The Senate Energy “Compromise”

Five Republican Senators are supposedly siding with the Democrats in order to get energy legislation passed in order to address the energy crisis.  This is bogus as all get-out.  The limitations are so restrictive basically nothing will be accomplushed.  No ANWR, no drilling ANYWHERE offshore within fifty miles, and only four states will even have the option to drill at all.

Don’t let this compromise fool ya.

Those Senators that need to be talked to are:

  • Lindsey Graham
  • John Thune
  • Saxby Chambliss
  • Bob Corker
  • Johnny Isaakson

We don’t need a compromise that sends a message to OPEC that they’ve won, we give up, charge us what you want.

The compromise is useless, just stay on vacation if that’s the best you guys can offer.

Time for you guys to take a cue from John Shadegg and Ted Poe ( among others ), and do something radical.  Something like, maybe, threatening, and then doing, a filibuster if Reid proposes anything that doesn’t have a true reponse to the current crisis.  Obama, Reid, and Pelosi all have reasonable fantasies for the future, but it will be a hell of a lot harder getting there if we don’t get past this situation without sending all of our financial resources we have to OPEC that would fund their fantasies. 

It’s just that simple.

Bottom line, less government intervention is needed right now.

Nothing is more Republican than that.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The abortion litmus test again

Here we go again.  Michelle Malkin is aghast that John McCain might pick a pro-choice running mate.  John McCain has been pro-choice, sometimes very vocally so.   Obama is extremely pro-choice.   For a lot of people, that will be a defining issue.  Unless of course, McCain picks a running mate that is pro-choice and/or Obama picks a mate that is pro-life.

The debate over this issue is so amazingly misguided it boggles me.

The reason why is very simple.  The President directly has no impact on the issue.  None whatsoever.  Clinton opposed Roe v Wade, but could do nothing about it.  Bush supported Roe v Wade but saw elements of it chipped away.  So, it’s really not an issue that means anything.

The bigger issue is what a president can do to affect the issue of abortion.  Their legal views over-ride their individual views on abortion.  The types of Surpreme Court judges they appoint will trump their personal views.  If they appoint liberal judges, it doesn’t matter if they are pro-life.  If they appoint conservative judgtes, it doesn’t matter if they are pro-life.  And, to make the abortion angle a little more confusing, if they appoint a truly legally conservative judge, that judge would be against Roe v Wade as well.

Huh you say?  Yeah, I say.  A truly legally conservative judge would recognize the Constitution trumps all social issues and rule that the federal government has no stake in his issue at all.  It is an issue left up to each state to decide if they so choose.

Now, you starting to get an idea why I call this site “Rebel Republicans”?  This is why a lot of true Republicans consider themselves Libertarians.  If you read the Party platform of 1856, you’ll understand why everyone is so confused at this time.

To make myself clear, abortion is not a national party issue.  States rights is.  McCain, if he’s willing to buck the neo-cons and go with a pro-choice mate, should be setting that stage by stressing that the over-riding value of the Republican Party is states’ rights and therefore he’s not going to allow any social issue to be a litmus test.

When the focus is shifted, the Republican Party can more easily claim it’s a party for everyone instead of the neo-con clique it became in the 80’s.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Stephen Dick hates America ( why should I care? )

I live in a small town in Kentucky.  We have a small town newspaper that pretty much ignores all things national and focuses on the important things like obituaries and arrest records.  I read it all.  However, a few years ago it was bought by a corporate mogul called CNHI.  Now, they did allow the paper to stay local in most aspects.  However, they constantly bombard us with editorials from people all over the country that don’t share our local views.  Today we got a doozy from Stephen Dick, who lives in Indiana.  Now, normally I’d quote part of something I’m referring to, but this one’s a zinger from beginning to end.  There is no single highlight.  Check out however much you want to here.  He basically just hates capitalism.  Hates it, hates it, hates it.  According to him, it’s pretty much an exclusively non-Democrat issue too.  He trashes everything that has anything to do with capitalism and then sums it all up with:

Call it socialism, strengthening the safety net or whatever. Policies must be put in action that will temper the excesses of capitalism and rein in the power of corporations to do what they want, wherever and whenever they want and to keep themselves flush with cash.  Since Friedman wrote nearly 40 years ago, the U.S. has become an untenable chasm between the luxury of the rich and the despair of the poor. No corporation has stepped up with a conscience or moral fortitude to change things. And they won’t unless they’re forced to.  Don’t look for that to happen because they’ve always got a few million lying around to grease the palms of the whores we elect.

