Just a group of animal lovers that have been swept up in the political firestorm which has led to an unjust end. mans best friend has now been micro-chipped, tagged, muzzled, and put out to pasture within a closed in kennel. Sad really because I know some of these individuals and have met there dogs. I have a ferret that is more vicisious then the Rushing's dog and it irritates me to no end they are being treated like convicts because they own an animal which some people have turned into an unreliable breed.
Let's jail the owner not the animal which has been neglected or trained to defend to its death or someone elses.
Wake up people it is only a matter of time before this list grows to include Doberman Pinchers, German Shepherds, Chows, Rottweilers and rumor has it Labs. Lets not forget the Dalamation which has shown tendencies to be aggresive.
Should we talk about Siamese cats next??
Remember this valuable lesson if you learn nothing else today:
When you ask government to impose your values upon others, you wind up with government imposing someone else's values on you.
I'm Tom Martz the only candidate in the 139th which will fight to defend YOUR rights.
Owners keep up complaints that city keeps them on too short a leash.
Jane Huh
News-Leader
Jose Arroyo on Monday joined about 50 others in registering their pit bulls after the city ordinance deadline, bringing the total tally up to 255.
Arroyo registered his 6-year-old pit bull, Kane, to comply with the new rules regulating pit bull ownership in Springfield.
But on the other side of the law, at least 21 tickets have been issued to Springfield dog owners since Oct. 16, when the ordinance went into effect.
As the second week of enforcement begins, the volume of complaints and concerns seem to have "settled down a lot," said Ron Boyer, assistant health director.
But, "those who are not registered are still at risk for getting ticketed," Boyer warned.
The city registers the dogs at the Springfield Animal Shelter near Kansas Expressway and Norton Road.
According to the city, an estimated 4,000 pit bulls live in Springfield. The figure is based on a formula using national statistics.
Dog owners who get ticketed for not registering their pit bulls can face fines of up to $1,000. With permission from municipal court, the city can confiscate unregistered pit bulls found at large.
At the city's animal shelter, there are already half a dozen pit bulls given up by the owners. As a result, the shelter has maxed out its capacity to take any more pit bulls.
Shelter employees put pit bulls in separate pens. Other dogs can be grouped.
Randy Barnts, animal control supervisor, said those dogs may be euthanized as early as today to make more room for other pit bulls that the officers pick up.
The owners who gave up their pit bulls to the city were told that giving up the dogs could result in euthanization.
"We tell them that upfront," Barnts said.
Owners who want to give up their dogs to the city for no charge can still contact the health department.
While there have been some reports of pit bulls getting dumped outside the city limits, the Springfield-Greene County Health Department cannot do anything about it.
No effective date has been set for a proposed Greene County ordinance that would give the city's health department legal authority to pick up free-running nuisance dogs outside Springfield limits, Boyer said.
Besides Barnts, there are seven animal control officers and two full-time shelter employees who are responsible for maintaining the pound and euthanizing animals.
The ordinance has at least two pit bull dog owners still fuming.
Last week, Joshua Hunter contacted local media outlets to express his opposition to the ordinance — in particular, its requirement to keep pit bulls in a fenced-in enclosure with a top and an opening latch. Hunter has registered his dog with the city.
The ordinance requires pit bull owners to keep their dogs inside an enclosure if they are outside and unattended for a long period of time, Barnts said.
Brian Rushing, who also has registered his dog with the city, emphasized that he and Hunter realize that the animal control officers are doing their job. But Rushing said he feels the city is treating him like a criminal for having a pit bull.
"You can't violate everybody's rights for the few bad apples," Rushing said. "That's what's upsetting people like me. We went through the trouble of training our dogs, we went through the trouble of being responsible, and we're being treated like criminals."
Arroyo shared those sentiments Monday after his dog, Kane, was registered and microchipped.
He said could never give up Kane, which he raised since it was "a little pup."
Arroyo said he considers himself lucky for being able to foot the cost associated with compliance.
"I call (this law) discrimination against pits," Arroyo said. "I think all animals are equal. It's how you raise the animal, really."
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
Do Tax Cuts Cost the Government Money?
far to often the media and those that live off the system have portrayed a tax cut as something BAD. I might mention the government should provide only one service of which we should be billed for, The cost of the defense of this nation should be shouldered by ALL that reside within the border.
As an ex-military person I have no regrets for my service except during my term of service just like now I am taxed on the very income I was earning to defend this nation. I don't believe ACTIVE members of the military should be taxed to help pay their own salary. It is quite an oxymoron but then why don't we charge them to purchase the bullets as well?? I will have others that will suggest that police officers, firefighters, teachers, and probably government workers should receive the same treatment, however my opinion on that matter is easy to explain. I don't need the police to defend my household or me personally, most generally they get there after the fact anyhow. I don't need the firefighters to help me put out my house fire most generally they would tell me to leave if I'm battling one anyhow. As far as teachers go we home schooled and had no need for government education nor the teacher which is paid to do the teaching.
I do however need the military to defend the borders of this nation and to keep it secure from attack, something our current crop of politicians haven't done.
I'm Tom Martz libertarian candidate for the 139th district and I offer you a voice in Jeff City not just the same old warn out record.
October 23, 2006
Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, cost to government. How much will this tax cut cost the government? we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose-- through their elected representatives-- to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?
You don't cost the government money, the government costs you money!
Of course it's reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That's the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That's why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.
I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.
Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. Tax Freedom Day, representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!
One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible-- the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits.
Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.
As an ex-military person I have no regrets for my service except during my term of service just like now I am taxed on the very income I was earning to defend this nation. I don't believe ACTIVE members of the military should be taxed to help pay their own salary. It is quite an oxymoron but then why don't we charge them to purchase the bullets as well?? I will have others that will suggest that police officers, firefighters, teachers, and probably government workers should receive the same treatment, however my opinion on that matter is easy to explain. I don't need the police to defend my household or me personally, most generally they get there after the fact anyhow. I don't need the firefighters to help me put out my house fire most generally they would tell me to leave if I'm battling one anyhow. As far as teachers go we home schooled and had no need for government education nor the teacher which is paid to do the teaching.
I do however need the military to defend the borders of this nation and to keep it secure from attack, something our current crop of politicians haven't done.
I'm Tom Martz libertarian candidate for the 139th district and I offer you a voice in Jeff City not just the same old warn out record.
October 23, 2006
Whenever tax cuts are discussed in Washington, the media and most politicians use the phrase, cost to government. How much will this tax cut cost the government? we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they deem acceptable, and if they choose-- through their elected representatives-- to reduce that funding level, they are not somehow injuring the government. If Congresses passes a new law that results in you paying $1000 less in taxes next year, have you taken something from the government that rightfully belongs to it? Or has the government simply taken less from you?
You don't cost the government money, the government costs you money!
Of course it's reasonable to demand that politicians cut spending when they cut taxes. That's the definition of real fiscal conservatism: government should not take too much from the private economy in taxes, but neither should it spend too much and run up deficits. That's why I vote against the wasteful appropriations bills that relentlessly increase federal spending year after year.
I reject the notion that tax cuts harm the economy. The economy suffers when government takes money from your paycheck that you otherwise would spend, save, or invest. Taxes never create prosperity. Private-sector innovation and productivity are the engines that drive our economy, regardless of what politicians tell us.
Tax reduction is my first priority in Congress. The reality is that most working Americans lose about half of their incomes to federal, state, and local taxes. Tax Freedom Day, representing the portion of the year you must work to pay for government at all levels, is roughly June 1st for most Americans. Imagine all of your hard work this year between January and the end of May going to the government!
One tax in particular should be eliminated as soon as possible-- the tax on Social Security benefits. Those benefits were never taxed between the 1930s and 1984. Treating them as taxable income represents nothing more than a trick to reduce Social Security benefits by stealth. I supported legislation that successfully repealed a 1993 tax increase on benefits, and my own bill, HR 180, would go further and eliminate all taxes on Social Security. Our seniors paid taxes throughout their working lives to fund the Social Security system, and it is immoral to tax them again on their benefits.
Various other taxes also must be reduced. Capital gains taxes are terribly counterproductive, punishing those who save and invest. Payroll taxes impose a tremendous compliance burden on businesses, especially smaller entrepreneurs who cannot hire an accounting department. Federal gas taxes should be slashed to provide taxpayers relief at the pump. Most importantly, federal spending must be dramatically reduced so that all Americans can go back to working for themselves instead of working to pay their taxes.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Election judge banned from polls for double voting
this story got much more attention then the double voting Mayor Kathy Taylor of Tulsa,OK but then again she is a democrat.
The Associated Press
Maplewood — A veteran Republican election judge will not be allowed to work at the polls Nov. 7 after acknowledging he illegally cast two absentee ballots.
St. Louis County Election Board Chairman John Diehl said the man — the second judge caught double-voting this year — was elderly and told election officials that he hadn't meant to vote twice. Diehl declined to identify the judge.
County election officials took the action Friday after the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called inquiring about a tip.
Diehl confirmed the tipster's account, that the judge cast one vote before and a second vote after an Oct. 9 election-judge training class at the county Election Board's headquarters in Maplewood.
Diehl said that the Election Board learned of the man's actions Oct. 10 and was planning to confront him.
"He has worked for us for a while," Diehl said. "We don't believe it was an intentional or devious act."
Diehl said evidence of the man's double voting will be turned over to county prosecutors, who will decide whether to take legal action.
People convicted of voting more than once face a minimum fine of up to $2,500 and a maximum penalty of five years in jail.
They also permanently lose their right to vote.
The election board previously turned over evidence involving a Democratic election judge who was fired over the summer after officials determined that judge had illegally cast two absentee ballots for the Aug. 8 primary.
Diehl said the board has not been told of any action in the earlier case.
Diehl said an unexpectedly high number of absentee voters are casting ballots for a midterm election.
"The line is out the door," Diehl said, referring to the board's office in Maplewood.
So far, almost 5,000 absentee ballots have been cast by mail or in person in St. Louis County, election officials said.
Missouri voters can cast absentee ballots for reasons that include being disabled or expecting to be away from home on Election Day.
The Associated Press
Maplewood — A veteran Republican election judge will not be allowed to work at the polls Nov. 7 after acknowledging he illegally cast two absentee ballots.
St. Louis County Election Board Chairman John Diehl said the man — the second judge caught double-voting this year — was elderly and told election officials that he hadn't meant to vote twice. Diehl declined to identify the judge.
County election officials took the action Friday after the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called inquiring about a tip.
Diehl confirmed the tipster's account, that the judge cast one vote before and a second vote after an Oct. 9 election-judge training class at the county Election Board's headquarters in Maplewood.
Diehl said that the Election Board learned of the man's actions Oct. 10 and was planning to confront him.
"He has worked for us for a while," Diehl said. "We don't believe it was an intentional or devious act."
Diehl said evidence of the man's double voting will be turned over to county prosecutors, who will decide whether to take legal action.
People convicted of voting more than once face a minimum fine of up to $2,500 and a maximum penalty of five years in jail.
They also permanently lose their right to vote.
The election board previously turned over evidence involving a Democratic election judge who was fired over the summer after officials determined that judge had illegally cast two absentee ballots for the Aug. 8 primary.
Diehl said the board has not been told of any action in the earlier case.
Diehl said an unexpectedly high number of absentee voters are casting ballots for a midterm election.
"The line is out the door," Diehl said, referring to the board's office in Maplewood.
So far, almost 5,000 absentee ballots have been cast by mail or in person in St. Louis County, election officials said.
Missouri voters can cast absentee ballots for reasons that include being disabled or expecting to be away from home on Election Day.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Egregious Earmark of the Week:
you'll notice that only 31 votes against this type of spending and by the way Mr. Bush signed it into law. Conservative administration my @$$.
The flow of the status quo continues. I would bet my lunch money that Rep Paul(TX), Rep Flake(AZ), and Rep Pence(IN) all voted against this type of wasteful spending.
Taxes & Spending
$100,000 to Fix Orange Show Stadium
by Rep. Jeff Flake
Posted Oct 18, 2006
Earmark Reform: Conservatives Await Next Steps
Pork for Defense
How Much Is a Year of Life Worth?
Egregious Earmark of the Week:
$100,000 to Corona, Calif., Old City Hall
Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) has spotted this week's egregious earmark buried in the Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill (H.R. 3058) for fiscal year 2006.
The noteworthy pork project comes to the grand total of $100,000 allotted to the city of San Bernardino, Calif., for making renovations to the National Orange Show Stadium.
"When is Congress going to have the juice to say 'no' to squeezing taxpayers?" said Flake.
The House passed the bill with a vote of 392-31 and the Senate sent it through without one vote of opposition. It was signed into law by President Bush on November 30, 2005.
Mr. Flake represents the 6th District of Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves on the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Resources.
