a Republican President being elected at that time will be in serious jeopardy as well. Voters are not stupid, promising something and not delivering can be a nightmare for incumbents of the party in power at the time, especially Republicans. Just ask former President George H.W. Bush about the “read my lips no new taxes” slogan and how well that worked for him at re-election time.

So how does a Republican candidate handle this hot button topic? That is a very easy answer that should have been put into play as soon as it was apparent that major gains for Republicans were being predicted for the mid-term elections in November. A more appropriate position Republican candidates should take would be presented something like this: “I support the repeal of the recently passed healthcare reform and replace it with common sense reform that does not greatly expand government control over the healthcare industry. However, due to the political climate in Washington D.C. and the Obama Administration currently in power, it is not possible at this time. Therefore, I support not funding the provisions of the healthcare reform bill until the successful passage of an appropriate repeal and replace reform bill is feasible and will be diligent in supporting and passing such legislation at that time.”

It may not be what the American voter wants to hear, but it will be the honest truth and a good way for Republicans to keep from being savaged by the Democrats about it during the 2012 election cycle.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics' posterous

Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill (Update: Unveiling on Hold After Sen. Graham Balks Over Immigration Reform)

2010-04-24T18:35:00.001-06:00

Update: This just in from Politico.com. "The planned Monday unveiling of a bipartisan climate bill was postponed after one of its three authors, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), said that he couldn’t support the legislation if Democrats moved it to the backburner to focus first on immigration reform. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced the postponement Saturday evening, saying that 'external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only temporarily.'”

Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill

In their last and best shot at enacting a climate bill this year, Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) plan to unveil a draft Monday that will provide a streamlined system for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the utilities and transport sector but still aims to reduce the nation's carbon dioxide output by 17 percent in 10 years.

The measure offers numerous concessions to businesses, including allowing manufacturing and energy-intensive industries four years before they would be subject to the carbon cap; provisions for offshore oil drilling; $10 billion for the coal industry to capture and store its carbon emissions; and enough loan guarantees and incentives to provide for the construction of 12 nuclear power plants.

"Because of the broad-based industry support that I expect the bill will garner, both at the rollout as well as beyond, I think this is the best path forward," said Fred Krupp, who heads the Environmental Defense Fund.

In a telephone briefing Thursday for business supporters, Kerry said the Edison Electric Institute -- whose members generate the bulk of the nation's electricity -- would endorse the measure, along with three of the nation's five biggest oil and gas companies. He did not name the three oil companies, but a source familiar with the negotiations said Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips would support the bill.

Significant sections of the bill remained blank as of Friday evening, according to several sources, and that lack of specificity could deter some senators and many business interests from endorsing the measure at the outset.

"I'd like to support it, but I have to look at it," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), adding that she was concerned about what it would do to home heating oil and gas prices. "In this economy, we have to see how much we can do."

One of the most complex areas has been the question of how to limit carbon emissions from transportation. Initially the senators had hoped to create a linked fee on fuels that would be tied to the price of carbon, but that idea came under attack last week as a gas tax.

"If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). "I don't care whether you call it a linked fee. It is a tax on energy."

To avoid that pitfall, the bill's authors are going to require oil and gas producers to buy special, non-tradable emissions allowances, at a price set by the Environmental Protection Agency. It would be pegged to the carbon market and must be retired at a certain date.

"We're not going to raise gas prices," Graham said.

To keep utility costs from rising too high, two-thirds of the revenue generated by auctioning off pollution allowances for utilities would be returned to consumers through local electricity distributors.

And in an effort to win over moderate Republicans, such as Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), the bill will preempt both the states' and the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as long as emitters comply with the standards outlined in the measure. The agency will monitor and enforce compliance with the law.

The measure aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels in a decade and 80 percent by 2050.

Thomas J. Gibson, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, said inclusion of the emissions cap means that someone in the business sector would suffer because the number of pollution allowances the federal government could give away are limited. "If the utilities and refineries are going to be the winners, who are going to be the losers?" he asked.

Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, said the bill constituted the kind of compromises that often take place when crafting major legislation.

"The bill is ultimately about the grand bargain of pulling together national security interests with environmental concerns, and an economic job program to create clean-energy jobs," he said, adding that his group was still evaluating its position on the measure.

via washingtonpost.com

Surprisingly, according to this article, the Senate bill appears to be less draconian than the House bill. But then again Rep. Waxman is the prime sponsor of the House version and he is not known for using common sense in this area. The big question is what are the blank spots going to say when they are filled in. We shall see, but either bill will be bad for the economy and America while being good for government growth.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics' posterous

Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill

2010-04-24T16:32:00.001-06:00

In their last and best shot at enacting a climate bill this year, Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) plan to unveil a draft Monday that will provide a streamlined system for capping greenhouse gas emissions from the utilities and transport sector but still aims to reduce the nation's carbon dioxide output by 17 percent in 10 years.

The measure offers numerous concessions to businesses, including allowing manufacturing and energy-intensive industries four years before they would be subject to the carbon cap; provisions for offshore oil drilling; $10 billion for the coal industry to capture and store its carbon emissions; and enough loan guarantees and incentives to provide for the construction of 12 nuclear power plants.

"Because of the broad-based industry support that I expect the bill will garner, both at the rollout as well as beyond, I think this is the best path forward," said Fred Krupp, who heads the Environmental Defense Fund.

In a telephone briefing Thursday for business supporters, Kerry said the Edison Electric Institute -- whose members generate the bulk of the nation's electricity -- would endorse the measure, along with three of the nation's five biggest oil and gas companies. He did not name the three oil companies, but a source familiar with the negotiations said Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips would support the bill.

Significant sections of the bill remained blank as of Friday evening, according to several sources, and that lack of specificity could deter some senators and many business interests from endorsing the measure at the outset.

"I'd like to support it, but I have to look at it," said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), adding that she was concerned about what it would do to home heating oil and gas prices. "In this economy, we have to see how much we can do."

One of the most complex areas has been the question of how to limit carbon emissions from transportation. Initially the senators had hoped to create a linked fee on fuels that would be tied to the price of carbon, but that idea came under attack last week as a gas tax.

"If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). "I don't care whether you call it a linked fee. It is a tax on energy."

To avoid that pitfall, the bill's authors are going to require oil and gas producers to buy special, non-tradable emissions allowances, at a price set by the Environmental Protection Agency. It would be pegged to the carbon market and must be retired at a certain date.

"We're not going to raise gas prices," Graham said.

To keep utility costs from rising too high, two-thirds of the revenue generated by auctioning off pollution allowances for utilities would be returned to consumers through local electricity distributors.

And in an effort to win over moderate Republicans, such as Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), the bill will preempt both the states' and the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as long as emitters comply with the standards outlined in the measure. The agency will monitor and enforce compliance with the law.

The measure aims to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels in a decade and 80 percent by 2050.

Thomas J. Gibson, president of the American Iron and Steel Institute, said inclusion of the emissions cap means that someone in the business sector would suffer because the number of pollution allowances the federal government could give away are limited. "If the utilities and refineries are going to be the winners, who are going to be the losers?" he asked.

Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, said the bill constituted the kind of compromises that often take place when crafting major legislation.

"The bill is ultimately about the grand bargain of pulling together national security interests with environmental concerns, and an economic job program to create clean-energy jobs," he said, adding that his group was still evaluating its position on the measure.

via washingtonpost.com

Posted via web from conservativedynamics' posterous

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

2010-04-23T17:57:00.001-06:00

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

By PAUL DAVENPORT and JONATHAN J. COOPER
The Associated Press
Friday, April 23, 2010; 7:08 PM

PHOENIX -- Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation's gateway for human and drug smuggling.

With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were "overreacting" and that she wouldn't tolerate racial profiling.

"We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," Brewer said after signing the law. "But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."

Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level - or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.

The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants, allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws, and make it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it "launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions."

Brewer ordered the state's law enforcement licensing agency to develop a training course on how to implement the law while respecting civil rights.

The bill will take effect in late July or early August.

At the Capitol, some 2,000 protesters booed county Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox when she announced that "the governor did not listen to our prayers."

"It's going to change our lives," said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. "We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants."

Brewer signed the bill in a state auditorium about a mile from the Capitol complex where demonstrators have protested the legislation since the measure was approved by lawmakers on Monday. Their numbers grew steadily throughout the week, with buses bringing protesters from as far away as Los Angeles.

Brewer, who faces a tough election battle and growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants, said the law "protects every Arizona citizen."

Anti-immigrant anger has swelled in the past month, after rancher Rob Krentz was found dead on his land north of Douglas, near the Mexico border. Authorities believe he was fatally shot by an illegal immigrant possibly connected to a drug smuggling cartel.

Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, and its harsh, remote desert serves as the corridor for the majority of illegal immigrants and drugs moving north into the U.S. from Mexico.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, said he closed his Arizona offices at noon Friday after his staff in Yuma and Tucson were flooded with calls this week, some from people threatening violent acts and shouting racial slurs. He called on businesses and groups looking for convention and meeting locations to boycott Arizona.

The bill's Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were "against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law."

Pearce said the legislation would remove "political handcuffs" from police and help drive illegal immigrants from the state.

"Illegal is illegal," said Pearce, a driving force on the issue in Arizona. "We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."

--

Associated Press Writer Julie Pace in Washington contributed to this report.

via washingtonpost.com

"'It's going to change our lives,' said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. 'We can't walk to school any more. We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants.'" Interesting words from a 13-year old. Obviously he has not been raised to respect the law or those who enforce it. This is no different than any other law passed. If you aren't doing something wrong, then there is nothing to fear. Besides the only time that law enforcement can ask about immigration or citizenship status is when there is probable cause.

"Obama called the Arizona bill 'misguided' and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level - or leave the door open to 'irresponsibility by others.'" Since when is it "irresponsible" to enforce the law or have a state pass a law allowing enforcement of a federal law when it is clearly their constitutional right and those in the federal government are willfully not upholding that law? Arizona has the constitutional authority to pass such legislation when it is an issue within their state boundaries. Apparently that has become forgotten in this day and age of the all powerful, all providing federal government.

"The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it 'launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.'" What a ridiculous statement. This is like saying that we shouldn't enforce laws against theft or murder because it will only cause crime to increase and cause fear amongst those who commit those crimes. There is no logic in the statement. The only way that there will be an increase in crime, fear, and distrust is if those who oppose this bill are the cause.

I am getting tired of having everything dealing with immigration being spun to be anti-Mexican or anti-Hispanic. There are plenty of other nationalities and ethnicities who are in this country illegally for various reasons. Remember several of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally having stayed past the expiration of their visas. Will Hispanics here illegally be more at risk to being caught than others in Arizona? You bet. They have the largest population among those who are in the country illegally in Arizona.

I am all for immigration and allowing those who want to come to this great country to be allowed in. However, like every other action it must be done in a legal manner. Are there issues within immigration that need to be fixed? Yes. But still the law needs to be followed until those changes are made.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics' posterous

Cap and Trade Part 1: The Cap and Trade Programs According to the Congressional Budget Offce Cost Estimate

2010-04-21T22:29:00.002-06:00

I have just finished the CBO report for H.R. 2454, otherwise known as Cap and Trade, and it is just like a well written 1,428 page horror story that gets scarier with every turned page. In fact it is such a well written horror story that only Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA7) was willing to be a co-sponsor. The CBO report shed a bit of a different light on the legislation than the summary because it lays out the fiscal damage and government growth points better. It is also easier to read and understand. Despite these benefits, there is also a great deal of pertinent information that the CBO report does not touch on. Therefore, I will write a multi-part series on this fiasco and will do the same when the Senate version becomes available on April 26^th.