Folks, if you didn’t read the rest of it, it doesn’t get any better than what you do see.  DIck doesn’t hate capitalism, he hates Democracy.  What he desires is not socialism, it’s communism:

….a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

In socialism, it allows for groups to own assets.  It doesn’t necessarily define what those groups are.  With the current business models in the United States, this already happens.  These socialist models are called “corporations” who are owned sometimes by millions of people.  Dick doesn’t like corporations.  Dick doesn’t understand that corporations, such as Microsoft, which was founded by Bill Gates, use the socialist model in order to raise the capital they need to expand.  As the corporation profits, so do those people who became a part of that socialist corporation.  Dick therefore truly only likes the only alternative to socialism and capitalism.  That is communism.  In communism there is no individual ownership of assets.  Therefore, there is no room for corporations to exist.  Therefore Dick would be in fifth heaven.  Only real life problem is the paper Dick writes for would be owned by the government and he would be shot dead for challenging the government.  Think North Korea or Cuba if you want an image of Dick’s utopia.  They have no corporations in those places that are not exclusively part of the government.

Second problem presented here is the fact that Dick uses a huge corporation as his bully pulpit to attack my values hundreds of miles away by saying capitalism sucks and communism is good.  I don’t have that bully pulpit of a cushy job working for a ruthless corporation to spread my word to people who don’t want to hear it.  I just blog for free and hope it sticks with people who share my values, or even better, think enough about them to possibly reconsider some of theirs.  However, either way, and even if you totally disagree with what I have to say, you’re getting what you paid for here.  I don’t pay for Stephen Dick’s crap.  I pay to read the obits and arrest records.  It just so happens I can’t get those without getting Dick’s pro-communism anti-American BS pushed on me by the very vehicle he stabs in the back.

I don’t like CNHI.  Their ethics in how they handled the local paper take-over were deplorable and several of my friends got hurt in the process.  Included in that group, my eventual wife.  However, from observing the last 232 years of world history, it is easily proven that the United States is by far the most philanthrophic group of people on the planet.  Bar none.  So, somethings amiss somewhere in Dick’s thinking.  Maybe he just hates Bill Gates?  Well, the point Dick’s making is that people like Bill Gates don’t voluntarily help the poor.  They just rape, pillage, stab, mutillate, do diabolical things to them, and then come back and do it all again for chucks and giggles.  Fact is tho, Bill Gates donated more money to charities all over the world than any government on the planet.  Socialist, communist, or capitalist.  Doesn’t matter.  He beat them all.  Again.  What Dick is hoping for is that government in some form, take Bill’s money, and spread it WISELY to those who need it.

Does anyone else see the farce in that assumption?  Does Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac not ring any bells right this very moment?

It just never ceases to amaze me how people come to a conclusion that totally defies all known facts and comes to a conclusion that totally contradicts what it is they demanded in the first place.

Kinda like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid telling us that increasing production has no effect on meeting demand but punishing the evil corporate supplier will.

I’m gonna bet you my bottom dollar that if Stephen Dick is registered to vote at all, he’s Democrat.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Bob Roggio

Bob Roggio is running for Congress in the 6th District of Pennsylvania.  Now, I’m not terribly privy to, nor concerned with, the local dynamics of his race.  However, he stated some opinions online that I thought were worth looking at:

As our country faces a record $482 billion deficit, gas prices that have soared above $4 per gallon, a war in Iraq that is costing over $12 billion a month and not making us any safer, and healthcare costs that have become prohibitively expensive for over 47 million Americans, we need to shake up Washington and demand new leadership rooted in accountability and fiscal responsibility.

I don’t have a typical politician’s story. My background is in business, not politics. When I was 22, my father died suddenly and I went to work for my father’s company to support my mother and family. For 30 years, I worked to create over 600 new jobs, made affordable healthcare available for my employees, balanced a budget, and took care of the bottom line. My ethical principles and my strident commitment to provide for my employees and family defined my success in business and at home. Our country needs leaders with different experience, proven results, and a pledged dedication to changing the special interest culture in Washington.

Bottom line: we can’t afford more business-as-usual from Washington.