The flow of the status quo continues. I would bet my lunch money that Rep Paul(TX), Rep Flake(AZ), and Rep Pence(IN) all voted against this type of wasteful spending.
Taxes & Spending
$100,000 to Fix Orange Show Stadium
by Rep. Jeff Flake
Posted Oct 18, 2006
Earmark Reform: Conservatives Await Next Steps
Pork for Defense
How Much Is a Year of Life Worth?
Egregious Earmark of the Week:
$100,000 to Corona, Calif., Old City Hall
Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) has spotted this week's egregious earmark buried in the Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriations bill (H.R. 3058) for fiscal year 2006.
The noteworthy pork project comes to the grand total of $100,000 allotted to the city of San Bernardino, Calif., for making renovations to the National Orange Show Stadium.
"When is Congress going to have the juice to say 'no' to squeezing taxpayers?" said Flake.
The House passed the bill with a vote of 392-31 and the Senate sent it through without one vote of opposition. It was signed into law by President Bush on November 30, 2005.
Mr. Flake represents the 6th District of Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives. He serves on the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Resources.
Conservatives Will Regret Putting Dems in Power
Once more we have a pontificator that astounds us with a prediction that says if you stay home and don't vote republican you have elected a democrat. I'm so sick and tired of this political posturing.
I wonder if baseball fans would only like to be able to watch the NY Yankees playing the Florida Marlins every game during baseball season ands then again for the World Series???
How about Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. racing every NASCAR race with only them on the track??
The Pittsburgh Steelers playing the Seattle Seahawks for 16 weeks straight then the 3 playoff games and then again for the Super Bowl??
I would bet viewership and fan attendance would drop drastically in a matter of weeks except for the HARDCORE fan, of which even they would get bored with it. However in politics we have the exact stupidity going on, republicans and democrats, democrats and republicans. They have become the same side of a coin and they have made it so only they get media attention. I wonder if the Marlins would like it if the Yankees received all the draft choices??
The McTalenskill infomercial here in MO was a classic example. 4 candidates, 2 of which were ALLOWED on the podium to voice their opinion. In the sporting world dynasties come crumbling down every few years so they can be rebuilt. In politics when the political parties control the news media and every media outlet viewed by the mindnumb masses those that could possibly challenge the dynasties aren't even allowed to be on the playing field.
I'm Tom Martz the best candidate for the 139th district in MO.
secure your freedoms by voting Libertarian
October 18, 2006
By Tony Blankley
John Stuart Mill once famously called the British Tories "The Stupid Party." From time to time since then, the Tory's American cousin, the Republican Party, has also earned that moniker. Now may be one of those moments. If current polls and anecdotes are to be believed, there may be a million or two conservative Republicans who are planning to not vote this November.
Of course, Mill also said, "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but also by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury."
Apparently, these anticipated conservative non-voters are annoyed with Republican imperfection. They are disheartened, disappointed, disillusioned, distempered, and dismal -- and thus plan to dis the party that better advances conservative principles in government.
They appear to have fallen victim to the false syllogism: 1) Something must be done; 2) not voting is something; therefore, 3) I will not vote. Of course the fallacy of the syllogism is that the second category could be anything. For example, No. 2 could as well read "eating dog excrement is something."
I rather suspect that they will feel about the same afterward, whether they chose the non-voting option or the scatological one. They are both equally illogical -- and repulsive -- and would deserve the moniker "Stupid."
Here are some telltale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party that would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):
1) When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory-recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.
2) When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.
3) When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.
4) When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay.
A conservative would have to be just that stupid to stay home on Nov. 7. I have heard it put around that the Republicans need a couple of years in the wilderness to regain their conservative bearings.
While turning over the Congress to the Pelosi/Kennedy mob for even two years would be recklessly irresponsible -- particularly during a dangerous war-- there is no assurance the wilderness years would last only 24 months.
In 1954, the Democrats, led by the great Sam Rayburn, retook the House after control had seesawed back and forth for 10 years (1944-Democrat; 1946-Republican; 1948-Democrat; 1950-Democrat; 1952-Republican; 1954-Democrat)
Sam Rayburn (one of the shrewdest politicians ever to play the game) was so sure that the Republicans would take back the House in the Eisenhower re-election year of 1956, that when he became Speaker after the 1954 election, he didn't even bother to move his furniture back to the better office suite occupied by Joe Martin (the Republican Speaker who returned to Minority leader status after the 1954 Republican loss.) They decided to keep their previous office spaces rather than go through the bother of moving across the hall.
As it turned out, the Republicans didn't re-take a majority of the House for 40 years (The Gingrich-led election of 1994). So for 40 years the Republican minority leaders got to keep the better office space (that looked out over the majestic Washington Mall), while the Democratic Speakers for 40 years got a view of the parking lot.
I don't care who has the better office space in the future, but any conservative ought to be very concerned about who has the political power in Washington. The Democrats have virtually promised to scandalize the Republican administration (with subpoena and impeachment-seeking oversight hearings) for the next two years -- in preparation for defeating the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.
Moreover, every Democrat who beats a Republican in three weeks will have two years to feather his or her nest, and use the powers of incumbency to defeat his 2008 Republican challenger.
Even more important, in a closely fought 2008 presidential election, every extra Democratic incumbent senator, congressman and governor makes it just a little more likely that the Democratic presidential candidate may win that district or state. All those freshly tuned new Democratic machines will help get out Democratic Party votes for the top of their 2008 ticket.
This current conservative petulance -- if it actually occurs on Nov. 7 -- will increase the chances of electing Hillary, or worse (if such a thing is possible) in 2008.
There is no rational policy or political basis for conservatives not voting. I'm not sure the country can take the current Democratic mob in power for long.
A realist once observed that the history of mankind is little more than the triumph of the heartless over the mindless.
The Democrats are obviously heartless. Conservatives must guard against falling into the category of the mindless. Ignore your heartfelt peevements, use your brains and vote.
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
I wonder if baseball fans would only like to be able to watch the NY Yankees playing the Florida Marlins every game during baseball season ands then again for the World Series???
How about Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt Jr. racing every NASCAR race with only them on the track??
The Pittsburgh Steelers playing the Seattle Seahawks for 16 weeks straight then the 3 playoff games and then again for the Super Bowl??
I would bet viewership and fan attendance would drop drastically in a matter of weeks except for the HARDCORE fan, of which even they would get bored with it. However in politics we have the exact stupidity going on, republicans and democrats, democrats and republicans. They have become the same side of a coin and they have made it so only they get media attention. I wonder if the Marlins would like it if the Yankees received all the draft choices??
The McTalenskill infomercial here in MO was a classic example. 4 candidates, 2 of which were ALLOWED on the podium to voice their opinion. In the sporting world dynasties come crumbling down every few years so they can be rebuilt. In politics when the political parties control the news media and every media outlet viewed by the mindnumb masses those that could possibly challenge the dynasties aren't even allowed to be on the playing field.
I'm Tom Martz the best candidate for the 139th district in MO.
secure your freedoms by voting Libertarian
October 18, 2006
By Tony Blankley
John Stuart Mill once famously called the British Tories "The Stupid Party." From time to time since then, the Tory's American cousin, the Republican Party, has also earned that moniker. Now may be one of those moments. If current polls and anecdotes are to be believed, there may be a million or two conservative Republicans who are planning to not vote this November.
Of course, Mill also said, "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but also by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury."
Apparently, these anticipated conservative non-voters are annoyed with Republican imperfection. They are disheartened, disappointed, disillusioned, distempered, and dismal -- and thus plan to dis the party that better advances conservative principles in government.
They appear to have fallen victim to the false syllogism: 1) Something must be done; 2) not voting is something; therefore, 3) I will not vote. Of course the fallacy of the syllogism is that the second category could be anything. For example, No. 2 could as well read "eating dog excrement is something."
I rather suspect that they will feel about the same afterward, whether they chose the non-voting option or the scatological one. They are both equally illogical -- and repulsive -- and would deserve the moniker "Stupid."
Here are some telltale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party that would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):
1) When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory-recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.
2) When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.
3) When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.
4) When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay.
A conservative would have to be just that stupid to stay home on Nov. 7. I have heard it put around that the Republicans need a couple of years in the wilderness to regain their conservative bearings.
While turning over the Congress to the Pelosi/Kennedy mob for even two years would be recklessly irresponsible -- particularly during a dangerous war-- there is no assurance the wilderness years would last only 24 months.
In 1954, the Democrats, led by the great Sam Rayburn, retook the House after control had seesawed back and forth for 10 years (1944-Democrat; 1946-Republican; 1948-Democrat; 1950-Democrat; 1952-Republican; 1954-Democrat)
Sam Rayburn (one of the shrewdest politicians ever to play the game) was so sure that the Republicans would take back the House in the Eisenhower re-election year of 1956, that when he became Speaker after the 1954 election, he didn't even bother to move his furniture back to the better office suite occupied by Joe Martin (the Republican Speaker who returned to Minority leader status after the 1954 Republican loss.) They decided to keep their previous office spaces rather than go through the bother of moving across the hall.
As it turned out, the Republicans didn't re-take a majority of the House for 40 years (The Gingrich-led election of 1994). So for 40 years the Republican minority leaders got to keep the better office space (that looked out over the majestic Washington Mall), while the Democratic Speakers for 40 years got a view of the parking lot.
I don't care who has the better office space in the future, but any conservative ought to be very concerned about who has the political power in Washington. The Democrats have virtually promised to scandalize the Republican administration (with subpoena and impeachment-seeking oversight hearings) for the next two years -- in preparation for defeating the 2008 Republican presidential nominee.
Moreover, every Democrat who beats a Republican in three weeks will have two years to feather his or her nest, and use the powers of incumbency to defeat his 2008 Republican challenger.
Even more important, in a closely fought 2008 presidential election, every extra Democratic incumbent senator, congressman and governor makes it just a little more likely that the Democratic presidential candidate may win that district or state. All those freshly tuned new Democratic machines will help get out Democratic Party votes for the top of their 2008 ticket.
This current conservative petulance -- if it actually occurs on Nov. 7 -- will increase the chances of electing Hillary, or worse (if such a thing is possible) in 2008.
There is no rational policy or political basis for conservatives not voting. I'm not sure the country can take the current Democratic mob in power for long.
A realist once observed that the history of mankind is little more than the triumph of the heartless over the mindless.
The Democrats are obviously heartless. Conservatives must guard against falling into the category of the mindless. Ignore your heartfelt peevements, use your brains and vote.
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
Friday, October 13, 2006
comparing records
Shane Schoeller:http://www.electschoeller.com
"Shane's professional background encompasses Missouri state and federal politics focusing on grassroots organization and fundraising. After graduation from college he has had the opportunity to engage his efforts in both political campaigns and officially elected offices. He has worked in the campaigns of Ashcroft for Senate in 1994 as a field representative, Bob Dole for President in 1996 as political director for Southwest Missouri and Blunt for Congress as the campaign coordinator. These opportunities allowed him to then go on to work in an official role as a field representative for Senator John Ashcroft and Senator Kit Bond, Legislative Assistant for Congressman Roy Blunt, Chief Administrative Aide to Secretary of State Matt Blunt and Chief of Staff to Speaker Pro Tem Rod Jetton in the Missouri House of Representatives who is now the Speaker of the House. In these various capacities Shane organized grassroots campaigns and political rallies, helped in the drafting of legislation and directed legislative services."
Jamie Schoolcraft:http://electschoolcraft.com
"There are five things that a representative should try to ensure for everyone they represent. Affordable health care, a quality education, a good paying job, shelter, and food. As your State Representative, I would fight everyday to ensure that everyone in the 139th and across the state has these essential tools to be a productive member of society. Most of the elected officials do not know what it is like to be poor and to struggle to meet the bills. I remember what it is like and I won't forget. I will think of those struggles every time before I vote."
"I don't believe in handouts. I believe in empowering everyone to lead the life that we all dream of. You and I together can make a difference. We can change the lives of thousands of Missourians who feel they are facing insurmountable odds. We can truly make life better for those around us. It is going to be a long hard road but we will prevail. Thank you so much and God bless."
Tom Martz:
I cut the previous paragraphs for a reason of which should be self evident once you visit the websites. Mr. Schoeller tries to portray himself as a non political person, however he has years of being in the trenches so to speak. This compliance will bid well for him in the party once he is elected. Any ideas he has of changing Jefferson City will evaporate quickly.
Mr Schoolcraft is endorsed by all the various democratic strongholds so to post these is only citing the obvious. I'm not aware of any union organization that doesn't support a democrat. In the above paragraphs he says he doesn't believe in handouts however in the paragraph prior he espouses a belief that makes me cringe. "There are five things that a representative should try to ensure for everyone they represent. Affordable health care, a quality education, a good paying job, shelter, and food."
Sounds to me like Jaime can't figure out which side he is on less government or more government.