H.R. 2454 is all about attempting to mitigate America’s role in manmade global warming while assisting and encouraging other countries to do the same. The bill will limit the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by a variety of sources from power generating facilities to product manufacturers and everything in between. H.R. 2454 will also mandate a myriad of energy efficiency programs as well as the creation of a national smart grid, regulate the efficiency of a standard light bulb, create new agencies and bureaucracies, implement more cash for clunkers programs, and the list goes on. The hardest hit will be the power production entities and manufacturers. There are several points that need to be brought to light from the CBO report. Each point will be examined in its own part of this series. The first is the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and subsequent government “allowances” for emitting such gases.

According to the CBO report, in 2012 the emissions will be capped at the equivalent of 4,581 metric tons of CO2 for certain covered entities. Just as a note, electrical production facilities are the lion’s share of these covered entities. Depending on the gas emitted there is a conversion factor involved to determine that equivalency. This cap is equal to approximately 97% of the emissions from the same covered entities in 2005. Then end result is that by 2050 the emissions from these covered entities equal approximately 17% of the 2005 baseline. That equates to an allowable level of emissions for the covered entities of 1,035 metric tons per year or a reduction of 3,546 metric tons. The targeted levels of emissions are controlled through allowances distributed or sold by the Federal Government. Each year, the allowable levels of emissions are divided into three categories: the strategic reserve held by the government which can only be sold if the market value of those allowances available becomes cost prohibitive, the allowances distributed to covered entities without cost, and those allowances sold at auction. The percentage of the allowanced given to the various entities versus those auctioned off starts quite large. As time goes by the percentage gap between the two closes and then reverses until only 30% of the allowances are given freely with the rest being auctioned off. As this occurs, the total number of allowances available decreases as the emission levels decrease thus increasing the cost of doing business in addition to the costs associated with adjusting business practices and procedures to continually maintain compliance with the ever decreasing emission limits.

The graph below shows the emission allowances mandated by the legislation.

As with all government programs there are expenses involved for the entities being regulated. The Cap and Trade Programs are no different except for the amount of money involved. The CBO estimates that approximately 7,400 private and intergovernmental entities will be covered by Cap and Trade emission allowance allocation programs. The graph below shows the estimated costs to these 7,400 entities if they purchased all of the allowances available for auction each year. However, these allowances can be purchased by anyone who has the money. Once purchased, these allowances can be used, traded, stockpiled, or retired. Therefore, the figures presented are very conservative. The cost per allowance for years 2012 to 2019 are from the CBO report. From 2020 to 2050, the annual increase is an average of the increases from 2012 and 2050 without any addition for market forces. It should be expected that as the emission allowances decrease with the reduction in limits, the value for such allowances will skyrocket. Also remember that the number of freely distributed allowances as compared to those auctioned will decrease on an annual basis until they are just 30 percent of the total available.

It is evident that from the limits and allowance portions of the Cap and Trade programs will present daunting issues for those entities covered. These financial impacts from these programs as well will have a very chilling effect on the economy is ways we cannot yet imagine. However, it is just the tip of the iceberg. I will be examining the various other programs and effects of this bill in the near future as well as the expansion of power and financial windfalls of the Federal Government.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics' posterous

H4892/S3081 Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, & Prosecution Act. A Congressional Bill That Should Raise Concerns.

2010-04-16T23:59:00.002-06:00

This legislation sets forth the parameters in which suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents can be held and interrogated. The bill allows for both U.S. Citizens and non-citizens to fall under the provisions of this legislation. Attacks or the purposeful and material support of such attacks that occur in either a domestic or foreign location against American interests, or American coalition partners, are covered by this bill. The definitions of a terrorist act, terrorist, and unprivileged enemy belligerent are also laid out. The legislation is aimed at “high value” detainees but the definition of a “high value” detainee can be construed to cover a large swath of detainees both current and future. Also included is a provision for the detention without trial or charges until the ceasing of hostilities in which the detainee was involved or materially supported.

Thus this legislation relates to both domestic and foreign individuals. If I am reading the bill right, a citizen who is accused of either committing or supporting an act of violence against the United States or its coalition partners can be held indefinitely without charges or trial. Therefore, there is a potential conflict with current Constitutional protections and due process. The section about purposefully and materially supporting such actions is not well spelled out and could be potentially construed to be a variety of activities, including political positions, statements, speeches, etc. Despite this bill being pushed in increase the security of Americans, the provisions within it have the potential to be used to quash political opposition in the name of controlling/fighting domestic terrorists. I know it sounds conspiratorial, but that possibility remains due to the legislation’s language.

Both House and Senate bills are virtually identical leaving little need for a conference committee, should they pass their respective chambers as is, so the bill has a better chance of sliding straight through with little in the way of resistance or speed bumps. This piece of legislation will be passed in the name of protecting America from terrorists. However, in my opinion, the justifiable actions to invoke the use of this legislation are a bit sketchy and left intentionally vague. The big question is whether Obama would sign such a piece of legislation into law should it reach his desk.

Bill Specifics

Official Title as Introduced: A bill to provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for other purposes.

Short Title: Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.
============================================================================================================================

Senate version (S3081) sponsors: Mr. MCCAIN (AZ) for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN (CT), Mr. INHOFE (OK), Mr. BROWN (MA), Mr. WICKER (MS), Mr. CHAMBLISS (GA), Mr. LEMIEUX (FL), Mr. SESSIONS (AL), and Mr. VITTER (LA) ( Sen. Vitter withdrew 3/25/10).

Senate version introduction date: 03/04/10

Current Committee Assignment: Committee on the Judiciary
============================================================================================================================

House version (H4829) sponsor: Rep McKeon, Howard P. "Buck" [CA-25].

House version introduction date: 03/19/10

Current Committee Assignment: Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services and the Judiciary

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

Summary of Senate Bill (House Bill has no summary listed at this time):
Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 - Requires an individual who is suspected of engaging in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism and who may be an unprivileged enemy belligerent to be placed in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status. Allows the detention and interrogation of such individuals for a reasonable time after capture or coming into custody. Defines "unprivileged enemy belligerent" as an individual who: (1) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; (2) has purposely and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (3) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of capture.
Authorizes the President to establish an interagency team composed of executive branch personnel with expertise in national security, terrorism, intelligence, interrogation, or law enforcement to interrogate an individual placed in military custody and to determine if such individual is an unprivileged enemy belligerent. Designates such team as a high-value detainee interrogation group.
Designates certain individuals in military custody as high value detainees based upon the potential threat such individuals pose for an attack on the United States, its citizens, or military personnel, the potential intelligence value of such individuals, or membership in al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist group. Directs the high-value detainee interrogation group to conduct interrogations of such individuals and make preliminary determinations whether such individuals are unprivileged enemy belligerents. Deems as the paramount purpose of such interrogations the protection of U.S. civilians and facilities through thorough and professional interrogation for intelligence purposes.
Prohibits the use of Department of Justice (DOJ) appropriated funds to prosecute an unprivileged enemy belligerent in an Article III court.
Allows the detention of an unprivileged enemy belligerent without criminal charges or trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged or which the individual has purposely and materially supported.

Download now or preview on posterous

HR4892.pdf (173 KB)

Download now or preview on posterous

S3081.pdf (174 KB)

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

US Senate climate bill to be unveiled April 26 - Looks like this could be worse than the House version

2010-04-16T09:52:00.001-06:00

* Backers hope for Senate vote in June or July
* Measure could affect states' climate control activities (Adds reaction from American Petroleum Institute)
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON, April 15 (Reuters) - A long-awaited compromise bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming will be unveiled by a group of senators on April 26, sources said on Thursday.
The legislative language to be sketched out in 11 days, according to government and environmental sources, is being drafted by Democratic Senator John Kerry, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman.
Backers of the environmental bill hope the unveiling will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July if the compromise attracts enough support from a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats.
Republican Senator Judd Gregg told Reuters he was "committed to getting something that addresses our energy needs in a constructive and comprehensive way." He added he did not know yet whether he would support the bill being developed.
President Barack Obama has made climate change one of his top priorities and took steps recently to show Republicans he was serious, including expanding federal aid for building nuclear power facilities and allowing more domestic offshore oil drilling -- initiatives to be included in the Senate compromise.
The White House is also eager to show the rest of the world the United States is ready to take a leadership role on global warming, including to help kick-start stalled international efforts to tackle the problem.
Despite vocal climate change skeptics in the United States, leading scientific groups have been hoping the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after China, would take action.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on Thursday the world's combined land and ocean surface temperatures in March were the hottest on record.
Once the senators formally sketch out their bill, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid will decide the next steps in a year crowded with competing legislative priorities and congressional elections in November.
The bill could face stiff opposition from lawmakers in states with economies heavily dependent on oil and coal.
Lou Hayden, a policy expert at the American Petroleum Institute, said his group would not support the bill unless it went through an economic analysis by the Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the Energy Department.
The bill is already slated to be analyzed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Congressional Budget Office, which could take more than a month.
BILL MIGHT END STATE/REGIONAL CARBON TRADE PROGRAMS
Kerry, Lieberman and Graham have been working for months on a global warming compromise significantly different from a measure passed last year by the House of Representatives and a bill approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It also takes many elements from those bills.
Like the House-passed bill and Obama administration policy, it would set a target of 17 percent reductions in smokestack emissions of carbon dioxide by 2020, from 2005 levels.
Point Carbon, an energy markets consulting service, estimated the anticipated Senate bill would result in U.S. gasoline prices rising an average of 27 cents a gallon from 2013 to 2020. The bill is expected to contain a fee on motor fuels.
On Wednesday, a Senate source told Reuters the legislation would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide emissions. It would also end state and regional carbon-trading programs, such as the one several Northeastern states participate in, to be replaced by a national carbon reduction policy. [N14150360]
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, with 10 participating states from Vermont to Maryland, has raised over $582 million for state efficiency and climate programs, said Environment Northeast, a Boston research group.
Peter Shattuck, a carbon markets policy analyst there, said shutting the program could create concerns among the states over lost revenues.
A group of nine senators, mostly from Midwestern manufacturing states, urged Kerry, Graham and Lieberman in a letter on Thursday to take into account jobs in their states.
"Without such a plan, we are concerned that the legislation will ultimately be unsuccessful," Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown and others wrote. (Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington and Ros Krasny in Boston; Editing by Peter Cooney)

via alertnet.org

Looks like this may be worse than the House version. I better get the House version read and reported on before this abomination appears.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Via Gateway Pundit: GOP Official & Boyfriend Savagely Beaten In Politically Motivated Attack – Including Broken Leg, Jaw, Concussion… Media Silent

2010-04-13T17:55:00.001-06:00

Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend Joe Brown

The governor’s office said Monday that Allee Bautsch suffered a broken leg and her boyfriend suffered a concussion and fractured nose and jaw in the alleged incident. (KSLA)

A Republican activist and her boyfriend were savagely beaten in New Orleans on Friday for wearing Sarah Palin pins.
Free Republic reported:

Allee Bautsch, chief campaign fundraiser for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and her boyfriend Joe Brown, were savagely beaten Friday night in New Orleans after leaving a Republican party fundraising dinner by a group of thugs who reportedly targeted the couple because they were wearing Sarah Palin pins.