My opponent, Jim Gerlach, was recently fined $120 thousand by the Federal Election Commission for misrepresenting campaign contributions. This constituted the largest penalty ever paid by a member from Pennsylvania. He has voted to weaken house ethics rules and allowed for lobbyists to wine and dine members in their official offices, and pay for their travel. He has accepted over $100 thousand in campaign contributions from Big Oil and has consistently voted to line their pockets with government subsidies.

Jim Gerlach is a career politician who breaks rules and weakens ethical standards. I am a businessman who believes that real change starts with demanding accountability from our leaders.

We need to hold our elected officials to the highest ethical standards. We need to go further than restricting the number of years that public officials have to “cool off” before lobbying Congress. We need to curtail the influence of special interests in governance by demanding a lifetime ban on ex-lawmakers becoming registered lobbyists. We need increased transparency including a demand for public access to lobbying reports and ethics records. I have publicly pledged not to accept any campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries because I believe that we need to cut off the flow of special interest money in politics.

Our country is facing tremendous challenges and it is time to elect new leadership that is truly independent and accountable to the American people.

Now, first of all, this has been the core theme of Democrats for eight years.  Blame everything on Bush.  The public, with an assist from most media, has bought into this lock, stock, and barrel.  However, if one looks at that Bob is saying, things aren’t quite as obvious.

  1. The White House sent their budget to Congress that projected a $492 billion deficit.  It is totally up to Congress to approve it, amend it, or completely ignore it.  It wil not be approved.  It definitely will be amended.  It will be amended by countless pork projects that totally rely on Nancy Pelosi to allow or not.  Nancy Pelosi, is most definitely a Democrat.  She is the power that be only because there are more Democrats than Republicans in Congress.  If Bob truly meant what he says, he’d be pressuring Pelosi to reject the White House budget entirely.
  2. The primary reason gas is $4 a gallon is because of the misguided oil policies of Jimmy Carter in 1979 and the current House leaders, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, very publicly telling OPEC they’re not going to do anything about it.  If Bob were sincerely wanting to do the right thing, he’d pressure Nancy and Harry into doing the right thing and at the very least making it sound like they’re willing to confront OPEC instead of protecting OPEC from the American people.
  3. The war in Iraq, at the time, was supported equally by the very Democrats who are railing against it now.  If he truly wants to support change and get rid of business as usual, he’d be running against them as well.
  4. The reason healthcare has gotten so expensive is due primarily to the forced healthcare reforms of the mid 90’s that limited competition with unnecessary and cumbersome restrictions and regulations.  Those were crammed down the industry’s throats by Hillary Clinton.  If Bob truly wanted to do something about the high price of insurance, he’d research just a slight bit and realize that.  If he wants to restore some normalcy to insurance, he’d run on a platform of revoking the Clinton Healthcare reform.

So, how has Bob Roggio decided to cleanse Washington of the career politicians and corruption?

I have publicly pledged not to accept any campaign contributions from the oil and gas industries because I believe that we need to cut off the flow of special interest money in politics.

Sounds fine and good peeps, but here is where his money is coming from so far:

  PAC contributions $33,900 (8%)
  Individual contributions $290,786 (72%)
  Candidate self-financing $80,500 (20%)
  Other $30 (0%)

He panders to anti-oil sentiment and then flat-out lies.  He’s accepting special interest money.  It’s just special interest groups he particularly thinks is OK.

Me and Roggio do definitely agree on one thing.  It’s time for new leadership in the branches that he seems most concerned with.  Nancy and Harry must go if we want leadership that is not beholden to special interests and protects unethical members ( See William Jefferson ).

The reason I’m singling out Roggio isn’t because I just don’t like Roggio, or even know who his opponent is.  He follows a trend that is undermining the effectiveness of this country that started long ago.

According to his own self-bio, he is a private businessman who has employed hundreds of people.  However, he doesn’t see the roots of the things that have challenged his business at all.  He cites all these challenges to the everyday businessman in the form of profoudly challenging costs associated with employee benefits and his solution is?

Prevent retired Congressmen from becoming lobbyists.

Yeah, right.

Folks, it’s time we start demanding the candidates for office answer for their actions and comments as much or moreso than the incumbents.  The incumbents are vetted by all kinds of media such as opensecrets, main stream media, bloggers, the FEC, you name it, they’re dogging incumbents.  However, these candidates are pretty much allowed to say anything they want in order to get elected.

