How Are Our 2010 Prospects In The Senate Looking?

Saturday, July 25, 2009

There was initial concern for Republicans in the 2010 election, particularly in the Senate. George Voinovich is retiring in Ohio, Kit Bond in Missouri, Judd Gregg in New Hampshire, and Mel Martinez in Florida. Kay Bailey Hutchison is expected to not seek reelection in Texas, and will instead likely issue a primary challenge to incumbent Governor Rick Perry. Jim Bunning is in major trouble in deep-red Kentucky, and the NSRC is hoping he retires.

But the Democrats have also found themselves in major trouble in states that would normally be a lock. Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, and Barbara Boxer are all in trouble in the states of Connecticut, Nevada, and California.

The most alarming of these findings is this Rasmussen Poll showing incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer holding only a 4 point lead over potential Republican opponent and former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Fiorina has said she will consider a run for the seat, and with her trailing Boxer by only 45% to 41%, it would seem likely that she will go for it, even in deep blue California. Dissatisfaction with Democratic legislators in the state may be enough to push Boxer out of office. It would seem that Boxer's recent shennanigans in the Senate may contribute to this.

Chris Dodd is in major trouble. His approval ratings are terrible and he trails former Republican Congressman Rob Simmons by 9 points. Simmons is a moderate Republican but would be a major improvement over all-around loser Chris Dodd.

Recent polling shows that Democrat Arlen Specter is in trouble in blue-leaning Pennsylvania. Specter now leads hard-line conservative Pat Toomey by only 1 point. A month ago, Toomey was trailing by 11. This is likely attributed to Specter's vote for the now-failing stimulus package.

There was some initial concern in New Hampshire upon the announcement by incumbent Senator Judd Gregg that he would not seek another term. Most polls showed the seat to be leaning Democratic until this week, when popular Attorney General Kelly Ayotte announced that she has formed an exploratory committee and will likely run for the seat. Ayotte is considered by some to be too conservative for a swing state like New Hampshire, but her moderate-to-conservative social views and hardline fiscal views could mirror that of Senator Gregg and be enough to make the seat lean GOP. Ayotte leads Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes by 1 point in a poll conducted by DailyKos. Make of that what you will. UNH polling has her up by 4.

Illinois is also a potential win for Republicans, as the seat is vacant thanks to the retirement of that strange man, Roland Burris. The problem? The likely nominee is RINO Mark Kirk, who was one of the congressman to vote for cap-and-trade. Still an improvment over Barack Obama and Roland Burris.

Stay tuned as more polling will become available for other potentially close races, in New York, Ohio, Nevada and Missouri, among others.


My Response To Obama's Healthcare Press Conference On 7-22-09

Thursday, July 23, 2009

OK, here we go. I'm sure a vast majority of you saw at least some of the health care press conference Obama held on 7-22-09. It's time I took a shot at analyzing the presidents comments for myself. Here's what I'll try to accomplish with this post:
1. This is not going to be a partisan hit piece on the president. I'm simply going to add my own unique perspective to try and simplify his own words as I understand them.
2. I'm not going to pretend that I'm an expert in the health care field. So for the record I'm NOT an expert in health care. My mother is, however, a registered nurse and I've consulted with her for more insight from someone in the medical field on her thoughts about Obama's plan.
3. I want you to keep in mind that Obama is without question the greatest public speaker since Ronald Reagan. I won't deny him that. Teleprompter or not he's good. However, Reagan had experience as an actor and Obama's experience is as a lawyer. Right now Obama's client is his health care plan and he came prepared to fight for his case. All lawyers try to win their case, but logically only 1 side can actually be telling the truth.
So let's start with Obama's introduction:
Once Obama came out he made some of the usual talking points about the economy and deficit. He claimed that his policies, (stimulus etc.), had "pulled us back from the brink". He claimed he's provided tax relief. Don't laugh, it gets better. He also said that his policies will continue to "save jobs" even though unemployment will continue to rise for the next 2 years.
Well Mr. President that's not exactly a message of hope. Americans want to see unemployment decrease and rather than hear about "saved jobs" we would like to hear about created jobs. The more we hear about saved jobs the more it sounds like a way of politically spinning news of lost jobs into a positive message. In other words it sounds better to say we saved 10,000 jobs than to say we lost 500,000 jobs. People respect honesty from our politicians more than positive spin.
He claimed that our economy previously had been an "economy for the rich". Well let's compare that to what we're starting to see. I for one would rather have an economy "for the rich" that keeps people working for those evil rich folks who create the jobs. Instead of having an economy for the poor that eliminates personal responsibility and stops job creation. I don't know about you but I've never worked for a poor person.
Mr. Obama mentioned that people can "keep your own coverage if you're happy". Yet he doesn't seem to understand that many of us get our health insurance through our employers. He claimed that "14,000 people a day lose their insurance". That's not surprising, many people are losing their jobs and losing your job will also mean losing your health insurance.
Obama criticized the "go for the kill" remark by the GOP and I must say I agree with him on that. Hear me out on this one. A remark like "go for the kill" reflects an attitude that says we are more interested in stopping Obama's health care reform no matter what it is. That may or may not be true, however, remarks like "go for the kill" give Obama ammunition to use that says the GOP don't want to reform health care no matter what and are only interested in the usual partisan political bickering that Americans are starting to be more and more fed up with. Obama claims that Americans are "counting on us to get this done".
The President mentioned that AARP has endorsed his health care plan but he failed to mention the money AARP has spent on lobbying so far this year. See for yourself. It's not so much that Americans are counting on you to get this done. We are counting on the government to take the time to GET THIS RIGHT.

The president did make several points I agree with. For example he said, "medicare and medicaid will break the budget", and he's right about that. However he didn't talk much about reigning in the fraud in medicaid/medicare which is a major factor in how they will break the budget. Notice how medicaid and medicare are the largest by far on the graph. That's only what they know about, it makes you wonder how much they aren't catching. His health care plan is going to increase medicaid and medicare yet does nothing about the fraud which means it will only get worse.

Obama said 2/3 of the money to cover the cost are already in the system. Given the right kind of reform that could be true but at the moment it's irrelevant. What is relevant is that he says part of the remaining 1/3 will come from "the wealthy losing deductions". Let me ask you something. Based on income what would you call a small business owner? Many pay taxes as individuals and Obama would call them "wealthy" and based on actual income they are wealthy.