Bautch’s leg was broken and Brown incurred a broken jaw and nose as well as a concussion.

The Hayride reports that a source who visited Bautsch at the hospital the day after the attack says they were told the couple was attacked for wearing Palin buttons:

Two people at the Brennan’s event have now confirmed that the protest had largely broken up by the time it ended, but we also understand from someone who visited Allee Bautsch in the hospital Saturday morning that she and Brown were followed and attacked expressly because they had Palin pins on (she heard one of the attackers say “Let’s get them, they have Palin pins on” – so the attack WAS politically motivated as its victims understood it. It was not a mugging, it was not an argument gone wrong and it was not a bar fight.

The story of a Republican and her boyfriend being viciously attacked for wearing Palin buttons has yet to make national headlines, unlike say, unfounded rumors of nasty words being said by Tea Party protesters.

Related… Anarchists took to the streets in New Orleans on Friday to protest the SRLC, marching to the Hilton Hotel, where a banner was hanging from the roof which said “We won’t pay for their crisis. Become the crisis!” —- The march then headed to Brennan’s Restaurant, where a $10,000 a plate SRLC dinner was in progress.

Later today the Governor’s office sent out this email. The authorities are still investigating the violent attack–

Friday night, the Governor’s campaign fundraiser, Allee Bautsch, and her boyfriend were involved in an altercation in the French Quarter with a group of people.

While there were protestors around at that time, we are not aware of any evidence that the individuals involved in the altercation were protestors.

Allee’s leg was badly broken in the incident, she has had surgery, and she is facing a recovery time of two to three months. Her boyfriend had a concussion, and also a fractured nose and jaw. They are both expected to fully recover.

NOPD is investigating the incident and we are refraining from further comment to allow them to fully investigate and ensure justice is done. Our prayers are with Allee. She is a strong person and we are sure she will make a speedy recovery.

Thanks,

Kyle Plotkin
Office of Governor Jindal
Press Secretary

And, here is another update on the protest that was sent to me today after I published this report:

I am the photographer for the LA GOP and I was at the Brennan fundraiser. When I left about one hour or so after all 3 of the governors left the crowd of protesters had grown. The were very nasty, signs were vulgar using the “F” word. As I left the restaurant I was yelled at – there was a family visiting the restaurant with a baby stroller – they had nothing to do with the fundraiser and they were being heckled using the “F” and “MF” words.. A couple of them made comments to me.
Thanks, Eric

UPDATE: Here is a photo of the crowd outside of Brennan’s–

photo credit: © Eric Miller

And, here is video of the protesters by Jeff Blanco at Inside Louisiana News chanting “Fight Back!”:

In their latest update- The Hayride still insists that the attack was politically motivated.

via gatewaypundit.firstthings.com

No surprise that the MSM is quiet on this. Those who were attacked are evil Republicans not loving, harmless liberal progressives. This is a perfect example of MSM hypocrisy at its grandest. The accusation of a few mean words spoken by a Tea Party protester gets hours of air time with every liberal in sight wringing their hands in desperation at these fringe radicals. However, those who support all that the left stand for attack and brutally beat two individuals solely based on pins they were wearing and not a peep. What more can be expected from the MSM. I wonder how long it will be before some of the liberal talking heads (Olberman, Maddow, Mathews, et al) will claim that these two either deserved what they got or brought it upon themselves because they were Republicans and supported Palin.

The violence that may very well start a second civil war will not come from the right. It will be the thugs and anarchists from the left that will push everything over the edge. The easiest way to get rid of dissent is to terrorize them to the point where they are too scared for their own safety to speak out.This was the same thing that happened in Germany during the 1930's and the Soviet Union from 1917 on. Hate to remind the liberals, but the Nazi's were socialist leaning (google their name if you don't believe me) not a right-winged organization. Stalin even spoke favorably of Hitler and the Nazi Party for a while. Oh, and lest we forget, many in the FDR Administration were great admirers of Hitler and the Nazis as well.

I hope those who did this barbaric act are caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law. My prayers will be with Ms. Bautsch and Mr. Brown for their full and complete recovery.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

What Happens When You Back a Donkey With Nothing to Lose Into a Corner?

2010-04-12T23:54:00.001-06:00

After the passage of the immensely unpopular healthcare reform bill, much has been said and written about the pounding the Democrats are going to take in November. Democratic Congress members and Senators are retiring in never before seen numbers rather than face their angry constituents and a tough re-election battle. Even Democratic strategists and supporters are lamenting the strong potential for the sweeping of Democrats from the majority position in Congress.

While there is much pleasure being taken regarding this prediction by those who are opposed to the direction the Democrats are taking this country, there is one big question that remains. What happens when you back a donkey with nothing to lose into a corner?

The Democrats in Congress have shown a propensity for willingly and arrogantly ignoring the will of the people in their push to implement their agenda come hell or high water. They passed the so-called healthcare reform bill despite the majority of Americans rejecting it in poll after poll. Their main argument was that Americans would learn to love it once they understood what it entailed and how they would benefit. If the Democrats were willing to do this before it became clear there could be a major political power shift coming in November, one can only wonder what will happen now.

I have heard a considerable number of conspiracy theories over this very subject, from stolen elections through electoral fraud to the cancellation of elections after a staged terrorist event on American soil to a brown shirt-style suppression of opposition candidates. I really think these are just wild accusations from really angry, imaginative individuals. Could it happen? Possibly. But, not only would it be highly unlikely for such activities to be successful on a national level, I still have enough faith in the American people that they would not stand for such behavior. And I honestly don’t think Democratic leaders are dumb enough, powerful enough, or deranged enough to even seriously consider attempting such a wild move.

What does worry me is what they will do with the knowledge they are likely going to lose exclusive power in November. With many Democrats not willing to face their constituents in a bid for re-election, they have nothing to lose and no one to answer to. Basically they are nothing more than kids in a candy store looking for the ultimate sugar high. There is nothing to stop them from passing and implementing some of their more radical policy dreams in their push for greater central government control over the lives of the American people. Their drive to change the cultural, ideological, and philosophical landscape of this great country can proceed at full speed ahead with no speed bumps, traffic cops, or red lights to impede their progress. Is there a legislative scorched earth strategy being put into place by Democratic leadership in an attempt to get some of their most radical policies put into law before being swept from power? Will they try to ram through Cap and Trade? Or will it be some other, more draconian, environmental policy? Will there be an immigration reform bill that gives amnesty, or citizenship, to all those who are currently in this country in violation of established law? Will there be further attempts to take over the financial sectors? Will there be a value added tax forced upon the American people in an attempt to pay for the skyrocketing federal spending spree? All of these legislative issues are currently in circulation in various congressional committees with nothing standing in the way of their passage. Of course, there should be no illusions that if any of these bills be passed President Obama would be more than happy to sign them into law as quickly as they can get to his desk and he can grab a pen.

In the end, what happens when you back a donkey with nothing to lose into a corner? America pays heavily with its culture, political landscape, and institutions permanently and irreversibly changed. With the Democrats having nothing to lose and no one to answer to, anything becomes a real possibility. What remains to be seen is how much damage will have been done once the dust has settled.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

U.S. Government To Save Billions By Cutting Wasteful Senator Program

2010-04-03T14:10:00.001-06:00

WASHINGTON—In an effort to reduce wasteful spending and eliminate non-vital federal services, the U.S. government announced plans this week to cut its long-standing senator program, a move it says will help save more than $300 billion each year.

According to officials, the decision to cut the national legislative body was reached during a budget review meeting on Tuesday. After hours of deliberation, it was agreed that the cost of financing U.S. senators far outweighed the benefits they provided.

"Now more than ever, we must eliminate needless spending wherever possible," President Obama said at a press conference Wednesday. "When we sat down to go over our annual budget, we asked ourselves, where can we safely trim back? What programs can we do away with without negatively impacting the American people? Which bloated and ineffective institutions can we no longer justify having around?"

"The answer was obvious," Obama added. "The U.S. Senate just needed to go."

Established in 1789 as a means of overseeing the passage of bills into law, the once-promising senator program has reportedly failed to contribute to the governing of the nation in any significant way since 1964. Last year alone, approximately $450 billion was funneled into the legislative chamber, an amount deemed fiscally unsound considering how few citizens actually benefit in any way from its existence.

Enlarge ImageFour of the 100 obsolete employees in the senate program.

In fact, the program has gone unchecked for so long that many in Washington are now unable to recall what purpose U.S. senators were originally meant to serve.

"I'm sure when it was first introduced the U.S. Senate seemed like a worthwhile public service that would aid vast segments of the population and play an important role in the years to come," said Sheila McKenzie, president of the watchdog group the American Center for Responsible Government. "But in reality, this program has been a complete and utter failure."

"It simply doesn't work," she added. "We've been pouring taxpayer dollars into this outdated relic for far too long."

An analysis conducted last week revealed a number of troubling flaws within the long-running, heavily subsidized program, including a lack of consistent oversight, no clear objectives or goals, the persistent hiring of unqualified and selfishly motivated individuals, and a 100 percent redundancy rate among its employees.

Moreover, the study found that the U.S. government already funds a fully operational legislative body that appears to do the exact same job as the Senate, but which also provides a fair and proportional representation of the nation's citizens and has rules in place to prevent one individual from holding the operations of the entire chamber hostage until he is guaranteed massive federal spending projects for his home state of Alabama.

Not only have U.S. Senators cost the country billions of dollars in misspent funds over the years, but Washington insiders claim they have also derailed a wide range of other government programs, from social welfare to job creation to environmental protection.

"Even just the space the Senate currently occupies could be put to better use," consumer advocate Michael Dodgerson said. "Were the government to open a day-care center, a homeless shelter, or even an affordable restaurant in that building, it would make more of a difference in the lives of everyday Americans than what's there now."

So far, reaction to the cutback has been overwhelming positive, with many across the country calling it a long-awaited step toward progress.

Still, a small pocket of the nation's populace vehemently disagreed with Tuesday's decision.

"This is outrageous," said Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut-area resident and concerned citizen who makes more than $150,000 a year, enjoys full health care benefits, and lives comfortably in a large, non-foreclosed home. "The U.S. Senate has always looked out for my best interests. It's always done right by me."

Added Lieberman, "Without it, I'll have no choice but to exploit my extensive connections in the real estate, legal, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries to obtain strictly honorary positions at large companies that, in exchange for my subservience over the years and the prestige of my name, will compensate me generously and allow me to continue living a privileged life without contributing even a moment of my time to the society that has made it all possible."

via theonion.com

I am sure that many Americans would agree with this. I know I do.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Obamacare simplified into a single image

2010-03-26T12:53:00.001-06:00

While everyone is saying what a complicated issue healthcare is, here is a single image that truly gets to the heart of Obamacare as passed by Congress and touted as the savior of the middle class and poor of this country. The only question I have is how can one morally believe that forcing someone else to take care of your problems be ok? Under this theory, robbery and theft should be legal as the ones who are victimized are only helping those who are more disadvantaged as they are.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

Universal Healthcare and the Commerce Clause

2010-03-25T23:06:00.001-06:00

Download now or preview on posterous

Government Controlled Healthcare.doc (82 KB)

This is an old paper I wrote for a course in my Master’s Degree program which examines the unconstitutionality of a single payer healthcare system in regards to the Commerce Clause. Despite the focus on single payer systems, it is equally pertinent to the monstrosity of a bill that was just sent to Obama’s desk for signing.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

Universal Healthcare and the Commerce Clause

2010-03-21T22:16:00.001-06:00

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? WOW!! There is a big surprise. Chicago politics at its worst.