I'm a business owner here in Springfield and have been for the last eight years. When we first moved to Missouri we settled down in Willard for the first couple of years. It was a nice area but the cost related to housing and the like was a little out of line with the average income in this area.
We relocated to Springfield and decided to purchase a home on the north end of town.
I represent the unspoken here in the 139th, these are the people that are fed up with not only with politicians but of government all together. I was a strong supporter of getting the city of Springfield audited and worked on the weekends gathering signatures to make sure the hardworking taxpayers of this city had a voice.
I am the ONLY candidate that will work tirelessly to ensure government takes the proper steps to SHRINK in size. Every industry in America has lay-offs except those in government and those funded by government. It is time that government become more in line with those that support the leviathan.
I'm pro-life, pro 2nd amendment, pro homeschooling(I want to see a deduction to compensate for the cost of this equal to the amount per student in government education). I'm pro business and support the community with volunteering on a street clean-up and a stream clean-up. Volunteering to help the community in which I live, not having government force some clean-up organization down my throat.
Tom Martz
139th state representative candidate
"Shane's professional background encompasses Missouri state and federal politics focusing on grassroots organization and fundraising. After graduation from college he has had the opportunity to engage his efforts in both political campaigns and officially elected offices. He has worked in the campaigns of Ashcroft for Senate in 1994 as a field representative, Bob Dole for President in 1996 as political director for Southwest Missouri and Blunt for Congress as the campaign coordinator. These opportunities allowed him to then go on to work in an official role as a field representative for Senator John Ashcroft and Senator Kit Bond, Legislative Assistant for Congressman Roy Blunt, Chief Administrative Aide to Secretary of State Matt Blunt and Chief of Staff to Speaker Pro Tem Rod Jetton in the Missouri House of Representatives who is now the Speaker of the House. In these various capacities Shane organized grassroots campaigns and political rallies, helped in the drafting of legislation and directed legislative services."
Jamie Schoolcraft:http://electschoolcraft.com
"There are five things that a representative should try to ensure for everyone they represent. Affordable health care, a quality education, a good paying job, shelter, and food. As your State Representative, I would fight everyday to ensure that everyone in the 139th and across the state has these essential tools to be a productive member of society. Most of the elected officials do not know what it is like to be poor and to struggle to meet the bills. I remember what it is like and I won't forget. I will think of those struggles every time before I vote."
"I don't believe in handouts. I believe in empowering everyone to lead the life that we all dream of. You and I together can make a difference. We can change the lives of thousands of Missourians who feel they are facing insurmountable odds. We can truly make life better for those around us. It is going to be a long hard road but we will prevail. Thank you so much and God bless."
Tom Martz:
I cut the previous paragraphs for a reason of which should be self evident once you visit the websites. Mr. Schoeller tries to portray himself as a non political person, however he has years of being in the trenches so to speak. This compliance will bid well for him in the party once he is elected. Any ideas he has of changing Jefferson City will evaporate quickly.
Mr Schoolcraft is endorsed by all the various democratic strongholds so to post these is only citing the obvious. I'm not aware of any union organization that doesn't support a democrat. In the above paragraphs he says he doesn't believe in handouts however in the paragraph prior he espouses a belief that makes me cringe. "There are five things that a representative should try to ensure for everyone they represent. Affordable health care, a quality education, a good paying job, shelter, and food."
Sounds to me like Jaime can't figure out which side he is on less government or more government.
I'm a business owner here in Springfield and have been for the last eight years. When we first moved to Missouri we settled down in Willard for the first couple of years. It was a nice area but the cost related to housing and the like was a little out of line with the average income in this area.
We relocated to Springfield and decided to purchase a home on the north end of town.
I represent the unspoken here in the 139th, these are the people that are fed up with not only with politicians but of government all together. I was a strong supporter of getting the city of Springfield audited and worked on the weekends gathering signatures to make sure the hardworking taxpayers of this city had a voice.
I am the ONLY candidate that will work tirelessly to ensure government takes the proper steps to SHRINK in size. Every industry in America has lay-offs except those in government and those funded by government. It is time that government become more in line with those that support the leviathan.
I'm pro-life, pro 2nd amendment, pro homeschooling(I want to see a deduction to compensate for the cost of this equal to the amount per student in government education). I'm pro business and support the community with volunteering on a street clean-up and a stream clean-up. Volunteering to help the community in which I live, not having government force some clean-up organization down my throat.
Tom Martz
139th state representative candidate
Monday, October 02, 2006
HOBSON’S CHOICE
Although this is the current state of affairs over in England, I believe after reading this article many will recognize the foundation exist right here in the U.S.A. except we only have two national parties that receive attention. The third national party has yet to figure out a way to get out of the corner that most media types have painted it into.
The party of personal responsibility and fiscal constraints on government is the Libertarian Party and those members that try to unseat the monopoly two.
The three main parties go to great lengths to convince us that they are totally different and that only they have the ability to look after the country properly. The Tories tell us that they will promote efficient small government and minimise the tax burden, the Labour party tell us they will provide for the weak and protect public services and the Liberal Democrats tell us they will protect the rights of the individual. Seems ideal, we have a Capitalist party, a Socialist party and a Liberal party, what more could we possibly ask for?
However if we take a closer look we find that not only are they prepared to sacrifice their principles at the drop of a hat, but that they will also adopt identical policies if they think it will help them at the polls. Our hard won democracy is therefore reduced to what goodies each party can offer and the more difficult issues are collectively ignored:
Labour: Well-meaning but a certain route to destruction
The Labour party is rooted in a public sector mentality: well-meaning and virtuous ideas which are self-defeating. Its activists want to see more spending on health, education and welfare. They want higher salaries for public sector workers and more rights in the workplace. Above all, they want to tax the rich and redistribute resources to the poor. All of which probably seems like a good idea to large number of people. However, the politics of envy is no solution and any democratic country which has gone down this path has suffered economic disaster leading to even worse conditions for the poor and fewer resources for public services.
Tony Blair is careful not to advocate this route explicitly but he allows Gordon Brown to accomplish it by stealth: a bit more tax here, a bit more regulation there, all tempered with empty promises to reform the public services. Above all, Blair understands power. The immediate electoral benefits of such policies matter far more to him than the implications for our economy or our society in years to come. He takes the same attitude to the European Union: the personal kudos he gains by going along with his fellow European leaders far outweighs the economic decline and loss of self-government that such plans will inevitably entail.
The ‘Old’ Labour of the activist base and the ‘New’ Labour of Mr. Blair thus lead to the same place. On the surface the Labour message is appealing but if we are genuinely concerned about the future of our country and its people we need to face people with reality rather than empty promises.
We must realise that we will become a third-rate economy with a dysfunctional society and a shell of a government unless we look beyond New Labour spin. Tory prime minister Harold Macmillan in the 1950s claimed that we had “never had it so good” at the very time that we were first starting to fall behind our competitors. Labour spin-masters are now simply copying what their Tory predecessors started.
The Conservatives: Slower perhaps but an equally certain route to decline
The Conservative party has become steadily more inclined to adopt the fashions of the day. This may get them votes but it prevents them attempting the far-reaching changes that our society needs. Despite espousing sound values that resonate with people on many issues, history shows that the Conservatives will always compromise our future for political gain.
After the war the Conservatives persevered with Labour’s welfare agenda, resulting in so-called ‘Butskellism’ (named after the consensual views of the Conservative minister Rab Butler and Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell). The seeds of the three day week, the 1970s stagflation, the IMF crisis and the ‘Winter of Discontent’ were all sown in the welfare state policies of the post-war era. In the post-Suez tunnel vision that afflicted British foreign policy in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Tories saw ‘Europe’ as the answer to our problems. While the Conservative party is now critical of the EU it was they who took us into the EEC and subsequently signed the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty.
During Margaret Thatcher’s time as prime minister the complacency and state corporatism that she inherited was for once challenged. However, many social problems were not addressed and the Conservative establishment soon reasserted itself. In recent years the party has reverted to its post-war role of accepting the apparent consensus and promising not to stray from it too fundamentally.
In short, the Conservatives – if we can believe their promises – will tax slightly less than Labour, will try to spend the money a little more wisely and will be a bit tougher with the EU. In other words, they may slow down our decline but they will not reverse it.
The Liberal Democrats: Oh Dear !
And what can we say of the Liberal Democrats, except that they are certainly not liberals and are quite unconvincing as democrats. They can not be compared to the classical liberals of the nineteenth century who believed in a progressive and free society built on shared values, self-restraint and personal responsibility. Today’s so-called liberals feed on the group rights culture and a high tax and spend philosophy that pays lip service to economic viability. And not only does parliamentary democracy not figure highly in their plans, Westminster would almost be irrelevant in the Liberal Democrat world of multi-tiered layers of government doing the bidding of the EU and the UN. If the Liberal Democrats ever became anything more than a protest vote then they would undoubtedly cause great damage.
Conclusion:
The present choice for the voter is indeed a poor one. All three parties have polished their vote catching skills at the expense of principled leadership and each party, in its own way, has given in to the view that Britain is and will remain an irrelevance in the bigger picture. None of the parties can tell us how to stop our domestic decline and none of the parties can tell us how to measure up to world class economies.
So who is to blame ?
Although there is growing distrust of politicians it is matched in equal measure by apathy and self interest. Voter turnout may be falling but this does not prevent the usual suspects from using the same old tricks to win elections. Although many people realise that the unremitting breakdown in our self-reliance, our skills and our society cannot continue indefinitely, a significant number apparently could not care less. At the end of the day we can hardly criticise politicians for reverting to spin if we are prepared to accept it. Despite all the evidence of our decline, it sometimes seems that we do not press our politicians too hard in case we might not like the answer. It will only be when we demonstrate our willingness to listen to the plain truth about what needs to be done to get our country back on the rails, that our politicians will at last pluck up sufficient courage to put their cards on the table.
The New Party has no wish to denigrate the efforts of those politicians who are doing the best they can to help their country. We are simply pointing out that our so-called “adversarial” system no longer functions properly as the main political parties have all resorted to politically expedient policies and spin to avoid confronting the electorate with too many of life’s harsh realities.
The party of personal responsibility and fiscal constraints on government is the Libertarian Party and those members that try to unseat the monopoly two.
The three main parties go to great lengths to convince us that they are totally different and that only they have the ability to look after the country properly. The Tories tell us that they will promote efficient small government and minimise the tax burden, the Labour party tell us they will provide for the weak and protect public services and the Liberal Democrats tell us they will protect the rights of the individual. Seems ideal, we have a Capitalist party, a Socialist party and a Liberal party, what more could we possibly ask for?
However if we take a closer look we find that not only are they prepared to sacrifice their principles at the drop of a hat, but that they will also adopt identical policies if they think it will help them at the polls. Our hard won democracy is therefore reduced to what goodies each party can offer and the more difficult issues are collectively ignored:
Labour: Well-meaning but a certain route to destruction
The Labour party is rooted in a public sector mentality: well-meaning and virtuous ideas which are self-defeating. Its activists want to see more spending on health, education and welfare. They want higher salaries for public sector workers and more rights in the workplace. Above all, they want to tax the rich and redistribute resources to the poor. All of which probably seems like a good idea to large number of people. However, the politics of envy is no solution and any democratic country which has gone down this path has suffered economic disaster leading to even worse conditions for the poor and fewer resources for public services.
Tony Blair is careful not to advocate this route explicitly but he allows Gordon Brown to accomplish it by stealth: a bit more tax here, a bit more regulation there, all tempered with empty promises to reform the public services. Above all, Blair understands power. The immediate electoral benefits of such policies matter far more to him than the implications for our economy or our society in years to come. He takes the same attitude to the European Union: the personal kudos he gains by going along with his fellow European leaders far outweighs the economic decline and loss of self-government that such plans will inevitably entail.
The ‘Old’ Labour of the activist base and the ‘New’ Labour of Mr. Blair thus lead to the same place. On the surface the Labour message is appealing but if we are genuinely concerned about the future of our country and its people we need to face people with reality rather than empty promises.
We must realise that we will become a third-rate economy with a dysfunctional society and a shell of a government unless we look beyond New Labour spin. Tory prime minister Harold Macmillan in the 1950s claimed that we had “never had it so good” at the very time that we were first starting to fall behind our competitors. Labour spin-masters are now simply copying what their Tory predecessors started.
The Conservatives: Slower perhaps but an equally certain route to decline
The Conservative party has become steadily more inclined to adopt the fashions of the day. This may get them votes but it prevents them attempting the far-reaching changes that our society needs. Despite espousing sound values that resonate with people on many issues, history shows that the Conservatives will always compromise our future for political gain.
After the war the Conservatives persevered with Labour’s welfare agenda, resulting in so-called ‘Butskellism’ (named after the consensual views of the Conservative minister Rab Butler and Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell). The seeds of the three day week, the 1970s stagflation, the IMF crisis and the ‘Winter of Discontent’ were all sown in the welfare state policies of the post-war era. In the post-Suez tunnel vision that afflicted British foreign policy in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Tories saw ‘Europe’ as the answer to our problems. While the Conservative party is now critical of the EU it was they who took us into the EEC and subsequently signed the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty.