Most jobs in this country are in the small business sector. If a small business owner loses deductions then they will see an increase in the cost of providing health care. You know what that means don't you? If providing you with health care costs your employer more, then you will have to pay more for that health care plan you get through your job. When he says there will be "no tax on the middle class" he may not be lying, yeah right, but what's the difference? If the cost of your health care plan increases then isn't that no different than a tax? Either way YOU PAY MORE.

When asked about why the rush he replied with 3 reasons:

1. Letters from families asking for help? - big surprise, quick government come to my rescue and make me your slave!!

2. Without deadlines you won't see results. - True, but rushing the deadline prematurely leads to waste and massive mistakes. Remember stimulus? I rest my case.

3. He said he "won't sign if it won't work". Hurray!!!! But....we won't know if it's working until we have it....and we won't have it until you sign it. Hmmm...... I'll admit it, I'm confused about that one.

Obama says he wants to cover all 47 million uninsured people in the country and of course he's including all illegal immigrants with that one:
PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise.*
*note: I have not yet verified this, (I'm working on it), but it wouldn't surprise me, how about you? I have much more individual information pulled from the bill but I must verify it first. I don't want to spread misinformation as Obama claims the Republicans are. More to follow in an upcoming post on the specifics in the bill.
Obama claims we will have to give stuff up. Things that don't make us healthier. Does that sound like the government's getting ready to tell us what we can and can't do with our own habits as it pertains to our health? What industry will be taken over next? McDonald's? Burger King? When will he go after them since heart disease is the #1 cause of death in the country?
This one's funny. He claimed to be "worried about spending" and said he wants to "eliminate waste". Stimulus again comes to mind but he went on to say stimulus is helping our economy!! The president did say reform will reduce the deficit. In truth reform can reduce the deficit but only if it's the right kind of reform. No one including Obama, he admits it himself, has even read this bill. How can he be sure that this bill will reduce the deficit by implementing the right kind of reform?
He mentioned Medpac and deserves credit for doing so. Thank the Republicans in 1997 for that one, thanks Newt. He said Medicare benefits need to be more efficient, but in the bill all it talks about is rationing care.*
*Proof in progress on that one.
Obama talked about regulatory reform and said that, "shareholders should know about bonuses" of CEO's etc. He also talked about putting rules on bonuses. Well here's an idea...Why not let the people know about ALL of congress' bonuses? Be they "pork" or whatever else. We only hear details when one of those non-representing representatives get caught in a sex scandal etc.
This bill will limit doctor pay and that will lead to fewer doctors. Fewer doctors to more patients means worse care. Think about the classroom...If there are 5 kids in a class they will get a better education because there is more opportunity for individual learning with the teacher. If there are 35 kids to a teacher there can't be as good of a learning opportunity. The same argument could come to health care if we end up with fewer doctors. Fewer doctors to more patients means worse care.
Remember how mad most Americans were with stimulus and TARP? Most of us would love to take it back and reclaim our money, remember as taxpayers it is just that, OUR MONEY. Are you ready to trust the same congress, Obama was part of that congress remember, with taking over our health care?!! My answer to that question is a big HELL NO!! If health care turns out like stimulus, or dare I say worse, then one day we may have to answer 2 huge questions from our children and all future generations:
1. How could you bury us with so much debt?
2. How could you destroy our health care without understanding the reforms?
Are any of you from any political party ready to answer those questions? Both parties will be responsible if those questions end up being realities of the future. Maybe it's time for the "parties" to end.


By the way, you'll notice I've said nothing about the race question at the end. That was the distraction question. Meant to keep the focus off the main story. Have you noticed that since the press conference there has been more coverage of the cop story? Once again the great distraction caught many of you off guard. Here's what Obama's response to that last question should have been.

I came out to talk about healthcare tonight. Therefore I'd like to stick to healthcare, the arrest is irrelevant to the healthcare debate. Then he could have had time for another question that related to healthcare reform.


According To Recovery.gov, “Stimulus” Paid $1,191,200 For Two Pounds Of Sliced Ham

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Courtesy of SayAnythingBlog:

Recovery.gov is the much-touted Obama administration transparency site (the one the Obama administration is currently in the process of spending $18 million on to revamp it) that exists to prove to us that none of the “stimulus” spending is being wasted.

Of course, that we’ve spent tens of millions already on the website that’s supposed to show us that our money isn’t being wasted is a little ironic, but whatever.

On the Recovery.gov site is this little nugget indicating that we taxpayers apparently shelled out $1,191,200 for two pounds of sliced ham. Here’s a screen grab of the site for when Obama inevitably sends this down the memory hole (click for a larger view):


Lobbying: Our Favorite Subject

This post has 2 objectives. The first is to show you PROOF about how out of control lobbying is in our government. The second is to teach you how to keep an eye on the lobbying yourselves, it's surprisingly easy if you know where to look. Luckily for all of us I do know where to look now.

I've talked about lobbying before and while we all know about them I wanted to find a way to keep a close eye on exactly where the money goes and who they influence. The research I've done for this post has convinced me without a doubt that both the Democrats AND the Republicans are overwhelmingly influenced, and controlled I would argue, by the lobbyists.

Let's start with the big picture about who benefits more from the Lobbyists. The answer is in fact far more tricky than you might expect. The Democrats, especially the farther left Liberals, will tell you it's the Republicans that are more controlled by the various lobbyists. The Republicans will tell you the opposite. As it turns out, they are both lying. As you can see from this link it's a mere 53% Democrat and 47% Republican since 1990. Although Democrats have picked up steam in '08 and heading into '10.

Here's where we get down to details. I'll start with the Republicans. Some of the major lobbyist on the side of the Republicans include:

1. Finance/Insurance/Real Estate - notice that the Democrats did however pick up steam in 06. Also the Democrats beat the Republican in this industry in '08 and are on track to win again in '10. Perhaps it is shifting simply because of the overwhelming control Democrats currently have with the majorities in congress. From a historical perspective though this one goes to the Republicans.

2. Oil and Gas - no surprise here with a 75% to 24% lead for Republicans. The Democrats historically have always opposed the expansion of this industry so it's not shocking that Oil and Gas support the Republicans. I say work on domestic energy supplies WHILE AT THE SAME TIME developing alternatives. Personally, my preference is solar but technology's not there yet so in the meantime drill, baby, drill.