2010-03-03T18:06:00.001-07:00

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?

Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. "The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus," Matheson's press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. "It’s too early to know if that will occur." Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: "I would not infer anything. I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday."

The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.

TAGS: Barack Obama, Democrats, Health care, Jim Matheson, Obamacare, politics, Scott Matheson

via weeklystandard.com

The hope and change promised is nothing more than nationalizing Chicago-style politics.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

McCain Tries Acting Like a Conservative to Keep His Senate Seat. It's Like a Coat that Doesn't Fit.

2010-02-04T08:55:00.001-07:00

By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS
Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republicans' standard-bearer in 2008, is facing a surprisingly strong primary challenge from the right, evidence that even party leaders aren't safe from the swell of conservative activism heading into the 2010 midterm elections.

View Full Image
Getty Images
Sen. John McCain in October announcing a program to help veterans to become teachers, is facing a primary challenge from J.D. Hayworth, below, seen testifying in May at a Senate immigration hearing.

Mr. McCain hasn't faced a serious challenge since joining the U.S. Senate in 1987. But seven months ahead of the primary, he is using tough-guy tactics and calling in conservative chits to fend off J.D. Hayworth, an ex-congressman and radio host. Mr. Hayworth, who lost his House seat in 2006 and who is best known in Arizona for his opposition to illegal immigration, has seized the Tea Party mantel of low taxes and small government.

With the senator's approval, McCain allies filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission essentially alleging that Mr. Hayworth's three-hour radio show—during which he regularly attacked Mr. McCain—was a form of campaign advertising. In January, Mr. Hayworth and the station agreed to drop his program. Smokey Rivers, Phoenix director of programming and operations for KFYI's owner, San Antonio-based Clear Channel Communications Inc., said Mr. McCain wasn't a factor.

Jason Rose, a Hayworth aide, described the move as a "political mugging." Mr. McCain isn't shy about admitting his role in knocking Mr. Hayworth off the air. "I certainly didn't discourage it," he said in an interview. "I'm not saying he couldn't say anything he wanted to, but it's clear that was a political campaign he was running on the radio station."

The 73-year-old Mr. McCain is also bringing to Arizona his 2008 running mate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, to campaign on his behalf in March, a bid to secure his right flank. He can also count in his corner Republican Scott Brown, who shook up the national political scene last month by winning the Massachusetts Senate seat long held by the late Edward Kennedy, a Democrat.

View Full Image
Getty Images
Last week, responding to anger about banks and bailouts—a popular theme on the insurgent right—Mr. McCain voted against the confirmation of Ben Bernanke for a second stint as Federal Reserve chairman. He also stunned Senate colleagues by opposing a special commission to tackle the country's mounting debt; he was a co-sponsor of the initiative but pulled his support when conservatives criticized it as a tax-raising vehicle. "I want a spending commission, not one that will raise taxes," he said. "And the way this was composed, it would have likely recommended an increase in taxes."

The normally feisty Mr. McCain also has been acquiescent in the face of a new Supreme Court decision gutting his signature campaign-finance law, which had been unpopular with some conservatives.

Mr. Hayworth, 51, plans to declare his candidacy on Feb. 15, a spokesman said, but he is already raising money and spending it in an effort to unseat Mr. McCain. One of Mr. Hayworth's first moves was to hold a fund-raiser to pay off legal bills lingering from his tangential association while in Congress with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Mr. Hayworth wasn't charged with any wrongdoing.

To bolster his claim that Mr. McCain is insufficiently conservative—a complaint that has dogged Mr. McCain throughout his career—Mr. Hayworth is highlighting the senator's 2008 vote for the $700 billion bank rescue, and his opposition to President George W. Bush's tax cuts.

A Rasmussen poll in November showed the two men in a virtual tie. A more recent poll had Mr. McCain with a 22-point lead, 53% to 31%. Mr. Rose, the Hayworth aide, said the campaign's polling shows the race closer than that, but not as close as November.

"This is not an idle threat that Mr. McCain faces, and the reason has more to do with his history with conservatives than just about anything else," said pollster Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. Mr. McCain's positions on campaign finance and immigration, among other areas, have also set him apart from the party's right.

It is the kind of intramural dodgeball playing out around the country as establishment-backed Republicans find themselves pelted by anti-big government, anti-spending, anti-tax populists. Among the battlegrounds are Senate primaries in Florida, where conservative darling Marco Rubio, a former state lawmaker, is taking on Gov. Charlie Crist, and in California, where Chuck Devore, a conservative state assemblyman, is challenging the establishment choices, ex-congressman Tom Campbell and former Hewlett-Packard Co. Chief Executive Carly Fiorina.

"Arizona's Republicans deserve a choice and an alternative to Mr. McCain's moderate record on taxes, social issues, the border and bailing out the banks," Mr. Hayworth said in a robo-call his campaign said it would place to tens of thousands of Arizona Republicans.

Arizona political analysts say Mr. Hayworth may be able to capture the energy of the small-government conservatives, as well as anti-immigration voters. They are also the people most likely to show up at a primary held in the heat of the Arizona summer, Mr. Rasmussen said.

"Anybody who doesn't take J.D.'s race against McCain seriously is crazy," said Bruce Merrill, professor emeritus of mass communication at Arizona State University, and a former teacher of Mr. Hayworth. He predicted, though, that Mr. McCain will prevail.

With $5 million in the McCain campaign treasury, according to an aide, the senator has hit the Arizona airwaves, portraying himself as "Arizona's last line of defense" against government spending, bloated bureaucracy and government-run health care.
—Neil King Jr. and Stephen Power contributed to this article.
Write to Michael M. Phillips at michael.phillips@wsj.com

via online.wsj.com

With his seat in jeopardy, Sen. McCain is now trying to act like a conservative. But like a 2 year old trying on his older brother's coat it just doesn't fit and it's quite obvious. McCain is no conservative and most likely won't be. He has sold out conservatives and the Republican Party on numerous occasions throughout the years. He is one of the old guard that just needs to go away. Hopefully as quietly as possible. But that doesn't seem to be happening. He has taken Obama's tactics and replicating them for his own benefit just as he has with liberal policies. Neither are good for his constituency or this country. I really hope that J.D. Hayworth can unseat this old liberal in Republican clothing.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Barack Obama’s former mentor criticises ‘complacent Administration’ - This is just classic.

2010-02-02T15:44:00.001-07:00

President Obama’s self-confidence borders on complacency. He is ill served by senior staff, especially his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. He does not appear to be learning on the job as he did when campaigning for the White House. His Administration is too deferential to Congress, too reliant on the President’s personal charm, and as a result is regarded by its enemies as weak and ineffectual.

As Mr Obama prepared to release his $3.8 trillion (£2.4 trillion) budget today, this assessment of his first year in office came not from one of his established critics on the Right, but from one of his most respected mentors — his former professor at Harvard Law School, Chris Edley.

“What I fear is that having made history, having won a Nobel prize, having been celebrated around the world, a measure of complacency may have set in,” Professor Edley told The Times. “I don’t mean that the effort is not there, but that the discipline of self-criticism has perhaps faded.”

Professor Edley, who worked in the Clinton and Carter Administrations and is now Dean of the Law School at the University of California, Berkeley, added: “I wouldn’t give [Obama] as high a grade as President as I gave him when he was my student. I know he can do better.”

Related Links

Obama's five desperate healthcare options

Obama: I don't quit - let's start again

Obama hits the road for job creation

He reserved the harshest criticism for Mr Emanuel, the second-most powerful figure in the White House, who has been pilloried by liberals for appearing to undermine Mr Obama’s healthcare reforms since the loss of a crucial Senate seat to the Republicans.

“You’re not going to reinvent Barack into somebody who delights in pummelling a policy opponent, so his staff need to do that for him. And as far as one can tell from the outside, that is precisely what Rahm Emanuel has failed to do,” he said.

Referring to the prospect of Democratic losses in the mid-term elections, as a result of opposition among independent voters to the stimulus and healthcare Bills, Professor Edley added: “It’s almost as if Rahm Emanuel cares more about the re-election prospects of his friends on [Capitol] Hill than he does about scoring policy victories that reflect Obama’s values.”

Mr Emanuel’s willingness to let health reforms slide could condemn Mr Obama to “a caretaker presidency”, Paul Krugman, the Nobel prize-winning economist, has warned.

Congressional Democrats have accused Mr Emanuel of being more visible on television than on Capitol Hill, and there is increasing speculation that he may be the first senior staffer to be eased out of the White House — or that he may resign to run for the Chicago mayoralty.

Nothing would please Professor Edley more. In late 2007, at Mr Obama’s invitation, he made a dramatic intervention in his presidential campaign, dismissing as mediocre the policy positions drawn up by senior staff and imploring them to give the young Senator from Illinois more time to think.

Asked what he would say if given a similar opportunity one year into the Obama presidency, Mr Edley lamented the failure of the White House to force Congress into line, as President Lyndon Johnson would have done. “You have to be his inner LBJ, the leader who twists arms past their breaking point and is prepared to make some enemies in order to make some progress,” he said.

The professor fears that Mr Obama’s best chance to deliver the change he promised may have been wasted. The White House was overly dependent on the President’s personality as an instrument of persuasion, “and if your only advocacy tool is charm you should expect some pretty strong headwinds”, Professor Edley said.

The Administration’s biggest mistake, he said, has been to pander to Congressional vanities by leaving the two chambers to argue about their own versions of healthcare reform with little concrete guidance from the White House. “As a result the Administration has accomplished less than it might have and is perceived on the Hill as much weaker than it might have been,” he concluded.

Mr Obama will hope for a rosier assessment next time round.

via timesonline.co.uk

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - So much for the limited Govt the Founders envisioned.