Putting members in Congress is no different than puttign together a baseball team.  If you pick the best players, you win.  When you’re looking for the best baseball players, you don’t go by what they promise.  You go by what they can do right then and there.  If we, the people, demanded candidates be held accountable for their campaigns as much as the incumbents, then we’d weed out the bad ones before they had a chance to get in.  This transparency in campaigning is already there, people just choose to rely on the rhetoric instead of forcing them to be accountable.  As long as the people continue to be lazy in choosing their representation, then candidates like Roggio have no reason to question their ethics once they are in.

Bottom line, restricting retired congress members to not be able to lobby will change nothing. Former congress members are not affecting Nancy and Harry’s decisions to sell out to OPEC.  They are not affecting the price of health insurance crammed down our throat by the incumbent Hillary Clinton.  They are not responsible for the actions of Jim Gerlach.  They have nothing to do with what is going on in Iraq or Afghanistan.  This is not an answer that will solve anything. 

The reason this post is even here is because it’s just very typical Democrat logic in that more regulation of the private sector ( lobbyists ) will cure the ills of the government sector.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who are ya voting for?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Issues of 2008

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Republican Platform of 1856

This site is a reaction to the current events occuring in DC:

ABC News’ Dean Norland Reports: House Republicans, who insist that Speaker Nancy Pelosi call the House back from its summer recess so votes can be taken on their energy legislation, continued for a third day to make speeches to GOP staff members and Capitol Hill tourists.

They did so in the dimly-lit chamber of the House of Representatives, without the aid of working television cameras or a public address system.

The Republicans became miffed last Friday when Democrats abruptly adjourned the House until September 8 without giving them a chance to speak on the floor about their energy plan, which includes exploring for oil in ANWR and more off-shore drilling.

Even though the House had officially gone out of session, some Republicans stayed on the floor and made speeches anyway.

After taking the weekend off, the guerrilla oratory continued Monday, with organizers of the talk-in estimating that 24 of the 199 House Republicans participated.

At a news conference Tuesday before marching into the House chamber to begin their third day of protest, the GOP dissidents took some credit for the recent drop in the price of oil.

“Markets respond. The market is responding to the fact that we’re here talking,” said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.

Nine Republicans were present at the news conference. Two of them held a sign asking: “NANCY PELOSI – WE’RE HERE, WHERE ARE YOU?”

With the House not in session, the chambers’ televisions cameras have been turned off for the three days of speeches.  The lights in the chamber have been dimmed, which is normally the case when the House is not session.  Also the public address system is off, forcing the Republicans to speak up so they can be heard in the large chamber.

Lucky tourists, many of whom just happened to be touring the Capitol, have been given the rare opportunity of sitting on the House floor.  Wearing t-shirt and shorts, they became an impromptu audience for the speechmakers.

Pelosi, D-Calif., issued a statement on Monday saying, “This Republican hoax is unworthy of the serious debate we must have to reduce the price at the pump and promote energy independence.”

House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., referred to GOP tactics as “stunts” by a “smattering of House Republicans”.

But Republicans claim their unofficial floor sessions are gaining traction with voters who are wondering why Congress is taking a five week vacation while  gasoline prices remain so high.

They vow to continue speaking out on the House floor rest of this week and during the weeks ahead.

Now, in my opinion, right now is the opportunity the Republicans have to get back on track.  This “stunt” is exactly the attitude the party as a whole needs to adopt in order to get it’s mojo back.  The logic is very simple, but has been lost in the nothingness of the RNC response.  The RNC in my opinion, is the problem of the Party right now.  Why do I say that?  Well, let me digress just a bit before going further.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government……

Those words were adopted by the Republican Party in 1856 in reaction to a national crisis occurring in Kansas.  The federal government had basically enforced certain rules based strictly on a random line drawn across the US.  Kansas, was allowed to be an exception in that the government allowed them to choose their own course.  Going against the grain of the Mason-Dixon line, Kansas chose to abolish slavery which set off a war between sides of the issue that was fought in Kansas.  The government at that time basically chose a hands-off attitude which allowed further intimidation by force within Kansas.  The Republicans felt that this intimidation, or war, went against the wishes of Kansas and felt their sovereign immunity was being encroached upon because of the government’s unwillingness to stop the violence.  In other words, in order to protect the civil liberties of all Kansans, the federal government needed to intervene.  The Democrats had made the decision to more or less force Kansas into being non-slave, and then basically walked away from the fray once Kansas did indeed choose to be non-slave.

Relating that to modern times, the Democrats chose to impose social norms on a body, and then refused to assist them with the consequences of those expectations.  Using a current event, the Democrats have imposed a social norm, opposition to drilling for oil in lieu of environmental concerns, and are refusing to deal with the consequences of that expectation, higher gas prices.

This illustrates deep down the philosophical differences between the two parties.  Democrats rely on a social model, Republicans a minimalist model.

Now, where things get confusing is even in 1856, both parties used current events to define their positions.  Neither party has ever used a firm set of criteria to define themselves over a long period of time.  But, underneath all the events each party has relied on to define themselves, the bottom line is Democrats use the government to infer social values and the Republicans have usually opposed this.

That is, until 1980.  In 1976 the Republicans were still reeling from the scandals of the Nixon era.  Completely unnecessary self-inflicted mortal wounds by Nixon had driven the Republicans almost completely out of power.  In 1979, Ronald Reagan, a somewhat gifted actor and great orator put together a unified group of evangelicals to oust the incumbent Democrat President, Jimmy Cater.  Intially Reagan hammered the Republican philosophy of lesser government interference by the means of lowering taxes.

However, over a period of time, the evangelical forces within the Republican Party took over completely and the message changed from lesser government enforcing the basic tenets of the US Constitution to a system of moral and ethical standards based on such issues as abortion and gay rights.

This folks, is where things went bad wrong.

It is not the role of the federal government to dictate moral standards.

Never was.

It was opposition to that very philosophy that gave birth to the Republican Party in the first place.

These moral standards alienated a lot of people, and, split the party very quickly.  George Bush succeeded Reagan based solely on the popularity left over from Reagan.  After four years of Bush pandering to the religious right with such vague messages as his “Thousand Points of Light”, he was voted out of office and a man with a checkered history with women, some legal issues, and even a hint of a murder charges pending, won.

Eight years later, another Bush was elected.  Although deeply religious himself, his core message was an ultra-conservative view of the Declaration of Independence.  His opponent was flag-bearer of the wildly popular previous president.  Bush won.  Not by much, and was actually outvoted, but won.  Four years later, although the media painted him as the worst president ever, he won again.

Now, four years after that, we have a defining moment in the party again.  We actually have a “revolt” occuring in the House.  The Republican members, upset that the Democrat majority will not allow a debate on oil drilling, have revolted and are speaking incessantly, in the dark, with no television, and no audience.  Only a smattering of media have even told us it’s happening.  And, it’s all about the federal government inflicting hardship on it’s people.  Nothing has changed since 1856.

The debate should be well-defined.  And it is to some degree.  But, this is not just about the price of gas.  This is pure and simple the definition of each party’s prinicpals.  Lesser government means allowing the states to determine if they want to drill or not.  Social model government says the people are not the ones to decide.

This folks, is what it is all about.

Rather than silently doing nothing, the RNC needs to be defining what it is to be a Republican, RIGHT NOW.

Sure, they’ll argue they have been helping this year’s presidential and congressional candidates individually.  But, that really doesn’t help them in the long run.  Reacting to various current events puts the candidates in the position of having to define themselves as the better or lesser evil in regards to literally hundreds of issues.  The RNC, along with assisting local and national candidates individually, needs to send out a unified message of what it is to be a Republican.  IF they need guidance, just look to the platform of 1856.  It should be pretty clear at that point what the true differences between McCain and Obama are and why Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are so adamantly opposed to allowing the debate the rebel Republicans are revolting against now.  Quite frankly, at this point, I am impressed with the performance, but not at all impressed with the content.  All that has to happen to shut them up is for Congress to return to session, which it will anyway.  Then, they’ll debate oil again.  The “Don’t go” movement will be over.

They need to be educated in why it is they are protesting and go for the core difference, not the one single issue.  Right now they have the stage, sorta.  Rather than just whining about Nancy refusing to debate oil, they need to be speaking about WHY it is Nancy can’t debate this issue and never will.

It is, quite simply, because she’s a Democrat.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,