3. Pharmaceuticals - same story as finance really. Historically a Republican lobby going 50/50 in '08 and on track for a Democrat edge in coming years.

4. Tobacco - again not a surprise. It is worth noting that of all the industries I would argue that the Tobacco industry also has to spend more money than any other promoting ads AGAINST it's own product. I'm not making excuses as I'm no supporter of the tobacco industry and don't smoke, just stating facts.

Now let me move on to the Democrats. Here are some major lobbyist working on behalf of the Democrats:

1. Lawyers - As you can see the Lawyers and Law Firms have only increased influence over the Democrats over the last 20 years. The only slight slip up, (as a percentage), was in 2000 going from 72% in '98 to 69% in 2000. However they were back up to 74% in '02. No wonder a Lawyer commercial is on every other ad nowadays.

2. TV/Movies/Music - Hollywood, sexy sitcoms, rap, enough said. End of story on this one. 70% to 30% overall for the Democrats here.

3. Laborers Union - 92% to 8%!! Now I know why Obama's trying to force us into unions.

4. National Education Association (NEA) - This ones a no brainer. The largest teachers union in the country is overwhelmingly Democratic. 93% - 7% lobbyist contributions. Read the paragraph in the link about how the union is against vouchers for private school. Then remember that many congressman send their own kids to private schools and private schools have much higher test scores.

5. AFSCME - The paragraph explaining what this is will tell you all you need to know about this one.

6. Service Employees International Union (SCIU) - The biggest concern I have with this union are it's ties to ACORN.

7. Goldman Sachs - yes, THE GOLDMAN SACHS. You know the one we bailed out last year. Yes them. However, while it's 2 to 1 in support for Democrats, 36% given to the Republicans is worth noting.

Tell me something, how did Hillary Clinton get so in debt with donations from groups like the American Federation of Teachers? She tops the list by far. I tried to count the amount of politicians supported by this one and lost count in the upper 400's. It's worth noting that only around 6 or so were Republicans. When we get to the National Education Association the winner is, (drum roll please), ................John Kerry.

Now, if you haven't put a fist through your computer screen or thrown the monitor I have one last thing for you before I come to the conclusion. This section is called Heavy Hitters, click on the link and you'll see why.

It's a top 10 list for lobbying. Check each of the top 10 and you'll probably notice a pattern. Of the top ten 8 are overwhelmingly for the Democrats and 2 are only slightly for the Republicans:

1. At&t 55/45% R

2. (AFSCME) 98/2% D

3. National Association of Realtors 52%/48% R

4. Goldman Sachs 64%/36% D

5. (IBEW) 97%/2% D

6. American Association For Justice 90%/9% D

7. National Education Association 93%/7% D

8. Laborers Union 92%/8% D

9. (SEIU) 96%/4% D

10. Carpenters and Joiners Union 90%/10% D

If you would like to keep an eye on the lobbyist, let's face it there's no way I can do this myself then you should add this website to your favorites. I sure have. Remember what you have learned tonight the next time you hear a politician from either side of the aisle tell you they're going to stop lobbyist in Washington and give you a voice in the political arena. Search this site for yourself since there's way too much here for me to put on this blog. I'll be watching them and I'll need all the help I can get.

I'll just close with a classic statement of mine. One that this post may prove more than any other I've done so far. It's not about right and left, it's about right and wrong.


Private Health Care Will No Longer Be An Option

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Very scary stuff from Investors Business Daily:

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left's expansion of the welfare state will be removed.

The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.

Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.

It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.


Public Support for Government-Run Health Care Plummets

Friday, July 17, 2009

Scott Rasmussen today notes that support for Obamacare is now totally in the crapper. 35% of voters are in favor of a government-run option for health care. 50% are opposed. Just one month ago, it was a dead heat; 41%/41%. Independents are now opposed by a 2 to 1 margin.

Nancy Pelosi didn't get the memo.

Ed Morrissey has further analysis here.

Stay tuned for more information on the destruction of the world's greatest health care system.


Should We Change The Look Of This Blog?

Thursday, July 16, 2009

It has been brought to our attention that the color scheme of this blog may make it difficult for some to read. I see this point and am open to the idea. Leave a comment on this post with suggestions about what you think we should change it to.

I'm open to the idea personally but must take up all decisions regarding such things with the other contributors to this blog. Especially hecountedwrong himself. Leave your suggestions commented on this post and we'll see what we can do.


UPDATE by hecountedwrong:

Let us know what you think. Just no goofy looking light colored wuss colors. I like the black background, but it can be hard for some people to see. Post the color scheme you might like to see in the comments section. We just don't want to do the whole white background/black text thing.


A Letter Pro-Palin Forces Should See

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

We know the left is scared to death of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's raising money through small donations at an alarming pace just like Obama did on the campaign trail. So those of us who do support Palin find no surprise in the attacks on her. The folks at moveon.org are fairly scared at how well she's doing:

Dear MoveOn member,

Well, now we know why Sarah Palin is quitting as governor of Alaska. In a Washington Post column, she just announced her new focus: killing our chance to build a clean energy economy, starting with the energy bill currently in Congress.

Her op-ed is a marvel of misinformation and outright lies. Just like conservatives in Congress, Palin is trotting out the "energy taxes" scare tactic, and arguing instead for more drilling and more dirty coal. This bill already has too many giveaways to Big Coal and Big Oil, but it's still not enough for Palin.

As ridiculous as Sarah Palin's lies are, they're getting attention, and they're a real threat to clean energy. If we can raise $125,000 today, we'll run a rapid response ad to counter these lies and stop Palin's attack. Can you donate $20?


This is the same Sarah Palin who doesn't believe climate change is caused by humans. The same Sarah Palin who is obsessed with drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And the same Sarah Palin who's looking for controversial issues to launch a 2012 presidential bid.

Now she's positioning herself as the face of the conservative attack against clean energy, against the Clean Air Act—even against the creation of millions of new jobs in solar and wind. But wind and solar create more than twice as many jobs as coal and oil. Clean energy is the only way to make America's economy competitive in the 21st century. The truth is we need a stronger energy bill in the Senate to combat our economic and climate crisis, but Sarah Palin's lies could sink our hopes for a clean energy economy. Can you chip in $20 to fight back against Palin's false claims?