2010-02-02T15:42:00.001-07:00

Originally published 05:00 a.m., February 2, 2010, updated 04:53 p.m., February 2, 2010
Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million
Stephen Dinan
The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.
The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.
Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.
The expansion could provide more ammunition to those arguing that the government is trying to do too much under President Obama.
TWT RELATED STORIES:
• Obama acknowledges broken C-SPAN promise
• Liberties oversight panel gets short shrift
• Obama's '11 budget knife takes smaller cuts
• SEC workers investigated for viewing porn at work
• PRUDEN: An Alcatraz solution for Obama
"I'm shocked that the 'tea party' hasn't focused on it yet, and the Obama administration only has a thin sliver of time to deal more directly with it, I believe," said Paul C. Light, who studies the federal bureaucracy as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at New York University. "When you talk about big government, you're talking about a big employer."
The new figures are contained in the budget that Mr. Obama sent Monday to Congress.
Mr. Obama says the civilian work force will drop by 80,000 next year, mostly because of a reduction in U.S. census workers added in 2010 but then dropped in 2011 after the national population count is finished. That still leaves 1.35 million civilian federal employees on the payroll in 2011.
From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.
Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.
The administration says 79 percent of the increases in recent years are from departments related to the war on terrorism: Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, State and Veterans Affairs.
After years of decline at the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department is restaffing. Mr. Obama estimated that the Pentagon will have 720,000 employees this year and 757,000 employees next year - up from a low of 649,000 in 2003.
The data also show that the Department of Homeland Security will grow by 7,000 a year in 2010 and 2011, and the Veterans Affairs Department will grow by 12,000 in 2010 and an additional 4,000 in 2011.
Peter R. Orszag, Mr. Obama's budget director, also said more people have been hired to oversee outside contracts.
"Over the past eight or nine years, those contracts have doubled in size. The acquisition work force has stayed constant. It's not too hard to figure out that oversight of those contracts has not kept pace with what it should be," Mr. Orszag said.
Even as the total number of federal employees rises, the ratio of employees to Americans has declined steadily, from one employee for every 78 residents in 1953 to one employee for every 110 residents in 1988 to one employee for every 155 residents in 2008.
The federal work force is older than the private-sector work force, which Mr. Light said raises the possibility of reducing the total number through retirements.
About 31 percent of the private work force is 50 or older, while 46 percent of the federal work force is 50 or older.
Mr. Obama is in a situation similar to that of Mr. Clinton, who took office when the budget deficit was at a record high and government bureaucracy was expanding, even though the Pentagon was shedding workers with the end of the Cold War.
Mr. Clinton in 1996 declared that "the era of big government is over" and took steps to work with Congress to control spending and cut the work force, which already had been trending lower.
As he left office in 2000, Mr. Clinton boasted that his administration had helped cut 377,000 government jobs, leaving the smallest civilian federal work force since 1960.
Mr. Obama, though, appears to be accepting a larger federal work force.
The administration has called for federal workers to get a 1.4 percent pay raise next year, which Mr. Orszag said, "frankly, I think to a lot of Americans, sounds pretty good."
The American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents many government workers, said it was combing through the budget and did not have a comment.

via washingtontimes.com

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class - Obama breaks his promise AGAIN.

2010-02-02T15:38:00.001-07:00

Mon Feb 1, 4:09 PM

By Terri Cullen

ADVERTISEMENT

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Email Story

IM Story

Printable View

Save to del.icio.us

Save to Bookmarks

Upload photos to FLICKR

U.S.

LATEST HEADLINES

Geithner says need bipartisan attack on deficits Reuters

Shadowed by deficits, Obama pitches economic plan Reuters

Pentagon: 18,000 more troops in Afghanistan by spring Reuters

Key Democratic lawmaker Murtha in hospital Reuters

EU-U.S. summit in doubt as Obama decides not to come Reuters

U.S. News Archive

News Video

Lawsuit over Lucy the elephant Canadian Press

GDP good, but long way to go-Summers Reuters

One Last Push for the Public Option ABC

via ca.news.yahoo.com

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Early draft of the Constitution found in Philly - This is just the thing us history lovers dream of!!

2010-02-02T10:56:00.001-07:00

Researcher Lorianne Updike Toler was intrigued by the centuries-old document at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

On the back of a treasured draft of the U.S. Constitution was a truncated version of the same document, starting with the familiar words: "We The People. . . ."

They had been scribbled upside down by one of the Constitution's framers, James Wilson, in the summer of 1787. The cursive continued, then abruptly stopped, as if pages were missing.

A mystery, Toler thought, until she examined other Wilson papers from the Historical Society's vault in Philadelphia and found what appeared to be the rest of the draft, titled "The Continuation of the Scheme."

The document - one of 21 million in the Historical Society's collection - was known to scholars, but probably should have been placed with the other drafts, said constitutional scholar John P. Kaminski, director of the Center for the Study of the American Constitution in the history department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

"This was the kind of moment historians dream about," said Toler, 30, a lawyer and founding president of the Constitutional Sources Project (www.ConSource.org), a nonprofit organization, based in Washington, that promotes an understanding of and access to U.S. Constitution documents.

"This was national scripture, a piece of our Constitution's history," she said of her find in November. "It was difficult to keep my hands from trembling."

As other researchers "realized what was happening, there was a sort of hushed awe that settled over the reading room," Toler said. "One of them said the hair on her arms stood on end."

Two drafts of the Constitution in Wilson's hand had been separated from his papers long ago. One of them included the beginning of still another draft and was apparently seen as part of a single working version, instead of a separate draft.

Toler said "The Continuation of the Scheme," including its provisions about the executive and judiciary branches, completes that draft, making it a third.

She "found a document that was sort of buried in its right place, but not taken out by an archivist for special treatment," said Kaminski, the constitutional scholar. "This is a valuable document. It is in Wilson's hand, and it was in Wilson's papers, where it should have been."

With so many historical documents "going online, you don't have that kind of discovery in an archives," he added. "I can understand why [Toler] would be excited."

For Nathan Raab, a member of the Board of Councilors of the Historical Society, the documents are reminders "of the great depth of the archives there and the emotional power of holding a piece of history in your hand."

"The Continuation of the Scheme" and countless other documents had been evaluated by scholars decades ago before being carefully filed away at the Historical Society at 13th and Locust Streets.

"Perhaps this one should have been placed with the other drafts," said Lee Arnold, senior director of the library and collections at the Historical Society. "We may do that, but no decision has been made.

"We want to look at it more thoroughly," he said. "In the end, though, [the document] is perfectly fine."

The drafts of the Constitution in Wilson's hand were removed from his other papers and placed in Mylar and acid-free folios and have been occasionally displayed.

"The Continuation of the Scheme" document "was safe and preserved, but not given the prominence," said Kaminski, chief editor of the book The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution.

"Wilson was a great man and one of the great founders and should be respected for that," he said. "We owe him our gratitude for the role he played."

Wilson, who lived in Philadelphia, was selected July 24, 1787, with four other members of the Constitutional Convention to serve on the Committee of Detail.

The committee - which also had John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, Nathaniel Gorham, and Oliver Ellsworth - used 28 resolutions passed by members of the convention to flesh out the Constitution.

They finished their work and presented it Aug. 6, 1787, to the Constitutional Convention. It included Wilson's famous "We the People" beginning.

Seeing the framers' drafts and thought processes leading up to that point was especially thrilling to Toler, who is studying at Oxford University, where she is seeking a doctorate in U.S. history and specializing in constitutional legal history.

"The Constitution may be the most important document written in modern history," said Toler. "It is the longest-standing written constitution and the basis for most of the constitutions in the world."

After finding the draft, "I felt like an actor in the movie National Treasure, but [actor] Nicolas Cage was nowhere to be found," Toler added.

"However, what I found was a national treasure - the real national treasure."

Contact staff writer Edward Colimore

at 856-779-3833

or ecolimore@phillynews.com.

via philly.com

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants - Is she so egotistical to really believe she is the Queen of America? Afraid so.

2010-02-01T22:44:00.001-07:00

Recession, Depression, What, Michelle Worry? Mrs. Obama Demands Small Army of Attendants

First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants
By Dr. Paul L. Williams Monday, August 17, 2009
“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service,”— Michelle Obama.

We were wrong.

Michelle Obama, as we reported on July 7, is not served by twenty-two attendants who stand by to cater to her every whim.

She is served by twenty-six attendants, including a hair dresser and make-up artist.

The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant.

Little did American voters realize the call for “change” would result in the establishment of an Obama oligarchy.

The discovery of the additional attendants was made by D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org and by calls to Katie McCormick Lelyyeld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary.

Mr. Gore launched his investigation of the First Lady’s staff in the wake of an article that appeared on thelastcrusade.org and Canada Free Press on July 7.

The article, which became a chain letter viewed by millions of Americans, reported that Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants - - more than any First Lady in U.S. History. It provided the following list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady:

$172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)

$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)

$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)

$102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

$90,000 - Medina, David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)

$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)

$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)

$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

$65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)

$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
$60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)

$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)

$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)

$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)

$45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)

$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)

$36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

$36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

Readers throughout the country expressed outrage that Mrs. Obama would hire an unprecedented number of staffers in the midst of the Great Recession.

Sample comments from the hundreds of letters that poured into Canada Free Press are as follows:

Alan from Utah:
”The sad part is that after billions spent “stimulating” the economy, the list of new staffers for the wife of our pretend president represents the only new jobs that have been created. We’re screwed.”

Laurie from Texas:
”....and not a one of those attendants can help her find something decent to wear…pathetic waste of taxpayer money…..”

Terry from Colorado:
”This is from the family that supports a government run health care system. If they can’t control the spending inside the White House, how can we believe they can save money elsewhere?”

Lanette from California:
”This is OBAMANABLY!!!! I’ve been laid off….wonder if she will hire me?”

Bobby from Shanksville:
”I didn’t see anyone listed who wipes her ####.”

Lyle from Ilinois:
”This is a crime. I am sure not one of those aides comes close to earning what they are paid. How could they? What is there for them to do? I can’t believe Michelle will end up being a great first lady regardless how many aides she has. How will she ever survive at the end of his four-year term when she has to go back to being a civilian again. No way will the government pay for all these lackies for a civilian, no matter how hard she may try to make it happen. I recall a high school English teacher saying “like begets like” and it sure shows up with the Obama couple. They’re both in it for as much as they can get for themselves.”

Michelle from Michigan:
How can my nephew, who has been out of work for almost a year, get a job on Michelle’s staff? The pay is better than anything available here and he is colleged educated.

Betty from Pennsylvania:
My husband and I have worked hard all our lives. We are people of integrity. And yet when I read of spending like this my blood boils. How dare she use my hard-earned money like this. How dare she take advantage of her position. She did not earn her position because of who she is or how hard she has worked. I don’t know how she can sleep at night. Somehow, we need to get this President out of office before we lose all our rights.

The allegations within the July 7 article seemed so outrageous that many readers questioned their accuracy.

Does Mrs. Obama have an unprecedented number of staffers in a time when 34 million Americans - - a record number - - rely on food stamps to feed their families?

The answer, as D’Angelo Gore of factcheck.org discovered, is yes.

When questioned by Mr. Gore, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, Michelle Obama’s press secretary, said that the First Lady does retain a staff of more than twenty who remain at her beck and call. But the actual number is 24, not 22, as the article reported.

Mrs. Lelyyeld failed to provide the names of the two additional attendants to Mrs. Obama. But she did confirm that six staffers who do not have “first lady” in their title but are a part of the First Lady’s office staff, such as Desiree Rogers, who bears the title “Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary,” and Natalie Bookey, who is listed as a “staff assistant.”

What’s more, even a list of 24 would be incomplete since it would fail to include the names of makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom travel aboard Air Force One and provide Mrs. Obama with daily attention.

This adds up to a whopping $1,600,700.00 and the amount doesn’t include the elite benefit packages granted to the White House staff and their significant others (include same-sex partners). Nor does the figure take into account the salaries for the two additional full-time staff members mentioned by Mrs. Obama’s Press Secretary nor the full time hair-dresser and makeup artist assigned to her. A guesstimate of the total salaries for Mrs. Obama’s attendants is $1,750,00.00 plus the additional benefits.