During Margaret Thatcher’s time as prime minister the complacency and state corporatism that she inherited was for once challenged. However, many social problems were not addressed and the Conservative establishment soon reasserted itself. In recent years the party has reverted to its post-war role of accepting the apparent consensus and promising not to stray from it too fundamentally.
In short, the Conservatives – if we can believe their promises – will tax slightly less than Labour, will try to spend the money a little more wisely and will be a bit tougher with the EU. In other words, they may slow down our decline but they will not reverse it.
The Liberal Democrats: Oh Dear !
And what can we say of the Liberal Democrats, except that they are certainly not liberals and are quite unconvincing as democrats. They can not be compared to the classical liberals of the nineteenth century who believed in a progressive and free society built on shared values, self-restraint and personal responsibility. Today’s so-called liberals feed on the group rights culture and a high tax and spend philosophy that pays lip service to economic viability. And not only does parliamentary democracy not figure highly in their plans, Westminster would almost be irrelevant in the Liberal Democrat world of multi-tiered layers of government doing the bidding of the EU and the UN. If the Liberal Democrats ever became anything more than a protest vote then they would undoubtedly cause great damage.
Conclusion:
The present choice for the voter is indeed a poor one. All three parties have polished their vote catching skills at the expense of principled leadership and each party, in its own way, has given in to the view that Britain is and will remain an irrelevance in the bigger picture. None of the parties can tell us how to stop our domestic decline and none of the parties can tell us how to measure up to world class economies.
So who is to blame ?
Although there is growing distrust of politicians it is matched in equal measure by apathy and self interest. Voter turnout may be falling but this does not prevent the usual suspects from using the same old tricks to win elections. Although many people realise that the unremitting breakdown in our self-reliance, our skills and our society cannot continue indefinitely, a significant number apparently could not care less. At the end of the day we can hardly criticise politicians for reverting to spin if we are prepared to accept it. Despite all the evidence of our decline, it sometimes seems that we do not press our politicians too hard in case we might not like the answer. It will only be when we demonstrate our willingness to listen to the plain truth about what needs to be done to get our country back on the rails, that our politicians will at last pluck up sufficient courage to put their cards on the table.
The New Party has no wish to denigrate the efforts of those politicians who are doing the best they can to help their country. We are simply pointing out that our so-called “adversarial” system no longer functions properly as the main political parties have all resorted to politically expedient policies and spin to avoid confronting the electorate with too many of life’s harsh realities.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Senate candidates:(monopoly two) Shoot straight
Well come on New Leader give the people some credit and give them some coverage of the "OTHER" two candidates in the race as well. Yes it is true that the monopoly two will spend money like it is going out of style to get *s*elected. Many believe as I that money is what is wrong with politics.
Why would anyone spend 3 million or so dollars to gain employment in a position that only pays less than 200K? POWER over the people.
Once again the SNL gives half a story, but hey they are consistent.
I'm Tom Martz Libertarian candidate for the 139th district, the only clear voice for the people of northern greene county.
Negative campaigns not worthy of Ozarks.
Maybe Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill think we Ozarkers are just dumber than a pile of rocks.
The two candidates for U.S. Senate say that we're important to their race. There are a lot of us and, well, for the most part, we like to vote. We're generally a conservative bunch, some of us coming from farms and far-away places tucked away in hollers. Both candidates seem to think that they're a lot like us.
So, why are they treating us like a bunch of darn fools? Maybe that's what happens when deep-pocketed fellas in fancy suits from the East Coast take over campaigns of good folk.
McCaskill started the silliness when she tried to make Talent look bad for taking money from that big chicken outfit in Arkansas, Tyson. We're not sure why that's such a big deal. Tyson, Wal-Mart, all of those big companies, they provide jobs in our communities. We're a hard-working people, and we don't care much who's signing our paycheck as long as we're paying our bills. The way we figure it, if the Tyson folks want to give Talent money, he shouldn't say no. Frankly, neither should McCaskill, which is why she had asked them, too.
But Talent is the one trying to pull the wool over our eyes these days.
He's been running a flashy television ad in our part of the world that makes McCaskill look like she's against God, apple pie and probably pickup trucks as well. The ad starts by saying that Howard Dean, that screaming liberal Democrat from one of the New England states next to where the Kennedys live, is McCaskill's hero. It's true, she said that. But she was talking about campaign finance reform. She said the way Dean raised a whole lot of money when he ran for president from small donations on the Internet is the sort of campaign she wishes she could run. She thinks that would be good for the nation, and, well, she's probably right. In that same interview, with a Kansas City columnist a few years ago, she said she wouldn't have voted for Dean for president.
But Talent's ad doesn't say all that. It figures we aren't interested in those details.
The ad also says that McCaskill's against terrorist surveillance, and, well, we just don't figure how anybody could be against that. Turns out that she just wants the president to follow the law, which is what a lot of newspapers said, too. Like most of us, she wants the president to keep an eye on the terrorists, even secretly, as long as he follows the provisions in law set out by Congress. A whole lot of folks in Talent's party suggested that he do the same thing — so did a federal judge.
We don't see how such a position makes McCaskill against terrorism surveillance. Sounds like a bit of a yarn to us, like that old story about daddy climbing up the tree and eating all them apples at one time. We like to tell stories like that around here, but we don't always believe them. Maybe Talent didn't get that message during one of his stops here. Neither, apparently, did McCaskill, based on her recent criticism of the president. She basically said that George W. Bush let those people die after Hurricane Katrina because they were poor and black. We've lived through a few disasters of our own around here, and we figure, Mother Nature doesn't discriminate. The president didn't seem to do a very good job after that big hurricane, but it seems to us it's because he put a horse trader in charge of the rescue effort, not because he didn't like black people.
So here we are in the Ozarks, with both candidates for this big Senate seat saying we're important to them, and yet they're talking to us like we're just plain dumb. We saw that ad where McCaskill's talking to her mama, and we suggest that somebody's mama ought to set both of these Missouri folks straight.
We aren't a homogenous population of simple-minded, uneducated hillbillies. We're a bright, articulate, engaged group of voters. Some of us are farmers; others are city dwellers and businesspeople. We care about the issues and we can see through the spin of campaign sound bites.
We don't care what your fast-talking friends from D.C. are telling you. If you want our votes, just give it to us straight.
Why would anyone spend 3 million or so dollars to gain employment in a position that only pays less than 200K? POWER over the people.
Once again the SNL gives half a story, but hey they are consistent.
I'm Tom Martz Libertarian candidate for the 139th district, the only clear voice for the people of northern greene county.
Negative campaigns not worthy of Ozarks.
Maybe Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill think we Ozarkers are just dumber than a pile of rocks.
The two candidates for U.S. Senate say that we're important to their race. There are a lot of us and, well, for the most part, we like to vote. We're generally a conservative bunch, some of us coming from farms and far-away places tucked away in hollers. Both candidates seem to think that they're a lot like us.
So, why are they treating us like a bunch of darn fools? Maybe that's what happens when deep-pocketed fellas in fancy suits from the East Coast take over campaigns of good folk.
McCaskill started the silliness when she tried to make Talent look bad for taking money from that big chicken outfit in Arkansas, Tyson. We're not sure why that's such a big deal. Tyson, Wal-Mart, all of those big companies, they provide jobs in our communities. We're a hard-working people, and we don't care much who's signing our paycheck as long as we're paying our bills. The way we figure it, if the Tyson folks want to give Talent money, he shouldn't say no. Frankly, neither should McCaskill, which is why she had asked them, too.
But Talent is the one trying to pull the wool over our eyes these days.
He's been running a flashy television ad in our part of the world that makes McCaskill look like she's against God, apple pie and probably pickup trucks as well. The ad starts by saying that Howard Dean, that screaming liberal Democrat from one of the New England states next to where the Kennedys live, is McCaskill's hero. It's true, she said that. But she was talking about campaign finance reform. She said the way Dean raised a whole lot of money when he ran for president from small donations on the Internet is the sort of campaign she wishes she could run. She thinks that would be good for the nation, and, well, she's probably right. In that same interview, with a Kansas City columnist a few years ago, she said she wouldn't have voted for Dean for president.
But Talent's ad doesn't say all that. It figures we aren't interested in those details.
The ad also says that McCaskill's against terrorist surveillance, and, well, we just don't figure how anybody could be against that. Turns out that she just wants the president to follow the law, which is what a lot of newspapers said, too. Like most of us, she wants the president to keep an eye on the terrorists, even secretly, as long as he follows the provisions in law set out by Congress. A whole lot of folks in Talent's party suggested that he do the same thing — so did a federal judge.
We don't see how such a position makes McCaskill against terrorism surveillance. Sounds like a bit of a yarn to us, like that old story about daddy climbing up the tree and eating all them apples at one time. We like to tell stories like that around here, but we don't always believe them. Maybe Talent didn't get that message during one of his stops here. Neither, apparently, did McCaskill, based on her recent criticism of the president. She basically said that George W. Bush let those people die after Hurricane Katrina because they were poor and black. We've lived through a few disasters of our own around here, and we figure, Mother Nature doesn't discriminate. The president didn't seem to do a very good job after that big hurricane, but it seems to us it's because he put a horse trader in charge of the rescue effort, not because he didn't like black people.
So here we are in the Ozarks, with both candidates for this big Senate seat saying we're important to them, and yet they're talking to us like we're just plain dumb. We saw that ad where McCaskill's talking to her mama, and we suggest that somebody's mama ought to set both of these Missouri folks straight.
We aren't a homogenous population of simple-minded, uneducated hillbillies. We're a bright, articulate, engaged group of voters. Some of us are farmers; others are city dwellers and businesspeople. We care about the issues and we can see through the spin of campaign sound bites.
We don't care what your fast-talking friends from D.C. are telling you. If you want our votes, just give it to us straight.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
RULE OF LAW (LAND OF THE FREE????)
How many people will say "well if your not doing anything illegal you haven't any thing to worry about"
Sorry folks this is happening to LAW ABIDING citizens. WAke up drink your coffee and get a clue. LAND OF THE FREE!!! INDEED!!!! HAHA yes we have more freedoms then MOST countries, however in the past 30 years or so they have been evaporating quite quickly.
RULE OF LAW
Wrong Door
By RADLEY BALKO and JOEL BERGER
September 2, 2006; Page A9
The Supreme Court ruled this June that evidence seized in an illegally performed "no-knock" police raid can still be used against a defendant. Though disturbing in its own right, Hudson v. Michigan touched on only a small part of a larger problem -- the trend toward paramilitary tactics in domestic policing.
Criminologist Peter Kraska estimates that the number of SWAT team "call-outs" soared past 40,000 in 2001 (the latest year for which figures are available) from about 3,000 in 1981. The vast majority are employed for routine police work -- such as serving drug warrants -- not the types of situations for which SWAT teams were originally established. And because drug policing often involves tips from confidential informants -- many of whom are drug dealers themselves, or convicts looking for leniency -- it's rife with bad information. As a result, hundreds of innocent families and civilians have been wrongly subjected to violent, forced-entry raids.
Last year, for example, New York City police mistakenly handcuffed Mini Matos, a deaf, asthmatic Coney Island woman during a pre-dawn raid. While her young son and daughter burst into tears, Ms. Matos's plea to use her asthma pump was ignored until an officer realized they entered the wrong apartment.
Home invasions can also provoke deadly violence because forced-entry raids offer very little margin for error. Since SWAT teams began proliferating in the late 1980s, at least 40 innocent people have been killed in botched raids. There are dozens more cases where low-level, nonviolent offenders and police officers themselves have been killed.
Last summer a SWAT team in Sunrise, Fla., shot and killed 23-year-old Anthony Diotaiuto -- a bartender and part-time student with no history of violence -- during an early-morning raid on his home. Police found all of an ounce of marijuana. This January a member of the Fairfax, Va. SWAT team accidentally shot and killed Salvatore Culosi, a local optometrist with no criminal record, no history of violence and no weapons in his home. Police were investigating Culosi for wagering on sporting events with friends.
Public officials are rarely held accountable when mistakes happen. The Culosi family has yet to be given access to documents related to the investigation of his death, including why a SWAT team was sent to apprehend him in the first place. More than a year after Diotaiuto's death, his family too has been denied access to any of the documents it needs to move forward with a lawsuit.
New York City provides perhaps the most egregious example of public officials' reluctance to rein in the excessive use of paramilitary tactics. Throughout the 1990s, the city's newspapers reported a troubling, continuing pattern of "wrong door" drug raids. In many cases, tactical teams raided homes based solely on uncorroborated tips from unproven informants.