Thank you for all you do.
–Anna, Eli, Noah, Carrie and the rest of the team
"The truth is we need a stronger energy bill in the Senate to combat our economic and climate crisis." Well that's one thing I agree with. What we need is a congress more interested in actually solving problems rather than focusing on special interest pork etc. We need a government focused on the will of the people rather than the will of themselves. We need an energy bill that focuses on our own energy. One based on common sense solutions that work. Cap and trade is just another government trick to make us think they actually have a plan for energy. Remember this speech by Jimmy Carter?

The government is a joke when it comes to energy plans. This congress still doesn't get it. For several years now reports on special interest spending, (pork), have been practically non-stop. People who follow the stories are fed up. Obama ran on change, this special interest bill proves it's just more of the same. A lot of tough talk from a lot of greedy politicians.


Next Target: Liz Cheney

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

I came across this attack on Liz Cheney from Lorelei Kelly at Huff Po and couldn't resist adding some insight. The article is fairly well written. I of course did have a few problems with it though

While this post is quite well written there are 2 things that stick out for me. Here's the first, "Liz Cheney also charges that President Obama's arms control negotiations in Moscow make us weaker." Let's face it, they do. I understand that arms control negotiations are important but both sides have to honor the negotiations. Russia will not reduce the nukes no matter how many treaties they sign with Obama. Think of what North Korea did with the Clinton treaties. Clinton was hailed as promoting peace and we proved to be the fool in the end. We paid up millions in aid to North Korea and then they admitted not holding up to their end of the bargain a few years later with Bush in office. If the "progressives" call that a successful foreign policy then I'd rather fail in their eyes. Don't they frequently make the argument that we armed our enemies in the first place? Keep in mind that Russia invaded Georgia just last year in part to test our reaction. We predictably did little to nothing about it. Keep in mind that was when Bush was still in office.

Here's another major issue I had with this article: "President Obama has never suggested that we lessen the strength of our military." He didn't have to suggest it, he's doing it. He immediately slashed defense funding and slashed missile defense in his budget proposal even before he officially became president. I would call that lessening the strength of our military. For the record I have several family members in the military right now including a cousin who just became a marine last month. Just thought I should mention that before you attack my credibility.

I fear that in Obama's passive push for peace with Russia and others he may prove to be the fool. Russia is working on missile defense for themselves while Obama has killed our missile defense program. Reagan never liked the idea of MAD, (mutually assured destruction), but he knew it would prevent [not cause] war. The reason Reagan pushed for missile defense was so that we could come off the idea of MAD. It's too bad his critics never saw it that way. Remember the criticism Reagan received when he walked out of the meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland with Gorbachev since he wanted Reagan to eliminate missile defense? It's ironic that Russia is now taking a page out of the Reagan playbook and working on their own missile defense system. Why does the world seem to be learning more from our own history than we are?


Sarah Palin Gets It.

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Sarah Palin tweets today:

More talk of #2 "Stimulus" Pkg? Please no- for so many reasons- incl the 1st one hasn't done what's promised, & debt forced on AKn kids is..

selfish & immoral bc it robs their future opportunities!"If there is trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace"Thomas Paine

It seems that she is in touch with the constitutional/liberty/free market/tea party movement going on in America right now. Stay tuned....


Real Healthcare Reform

I don't have to add much. Newt has it covered here. He makes many good points. The best one here is that if congress forces government run health care on the rest of us then the only health care plan they should be allowed to have is the same government plan.

Most of us are aware that currently congressman have the best health care plans. Newt is absolutely right to state that if the congress and Obama think their big government plan is so great then they should have to be in that same plan like the rest of us. Why does congress deserve special treatment. What makes them so special, from what I've seen these last few years we work a lot harder than they do.

If they object to being forced into the plan then they'll have to answer why. That answer should be interesting. Any loopholes exploited by the congress should be heavily exposed as hypocrisy. Keep in mind these are the same people that talk about how wonderful the public school system is while many send their own kids to private schools.


Reaganomics Compared To Today

Thursday, July 9, 2009

In 1981 Ronald Reagan received a letter from a disgruntled citizen named Mrs. (first name withheld) Porter. In her letter she complained about many aspects of his economic program. "I wish to receive a response to this letter immediately, from President Reagan personally....I demand to be heard." "You can't expect the Army to fight on the front lines if the captain is always in his tent." She complained about tax cuts, social security, welfare, his management of the White House etc. I've added some bold text to emphasize certain parts of the following letter.

Here is his reply:

November 4, 1981

Dear Mrs. Porter:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address myself to your concerns. Your letter of October 1st has just reached my desk. You specified that you wanted to hear from me personally so here I am.

You asked me how we could balance the budget by robbing the poor and giving to the rich. Well that isn't what we're doing. We are trying to reduce the cost of government and have already obtained consent of Congress to reduce the budget by more than 35 billion dollars.

We are reducing tax rates across the board. This will give 74 percent of the relief to those who are presently paying 72 percent of the total tax, the average middle class American.

We are trying to do what you suggested--make able-bodied welfare recipients work at useful community jobs in return for their welfare grants. As governor of California I did this and it worked very well. So far Congress doesn't like the idea. We have not suggested reducing Social Security. We are trying to do what you suggested--removing those who are not disabled or deserving of grants they are presently getting.

We are not cutting back on school lunches for the needy. We are trying to quit providing them for those who aren't needy.

Now as to the White House we aren't spending a penny of tax money. The government provides $50,000 for an incoming president to do what he will with the White House. We gave that money back to the government. We found, however, that the White House was badly in need of painting inside, the plumbing was so old there was danger of it giving away. Drapes and much upholstery was in need of recovering and replacing, etc. Friends started a campaign to get donations to have this work done. It has all been completed without spending a single tax dollar.

The dishes were a donation by a trust and the company making them did so at cost. This is the way the White House has always been furnished. Beautiful antiques etc. have been gifts to the government. The last new china was in Harry Truman's time. There is a certain amount of breakage over the years. We're talking about china for state dinners when heads of government visit the United States and more than 100 people must be served. That is not the china we use for family meals.

Now for your other concerns; we are not going to increase the risk to miners, and yes I've been down in a mine. As for black lung we are only trying to eliminate those cases where people are getting benefits who don't have black lung.

Selling planes to Saudi Arabia will run no risk of giving secrets away and it will provide thousands of jobs for American workers.