For comparison, let’s remember that poor Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salaries for 5 of their personal secretaries from their own pocketbooks. Stephen Plotkin, reference archivist for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, says that Jacqueline Kennedy’s office was “headed” by one person who supervised a staff of approximately nine full and part time workers (including the White House cooks and chambermaids).

Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, says that it is difficult to nail down a precise count of staff because “White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time.” But she points out that a White House telephone directory indicates that Hillary Clinton had a staff of thirteen in 1993 - - this is telling since Mrs. Clinton intended to serve as a co-executive in the Oval Office by spearheading a health care reform program.

Laura Bush was far from a fiscal conservative during her time in the White House and, like her husband, served to bloat the White House budget. A list of Mrs. Bush’s staff attendants is as follows:

McBride, Anita B. assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady $168,000.00

Harder, Cherie S. Special assistant to the president for domestic policy and director of project of the first lady $108,000.00

Niemiec, Sally M. Press secretary to the First Lady $90,000.00

Miller, Sonja M. Deputy chief of staff to the first lady $84,700.00

Ballard, Deanna M. Director of scheduling for the First Lady $75,000.00

Underwood, Carrie P. Deputy director of policy and projects for the First Lady $65,000.00

Wallace, Charity N. Director of advance for the First Lady $65,000.00

Marshall, Misty C. Director of correspondence for the first lady $59,700.00

Etter, Marisa L. Deputy director of scheduling for the First Lady $50,000.00

King, Kristin N. Deputy director of advance for the first lady $50,000.00

Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special assistant and personal aide to the first lady $47,500.00

Rawson, Kimberly D. Executive assistant to the chief of staff to the First Lady $46,200.00

Donoghue , Tarah C. Deputy press secretary to the First Lady $43,000.00

Vogel, Campbell B. Deputy director of correspondence for the First Lady $42,500.00

Block, Jonathan F. assistant press secretary to the First Lady $39,000.00
This amounts to a total of $1,083,700.00. Laura was no piker when it came to spending. But she pales in comparison with Miz Michelle, who requires eight to ten additional attendants at an extra cost to taxpayers of $700,000 and change - - the only change American taxpayers can believe in.

CFP Tools

(24) Reader Feedback | Subscribe | Print friendly | Contact Us | Send this page to a friend! |

via canadafreepress.com

This is truly no surprise just sad verification. She apparently thinks that her position equates to actual royalty. Queen Michelle goes around slamming those who have been unbelievably successful and yet she has 26 attendants. Can you say hypocrite? I can.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation & magazine article- And these are experts?

2010-02-01T09:51:00.001-07:00

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent and Rebecca Lefort
Published: 9:00PM GMT 30 Jan 2010

Comments 234 | Comment on this article

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

The IPCC's remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.

Related Articles

World's most powerful climate scientist writes racy novel

Water vapour is a major cause of global warming and cooling find scientists

Call for climate change 'honesty'

United Nations defends climate change evidence

IPCC: climate change scientists are 'only human'

Second blunder by UN climate science panel

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.

It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC's report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.

This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.

But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC's use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.

Professor Richard Tol, one of the report's authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: "These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.

"Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.

"There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense."

The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government's worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.

The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled "Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming".

It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.

The report also states that the section is intended to "assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects".

But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.

The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.

Mr Bowen said: "I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes."

The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.

Experts claim that loss of ice climbs are a poor indicator of a reduction in mountain ice as climbers can knock ice down and damage ice falls with their axes and crampons.

The IPCC has faced growing criticism over the sources it used in its last report after it emerged the panel had used unsubstantiated figures on glacial melting in the Himalayas that were contained within a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) report.

It can be revealed that the IPCC report made use of 16 non-peer reviewed WWF reports.

One claim, which stated that coral reefs near mangrove forests contained up to 25 times more fish numbers than those without mangroves nearby, quoted a feature article on the WWF website.

In fact the data contained within the WWF article originated from a paper published in 2004 in the respected journal Nature.

In another example a WWF paper on forest fires was used to illustrate the impact of reduced rainfall in the Amazon rainforest, but the data was from another Nature paper published in 1999.

When The Sunday Telegraph contacted the lead scientists behind the two papers in Nature, they expressed surprise that their research was not cited directly but said the IPCC had accurately represented their work.

The chair of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has faced mounting pressure and calls for his resignation amid the growing controversy over the error on glacier melting and use of unreliable sources of information.

A survey of 400 authors and contributors to the IPCC report showed, however, that the majority still support Mr Pachauri and the panel's vice chairs. They also insisted the overall findings of the report are robust despite the minor errors.

But many expressed concern at the use of non-peer reviewed information in the reports and called for a tightening of the guidelines on how information can be used.

The Met Office, which has seven researchers who contributed to the report including Professor Martin Parry who was co-chair of the working group responsible for the part of the report that contained the glacier errors, said: "The IPCC should continue to ensure that its review process is as robust and transparent as possible, that it draws only from the peer-reviewed literature, and that uncertainties in the science and projections are clearly expressed."

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report, added: "The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

"It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."

The IPCC failed to respond to questions about the inclusion of unreliable sources in its report but it has insisted over the past week that despite minor errors, the findings of the report are still robust and consistent with the underlying science.

via telegraph.co.uk

This would explain a lot of the outrageous accusations and claims from this supposed group of experts. Maybe they need to go back to college and learn how to do proper research. I am only finishing up a Master's Degree and even I know that it takes more respectable sources than this!!!

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

The White House will predict a record budget deficit in the current fiscal year. So much for fiscal constraint from O and the gang!!!

2010-02-01T09:46:00.002-07:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60U1PZ20100131#

Well so much for the fiscal constraint and the spending freeze proposed by O and the gang. Not that this is a big surprise. The only question that remains is who will buy all of the treasury bonds that will be required for this excessive spending?

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

Unions nab sweetheart health-care deal => No payback/kickback to see here. Move along.

2010-01-18T00:45:00.001-07:00

Big Labor got some big love from President Obama and congressional Democrats yesterday after they agreed to exempt union workers from the whopping “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health-care plans until 2018.
The sweetheart deal, hammered out behind closed doors, will save union employees at least $60 billion over the years involved, while others won't be as lucky -- they'll have to cough up almost $90 billion.
The 40 percent excise tax on what have come to be called "Cadillac" health-care plans would exempt collective-bargaining contracts covering government employees and other union members until Jan. 1, 2018.

ABACAUSA.COM

Barack Obama

sports_story_lower sports_page quigo_lower 1482096 871776 440 225 * -->

RICH LOWRY: ANOTHER RANK DEAL
EDITORIAL: OBAMACARE'S LATEST BRIBE
In another major concession to labor, the value of dental and vision plans would be exempt from the tax even after the deal expires in eight years, negotiators said.
Under the plan to help fund health-care reform, the tax would kick in for plans valued at $8,900 or more for individuals and $24,000 or more for families.
That's slightly higher than the $8,500 and $23,000 thresholds in the bill passed by the Senate last month.
The threshold will be even higher for certain plans with many older workers and women -- a move to benefit unions with a high proportion of female membership, sources said.
New York labor leaders -- who had initially campaigned against the Cadillac tax, favoring instead a surcharge on the wealthy -- said they are thrilled.
"We can live with it. We have an agreement that nothing will be taxed until 2018," crowed George Boncoraglio, regional president of the Civil Service Employees Association.
Officials said the deal was thrashed out over more than 15 hours of negotiating at the White House that ended after midnight Wednesday.
Powerful unions were well-represented around the bargaining table.
Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Andy Stern, head of Service Employees International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win; and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers, and electricians.
Stern has been among the most frequent visitors to the White House over the last year, showing up more than 20 times, according to logs.
Originally, the Cadillac tax included in the Senate bill was estimated to raise $149 billion through 2019.
But Trumka said the exemption would reduce that amount by $60 billion -- money that negotiators will now have to find elsewhere, or reduce the coverage in the legislation.
Boncoraglio said CSEA leaders were meeting in Albany -- preparing to wage a major offensive against the tax -- when their Washington lobbyist called and briefed them on the changes.
Obama backs the Cadillac excise tax, citing economists who say it would drive down costs by encouraging insurance companies to offer employers and workers a chance to buy lower-cost health plans to avoid the levy.
carl.campanile@nypost.com

via nypost.com

So much for all Americans being treated the same. So much for the social justice that the liberals touted in their campaigns. Nothing but a payback for previous election support and a bribe for future campaign support. This makes ACORN look like an amateur sideshow.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Ed Schultz: I'd cheat to keep Brown from winning - Typical Keep Power at All Costs Liberal

2010-01-18T00:38:00.001-07:00

via washingtontimes.com

Here's the transparency the liberal promised. Imagine what they are not saying that could potentially cause irreversible damage to this country.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Joe Biden meets on transparency today. But the meeting is closed. How typical of this administration!!

2010-01-15T10:55:00.001-07:00

Joe Biden update: He meets on transparency today. But the meeting is closed

January 14, 2010 | 2:22 am

Everybody should just relax and take it easy.

Unsubstantiated rumors that Vice President Joe Biden had suddenly gone a little loopy and ordered some of his official meetings opened to at least cursory public or media attention were just that -- unsubstantiated rumors.

After a recent public sighting, fears had mounted that the one-time, long-term senator might rebel against traditional White House strictures and start acting on all the administration's oft-promised promises of government transparency and official openness running back into 2008.

But the VP's public schedule today puts all those fears to rest.

In fact, loyal Ticket readers will recall that one day last summer with no advance warning whatsoever Biden's official White House schedule changed from listing frequent "private meetings" to listing frequent meetings that are "closed press." Was this dramatic and....

...little-noticed vocabulary change a sign of internal administration turmoil? What did it really mean?

No, of course not. And, nothing.

Announcing everyone the VP meets with, including sessions with unidentified senior staff, which consume much of the vice president's listed time, and what subjects they talk about would have been a stark contrast to George W. Bush's administration, whose notoriously secretive ways drew such criticism from Democrats in Congress during eight long years of really failed policies.

Instead, in the apparent interests of bipartisanship, the Delaware Democrat has adopted much the same sort of undetailed schedule as his Republican predecessor, Dick Cheney, who was not in the Senate when Obama was only 11 years old.

In fact, today's Biden schedule highlight is a meeting with the chief of transparency for economic recovery. But, unfortunately, the transparency meeting is non-transparent, closed to the press. (See his full schedule below.) Which makes it -- what? -- secret openness? Open secrecy?

In a joint report issued early this week a league of nonprofit groups including Common Cause gave the Democratic administration high marks for its openness, although it said the work was incomplete and didn't really go into the lack of open healthcare legislative hearings televised by C-SPAN, as promised by candidate Obama.

Under the category of good but not good enough, here's another viewpoint from Tommy Christopher, including the Obama C-SPAN promise video.

Biden once described Cheney as the most dangerous VP in American history. But since Biden will only turn 68 this year, he was probably overstating in his well-known, jolly way the dangerous vice presidents that he's known whose devious backroom skills and ways earned them fame over the decades --men with household names like William King, Henry Wilson and T.A. Hendricks.

Someday, who knows, Biden's too may join them.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Here is the vice president's official schedule for today. Boldface was added in the interests of emphasis. Note especially that the vice president's meeting with the chairman of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board is closed, meaning non-transparent.