Members of the city's Civilian Complaint Review Board cautioned that they were seeing increasing complaints of botched raids, but limited jurisdiction and bureaucratic turf wars prevented them from doing anything about it. The principal result of the CCRB's warnings was the creation of a special police unit for the sole purpose of fixing locks, doors and windows in cases where forced-entry searches were performed on the wrong premises. Civil rights attorneys warned that without more substantial changes, it was only a matter of time before an innocent person would be killed in a botched drug raid.
They were right. In 2003, acting on a bad tip from an informant, police mistakenly raided the Harlem home of Alberta Spruill, a 57-year-old city worker. The violence of the incursion literally scared Spruill to death; she died of a heart attack at the scene. The raid spurred public outrage, calls for reform, and promises from the city to change its ways. The NYPD published new guidelines calling for more reliability when taking tips from informants. The city also promised greater vigilance in conducting surveillance and double-checking addresses before a SWAT team was sent in.
But later, during the course of a lawsuit stemming from another, mistaken raid -- in 1992, on corrections officer Edward Garrison, his elderly mother and two young daughters -- the city declared that all of the post-Spruill reforms it had promised were merely discretionary, not enforceable in court, and could be revoked at will by any future mayor or police commissioner.
In any case, botched raids have not stopped. In 2004, police arrested a Brooklyn father of two in a drug raid and held him for six months at Riker's Island. In March of this year they dropped all the charges, conceding that he had been wrongly targeted. The man's lawyer called it the worst case of malicious prosecution she'd ever seen. Also in 2004, police mistakenly raided the home of Martin and Leona Goldberg, a Brooklyn couple in their 80s, when an informant provided bad information. "It was the most frightening experience of my life," Mrs. Goldberg later said. "I thought it was a terrorist attack."
The NYPD goofed again in 2005, when a SWAT team raided the Brooklyn apartment of the Williams family, instead of the targeted apartment on the same floor. Police continued to search the apartment even after it was obvious they were in the wrong home. This year, according to the CCRB, there have already been at least 15 mistaken raids.
A few cities, such as New Haven, Conn., and San Jose, Calif., restrict the use of SWAT teams to cases where a suspect presents an immediate threat. Denver dramatically cut back the number of "no-knock" raids conducted after a SWAT team shot and killed an innocent man in a botched raid in 1999, and follow-up investigations revealed severe deficiencies in the how police had obtained "no-knock" warrants.
But these examples are few and far between. Most of the country is moving toward more militarization, more aggressive drug policing -- and less accountability when things go wrong.
Mr. Balko is the author of "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America," published by the Cato Institute, where he is a policy analyst. Mr. Berger is an attorney representing the Williams and Garrison families and a former New York City Law Department executive.
Sorry folks this is happening to LAW ABIDING citizens. WAke up drink your coffee and get a clue. LAND OF THE FREE!!! INDEED!!!! HAHA yes we have more freedoms then MOST countries, however in the past 30 years or so they have been evaporating quite quickly.
RULE OF LAW
Wrong Door
By RADLEY BALKO and JOEL BERGER
September 2, 2006; Page A9
The Supreme Court ruled this June that evidence seized in an illegally performed "no-knock" police raid can still be used against a defendant. Though disturbing in its own right, Hudson v. Michigan touched on only a small part of a larger problem -- the trend toward paramilitary tactics in domestic policing.
Criminologist Peter Kraska estimates that the number of SWAT team "call-outs" soared past 40,000 in 2001 (the latest year for which figures are available) from about 3,000 in 1981. The vast majority are employed for routine police work -- such as serving drug warrants -- not the types of situations for which SWAT teams were originally established. And because drug policing often involves tips from confidential informants -- many of whom are drug dealers themselves, or convicts looking for leniency -- it's rife with bad information. As a result, hundreds of innocent families and civilians have been wrongly subjected to violent, forced-entry raids.
Last year, for example, New York City police mistakenly handcuffed Mini Matos, a deaf, asthmatic Coney Island woman during a pre-dawn raid. While her young son and daughter burst into tears, Ms. Matos's plea to use her asthma pump was ignored until an officer realized they entered the wrong apartment.
Home invasions can also provoke deadly violence because forced-entry raids offer very little margin for error. Since SWAT teams began proliferating in the late 1980s, at least 40 innocent people have been killed in botched raids. There are dozens more cases where low-level, nonviolent offenders and police officers themselves have been killed.
Last summer a SWAT team in Sunrise, Fla., shot and killed 23-year-old Anthony Diotaiuto -- a bartender and part-time student with no history of violence -- during an early-morning raid on his home. Police found all of an ounce of marijuana. This January a member of the Fairfax, Va. SWAT team accidentally shot and killed Salvatore Culosi, a local optometrist with no criminal record, no history of violence and no weapons in his home. Police were investigating Culosi for wagering on sporting events with friends.
Public officials are rarely held accountable when mistakes happen. The Culosi family has yet to be given access to documents related to the investigation of his death, including why a SWAT team was sent to apprehend him in the first place. More than a year after Diotaiuto's death, his family too has been denied access to any of the documents it needs to move forward with a lawsuit.
New York City provides perhaps the most egregious example of public officials' reluctance to rein in the excessive use of paramilitary tactics. Throughout the 1990s, the city's newspapers reported a troubling, continuing pattern of "wrong door" drug raids. In many cases, tactical teams raided homes based solely on uncorroborated tips from unproven informants.
Members of the city's Civilian Complaint Review Board cautioned that they were seeing increasing complaints of botched raids, but limited jurisdiction and bureaucratic turf wars prevented them from doing anything about it. The principal result of the CCRB's warnings was the creation of a special police unit for the sole purpose of fixing locks, doors and windows in cases where forced-entry searches were performed on the wrong premises. Civil rights attorneys warned that without more substantial changes, it was only a matter of time before an innocent person would be killed in a botched drug raid.
They were right. In 2003, acting on a bad tip from an informant, police mistakenly raided the Harlem home of Alberta Spruill, a 57-year-old city worker. The violence of the incursion literally scared Spruill to death; she died of a heart attack at the scene. The raid spurred public outrage, calls for reform, and promises from the city to change its ways. The NYPD published new guidelines calling for more reliability when taking tips from informants. The city also promised greater vigilance in conducting surveillance and double-checking addresses before a SWAT team was sent in.
But later, during the course of a lawsuit stemming from another, mistaken raid -- in 1992, on corrections officer Edward Garrison, his elderly mother and two young daughters -- the city declared that all of the post-Spruill reforms it had promised were merely discretionary, not enforceable in court, and could be revoked at will by any future mayor or police commissioner.
In any case, botched raids have not stopped. In 2004, police arrested a Brooklyn father of two in a drug raid and held him for six months at Riker's Island. In March of this year they dropped all the charges, conceding that he had been wrongly targeted. The man's lawyer called it the worst case of malicious prosecution she'd ever seen. Also in 2004, police mistakenly raided the home of Martin and Leona Goldberg, a Brooklyn couple in their 80s, when an informant provided bad information. "It was the most frightening experience of my life," Mrs. Goldberg later said. "I thought it was a terrorist attack."
The NYPD goofed again in 2005, when a SWAT team raided the Brooklyn apartment of the Williams family, instead of the targeted apartment on the same floor. Police continued to search the apartment even after it was obvious they were in the wrong home. This year, according to the CCRB, there have already been at least 15 mistaken raids.
A few cities, such as New Haven, Conn., and San Jose, Calif., restrict the use of SWAT teams to cases where a suspect presents an immediate threat. Denver dramatically cut back the number of "no-knock" raids conducted after a SWAT team shot and killed an innocent man in a botched raid in 1999, and follow-up investigations revealed severe deficiencies in the how police had obtained "no-knock" warrants.
But these examples are few and far between. Most of the country is moving toward more militarization, more aggressive drug policing -- and less accountability when things go wrong.
Mr. Balko is the author of "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America," published by the Cato Institute, where he is a policy analyst. Mr. Berger is an attorney representing the Williams and Garrison families and a former New York City Law Department executive.
clear proof the voters aren't paying attention
Once more the political spin machines try to cast a light of graciousness on the issue. The Republicans would WIN in a landslide if they weren't acting like Democrats(Iraq War not included). For years the Republicans have led many to believe they are the party of FISCAL responsibilty, as the Democrats gave all the candy away in the store.
POWER has corrupted absolutely in terms of earmarks, political paybacks, footloose contributions.
Will this change once the democrats take power in the HoR? NOPE
different party same agenda
It is time to BREAK-UP the established political monopoly with other parties controling the reigns.
I'm Tom Martz Libertarian candidate for the 139th district and I would appreciate your vote come November. In the words of Barry Goldwater "I'm a voice, not an echo"
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats enter the fall campaign with a clear edge in the high-stakes fight for control of the U.S. Congress, riding a wave of momentum that has them positioned to retake the U.S. House of Representatives and make significant gains in the Senate.
President George W. Bush's low approval ratings and public dissatisfaction with the
Iraq war, gas prices and the country's direction threaten Republican leadership in Congress and put Democrats within reach of victory on November 7, analysts said.
"I don't think the question any longer is can Democrats win control of Congress, it's can Republicans do anything to stop it?" said Amy Walter, House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report newsletter. "All the factors and issues are pushing so strongly against Republicans."
All 435 House seats, 34 of 100 Senate seats and 36 governorships are at stake in November's election, with Democrats needing to pick up 15 House seats and six Senate seats to reclaim majorities.
Strategists in both parties say the glum public mood has created a strong desire for change and given Democrats a big advantage at the traditional opening of the campaign season on Monday's Labor Day holiday.
"It's too late to fix the national mood -- it's not going to be fixed," said Republican pollster Frank Luntz. "The major issues are not playing well for Republicans this year, and Republicans are not playing well with America this year."
History is also with Democrats -- the party holding the White House traditionally loses seats in a president's sixth year. The modern exception was 1998, when public unhappiness over the Republican-led impeachment of President
Bill Clinton helped Democrats gain five House seats.
"This looks like a classic sixth-year election," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, who called the president's low approval ratings, hovering at about 40 percent, "the single best indicator for any mid-term election."
A Democratic majority in even one chamber of Congress would slam the brakes on what is left of Bush's second-term legislative agenda and hasten his descent into lame-duck status in the final two years of his presidency.
It also would give Democrats an opportunity to hold hearings and investigate many of the administration's more controversial foreign, military and energy policy decisions.
Candidates around the country will spend Monday's Labor Day holiday marching in parades, shaking hands at fairs and laying the groundwork for the final two-month push to the November 7 election.
KEY BATTLEGROUNDS
About 40 House districts and a dozen Senate seats will be the key battlegrounds, and they will be flooded in the next two months with campaign cash and appearances by party big shots.
Democrats are in the strongest position in the House, analysts said, where nearly every endangered incumbent is Republican. Independent analyst Stuart Rothenberg projects a Democratic gain of 15-20 seats, while the Cook Report lists 17 House seats as toss-ups -- all Republican.
But Republican House campaign spokesman Carl Forti shrugged off predictions of a takeover.
"We're nowhere near as bad off as the experts would have you believe," he said, adding Bush's low ratings and public dissatisfaction with the Republican-led Congress would not determine House races.
In the Senate, Democrats are expected to pick up seats. But to win control they will need to bump off at least five Republican incumbents -- difficult but not impossible even under favorable conditions.
In recent polls, Democratic challengers led Republican incumbents Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns in Montana and Mike DeWine in Ohio. Jim Talent in Missouri, Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and George Allen in Virginia also face re-election struggles.
The open Tennessee seat of retiring Republican Senate Leader Bill Frist is also on the endangered list for Republicans.
Democratic incumbents Maria Cantwell in Washington, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan and Bob Menendez in New Jersey face potentially tough races, and Democrats must defend open seats in Minnesota and Maryland.
Many voters do not start paying attention until late in the campaign and many candidates only start spending heavily in September, giving the races plenty of chances to shift before the election.
Unexpected events, like the capture of al Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden or a major terrorist strike, could quickly shift the political landscape.
"I'm a political realist. Can we win? Yes, but this is 10 weeks out and a lot can happen in 10 weeks," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
POWER has corrupted absolutely in terms of earmarks, political paybacks, footloose contributions.
Will this change once the democrats take power in the HoR? NOPE
different party same agenda
It is time to BREAK-UP the established political monopoly with other parties controling the reigns.
I'm Tom Martz Libertarian candidate for the 139th district and I would appreciate your vote come November. In the words of Barry Goldwater "I'm a voice, not an echo"
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats enter the fall campaign with a clear edge in the high-stakes fight for control of the U.S. Congress, riding a wave of momentum that has them positioned to retake the U.S. House of Representatives and make significant gains in the Senate.
President George W. Bush's low approval ratings and public dissatisfaction with the
Iraq war, gas prices and the country's direction threaten Republican leadership in Congress and put Democrats within reach of victory on November 7, analysts said.