We don't take Air Force One to Camp David. The camp is only 20 minutes from the White House by helicopter. The helicopters have to fly a required number of hours every week to keep crew and machine in shape. I hope this answers your concerns and I assure you this captain isn't in his tent when the fight is on.


Ronald Reagan

This is a true conservative leader. The above letter is from the book Reagan: A Life In Letters. All letters in this book are written by Ronald Reagan himself. There is commentary throughout this book by Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise Anderson, and Martin Anderson. Here is some of that commentary as it relates to Reagan economic policy: " Reaganomics," as Reagan's economic program was at first pejoratively called, included spending control, tax cuts, deregulation, and a stable monetary policy. All were designed to increase long-term economic growth and jobs. "

Pause for a moment and read those 4 things again. Spending control, tax cuts, deregulation, and a stable monetary policy. Those are the 4 major things today's government will not do. Spending is out of control, Obama believes tax cuts only help the rich, government is trying to regulate EVERYTHING, and we're printing money at an amazingly disturbing rate.

1981-82 did see a recession mostly caused by Carter's leftovers. However once the Reagan boom got started it took off with a vengeance. Lasting even after Reagan left office. From 1981 - 1989 the U.S. produced 17 million new jobs, then in the 90's another 26 million jobs were created, thanks to Newt Gingrich and more actual conservatives in control of congress for much of it. Remember these important facts. In the 1980's we had a Republican president and a Democratic congress. For much of the 90's we had a Democrat president and a Republican congress. We then had a Republican congress and a republican president and that's where we lost the conservative principles that had brought the Republicans so much success. Republicans got into the "entitled" mentality. Americans will never throw us out of power again......really?!!

We paid the price in 2006 for leaving the Conservative principles behind. We watched in horror as Bush became more "moderate" eventually leading to such horrible ideas as stimulus 1 and TARP, both of which have failed miserably. "Pork" spending had taken over and it seemed to have become the favorite meal for both parties. The problem is that even though different branches of our government were held by 2 different parties, congress and presidency respectfully, there was a twist to the story. In the 80's the Democrat congress may not have always agreed with Ronald Reagan but the congress and president were willing to work together to solve problems. The same can be said for the 90's with Bill Clinton, although I'm no fan of Clinton. Since 2006 our government had been put on pause.

The 2 party system had become as dangerous to this country and democracy as George Washington predicted in his farewell address when he warned against the party system: "It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration....agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one....against another....it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption...thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."

There are those of us who are tired of nothing getting done in this country. One side points the finger at the other, vote raises for themselves, then go on vacation for a month. When will our government return to working as hard for the good of the country as we do for our families? When will they cut back their spending before they ask us to cut ours? When will the hypocrisy cease? The elitist politicians we're currently dealing with follow only 1 golden rule: Do as I say, not as I do.

I for one don't buy that and I'm sure you don't either. A hypocrite is a hypocrite whether you have to look to the "left" or the "right" to find them. We stand for the good of our families and our country. They stand for the next election victory. We won't sell out our principles for a party or to be "politically correct". It's much more important to stand by what you believe. Instead of being politically correct, I'd rather just settle for being actually correct.


The Fed Must Be Stopped: written by Ron Paul

Ron Paul wrote this and I think it should be seen by us:

Our country currently finds itself in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and, as during all economic crises, people search for the answer as to why this has happened. Not only have large financial firms been affected, but also mainstays of American industry such as GM and Chrysler, all the way down to the Mom & Pop stores on Main Street. The easy way out is to blame the traditional scapegoats: foreign governments, fraudulent businessmen, and greedy speculators. But the real villain is far more sinister; the organization entrusted with maintaining a stable dollar and touted as the guarantor of economic stability – the Federal Reserve.

In the United States, monetary policy has been the domain of the Federal Reserve since its inception in 1913. Since that time we have had a number of cyclical recessions, each one following a boom caused by the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy. The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it interferes with market pricing functions. Interest rates are a price just like any other and arise because of the fact that people prefer to consume in the present rather than in the future. The extent to which people defer present consumption is reflected in interest rates, which in a free market are determined by the spontaneous interactions and decisions of millions of people.

Fed intervention to set prices throws markets and interest rates out of equilibrium. When the Federal Reserve pushes interest rates below what the market rate would be, everyone wants to borrow money for long-term projects. Shortages of loanable funds would occur, except that the Federal Reserve has the ability to create bank balances out of thin air. The Fed can create a bank ledger on paper, or on a computer, establish a balance of millions or billions of dollars, and then spend these dollars out into the economy.

Loans become cheap, and the result of these lower interest rates is an economic boom which eventually manifests itself as a bubble. Beginning in 2001, the Federal Reserve pushed interest rates to as low as one percent, which after adjusting for inflation meant that the real interest rate was negative, so businesses were actually making money by taking out loans. This was the fuel for the housing bubble and the reason there are 19 million empty houses today.

Because of this awesome power to create money out of thin air, the Fed has jumped in to stabilize ailing financial firms by pledging over $7 trillion through various guarantee programs and credit facilities. This is equivalent to over half of the entire nation's GDP. Over $1 trillion of this is already in play, propping up banks and other institutions that should be allowed to fail. All of this has taken place with no oversight by Congress. The Fed was created by Congress, and it is unconscionable that we have allowed it to act in such a way without our oversight. Currently the Federal Reserve's credit facilities, open market operations, and agreements with foreign governments and central banks are all exempt from any sort of audit or oversight. Earlier this year I introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR 1207, that would remove all restrictions on Federal Reserve audits and call for a f ull audit of the Federal Reserve System to be completed by the end of 2010. At this writing, 245 of my fellow Congressmen have cosponsored this bill and we hope to have hearings in the near future. In the Senate, Republicans Jim DeMint, Mike Crapo and David Vitter have cosponsored S. 604, companion legislation introduced by Bernie Sanders. I am very encouraged by the tremendous growing momentum on Capitol Hill.