The "pool spray" mentioned has nothing to do with aquatics. It's a coded message to media that a few select members will be allowed in to take pictures briefly -- possibly for only a few seconds -- as Biden and his guest pretend to continue their previously private conversation as if the meeting was open.

DAILY GUIDANCE FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT, Thursday, January 14, 2010:

In the morning, the President and the Vice President will receive the Presidential Daily Briefing and the Economic Daily Briefing in the Oval Office. These briefings are closed press.

At 11:30 AM, the Vice President will meet with Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood to discuss the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This meeting is closed press.

Afterwards, the President and the Vice President will have lunch in the Private Dining Room. This lunch is closed press.

At 1:00 PM, the Vice President will meet with Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi in the Roosevelt Room. There will be a pool spray at the bottom of this meeting; gather time is 1:45 PM in the Brady Briefing Room.

(UPDATE 2:20 p.m.: The White House issued its own report on this closed meeting. Both paragraphs are added below at the end of the VP's schedule.)

Then, at 2:15 PM, the Vice President will meet with Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. This meeting is closed press. ###

White House report on one of Biden's closed meetings:

Today, Vice President Biden met with Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi at the White House. President Obama joined part of the discussion. The leaders discussed preparations for the March parliamentary elections and ongoing efforts to resolve outstanding national unity issues.

Today’s meeting was the latest in an ongoing series of high-level engagements between U.S. and Iraqi officials. The U.S. government remains committed to a long-term partnership with the Iraqi government and people. ###

Source: The Los Angeles Times.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

White House budget director blames old computers for ineffective government - Seriously? #TCOT

2010-01-15T10:47:00.001-07:00

A big reason why the government is inefficient and ineffective is because Washington has outdated technology, with federal workers having better computers at home than in the office.

This startling admission came Thursday from Peter Orszag, who manages the federal bureaucracy for President Barack Obama.

The public is getting a bad return on its tax dollars because government workers are operating with outdated technologies, Orszag said in a statement that kicked off a summit between Obama and dozens of corporate CEOs.

“Twenty years ago, people who came to work in the federal government had better technology at work than at home,” said Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget. “Now that’s no longer the case.

“The American people deserve better service from their government, and better return for their tax dollars.”

The White House release that included Orszag’s comments said one “specific source” of ineffective and inefficient government is the huge technology gap between the public and private sectors that results in billions of dollars in waste, slow and inadequate customer service and a lack of transparency about how dollars are spent.

RELATED ARTICLES

Obama: Patent office's system is 'embarrassing'

Obama is meeting with CEOs to solicit their views on how to improve the federal government with new information technology.

“Improving the technology our government uses isn’t about having the fanciest bells and whistles on our websites — it’s about how we use the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars to make government work better for them,” Obama said in a statement.

Obama had proposed the meeting in April. CEOs from Craigslist, Facebook, Microsoft, Adobe Technology and Monster.com are among those taking part.

“It’s time to bring government into the 21^st century,” Orszag said. “Information technology has the power to transform how government works and revolutionize the ease, convenience and effectiveness by which it serves the American people."

Those attending the summit are to break into smaller groups to discuss streamlining government operations, improving customer service and maximizing return on IT investments.
Also on Hillicon Valley today:
Google pullout threat intensifies U.S.-China tensions on trade
China shows no signs of backing down in Google fight
GOP is 'out-tweeting' Dems in Congress

via thehill.com

Seriously?? I always thought it was a bloated bureaucracy and a leadership that was more interested in their own interests and gaining power than in doing the work the people sent them there to do. At least this time Bush was not blamed directly.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Democrats plan nearly $2 trillion debt limit hike - And how will America pay for this fiasco?

2009-12-13T16:24:00.001-07:00

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091211/D9CHCOIG0.html#

And how will America pay for this fiasco?? I thought that everything the Democrats were going to do would be at least deficit neutral. Guess that is the hope and change that was promised.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

‘Welcome to Obamaville’ Sign Marks Colorado Homeless Tent City - How Appropriate! #tcot #iamthemob

2009-12-13T16:19:00.001-07:00

via breitbart.tv

What more can be said than this is completely appropriate.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Reid Compares Opponents of Health Care Reform to Supporters of Slavery - Typical Liberal Hysteria

2009-12-07T16:11:00.001-07:00

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women's suffrage and the civil rights movement -- even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery.

Senate Republicans on Monday called Reid's comments "offensive" and "unbelievable."

But Reid argued that Republicans are using the same stalling tactics employed in the pre-Civil War era.

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

He continued: "When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right.

"When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

That seemed to be a reference to Thurmond's famous 1957 filibuster -- the late senator switched parties several years later.

Reid's office stood by the remarks, with spokesman Jim Manley saying Republicans have "done nothing but obstruct health care" in the Senate.

"Today's feigned outrage is nothing but a ploy to distract from the fact they have no plan to lower the cost of health care, stop insurance company abuses or protect Medicare," Manley said.

But Republicans said they were genuinely appalled. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Reid's remarks were over the top.

"That is extremely offensive," he told Fox News. "It's language that should never be used, never be used. ... Those days are not here now."

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., suggested Reid was starting to "crack" under the pressure of the health care reform debate.

"I think it's beneath the dignity of the majority leader," Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said. "I personally am insulted."

via foxnews.com

With this guy acting so hysterically, how can anyone take him seriously? Reid is losing his mind over health care. Next he will be threatening to impose martial law or a coup if health care doesn't pass. It would be entertaining if it wasn't so scary. I have never seen someone in Reid's position of power acting so delusional.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data (Washington Times) - Anyone know if Acorn has a scientific division?

2009-12-05T10:33:00.001-07:00

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/#

I wonder if Acorn has a scientific division that is assisting in the global warming effort. Regardless, altering and misrepresenting actual data and outcomes appear to be systemic across the liberal spectrum. Can’t take over a capitalist country by gaining public support for desired policies? (1) Have a nutty organization add a few thousand dead people, cartoon characters, and professional athletes to the voting rolls to fix it. (2) Create hysteria about how everyone is going to die if they don’t give up their cars, freedoms, and way of life by misrepresenting climate data and then destroying the raw data to avoid any scrutiny. (3) Create additional hysteria by claiming that everyone is going to die if the people do not give up their freedom and hard earned wages so the government can create an unwieldy universal healthcare system that has been proven not to work effectively and efficiently in any other country that has tried it. (4) Claim that the argument is over and anyone opposing your policies or positions as hate mongers, racists, homophobes, bigots, haters of nature, sore losers, nut cases, etc. (5) If all else fails, pass it on a weekend when no one is watching regardless of what the people want and then force it down their throats with threats of fines and jail time.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

Comcast-NBC Deal: Does the Mergers Approval Rest on Health Care? - from breitbart.com's Big Government

2009-12-05T10:17:00.001-07:00

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/04/comcast-nbc-deal-does-the-mergers-approval-rest-on-health-care/#

Wow this is typical of the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid cabal in Congress. If you want something done you must come bow down to us and pay the requisite homage we demand. Too bad America will be sold further up the river for continued and new programming that no one wants to watch. Maddow, Olberman, and Tingle legs Matthews must be hoping for the possibility that this change will get them out of the ratings dump. However, like the hope and change they have already bought into with Obama, this too will be just an illusion as no one wants to watch their tirades and drivel.

Posted via email from conservativedynamics's posterous

7 stories Barack Obama doesn't want told-Politico.com #tcot #iamthemob #glennbeck

2009-11-30T22:37:00.001-07:00

Presidential politics is about storytelling. Presented with a vivid storyline, voters naturally tend to fit every new event or piece of information into a picture that is already neatly framed in their minds.

No one understands this better than Barack Obama and his team, who won the 2008 election in part because they were better storytellers than the opposition. The pro-Obama narrative featured an almost mystically talented young idealist who stood for change in a disciplined and thoughtful way. This easily outpowered the anti-Obama narrative, featuring an opportunistic Chicago pol with dubious relationships who was more liberal than he was letting on.

A year into his presidency, however, Obama’s gift for controlling his image shows signs of faltering. As Washington returns to work from the Thanksgiving holiday, there are several anti-Obama storylines gaining momentum.

The Obama White House argues that all of these storylines are inaccurate or unfair. In some cases these anti-Obama narratives are fanned by Republicans, in some cases by reporters and commentators.

But they all are serious threats to Obama, if they gain enough currency to become the dominant frame through which people interpret the president’s actions and motives.

Here are seven storylines Obama needs to worry about:

He thinks he’s playing with Monopoly money

Economists and business leaders from across the ideological spectrum were urging the new president on last winter when he signed onto more than a trillion in stimulus spending and bank and auto bailouts during his first weeks in office. Many, though far from all, of these same people now agree that these actions helped avert an even worse financial catastrophe.

Along the way, however, it is clear Obama underestimated the political consequences that flow from the perception that he is a profligate spender. He also misjudged the anger in middle America about bailouts with weak and sporadic public explanations of why he believed they were necessary.

The flight of independents away from Democrats last summer — the trend that recently hammered Democrats in off-year elections in Virginia — coincided with what polls show was alarm among these voters about undisciplined big government and runaway spending. The likely passage of a health care reform package criticized as weak on cost-control will compound the problem.

Obama understands the political peril, and his team is signaling that he will use the 2010 State of the Union address to emphasize fiscal discipline. The political challenge, however, is an even bigger substantive challenge—since the most convincing way to project fiscal discipline would be actually to impose spending reductions that would cramp his own agenda and that of congressional Democrats.

via politico.com

Interesting story. It again shows the arrogance of the Obama Administration and their desire for image control. Obama would be better suited in some banana republic aside Chavez or Castro.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

The White House Takes On POLITICO - What a Bunch of Whiners!!! #tcot #iamthemob #glennbeck

2009-11-30T22:32:00.001-07:00

It's not just Fox News that's become subject of White House derision. The following is an excerpt from a joke e-mail that is circulating among White House staffers. It's a response, of sorts, to the analytical essay that POLITICO editor-in-chief John Harris wrote about the "seven stories that Barack Obama doesn't want told." It's fairly caustic -- and, truth be told, the White House maintains good relationships with POLITICO reporters and has been known to try and agenda-set by dishing out a few tips to the publication. But make no mistake: many on the White House senior staff dislike POLITICO's brand of journalism, and they do not like the effect that POLITICO's metabolism has on the rest of the press corps, including this (i.e., my own) corner of it. Still, don't read too much into this. There's been plenty of back-and-forth between the Whit House and the POLITICO, and the White House accepts the role -- which is often substantial -- that POLITICO plays in the newsgathering process.

7 narratives politico is fighting in their efforts to get an interview with the President
1.       They are more interested in readers than accuracy
2.       Its okay to be wrong everyonce in a while, if your are the first to break the news
3.       More interested in gossip than news
4.       A spouter of the worst sort of insider conventional wisdom
5.       Their analysis about obama has been wrong more than any one
6.       Click ... period
7.       More obsessed with personality than policy

Permalink :: Comments (19) :: TrackBacks (0) :: Share This

via politics.theatlantic.com

These guys(?) are a bunch of whiners. Did they really think that they were going to get nothing but fawning press? The last idol of the press, Bill Clinton, ended up being eaten alive by them. I have nothing against a private joke against an opponent, but one would think that these guys would be smart enough not to put it out in a medium that could be leaked where it could be used to make them look like a bunch of first graders.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Health & safety snoops to enter British homes - The Future of Obamacare? #tcot #iamthemob #glennbeck

2009-11-18T09:41:00.001-07:00

Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure that parents are protecting their children from household accidents.