"I don't think the question any longer is can Democrats win control of Congress, it's can Republicans do anything to stop it?" said Amy Walter, House analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report newsletter. "All the factors and issues are pushing so strongly against Republicans."
All 435 House seats, 34 of 100 Senate seats and 36 governorships are at stake in November's election, with Democrats needing to pick up 15 House seats and six Senate seats to reclaim majorities.
Strategists in both parties say the glum public mood has created a strong desire for change and given Democrats a big advantage at the traditional opening of the campaign season on Monday's Labor Day holiday.
"It's too late to fix the national mood -- it's not going to be fixed," said Republican pollster Frank Luntz. "The major issues are not playing well for Republicans this year, and Republicans are not playing well with America this year."
History is also with Democrats -- the party holding the White House traditionally loses seats in a president's sixth year. The modern exception was 1998, when public unhappiness over the Republican-led impeachment of President
Bill Clinton helped Democrats gain five House seats.
"This looks like a classic sixth-year election," said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, who called the president's low approval ratings, hovering at about 40 percent, "the single best indicator for any mid-term election."
A Democratic majority in even one chamber of Congress would slam the brakes on what is left of Bush's second-term legislative agenda and hasten his descent into lame-duck status in the final two years of his presidency.
It also would give Democrats an opportunity to hold hearings and investigate many of the administration's more controversial foreign, military and energy policy decisions.
Candidates around the country will spend Monday's Labor Day holiday marching in parades, shaking hands at fairs and laying the groundwork for the final two-month push to the November 7 election.
KEY BATTLEGROUNDS
About 40 House districts and a dozen Senate seats will be the key battlegrounds, and they will be flooded in the next two months with campaign cash and appearances by party big shots.
Democrats are in the strongest position in the House, analysts said, where nearly every endangered incumbent is Republican. Independent analyst Stuart Rothenberg projects a Democratic gain of 15-20 seats, while the Cook Report lists 17 House seats as toss-ups -- all Republican.
But Republican House campaign spokesman Carl Forti shrugged off predictions of a takeover.
"We're nowhere near as bad off as the experts would have you believe," he said, adding Bush's low ratings and public dissatisfaction with the Republican-led Congress would not determine House races.
In the Senate, Democrats are expected to pick up seats. But to win control they will need to bump off at least five Republican incumbents -- difficult but not impossible even under favorable conditions.
In recent polls, Democratic challengers led Republican incumbents Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, Conrad Burns in Montana and Mike DeWine in Ohio. Jim Talent in Missouri, Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island and George Allen in Virginia also face re-election struggles.
The open Tennessee seat of retiring Republican Senate Leader Bill Frist is also on the endangered list for Republicans.
Democratic incumbents Maria Cantwell in Washington, Debbie Stabenow in Michigan and Bob Menendez in New Jersey face potentially tough races, and Democrats must defend open seats in Minnesota and Maryland.
Many voters do not start paying attention until late in the campaign and many candidates only start spending heavily in September, giving the races plenty of chances to shift before the election.
Unexpected events, like the capture of al Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden or a major terrorist strike, could quickly shift the political landscape.
"I'm a political realist. Can we win? Yes, but this is 10 weeks out and a lot can happen in 10 weeks," said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Role Reversal?
Role Reversal?
Remember when the Republicans would advocate smaller government and less federal spending?
Freshmen members were typically the most vocal proponents of limited government, as they often brought optimism and a strong ideology to Capitol Hill. After time, some of these GOP ideologues tended to succumb to the culture of Washington and lose their moorings. But this process usually took years.
Lately this phenomenon appears to be happening much more rapidly. Speaking about the recent explosion of pork-barrel spending, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) noted, “We’ve developed a culture, unfortunately, over a number of years where incoming freshmen are conditioned to believe that this is the only way to get reelected.”
Now, it seems even candidates for Congress are talking like inside-the-Beltway porkers. In a hotly contested race for an open congressional seat in Illinois, a “fiscally conservative” Republican is pledging to bring home the bacon if elected.
The Daily Herald said of Pete Roskam, “The 6th Congressional District GOP nominee said he’d support continuing the so-called practice of “earmarks” if elected to Congress to make sure projects like fixing the dangerous railroad crossing at Irving Park and Wood Dale roads continue to get funded.”
Meanwhile, Tammy Duckworth, the Democratic nominee for the Illinois congressional seat, has taken a strong anti-pork stance. She notes, “One of the easiest steps Congress can take to reduce the deficit and reform ethics is to immediately end the practice of earmarking.” Duckworth has even created an “Outrageous Earmark of the Week” section on her campaign website.
It sounds a lot like Congressman Flake’s “Egregious Earmark of the Week.” That is to say, she sounds a lot more like a fiscal conservative than the Republican candidate.
Native Illinoisan Ronald Reagan, who once vetoed a highway bill because it contained too many earmarks, must be spinning in his grave.
Remember when the Republicans would advocate smaller government and less federal spending?
Freshmen members were typically the most vocal proponents of limited government, as they often brought optimism and a strong ideology to Capitol Hill. After time, some of these GOP ideologues tended to succumb to the culture of Washington and lose their moorings. But this process usually took years.
Lately this phenomenon appears to be happening much more rapidly. Speaking about the recent explosion of pork-barrel spending, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) noted, “We’ve developed a culture, unfortunately, over a number of years where incoming freshmen are conditioned to believe that this is the only way to get reelected.”
Now, it seems even candidates for Congress are talking like inside-the-Beltway porkers. In a hotly contested race for an open congressional seat in Illinois, a “fiscally conservative” Republican is pledging to bring home the bacon if elected.
The Daily Herald said of Pete Roskam, “The 6th Congressional District GOP nominee said he’d support continuing the so-called practice of “earmarks” if elected to Congress to make sure projects like fixing the dangerous railroad crossing at Irving Park and Wood Dale roads continue to get funded.”
Meanwhile, Tammy Duckworth, the Democratic nominee for the Illinois congressional seat, has taken a strong anti-pork stance. She notes, “One of the easiest steps Congress can take to reduce the deficit and reform ethics is to immediately end the practice of earmarking.” Duckworth has even created an “Outrageous Earmark of the Week” section on her campaign website.
It sounds a lot like Congressman Flake’s “Egregious Earmark of the Week.” That is to say, she sounds a lot more like a fiscal conservative than the Republican candidate.
Native Illinoisan Ronald Reagan, who once vetoed a highway bill because it contained too many earmarks, must be spinning in his grave.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Let us NOT forget
14 years ago we were appalled with the show of force from the federal government, today many would welcome it.
Tom Martz
Massacre at Ruby Ridge
ATF agent I suspect few government officials realized in 1992 the widespread anger and resentment their actions in a remote area of Idaho would inspire. Randy Weaver and his family were just some more "troublemakers" who didn't like the multicultural cesspool and wanted to be left alone. They would be "taken down hard and fast."
While most of the American sheeple paid no attention to this atrocity, a substantial minority on both sides of the political spectrum were outraged and wouldn't forget. Now the story continues.
Please note that, damning as the Justice Department investigation is, FBI officials are now believed to have destroyed evidence to keep it away from investigators.
Don Black
The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1995, p. A14.
Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report
By James Bovard
The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest critics imagined.
This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.
While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals, split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the woods.
At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position behind a stump...."
As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.
Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true circumstances of the shootings."
After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in. A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in the extreme on this count.
The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly force against armed males outside the cabin.
The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."
The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility."
FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.
Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.
At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on almost all charges.)
The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with instructions that they could and should shoot armed members of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver group out of the cabin."
The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and others outside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they would present a danger to the public at large...."
Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the task force concluded, "[B]y fixing his cross hairs on the door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he thought might be behind the door."
The Justice Department task force was especially appalled that the adults were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is significant because the Weavers were known to leave the cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack."
Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.
Tom Martz
Massacre at Ruby Ridge
ATF agent I suspect few government officials realized in 1992 the widespread anger and resentment their actions in a remote area of Idaho would inspire. Randy Weaver and his family were just some more "troublemakers" who didn't like the multicultural cesspool and wanted to be left alone. They would be "taken down hard and fast."
While most of the American sheeple paid no attention to this atrocity, a substantial minority on both sides of the political spectrum were outraged and wouldn't forget. Now the story continues.
Please note that, damning as the Justice Department investigation is, FBI officials are now believed to have destroyed evidence to keep it away from investigators.
Don Black
The Wall Street Journal, June 30, 1995, p. A14.
Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report
By James Bovard
The 1992 confrontation between federal agents and the Randy Weaver family in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, has become one of the most controversial and widely discussed examples of the abuse of federal power. The Justice Department completed a 542-page investigation on the case last year but has not yet made the report public. However, the report was acquired by Legal Times newspaper, which this week placed the text on the Internet. The report reveals that federal officials may have acted worse than even some of their harshest critics imagined.
This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.
While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals, split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the woods.
At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position behind a stump...."
As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.
Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true circumstances of the shootings."
After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in. A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in the extreme on this count.
The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly force against armed males outside the cabin.
The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."
The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility."
FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.
Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.
At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on almost all charges.)
The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with instructions that they could and should shoot armed members of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver group out of the cabin."
The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and others outside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they would present a danger to the public at large...."
Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the task force concluded, "[B]y fixing his cross hairs on the door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he thought might be behind the door."
The Justice Department task force was especially appalled that the adults were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is significant because the Weavers were known to leave the cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack."
Mr. Bovard writes often on public policy.
a documentry??
I watched the Spike Lee film last night on HBO called "When the Levee's Broke" and it enforced my opinion that people have been led to believe and educated likewise that the job of the federal government is to help those in need no matter what.
Was this a nation tradegy?? YES
Was the city forewarned that this could happen?? YES
Does the city sit in a flood plain?? YES
Did any of the local officials go above and beyond the call of duty to avert this problem?? it doesn't appear to be so, oh sure there are individuals which rose to the occasion but it appears many sat back and waited for government to help.
During Mr. Lee's interview which can be read at the above mentioned link, I find it quite humorous that he laments that only a 1/4 of the actual population is back within the city. Many of these individuals are spaced out in the other continental states living off of the taxpayers dollars just like many of them were doing while living in New Orleans.
When government subsidizes a bad behavior more of the same ensues.
By the way it is much simplier to blame the federal government then it is to blame Ray "I'm not going to drive the bus" Nagin
That is my opinion and I'll stick with it until shown otherwise.
Was this a nation tradegy?? YES
Was the city forewarned that this could happen?? YES
Does the city sit in a flood plain?? YES
Did any of the local officials go above and beyond the call of duty to avert this problem?? it doesn't appear to be so, oh sure there are individuals which rose to the occasion but it appears many sat back and waited for government to help.
During Mr. Lee's interview which can be read at the above mentioned link, I find it quite humorous that he laments that only a 1/4 of the actual population is back within the city. Many of these individuals are spaced out in the other continental states living off of the taxpayers dollars just like many of them were doing while living in New Orleans.
When government subsidizes a bad behavior more of the same ensues.
By the way it is much simplier to blame the federal government then it is to blame Ray "I'm not going to drive the bus" Nagin
That is my opinion and I'll stick with it until shown otherwise.
70 some days to go
At this point I will concentrate more on my oppenents views compared to my own. Last night I spent extensive time reviewing the positions that both my opponents have taken, and I must admit I was quite confused when I got finished.
Both of them seem to have some governmental solution to our problems, then they both lament of how much government intercedes into our lives.
All three of us are second amendment types and believe the citizenry should be allowed to own firearms. I will take this a step further and proclaim that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to purchase any firearm made which is legal in the United States. In this manner the government actually has to pass legislation to prevent "certain" firearms from being allowed in the country. It is quite hard to hide behind this position.
Mr. Schoolcraft says he is pro-choice but says that through the use of government programs we can change the tide of abortion on demand.
Mr. Schoeller is pro-life and even received the nod from the organization which this position is quite important.
I am pro-life, no organization is going to endorse a third party candidate, my feeling weren't hurt. On some issues I completely disagree with the Pro-Life organization. I'm against any government expenditures whether they support the life or choice movement makes no difference to me. I also firmly believe this was a states rights issue not one of the federal government. We used to have 50 sovereign states which could govern the peoples residing within the states boundries, no more however as the fed reigns supreme.
change the face of politics and vote only third party candidates.
Tom Martz
Both of them seem to have some governmental solution to our problems, then they both lament of how much government intercedes into our lives.
All three of us are second amendment types and believe the citizenry should be allowed to own firearms. I will take this a step further and proclaim that any law abiding citizen should be allowed to purchase any firearm made which is legal in the United States. In this manner the government actually has to pass legislation to prevent "certain" firearms from being allowed in the country. It is quite hard to hide behind this position.
Mr. Schoolcraft says he is pro-choice but says that through the use of government programs we can change the tide of abortion on demand.
Mr. Schoeller is pro-life and even received the nod from the organization which this position is quite important.
I am pro-life, no organization is going to endorse a third party candidate, my feeling weren't hurt. On some issues I completely disagree with the Pro-Life organization. I'm against any government expenditures whether they support the life or choice movement makes no difference to me. I also firmly believe this was a states rights issue not one of the federal government. We used to have 50 sovereign states which could govern the peoples residing within the states boundries, no more however as the fed reigns supreme.
change the face of politics and vote only third party candidates.
Tom Martz
Monday, August 21, 2006
Lowering the Cost of Health Care
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - A weekly Column
August 21, 2006
As a medical doctor, I've seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
I believe the repeal of bad laws and court decisions which drive up these cost should be handled first. The tenticles of government tend to add more cost then deemed necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
Hence government has NO legal Constitutional authority to mandate this type of action. It was at this point everyone that voted for this bill should have been given the BOOT.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of "universal coverage"- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
That's just it both the current duopoly parties in POWER want this system to remain, after all they do bring home the bacon for the constituients. The bigger the entitlement the better to remain in office with.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
Most people have been government educated so the understanding of this paragraph is limited to about 2% of the population.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as "somebody else" is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
Just to make sure there is an understanding with the term "third party", Mr. Paul is not reffering to the Libertarian Party, but to the insurance companies.
The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:
HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.
As a business owner I should be in favor of this but the word "tax credit" sounds more like a government give back theme.
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
"To err is human" can't remember the individual which said this but it is quite true in this case. I understand suing in regards to GROSS NEGLIGENCE, but for items out of the control of either the doctor or the facility is just plain WRONG. Suing a doctor because the baby is born with a handicap can't be controlled by the doctor or the hospitol. That is a risk that we the individual should bare.
If I fall off of a ladder is the manufacturer liable?? Sadly the answer would be yes in todays court system, although I wouldn't sue for my own stupidity.
HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
Open up the insurance industry to allow "specific types of policies" Everything has gone via the big box store mentality. As the consumer I should be able to purchase specific types of policies for my families needs.
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
Once someone is diagnosised with a terminal illness ALL the money contributed to that number should be immediately released to that person, how they spend it is up to them, however keep in mind if the money gets wasted don't come crying back to the taxpayer for your ignorance.
I'm Tom Martz and I'm the Libertarian candidate for the 139th district. If you believe government expenditures are out of control and government has to much POWER over your daily life then I welcome you to vote for every Libertarian on your ballot to make EFFECTIVE change. The more members we get in state congress the more power we can return to the people.
Tom Martz
August 21, 2006
As a medical doctor, I've seen first-hand how bureaucratic red tape interferes with the doctor-patient relationship and drives costs higher. The current system of third-party payers takes decision-making away from doctors, leaving patients feeling rushed and worsening the quality of care. Yet health insurance premiums and drug costs keep rising. Clearly a new approach is needed. Congress needs to craft innovative legislation that makes health care more affordable without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. It also needs to repeal bad laws that keep health care costs higher than necessary.
I believe the repeal of bad laws and court decisions which drive up these cost should be handled first. The tenticles of government tend to add more cost then deemed necessary.
We should remember that HMOs did not arise because of free-market demand, but rather because of government mandates. The HMO Act of 1973 requires all but the smallest employers to offer their employees HMO coverage, and the tax code allows businesses- but not individuals- to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums. The result is the illogical coupling of employment and health insurance, which often leaves the unemployed without needed catastrophic coverage.
Hence government has NO legal Constitutional authority to mandate this type of action. It was at this point everyone that voted for this bill should have been given the BOOT.
While many in Congress are happy to criticize HMOs today, the public never hears how the present system was imposed upon the American people by federal law. As usual, government intervention in the private market failed to deliver the promised benefits and caused unintended consequences, but Congress never blames itself for the problems created by bad laws. Instead, we are told more government- in the form of "universal coverage"- is the answer. But government already is involved in roughly two-thirds of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs.
That's just it both the current duopoly parties in POWER want this system to remain, after all they do bring home the bacon for the constituients. The bigger the entitlement the better to remain in office with.
For decades, the U.S. healthcare system was the envy of the entire world. Not coincidentally, there was far less government involvement in medicine during this time. America had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients enjoyed high quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of private charities provided health services for the poor. Doctors focused on treating patients, without the red tape and threat of lawsuits that plague the profession today. Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs down, as the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program.
Most people have been government educated so the understanding of this paragraph is limited to about 2% of the population.
The lesson is clear: when government and other third parties get involved, health care costs spiral. The answer is not a system of outright socialized medicine, but rather a system that encourages everyone- doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies- to keep costs down. As long as "somebody else" is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.
Just to make sure there is an understanding with the term "third party", Mr. Paul is not reffering to the Libertarian Party, but to the insurance companies.
The following are bills Congress should pass to reduce health care costs and leave more money in the pockets of families:
HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.
As a business owner I should be in favor of this but the word "tax credit" sounds more like a government give back theme.
HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.
"To err is human" can't remember the individual which said this but it is quite true in this case. I understand suing in regards to GROSS NEGLIGENCE, but for items out of the control of either the doctor or the facility is just plain WRONG. Suing a doctor because the baby is born with a handicap can't be controlled by the doctor or the hospitol. That is a risk that we the individual should bare.
If I fall off of a ladder is the manufacturer liable?? Sadly the answer would be yes in todays court system, although I wouldn't sue for my own stupidity.
HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.
Open up the insurance industry to allow "specific types of policies" Everything has gone via the big box store mentality. As the consumer I should be able to purchase specific types of policies for my families needs.
HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.
Once someone is diagnosised with a terminal illness ALL the money contributed to that number should be immediately released to that person, how they spend it is up to them, however keep in mind if the money gets wasted don't come crying back to the taxpayer for your ignorance.
I'm Tom Martz and I'm the Libertarian candidate for the 139th district. If you believe government expenditures are out of control and government has to much POWER over your daily life then I welcome you to vote for every Libertarian on your ballot to make EFFECTIVE change. The more members we get in state congress the more power we can return to the people.
Tom Martz
Friday, August 18, 2006
copied but important info pertaining to the audit
The Libertarian Guy said...
The Greene County Libertarian Party has scheduled a public forum for interested citizens to provide their concerns to be submitted to the State Auditor's office. On Saturday, August 26th, our first forum will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Frisco room at the Library Station. Audit suggestions can also be phoned in to the G.C.L.P. at (417) 300-9148 or by e-mail at auditinfo@intergate.com.
Let your voice be heard to what departments should be audited.
The Greene County Libertarian Party has scheduled a public forum for interested citizens to provide their concerns to be submitted to the State Auditor's office. On Saturday, August 26th, our first forum will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Frisco room at the Library Station. Audit suggestions can also be phoned in to the G.C.L.P. at (417) 300-9148 or by e-mail at auditinfo@intergate.com.
Let your voice be heard to what departments should be audited.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Medicaid reform is the real issue
Lawmakers spend too much time on fraud.
A legislative committee was in Springfield on Wednesday looking for fraud in Medicaid.
Perhaps there is some to be found, but we suggest lawmakers are once again focusing on the wrong priorities when they talk about Medicaid. What they ought to be doing is figuring how they're going to remake the system. When the legislature slashed Medicaid two years ago to balance the state budget, they passed a bill that wipes out the current state system of state-funded indigent care by 2008. The plan, Gov. Matt Blunt and Republican legislators said, was to remake the system from scratch.
It stands to reason when the tenticles of government get intwined in areas which should be the private sector cost will definetly GO UP.
So what are they doing? They're still talking about fraud and abuse, which was their rallying cry when they made the cuts in the first place. In the meantime, real people are suffering. Children have lost their insurance. Disabled adults have quit their jobs to keep their Medicaid. We're about two years away from the system going away and we're nowhere closer to figuring out the plan to develop a sustainable Medicaid program.
If you look at the BUDGET for mediScare there wasn't a cut in cost or budget so how does the SNL proclaim there was one. Easy the electorate buys into it via the SOB stories we see on TV nightly.
The good news is that Blunt seems to understand the key issue. In an interview with the News-Leader editorial board recently, he decried the liberal myth that too many people in our system today don't have access to health care.
"Everybody has access," Blunt says. "It's the emergency room. We need to change that."
The irony, of course, is that was the Democratic criticism two years ago when he slashed the Medicaid rolls and forced too many folks to use the emergency room as their sole source of health care. That Blunt today understands that reality of our system speaks well for the potential reform of the Medicaid system, if only the governor and lawmakers can get past political hurdles and focus on the real issues.
Personally using the Emergency Room as my source of medical resourses isn't actually an intelligent idea. My pet ferret knows emergency room cost will skyrocket, so how come it is people with college degrees don't understand this?
Reforming Medicaid has little to do with fraud and abuse, and everything to do with determining sustainable levels of care that provide security for our state's residents who need it, but mostly as a transitional benefit, not a permanent state-provided health insurance system. The problem with the old system is that it grew out of control. Like other forms of welfare — from food stamps to public housing — it didn't provide the sort of flexibility that helps folks as they help themselves. Under the old way of thinking about welfare, services are provided until a certain income level is attained, and then they're cut off. That forces people who are still in poverty to choose between food and medicine, shelter or a better-paying job.
The new model of Medicaid, we believe, must include sliding scales of service that help those who need it most and charge co-pays — or slowly reduce services — for those who can afford it. The new model must reward those who improve their income by keeping services in place until folks have climbed out of poverty, rather than just cutting them off when an arbitrary new income level is reached. The new model must recognize the truth that Blunt realizes: sending folks to the emergency room is not a solution.
Remaking Medicaid should be about providing incentives for those who can help themselves and access to health care for those who can't.
It's time for state lawmakers to make real Medicaid reform a priority.
A legislative committee was in Springfield on Wednesday looking for fraud in Medicaid.
Perhaps there is some to be found, but we suggest lawmakers are once again focusing on the wrong priorities when they talk about Medicaid. What they ought to be doing is figuring how they're going to remake the system. When the legislature slashed Medicaid two years ago to balance the state budget, they passed a bill that wipes out the current state system of state-funded indigent care by 2008. The plan, Gov. Matt Blunt and Republican legislators said, was to remake the system from scratch.
It stands to reason when the tenticles of government get intwined in areas which should be the private sector cost will definetly GO UP.
So what are they doing? They're still talking about fraud and abuse, which was their rallying cry when they made the cuts in the first place. In the meantime, real people are suffering. Children have lost their insurance. Disabled adults have quit their jobs to keep their Medicaid. We're about two years away from the system going away and we're nowhere closer to figuring out the plan to develop a sustainable Medicaid program.
If you look at the BUDGET for mediScare there wasn't a cut in cost or budget so how does the SNL proclaim there was one. Easy the electorate buys into it via the SOB stories we see on TV nightly.
The good news is that Blunt seems to understand the key issue. In an interview with the News-Leader editorial board recently, he decried the liberal myth that too many people in our system today don't have access to health care.
"Everybody has access," Blunt says. "It's the emergency room. We need to change that."
The irony, of course, is that was the Democratic criticism two years ago when he slashed the Medicaid rolls and forced too many folks to use the emergency room as their sole source of health care. That Blunt today understands that reality of our system speaks well for the potential reform of the Medicaid system, if only the governor and lawmakers can get past political hurdles and focus on the real issues.
Personally using the Emergency Room as my source of medical resourses isn't actually an intelligent idea. My pet ferret knows emergency room cost will skyrocket, so how come it is people with college degrees don't understand this?
Reforming Medicaid has little to do with fraud and abuse, and everything to do with determining sustainable levels of care that provide security for our state's residents who need it, but mostly as a transitional benefit, not a permanent state-provided health insurance system. The problem with the old system is that it grew out of control. Like other forms of welfare — from food stamps to public housing — it didn't provide the sort of flexibility that helps folks as they help themselves. Under the old way of thinking about welfare, services are provided until a certain income level is attained, and then they're cut off. That forces people who are still in poverty to choose between food and medicine, shelter or a better-paying job.
The new model of Medicaid, we believe, must include sliding scales of service that help those who need it most and charge co-pays — or slowly reduce services — for those who can afford it. The new model must reward those who improve their income by keeping services in place until folks have climbed out of poverty, rather than just cutting them off when an arbitrary new income level is reached. The new model must recognize the truth that Blunt realizes: sending folks to the emergency room is not a solution.
Remaking Medicaid should be about providing incentives for those who can help themselves and access to health care for those who can't.
It's time for state lawmakers to make real Medicaid reform a priority.
Teens are OK with drug tests
this will be interspirced with some of my commentary.
The News-Leader says that student drug testing is misguided and disturbing. So are the reasons it gave for opposing it. It cites the so-called failure of the DARE program as a reason not to test. That doesn’t mean this also will fail. If that educational program failed, then why insist on more? Why not attempt to curb drug use in a different way? Why not try a way that puts students in a position where taking a drug test will affect their extracurricular activities?
Since there are many ways to teach a student from private schools to home schooling I have no problem with this. After all going to government schools is voluntary not FORCED upon the citizenry.
If one student turns down drugs for fear of failing a drug test, then it does work. The purpose of student drug testing isn’t necessarily to catch students doing drugs. The purpose is to be a deterrent from doing drugs in the first place. It gives teens a solid reason to turn down the lure and pressure of drug use.
Once more government schooling is voluntary not FORCED!!
The News-Leader also cites personal freedoms as a reason not to test students. It’s not a disturbing trend, as it says. It’s a way to respond to drug problems in our schools. A good reason to test students is safety. It protects the student and those around them. But shouldn’t our society be used to measures that limit our personal freedom all in the name of safety? Speed limits, DUIs and underage driving laws restrict personal freedom all in the name of safety. Laws and decisions are made for our good. This decision isn’t out of the ordinary and isn’t misguided.
I'm not to complaint on the way the writer has decided to use safety as a means to limit personal freedoms. The Autobahn in Germany clearly shows that speed limits have nothing to do with safety. Many people die in auto accidents when they are complaint to the speed limit, obeying the law didn't save their lives.
DUI's don't tend to offer any safety either. Should I choose to go get drunk and drive it would be a RARE instance if I were to be stopped by the police.
I was driving at the age of 12, I still haven't been involved in an accident that has been my fault, hense the underage driving law protected NO ONE.
Drug testing isn’t intrusive or against the Constitution, as some say. The Supreme Court says this. It isn’t discriminatory either. Educators will say that participating in extracurricular activities isn’t a right, but a privilege. Those who want to participate need to submit to random drug tests. Drug testing isn’t punishment or discrimination. We shouldn’t view this as something negative, but helpful based on the current drug use by teens.
BAD argument!!! The SCOTUS also says that stealing ones property to give to a developer for economic gain to a community is constitutional as well.
I wonder if Mr Loomis would mind if Wal-Mart or any other retailor absconded with his property???? I would wager he would be complaining loudly.
However I still agree with random drug testing in the government school system since attendance is voluntary.
I offer my viewpoints based on personal experience. I am employed by the company who performed the drug tests on the Branson students and on the board members who approved it. I have given hundreds of drug tests to students.
Countless times a teen will tell me they don’t do drugs because they have so much to lose. More teens tell me they think it’s a good idea than those who complain about it. If they are the ones taking the tests and don’t mind, then why should the News-Leader mind?
Bill Loomis resides in Springfield and is a drug technician.
The News-Leader says that student drug testing is misguided and disturbing. So are the reasons it gave for opposing it. It cites the so-called failure of the DARE program as a reason not to test. That doesn’t mean this also will fail. If that educational program failed, then why insist on more? Why not attempt to curb drug use in a different way? Why not try a way that puts students in a position where taking a drug test will affect their extracurricular activities?
Since there are many ways to teach a student from private schools to home schooling I have no problem with this. After all going to government schools is voluntary not FORCED upon the citizenry.
If one student turns down drugs for fear of failing a drug test, then it does work. The purpose of student drug testing isn’t necessarily to catch students doing drugs. The purpose is to be a deterrent from doing drugs in the first place. It gives teens a solid reason to turn down the lure and pressure of drug use.
Once more government schooling is voluntary not FORCED!!
The News-Leader also cites personal freedoms as a reason not to test students. It’s not a disturbing trend, as it says. It’s a way to respond to drug problems in our schools. A good reason to test students is safety. It protects the student and those around them. But shouldn’t our society be used to measures that limit our personal freedom all in the name of safety? Speed limits, DUIs and underage driving laws restrict personal freedom all in the name of safety. Laws and decisions are made for our good. This decision isn’t out of the ordinary and isn’t misguided.
I'm not to complaint on the way the writer has decided to use safety as a means to limit personal freedoms. The Autobahn in Germany clearly shows that speed limits have nothing to do with safety. Many people die in auto accidents when they are complaint to the speed limit, obeying the law didn't save their lives.
DUI's don't tend to offer any safety either. Should I choose to go get drunk and drive it would be a RARE instance if I were to be stopped by the police.
I was driving at the age of 12, I still haven't been involved in an accident that has been my fault, hense the underage driving law protected NO ONE.
Drug testing isn’t intrusive or against the Constitution, as some say. The Supreme Court says this. It isn’t discriminatory either. Educators will say that participating in extracurricular activities isn’t a right, but a privilege. Those who want to participate need to submit to random drug tests. Drug testing isn’t punishment or discrimination. We shouldn’t view this as something negative, but helpful based on the current drug use by teens.
BAD argument!!! The SCOTUS also says that stealing ones property to give to a developer for economic gain to a community is constitutional as well.
I wonder if Mr Loomis would mind if Wal-Mart or any other retailor absconded with his property???? I would wager he would be complaining loudly.
However I still agree with random drug testing in the government school system since attendance is voluntary.
I offer my viewpoints based on personal experience. I am employed by the company who performed the drug tests on the Branson students and on the board members who approved it. I have given hundreds of drug tests to students.
Countless times a teen will tell me they don’t do drugs because they have so much to lose. More teens tell me they think it’s a good idea than those who complain about it. If they are the ones taking the tests and don’t mind, then why should the News-Leader mind?
Bill Loomis resides in Springfield and is a drug technician.
How have we allowed plundering of taxpayers' money go on?
could it possibly be that the citizenry has become complaint to what the mainstream politicians tell them??
could it be that when someone questions the expenditures of the elite elected officials they are BEATEN down by a news media organization for being a "MOONBAT"??
One only need to look in the mirror Ms. Sarah Overstreet and to where this article was printed to discover the answer.
Funny I thought the newspapers had INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS, to write about this type of stuff.
KUDOS to Doug Burlison and the members of the Libertarian Party of Greene County for getting this subject on the forefront. Many thanks to the individual members of the police department, firefighters, and concerned citizens of Springfield.
There are two crimes I really can't understand:
a.) Serial killing. I've watched documentaries titled such as "The Mind of a Serial Killer." It's like I'm watching videos voiced in Farsi. Nothing computes.
b.) Embezzlement. I have to keep my bank account current (by subtraction, mostly), or My Good Friends Who Gave Me the Toaster to Sign Up With Their Bank will charge me a hefty fee for overdrawing.
So doesn't that beg the question, "How does someone in public life get away with it so easily, if the Gestapo at the bank are looking at every jot and tittle of my finances?"
Easy. In public life, sometimes no one's watching. The emperor has no clothes. No one wants to say anything, lest he or she be pilloried for pointing it out or suggesting we need CPAs, too.
Just a couple of examples — from the most current to the mists of history — where there were no checks and balances in southwest Missouri's past.
Some $1.2 million disappeared from the Springfield Municipal Court between Jan. 1, 2000, and June 13 of this year.
This is the court where we pay our fines for all the sins we commit, from driving transgressions to having our dogs roam at large. These tickets are not inexpensive. Look at the city's record of keeping watch of the money, and all you can do is get sick. The City Finance Department told News-Leader reporter Jenny Fillmer earlier this year that the city does not regularly check to make sure the money that gets deposited into city bank accounts balances against the money it collected.
What happened to the money, before and now? "It would be very difficult for us to know," the city's director of finance, Mary Mannix-Decker, told Fillmer. Again, since the city's Finance Department doesn't check the dough to see where it goes, they dunno. Why?
The official excuse the city has used is that it doesn't have the money to look after our money, even after a state audit showed in 2000 that "vulnerabilities" have existed in our Municipal Court for years.
And how long has this kind of thing been going on?
That would be a great game-show question.
At least since the late 1980s. That's when ex-Greene County Collector's Office employee Lois Long, former Collector Gene Wickliffe's head bookkeeper and cashier, took an estimated $94,000 from the office.
It seems like every few weeks, there's a new news release about a local embezzlement: a Springfield PTA treasurer, a children's basketball organization's treasurer, lawyers for private trusts, all kinds of bookkeeping burglary in private industry.
It's reprehensible when parents and supporters sweat buckets to plump up children's activities and someone steals it. It's gut-wrenching when crooks rob old people who think they're making investments that will take them through their lives. When employees are allowed to plunder from the taxpayers. Why have we let it go on so long?
Are we NUTS?
could it be that when someone questions the expenditures of the elite elected officials they are BEATEN down by a news media organization for being a "MOONBAT"??
One only need to look in the mirror Ms. Sarah Overstreet and to where this article was printed to discover the answer.
Funny I thought the newspapers had INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS, to write about this type of stuff.
KUDOS to Doug Burlison and the members of the Libertarian Party of Greene County for getting this subject on the forefront. Many thanks to the individual members of the police department, firefighters, and concerned citizens of Springfield.
There are two crimes I really can't understand:
a.) Serial killing. I've watched documentaries titled such as "The Mind of a Serial Killer." It's like I'm watching videos voiced in Farsi. Nothing computes.
b.) Embezzlement. I have to keep my bank account current (by subtraction, mostly), or My Good Friends Who Gave Me the Toaster to Sign Up With Their Bank will charge me a hefty fee for overdrawing.
So doesn't that beg the question, "How does someone in public life get away with it so easily, if the Gestapo at the bank are looking at every jot and tittle of my finances?"
Easy. In public life, sometimes no one's watching. The emperor has no clothes. No one wants to say anything, lest he or she be pilloried for pointing it out or suggesting we need CPAs, too.
Just a couple of examples — from the most current to the mists of history — where there were no checks and balances in southwest Missouri's past.
Some $1.2 million disappeared from the Springfield Municipal Court between Jan. 1, 2000, and June 13 of this year.
This is the court where we pay our fines for all the sins we commit, from driving transgressions to having our dogs roam at large. These tickets are not inexpensive. Look at the city's record of keeping watch of the money, and all you can do is get sick. The City Finance Department told News-Leader reporter Jenny Fillmer earlier this year that the city does not regularly check to make sure the money that gets deposited into city bank accounts balances against the money it collected.
What happened to the money, before and now? "It would be very difficult for us to know," the city's director of finance, Mary Mannix-Decker, told Fillmer. Again, since the city's Finance Department doesn't check the dough to see where it goes, they dunno. Why?
The official excuse the city has used is that it doesn't have the money to look after our money, even after a state audit showed in 2000 that "vulnerabilities" have existed in our Municipal Court for years.
And how long has this kind of thing been going on?
That would be a great game-show question.
At least since the late 1980s. That's when ex-Greene County Collector's Office employee Lois Long, former Collector Gene Wickliffe's head bookkeeper and cashier, took an estimated $94,000 from the office.
It seems like every few weeks, there's a new news release about a local embezzlement: a Springfield PTA treasurer, a children's basketball organization's treasurer, lawyers for private trusts, all kinds of bookkeeping burglary in private industry.
It's reprehensible when parents and supporters sweat buckets to plump up children's activities and someone steals it. It's gut-wrenching when crooks rob old people who think they're making investments that will take them through their lives. When employees are allowed to plunder from the taxpayers. Why have we let it go on so long?
Are we NUTS?
Monday, August 07, 2006
U.N.?
for years most republicans tried to distance themselves from the U.N. for obvisous reasons. It is an organization which is hell bent on controlling the world. The democrats like this as it fits into the social agenda of which guides the party.
the party that baffled me to some extend was the complaince with the party leaders and the mainstream republicans. this notion however has subsided since I've come to the conclusion that the current administration is using the U.N. resolutions as the scapegoat for going into Iraq.
No longer can many mainstream republicans, nor can the party faithful object to the status of the U.N. after all they used it quite nicely to deflect some criticism with our current quagmire.
the light has been shown on the party of principle and we have learned they have none, which means the faithful that don't agree with the U.N. position should either not vote or vote third party right?? not a chance they will continue to support their party, since people like me are deemed conspiracy theorist. it isn't until its too late that we find out post like these were correct.
government, government schooling and a complaint media have dumbed down a whole generation and a half of the citizens. is it too late to retrieve "our" country from the ruins of which it is headed?? for my kids sake I hope so.
the party that baffled me to some extend was the complaince with the party leaders and the mainstream republicans. this notion however has subsided since I've come to the conclusion that the current administration is using the U.N. resolutions as the scapegoat for going into Iraq.
No longer can many mainstream republicans, nor can the party faithful object to the status of the U.N. after all they used it quite nicely to deflect some criticism with our current quagmire.
the light has been shown on the party of principle and we have learned they have none, which means the faithful that don't agree with the U.N. position should either not vote or vote third party right?? not a chance they will continue to support their party, since people like me are deemed conspiracy theorist. it isn't until its too late that we find out post like these were correct.
government, government schooling and a complaint media have dumbed down a whole generation and a half of the citizens. is it too late to retrieve "our" country from the ruins of which it is headed?? for my kids sake I hope so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)