Our Founding Fathers never intended for a single entity such as the Federal Reserve to have this much power. In fact, there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to create a central bank, to enact legal tender laws, or to print paper money. The Tenth Amendment is quite clear that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The states themselves are prohibited from emitting bills of credit, i.e. paper money, arising from the Founders' negative experiences with paper money during the Revolutionary War. Cheap, un-backed, easily counterfeited paper money nearly lost the Revolution, until the government returned to minting gold and silver coins. Unfortunately, like too many other lessons learned by the Founders, the painful experiences of paper money have been forgotten by those living in the pres ent. We even ignore the experiences of Germans in the 1920s, Argentines in the 1980s, and Zimbabweans over the past decade. The Fed doubled the monetary base last fall in a matter of months, and God help us if any of this high-powered money begins to make its way through the economy.

An audit of the Fed is only the first step towards returning to where our Founders intended this country to be. The Founders knew that paper money could ruin a country, and drafted the Constitution in such a way that they thought would ensure sound, commodity-backed currency. Unfortunately, the Constitution was dispensed with long ago, and we find ourselves now suffering under an unconstitutional regime of un-backed paper money. Until we abolish the Federal Reserve and return to a stable currency that is not able to be manipulated to create boom and bust cycles, we will continue down the path of economic ruin.

Congress Ron Paul serves the fourteenth district of Texas and is honorary chairman of Campaign for Liberty. His new book, End the Fed (Grand Central Publishing) will release on September 16th and is available for pre-order on Amazon.


Trouble In Paradise, Part Deux...

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

The latest poll numbers are out, and the verdict is in:

Barack Obama sucks.

No really. He sucks. The American people have finally realized he sucks.

According to this latest Rasmussen poll, Barack Obama now has a Passion index of -5. 32% of likely voters strongly approve of the job Obama is doing, with 37% strongly disapproving. The overall approval is 52%, with 48% disapproving and none undecided. That leaves Obama with only a +4 approval rating.

More alarming, however, are the results of this latest Quinnipiac Poll. Obama has only a 49/44 approval in Ohio, which is possibly the most important swing state.

I have a feeling that cap-and-trade has something to do with this. With many coal-producing states also being swing states, such as Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, it would seem that cap-and-trade would be having a major impact on Barack Obama's chances of reelection. The notion that cap-and-trade would further damage these states which are already in major economic trouble is certainly legitimate. These are also states where Republicans tend to be more conservative. This is unlikely to swing the Republican primaries, as all of these states, with the exception of Michigan, choose the Republican nominee very late in the primary season. It will certainly have a major effect on the general election.

Stay tuned for more information regarding the people's view of the Obama agenda.

*UPDATE* (Thursday) - Obama fell even further today, to a -8 passion index and 51/48 overall. Obviously last week's jobs numbers are playing a major effect on public perception of the Obama agenda.


Don't Get Distracted By The "Big Story"

Monday, July 6, 2009

There are a lot of problems facing our country, (and the world for that matter), yet I find most of us seem to find ourselves easily distracted by the "Big Story" of the day. We must be vigilant in our monitoring of what's going on in today's world of politics. Sarah Palin's resignation and Michael Jackson's death were most certainly both huge and shocking stories. However, I fear that while we focus on the headlines of the day it may well be the stories hidden in the fine print that in fact hurt us the most.

The government is taking over more of our economy. Yet all we hear about is Michael Jackson. The supporters of the government run healthcare sense victory, but so what, Sarah Palin resigned!! 27 states have seen a rise in welfare for the first time since declining 68% after welfare reform. Never mind that though because Ed McMahon is dead. Obama is about to sign another START-esque nuclear reduction even though a former russian spy who has defected to the U.S. has warned that the cold war isn't over for the Russian government. However, there will be plenty of celebrities at Michael Jackson's memorial.

The problems of our time come at us non-stop and it's tiring work keeping up with it. Make sure that as you stare in amazement at the headline of the day you don't forget about the fine print hidden underneath. Politicians and mainstream media have become masters of getting you to pay attention to one big story so you miss the other 20 stories they don't want you to see.

It's no surprise that today's politicians expect you to fall behind on the news of the day. Look at what they did with stimulus.....This is too big to read so let's just pass it anyway. Look how much is going on in the world today.....forget it, there's just too much going on so I'll just follow the story on Mr. Jackson and Mrs. Palin. All I'm hoping you'll see with this post is that you must not fall for the government's weapons of mass distraction.


Gone Rogue

When we first saw the true Sarah Palin attempting to break through her campaign handlers during the 2008 election, she was immediately branded with the slogan "Going Rogue". Which, like everything else between Ms Palin and the media, was completely hypocritical, seeing how they spent the first weeks after her nomination demanding that she be able to speak. To her supporters it was great, to those predisposed to despise her it was just another one liner, just another talking point in their mind not to vote for her.

On July 3rd, Governor Palin pulled the ultimate "maverick" move, by not only stating that she would not seek reelection for her office, but declaring that she would be resigning and not completing her term. Obviously the nation was stunned, heck she even stole the constant coverage of MJ's death, she wasn't supposed to do this, no one does this, what is she thinking, she is politically dead, and so many other judgments and speculations swept the nation.

But it was a speech given by Tammy Bruce on the Fourth of July at a Tea Party in AZ, that really put it all together. Just paraphrasing what she stated about Ms Palin's decision, Tammy said that Conservative Americans do not always do "what they are supposed to do", that we were not suppose to say "screw you King George" and begin the Revolution. In this respect, Sarah Palin did not do what she was supposed to do, she followed her heart to defend the state and more so the nation that she loves. As she said in a recent statement
"...it's about country"

This reminded me of and interview she gave to Larry King at the RGA following the election. King asked her if she would leave her post as Governor and run for Sen. Stevens seat if it became available.
"Larry, if they call an audible on me and they say they want me in another position... I'm gonna do it"
This got me thinking, obviously the Governor was referring to her constituents and whether or not they would want her to redirect her public service from the Governor's Office to the U.S. Senate. But with her popularity booming from SarahPAC to everyone like Rush, Levin, and Morris, to sites like Team Sarah and Conservatives4Palin, could this decision be impart her listening to the call of the people of this country, needing someone to stand up for them and take on that leadership role of being the outspoken opposition to the Obama Administration.

Whatever it was that led her to this decision, I for one will stand by her.


Free Trade Cause The Recession.....I Think Not

Friday, July 3, 2009

I would like to challenge Dave Johnson's article titled: Did Free Trade Cause The Recession. This is why more people need to study history. Here is the most important part of the article in my eyes, "I submit that nothing in this example is "traded" except that our standard of living has been traded away. And this exchange brings little benefit to the workers in the low-wage country. This is exploitative trade, not free trade, and we need to protect our workers, the workers in other countries and the world's economy by demanding that our trade partners provide living wages and benefits. We can enforce this demand by attaching import tariffs at a level that makes our own goods competitive." I made this bold not him.