New guidance drawn up at the request of the Department of Health urges councils and other public sector bodies to “collect data” on properties where children are thought to be at “greatest risk of unintentional injury”.

Council staff will then be tasked with overseeing the installation of safety devices in homes, including smoke alarms, stair gates, hot water temperature restrictors, oven guards and window and door locks.

The draft guidance by a committee at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) has been criticised as intrusive and further evidence of the “creeping nanny state”.

Related Links

Scouts banned from carrying knives

Until now, councils have made only a limited number of home inspections to check on building work and in extreme cases where the state of a house is thought to pose a serious risk to public health.

Nice also recommends the creation of a new government database to allow GPs, midwives and other officials who visit homes to log health and safety concerns they spot.

The guidance aims to “encourage all practitioners who visit families and carers with children and young people aged under 15 to provide home safety advice and, where necessary, conduct a home risk assessment”. It continues: “If possible, they should supply and install home safety equipment.”

The proposals have been put out to consultation and, if approved, will be implemented next year.

Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “It is a huge intervention into family life which will be counter-productive.

“Good parents will feel the intrusion of the state in their homes and bad parents will now have someone else to blame if they don’t bring up their children in a sensible, safe environment.”

About 100,000 children are admitted to hospital each year for home injuries at a cost of £146m.

via timesonline.co.uk

Is this the future of Obamacare? When the British system started out it was only to provide healthcare to everyone. Now we see the true evolution of government provided healthcare: total control of all aspects of everyday life.

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Castro, like other two bit dictators, get giddy thinking about Obama! #tcot #iamthemob #glennbeck

2009-11-14T21:02:00.001-07:00

HAVANA – Think you're obsessed with President Barack Obama and the many challenges he faces at home and abroad?

Well, you're not alone.

Fidel Castro appears to have a fascination with the American leader that would make Obama Girl jealous, writing obsessively not only about his politics, but of his youth and vigor.

And unlike with past American heads-of-state — he slammed President George W. Bush as a genocidal drunk — Castro seems to genuinely like the fresh face in Washington.

Since handing over the Cuban presidency to his brother in February 2008, the 83-year-old has continued to publish his thoughts in essays called "Reflections of Comrade Fidel," which are dutifully printed in state media and read repeatedly on government-controlled radio and television.

Hardly a week goes by without a mention of his nemesis to the north, the most recent on Thursday. In an opinion piece that took up an entire newspaper page, Castro waxed philosophic about everything from Obama's Asia trip to his prospects for re-election.

Last month, Castro pronounced it a good thing that the American president was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In September, he termed Obama's call-to-action on global warming courageous.

"It really is an obsession," said Ann Louis Bardach, a longtime Cuba observer and author of the recent book, "Without Fidel: A Death Foretold in Miami, Havana and Washington."

She noted that Castro confessed to being riveted by coverage of Obama's January inauguration, which he told visiting Argentine President Cristina Fernandez made him very happy.

Obama Girl, a.k.a. model Amber Lee Ettinger, sang of her crush on the presidential candidate in bit of political satire that went viral on the Internet.

"I think he has genuine appreciation for Obama," Bardach said. "He sees in him a charismatic politician and brilliant strategist, and he admires that. Obama is a guy who came from nowhere and wasn't part of the establishment, just like Castro."

Opining on the actions of U.S. leaders is nothing new for Castro, who came to power when Dwight D. Eisenhower was in the Oval Office and has been on the world stage long enough to see 10 other presidents in the same chair.

But in less than a year of near-constant commentary, Castro has called Obama intelligent, sincere, serene, courageous, honest and well-meaning. He praised his work ethic, pondered the historical nature of his barrier-shattering election and fretted that he might face assassination.

"I really hate to criticize Obama," Castro began apologetically in Thursday's column. "And I realize that that job in the United States is a giant headache."

Castro writes that he is impressed by the scope of Obama's agenda in Asia. The trip is scheduled to take the president to Japan, Singapore, China and South Korea for bilateral meetings with world leaders and to participate in two regional summits.

"Perhaps no other U.S. president would be capable of committing to such an intense schedule," said Castro, who was known in his youth for his extraordinary stamina — particularly when on the stump.

Still, the former Cuban leader can't help scolding Obama for continuing what he says is a U.S. tradition of strong-arm tactics and trickery. Castro criticizes him for maintaining the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay and for a pact with Colombia that allows American soldiers increased access to seven military bases in that country.

Some U.S. officials are skeptical of Castro's motives, noting the Cuban leader cannot be too critical of the first African-American president, who is wildly popular among Cuba's population. He also has had to formulate a fitting response to Obama's change in tone.
The American leader came to office promising to extend a hand of friendship to America's adversaries, but he has moved cautiously so far on Cuba. The administration has softened U.S. rhetoric toward the island and loosened some travel restrictions. But Obama has said he has no plans to lift Washington's 47-year trade embargo unless the single-party, communist state accepts some political, economic and social changes.
Cuba has indicated it has no plans to do anything of the sort, but that hasn't stopped the warm words.
By the end of Thursday's opinion piece, Castro seemed to have made up his mind: Obama is not perfect, but he's a lot better than the alternative.
Meaning to Castro that he won't last long atop the empire.
"Soon, the ultra-right of the United States will try to limit (Obama's) rule to four years," Castro warned, looking to 2012. "A Nixon, a Bush or somebody like Cheney will be the new president, and then the purpose of these unjustifiable military bases that threaten the peoples of South America will be very clear."

via news.yahoo.com

If two bit dictators are all obsessed with Obama shouldn't that be a concern for freedom loving Americans?

Posted via web from conservativedynamics's posterous

Conservative Dynamics

Canyon County Republicans' 32nd Annual Republican Roundup June 10th!

Great Article by Reason Magazine About the Nationwide Movement of Education Reform.

Excellent Piece by Congressman Raul Labrador on How Tax Day Should Remind Us That We Don't Need More Taxes

Test Message

A Twitter account named Union Thugs, which claims to be speaking for Idaho's teachers, wants to follow one of my Twitter accounts!

Text of Obamacare Repeal Legislation

U.S. vs. Assange/Wikileaks: Avenues and Pitfalls to Potential Criminal Prosecution (CRS Paper)

A Good Introduction to the Congressional Appropriations Process

Kick a Dog One Too Many Times and They Will Bite! "Blue Dog" Turn on Nancy Pelosi With a Vengence.

Nancy Pelosi faces new resistance from Democrats http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44969.html

Top Blue Dog calls for Pelosi to quit http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44710.html

Democrats pressing Pelosi to step aside http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111105582.html

Term limits for Pelosi's allies? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111107834.html

Democrat Not Supporting Pelosi For Minority Leader http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/08/democrat_not_supporting_pelosi_for_minority_leader.html

A Simple Way to Start Reforming the Way Congress Works

Great Ad from the College Republicans entitled "The Break Up"

Soon to be Speaker Boehner Speaking with George Stephanopoulos on GMA Regarding Two-Point Job Creation Plan.

Republican Study Committee Supports Two Point Plan of Spending Reduction and Prevention of 2011 Tax Hikes Outlined by Rep. Boehner Today

Should the Elite of Republican Party Worry About Tea Party Victories in November as Much as the Democratic Elite? I Would Be.

Republican New School Flexes Clout Ahead of November

RSS Feed Test

rss feed test

Now They are Listening to the People: Rank and File Democrats are Tripping Over Themselves to Get Away From Their Voting Records

Endangered Dems quiet on key votes http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41207.html

Dems retreat on health care cost pitch http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41271.html

Things are Looking Good for November: Poll Shows GOP Tide Starting to Roll

Commentary on the Eight Hallmarks of a Rovian Campaign. How Candidates and Grassroots Supporters Can Be Successful.

Lame Duck Resolution Introduced by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) Will Be Voted on Tomorrow!

In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals - Gallup Poll

In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals - Gallup Poll

The Gathering Revolt Against Government Spending (from the Washington Examiner)

By: Michael BaroneSenior Political AnalystMay 23, 2010

Pics from This Morning's Sarah Palin-Vaughn Ward Event Here in Boise, Idaho

Fox News Poll: States Should Have Right To Make Immigration Laws

Here Comes the Next Massive Taxpayer Bailout: State Pension Funds

House Republican Letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Opposing the VAT Tax Option

Conservatives, Liberals, and the Application of Equality

Text of the Kerry-Leiberman Cap and Trade Bill

Repealing the 17th Amendment or Imposing Term Limits?

Black Hopefuls Pick This Year in G.O.P. Races ( NYT)

Report: Congress Makes Too Many Vague Laws (Yahoo! News)

Happy Meal Toys Could be Banned in California County

Happy Meal Toys Could be Banned in California County

G.O.P. Threatens Seats Long Held by Democrats

Running on the Promise to Repeal Obamacare is Short Sighted and Dangerous Strategy for Republican Candidates

Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill (Update: Unveiling on Hold After Sen. Graham Balks Over Immigration Reform)

Kerry, Graham, Lieberman to Unveil Climate Bill

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

Cap and Trade Part 1: The Cap and Trade Programs According to the Congressional Budget Offce Cost Estimate

H4892/S3081 Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, & Prosecution Act. A Congressional Bill That Should Raise Concerns.

US Senate climate bill to be unveiled April 26 - Looks like this could be worse than the House version

Via Gateway Pundit: GOP Official & Boyfriend Savagely Beaten In Politically Motivated Attack – Including Broken Leg, Jaw, Concussion… Media Silent

What Happens When You Back a Donkey With Nothing to Lose Into a Corner?

U.S. Government To Save Billions By Cutting Wasteful Senator Program

Obamacare simplified into a single image

Universal Healthcare and the Commerce Clause

Universal Healthcare and the Commerce Clause

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? WOW!! There is a big surprise. Chicago politics at its worst.

McCain Tries Acting Like a Conservative to Keep His Senate Seat. It's Like a Coat that Doesn't Fit.

By MICHAEL M. PHILLIPS

Barack Obama’s former mentor criticises ‘complacent Administration’ - This is just classic.

Related Links

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million - So much for the limited Govt the Founders envisioned.

Originally published 05:00 a.m., February 2, 2010, updated 04:53 p.m., February 2, 2010

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class - Obama breaks his promise AGAIN.

LATEST HEADLINES

Early draft of the Constitution found in Philly - This is just the thing us history lovers dream of!!

First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants - Is she so egotistical to really believe she is the Queen of America? Afraid so.

Recession, Depression, What, Michelle Worry? Mrs. Obama Demands Small Army of Attendants

First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants

CFP Tools

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation & magazine article- And these are experts?

Related Articles

The White House will predict a record budget deficit in the current fiscal year. So much for fiscal constraint from O and the gang!!!

Unions nab sweetheart health-care deal => No payback/kickback to see here. Move along.

Ed Schultz: I'd cheat to keep Brown from winning - Typical Keep Power at All Costs Liberal

Joe Biden meets on transparency today. But the meeting is closed. How typical of this administration!!

White House budget director blames old computers for ineffective government - Seriously? #TCOT

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
May 23, 2010