Let's look at a moment in our history that Dave, (and unfortunately so many others), don't seem to know anything about. Want proof that tariffs the likes of which people who think like Dave does don't work? Fine, then read about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. Once you read what this act did to America then maybe you'll see why I think Dave is out of his mind to ask for tariffs under the do-gooder intentions of protecting American workers etc. As you will read when you follow the link about this 1930 tariff you can see for yourself what it's intentions were and what the actual results were: (these stats are from the above link)

1. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade.
2. U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932.
3. U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932.
4. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.
5. Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations.

We have good reason to worry about new protectionist tariffs being imposed to make America more "competitive". Consider point 5 above. Wouldn't you say we are in another "perilous era in international relations"?

When others lie it is our duty to correct. When others mislead we must take the lead. We are proud to call ourselves conservative on this website. However it is my pledge that I will always provide evidence. I will always work for what's best for America as a whole. I will not provide a perspective meant to drag us back into a left-right finger pointing shell game. My goal here is more about showing you what so many are afraid to. My goal is to show that many of the problems we face today in America are problems we have faced before. If we don't look at our problems without relating to what has worked before.....then I fear we will repeat what hasn't worked before.

This is too important for blind partisan bickering. As I find myself saying more and more lately, it's not about right and left, it's about right and wrong.


Sarah Palin Resigns: developing

"I can effect change from the outside. We need...protectors of individual rights" - Palin

Chuck Heath Jr tells FOX "She spends over 80% of her time defending herself, and can not focus on governing"

AKGovSarahPalin : We'll soon attach info on decision to not seek reelection...this is in Alaska's best interest, my family's happy...it is good say tuned

"This is a fighting move" - Meg Stapleton

"Sarah Palin is running for president, get used to it" - Mark Levin

Palin Announces No Second Term
No Lame Duck Session Either

Hi Alaska, I appreciate speaking directly TO you, the people I serve, as your Governor.

People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing's more important to me than our beloved Alaska. Serving her people is the greatest honor I could imagine.

I want Alaskans to grasp what can be in store for our state. We were purchased as a territory because a member of President Abe Lincoln's cabinet, William Seward, providentially saw in this great land, vast riches, beauty, strategic placement on the globe, and opportunity. He boldly looked "North to the Future". But he endured such ridicule and mocking for his vision for Alaska, remember the adversaries scoffed, calling this "Seward's Folly". Seward withstood such disdain as he chose the uncomfortable, unconventional, but RIGHT path to secure Alaska, so Alaska could help secure the United States.

Alaska’s mission – to contribute to America. We’re strategic IN the world as the air crossroads OF the world, as a gatekeeper of the continent. Bold visionaries knew this - Alaska would be part of America's great destiny.

Our destiny to be reached by responsibly developing our natural resources. This land, blessed with clean air, water, wildlife, minerals, AND oil and gas. It's energy! God gave us energy.

So to serve the state is a humbling responsibility, because I know in my soul that Alaska is of such import, for America’s security, in our very volatile world. And you know me by now, I promised even four years ago to show MY independence… no more conventional “politics as usual”.

And we are doing well! My administration's accomplishments speak for themselves. We work tirelessly for Alaskans.

We aggressively and responsibly develop our resources because they were created to be used to better our world... to HELP people... and we protect the environment and Alaskans (the resource owners) foremost with our policies.

Here’s some of the things we’ve done:

We created a petroleum integrity office to oversee safe development. We held the line FOR Alaskans on Point Thomson – and finally for the first time in decades – they’re drilling for oil and gas.

We have AGIA, the gasline project – a massive bi-partisan victory (the vote was 58 to 1!) – also succeeding as intended - protecting Alaskans as our clean natural gas will flow to energize us, and America, through a competitive, pro-private sector project. This is the largest private sector energy project, ever. THIS is energy independence.

And ACES – another bipartisan effort – is working as intended and industry is publicly acknowledging its success. Our new oil and gas “clear and equitable formula” is so Alaskans will no longer be taken advantage of. ACES incentivizes NEW exploration and development and JOBS that were previously not going to happen with a monopolized North Slope oil basin.

We cleaned up previously accepted unethical actions; we ushered in bi-partisan Ethics Reform.

We also slowed the rate of government growth, we worked with the Legislature to save billions of dollars for the future, and I made no lobbyist friends with my hundreds of millions of dollars in budget vetoes... but living beyond our means today is irresponsible for tomorrow.

We took government out of the dairy business and put it back into private-sector hands – where it should be.

We provided unprecedented support for education initiatives, and with the right leadership, finally filled long-vacant public safety positions. We built a sub-Cabinet on Climate Change and took heat from Outside special interests for our biologically-sound wildlife management for abundance.

We broke ground on the new prison.

And we made common sense conservative choices to eliminate personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, the junkets... the entourage.

And the Lt. Governor and I said "no" to our pay raises. So much success in this first term – and with this success I am proud to take credit... for hiring the right people! Our goal was to achieve a gasline project, more fair oil and gas valuation, and ethics reform in four years. We did it in two. It’s because of the people… good public servants surrounding the Governor's office, with servants' hearts and astounding work ethic... THEY are Alaska's success!

We are doing well! I wish you'd hear MORE from the media of your state's progress and how we tackle Outside interests - daily - SPECIAL interests that would stymie our state. Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an “all-knowing attitude” – I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America – I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we’re forcing our children to pay, because of today’s Big Government spending; it’s immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense!

Another accomplishment – our Law Department protected states’ rights – TWO huge U.S. Supreme Court reversals came down against that liberal Ninth Circuit, deciding in OUR state’s favor over the last two weeks. We’re protectors of our Constitution – federalists protect states’ rights as mandated in 10th amendment.

But you don’t hear much of the good stuff in the press anymore, do you?

Some say things changed for me on August 29th last year – the day John McCain tapped me to be his running-mate – I say others changed.

Let me speak to that for a minute.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I've been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn't been cheap - the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.

It’s pretty insane – my staff and I spend most of our day dealing with THIS instead of progressing our state now. I know I promised no more “politics as usual,” but THIS isn’t what anyone had in mind for ALASKA.

If I have learned one thing: LIFE is about choices!

And one chooses how to react to circumstances. You can choose to engage in things that tear down, or build up. I choose to work very hard on a path for fruitfulness and productivity. I choose NOT to tear down and waste precious time; but to build UP this state and our country, and her industrious, generous, patriotic, free people!

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and “go with the flow”.

Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow".

No. Productive, fulfilled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time... to BUILD UP.

And there is such a need to BUILD up and FIGHT for our state and our country. I choose to FIGHT for it! And I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE... I'll work for and campaign for those PROUD to be American, and those who are INSPIRED by our ideals and won't deride them.

I WILL support others who seek to serve, in or out of office, for the RIGHT reasons, and I don't care what party they're in or no party at all. Inside Alaska – or Outside Alaska.

But I won’t do it from the Governor’s desk.

I've never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference... to HELP people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more "freedom" to progress, all the way around... so that Alaska may progress... I will not seek re-election as Governor.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks… travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade – as so many politicians do. And then I thought – that’s what’s wrong – many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”. I’m not putting Alaska through that – I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? That’s not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old “politics as usual.” I promised that four years ago – and I meant it.

It’s not what is best for Alaska.

I am determined to take the right path for Alaska even though it is unconventional and not so comfortable.

With this announcement that I am not seeking re-election… I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell; and I am willing to do so, so that this administration – with its positive agenda, its accomplishments, and its successful road to an incredible future – can continue without interruption and with great administrative and legislative success.

My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me – sports… basketball. I use it because you’re na├»ve if you don’t see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I’m doing that – keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities – smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball – for victory.

I have given my reasons candidly and truthfully… and my last day won’t be for another few weeks so the transition will be very smooth. In fact, we will look to swear Sean in – in Fairbanks at the conclusion of our Governor’s picnics.

I do not want to disappoint anyone with my decision; all I can ask is that you TRUST me with this decision – but it’s no more “politics as usual”.

Some Alaskans don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time. I do. I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor. And my children won’t allow it either. ? Some will question the timing. ? Let’s just say, this decision has been in the works for awhile…

In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that... I think much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults recently.) Um, by the way, sure wish folks could ever, ever understand that we ALL could learn so much from someone like Trig - I know he needs me, but I need him even more... what a child can offer to set priorities RIGHT – that time is precious... the world needs more "Trigs", not fewer.

My decision was also fortified during this most recent trip to Kosovo and Landstuhl, to visit our wounded soldiers overseas, those who sacrifice themselves in war for OUR freedom and security… we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up, they take a stand and know that LIFE is short so they choose to NOT waste time. They choose to be productive and to serve something greater than SELF... and to build up their families, their states, our country. These Troops and their important missions – those are truly the worthy causes in this world and should be the public priority with time and resources and NOT this local / superficial wasteful political bloodsport.

May we ALL learn from them!

*((Gotta put First Things First))*

First things first: as Governor, I love my job and I love Alaska. It hurts to make this choice but I am doing what’s best for Alaska. I’ve explained why… though I think of the saying on my parents’ refrigerator that says “Don’t explain: your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anyway.”

But I have given my reasons… no more “politics as usual” and I am taking my fight for what’s right – for Alaska – in a new direction.

Now, despite this, I don’t want any Alaskan dissuaded from entering politics after seeing this REAL “climate change” that began in August… no, we NEED hardworking, average Americans fighting for what’s right! And I will support you because we need YOU and YOU can effect change, and I can too on the outside.

We need those who will respect our Constitution where government’s supposed to serve from the BOTTOM UP, not move toward this TOP DOWN big government take-over… but rather, will be protectors of individual rights - who also have enough common sense to acknowledge when conditions have drastically changed and are willing to call an audible and pass the ball when it’s time so the team can win! And that is what I’m doing!

Remember Alaska… America is now, more than ever, looking North to the Future. It'll be good. So God bless you, and from me and my family - to ALL Alaska - you have my heart.

And we will be in the capable hands of our Lieutenant Governor, Sean Parnell. And Lieutenant General Craig Campbell will assume the role of Lieutenant Governor. And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist. We have a good, positive agenda for Alaska.

In the words of General MacArthur said, “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”

It appears not all have given up on her...


A Letter From Al Franken. Also What I Would've Done To Settle This Election

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Dear MoveOn member,


Al Franken was just officially declared the next U.S. senator from Minnesota! And he sent a personal note to MoveOn members in the wake of his victory (see below).

Will you join me in sending Senator-elect Franken the biggest, happiest congratulations card ever? As he heads to Washington to fight for progressive change, let's make sure he knows we've got his back.

Click here to add your name to Senator-elect Franken's card:


And here's the personal message Senator-elect Franken sent last night to MoveOn members:

What a day! I just wanted to take a moment amidst all this to say thank you to the MoveOn members in Minnesota and across the country.

Paul Wellstone understood that real change comes from the ground up. And there's really no better example of that than MoveOn.org.

You've been there for me since the beginning. And I look forward to working with you as a U.S. senator to make the progressive vision we all share into a reality: affordable health care for all, new jobs from clean energy, and an economy that works for everyone.

Thank you for all you do.

Senator-elect Al Franken

If you'd like to sign our massive congratulations card to Senator-elect Franken—and maybe even add a personal message to Al—just click here:


Thanks for all you do.

–Justin, Joan, Marika, Peter and the rest of the team


Of course I added a personal message to Al Franken: "Personally I liked only paying 99 senators to accomplish nothing. Adding another do nothing senator is no reason to celebrate. It's just like paying a few more bucks on a household bill without any change in service."

Sorry Al but everyone knows voter fraud is the only reason you won this election. Remember how mad Democrats were at Bush in 2000 over Florida? Well the suspicions surrounding Al Franken's election are even more blatant than Florida ever was for Bush. Remember the evidence used against Franken that led to the election results being indecisive until yesterday? This is one case where the election should have literally been thrown out and started over.

A special election could have been held throwing out the suspicious results. Sure it would have been inconvenient but if the special election was closely monitored and there were strict practices in ensuring 1 vote to each LEGAL voter I'm sure most honest voters who want legitimate elections results wouldn't mind having a do over. That sounds like it would have been a much better idea where few could argue, except Franken of course. Aren't you getting tired of elections being decided in the courts?


  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP