Okay, so PresBo has decided to cut $100 million in spending... just how much is that. This little video illustrates it in no uncertain terms.
Read the rest...
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The Party of… Switchers?
For some time now, the Alabama GOP has been sending me press releases on this or that event that they think reflects well on them. To date I haven’t based a blog entry on any of them, but that changes today. Two days ago, I received a press release about a “growing trend” in Alabama politics… Democrat politicians switching to join the GOP.
The press release states that two elected Democrats in Marshall County have switched to the GOP.
And the GOP is quite happy about the situation.
I will take the “strong conservatives” claim with a grain of salt… when’s the last time somebody switched to the GOP and was greeted with “Can’t the dang liberal stay with the Dems where he belongs?” No, the mere act of switching parties is apparently sufficient proof of alignment to conservative principles. If you want me to believe these two men are really strong conservatives, show me the compliments dated BEFORE they decided to switch to the GOP. Can’t find them? What a surprise.
Isn’t it more likely that the two Democrats saw themselves as unlikely to win re-election as Democrats and decided to act in their own personal interest by switching parties? Yes, that’s a cynical observation, but it’s also likely accurate.
Just ask Arlen Specter… he recently switched to the Democrat party, but if you look at his voting record he’s been an unofficial Democrat for years. Which only makes sense, as he started his political career as a Democrat before switching to the GOP… before switching back to the Democrats.
It’s confusing. Can I have a program, please? I can’t tell the liberals from the conservatives without a program.
And why did Specter switch parties? Because his vote in favor of the stimulus bill so angered his GOP constituents that he knew he would be unable to win re-election as a Republican. So when he sees polls showing his GOP support plummeting like an anvil pushed from a tree, what can he do? Switch parties, of course!
OF COURSE the GOP is proud to welcome former Democrats into their midst… just as the Democrats were proud to welcome Specter back into THEIR midst. And us regular voters are left grinding our teeth.
Look, elected officials switching back and forth between parties isn’t a good thing, and it isn’t something to be proud of… its part of the problem, and a large part of the reason that the two parties are so similar today. Looking at recent history, most politicians in both parties are big-government and big-spending, regardless of party. Why? Because there’s so much party switching going on that nobody cares about principles anymore!
This “growing trend” isn’t a “nightmare for Democrats,” it’s a nightmare for voters who can’t rely even remotely on party affiliation to be any indicator at all about political ideology. We watch the GOP “move to the center” and wonder why it’s happening, then we cheer when more Democrats switch parties to join the GOP. To quote Cher from her movie Moonstruck: “Snap out of it!”
I realize that it is politically expedient to accept defectors from the Democrat party, especially if they are currently officeholders. I also realize that most voters don’t care a fig for political expediency, we just want a party who will stand up against big government and out-of-control spending!
There IS a party like that, but it’s not the GOP; and the Tea Party Patriots don’t run candidates.
Read the rest...
The press release states that two elected Democrats in Marshall County have switched to the GOP.
“The Alabama Republican Party has become the Party of choice for two Marshall County elected officials. Marshall County Commissioner Tim Bollinger and Circuit Judge Tim Jolley announced Sunday that they are leaving the Democrats and joining the GOP. In 2008, as the State GOP took 6 of 7 statewide races, Republicans swept the ballot in Marshall County. Bollinger and Jolley are the newest in what can only be seen as an incredible trend for Republicans, and a nightmare for Democrats. In 2008, Marshall County Commissioner Buddy Allen joined the Republican Party, giving Republicans a majority in Marshall County for the first time since Reconstruction. Allen’s announcement came on the heels of another big party switch which came out of the Wiregrass in 2008 by Senator Jimmy Holley (R-Elba).”
And the GOP is quite happy about the situation.
“We are excited to welcome Commissioner Bollinger and Judge Jolley to the Alabama Republican Party. They are strong conservatives and both are highly respected in Marshall County.”
I will take the “strong conservatives” claim with a grain of salt… when’s the last time somebody switched to the GOP and was greeted with “Can’t the dang liberal stay with the Dems where he belongs?” No, the mere act of switching parties is apparently sufficient proof of alignment to conservative principles. If you want me to believe these two men are really strong conservatives, show me the compliments dated BEFORE they decided to switch to the GOP. Can’t find them? What a surprise.
Isn’t it more likely that the two Democrats saw themselves as unlikely to win re-election as Democrats and decided to act in their own personal interest by switching parties? Yes, that’s a cynical observation, but it’s also likely accurate.
Just ask Arlen Specter… he recently switched to the Democrat party, but if you look at his voting record he’s been an unofficial Democrat for years. Which only makes sense, as he started his political career as a Democrat before switching to the GOP… before switching back to the Democrats.
It’s confusing. Can I have a program, please? I can’t tell the liberals from the conservatives without a program.
And why did Specter switch parties? Because his vote in favor of the stimulus bill so angered his GOP constituents that he knew he would be unable to win re-election as a Republican. So when he sees polls showing his GOP support plummeting like an anvil pushed from a tree, what can he do? Switch parties, of course!
OF COURSE the GOP is proud to welcome former Democrats into their midst… just as the Democrats were proud to welcome Specter back into THEIR midst. And us regular voters are left grinding our teeth.
Look, elected officials switching back and forth between parties isn’t a good thing, and it isn’t something to be proud of… its part of the problem, and a large part of the reason that the two parties are so similar today. Looking at recent history, most politicians in both parties are big-government and big-spending, regardless of party. Why? Because there’s so much party switching going on that nobody cares about principles anymore!
This “growing trend” isn’t a “nightmare for Democrats,” it’s a nightmare for voters who can’t rely even remotely on party affiliation to be any indicator at all about political ideology. We watch the GOP “move to the center” and wonder why it’s happening, then we cheer when more Democrats switch parties to join the GOP. To quote Cher from her movie Moonstruck: “Snap out of it!”
I realize that it is politically expedient to accept defectors from the Democrat party, especially if they are currently officeholders. I also realize that most voters don’t care a fig for political expediency, we just want a party who will stand up against big government and out-of-control spending!
There IS a party like that, but it’s not the GOP; and the Tea Party Patriots don’t run candidates.
Read the rest...
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
PresBo’s First 100 Days
Obama has been in office for 100 days today, and it is time to evaluate his performance to date.
This is largely an ideological evaluation, because if you ask PresBo how he did, he’ll tell you he’s doing pretty darned good. He passed his stimulus bill and is making good progress on several “reform” projects that will result in larger government and less freedom for citizens. Since that’s what he intended to do in the first place, he can honestly say it’s been a productive 100 days.
But what about the rest of us? What about the silent majority who understand the danger in his programs and initiatives? What about the 2,500 people who gathered together in Montgomery, Alabama on April 15th to protest this President’s irresponsible and dangerous policies? What do we think?
I will do my best to evaluate him by Tea Party standards.
PresBo’s first 100 days have been... less than inspiring. We’ll divide this up into sections.
Personnel
PresBo’s staffing decisions haven’t been the best. He has nominated numerous people for positions who have later had to withdraw because of tax problems or conflicts of interest. Every Republican he’s tried to appoint has ultimately declined. His Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, also had tax problems but was confirmed anyway… and is still virtually alone over there. He seems to intentionally appoint controversial people… a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary, a person who believes people should be forced to read “balanced news” online as the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and so forth. Grade: D-
Gaffes
I know that gaffes and mistakes are unavoidable, but PresBo and his administration seem to be actively trying to set some sort of record. The list of mistakes is too long to list in its entirety. His gifts to foreign dignitaries have been laughable… he gave a collection of US DVD’s to the British PM and an iPod pre-loaded with Obama’s speeches and show tunes to the Queen of England. He has bowed to the King of a Muslim nation and shared a smile and a hearty handshake with a dictator. He allowed the inflammatory AF1 photo-op that panicked New York City. He neglected to hold a formal reception for the British Prime Minister when he arrived. There are many more examples, but you get the point. And no matter what goes wrong, PresBo is more than willing to pass the buck and blame somebody else… if he’s stepped up and taken responsibility for anything, then I missed it. The Obama administration seems bound and determined to live up to the label that was first heard when an Obama spokesman was denying it: Amateur Hour. Grade: D-
Fiscal Policy
PresBo’s fiscal policy is pretty clearly irresponsible, though he is still trying to spin his way out of that. In addition to the stimulus package and the pork spending bill, he has proposed massive amounts of additional spending. Most of that is to be financed with additional borrowing, pushing this year’s deficit above $1.8 TRILLION. The long term debt projection is that it will double in the next 4 years or so. He intends to tax everybody with his cap and trade policies that will result in a massive increase in energy costs. He is trying to spin this by announcing a $100 million “spending cut,” as well as by suddenly embracing “PayGo” financing in order to gain the support of moderate Democrats. Grade: F
Economics
PresBo apparently believes that the US government can tax and spend enough money to improve our economy. He criticized Bush for spending too much, then decided to fix the problem by spending even more. He thinks the way to fix our financial system is to control the banks to the point where they set compensation guidelines for employees and decide who to hire and fire. This nationalization trend actually extends beyond the economic realm, with his choice for Chief Regulator wanting to force people to read liberal online news sources INSTEAD of allowing people to read what they think best. Other examples are available, too, and they point to a disturbing willingness to substitute government control for individual freedom of choice. Grade: F
Summation
This President took a nation that was sidling slowly to disaster and increased the pace of that slide tenfold… in just 100 days. The only action I can think of that I approved of was his giving the Seal Team permission to rescue the American sea caption being held by pirates. I am not happy with his actions to date, and I have no confidence they will get any better.
Overall Grade: F
Read the rest...
This is largely an ideological evaluation, because if you ask PresBo how he did, he’ll tell you he’s doing pretty darned good. He passed his stimulus bill and is making good progress on several “reform” projects that will result in larger government and less freedom for citizens. Since that’s what he intended to do in the first place, he can honestly say it’s been a productive 100 days.
But what about the rest of us? What about the silent majority who understand the danger in his programs and initiatives? What about the 2,500 people who gathered together in Montgomery, Alabama on April 15th to protest this President’s irresponsible and dangerous policies? What do we think?
I will do my best to evaluate him by Tea Party standards.
PresBo’s first 100 days have been... less than inspiring. We’ll divide this up into sections.
Personnel
PresBo’s staffing decisions haven’t been the best. He has nominated numerous people for positions who have later had to withdraw because of tax problems or conflicts of interest. Every Republican he’s tried to appoint has ultimately declined. His Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, also had tax problems but was confirmed anyway… and is still virtually alone over there. He seems to intentionally appoint controversial people… a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary, a person who believes people should be forced to read “balanced news” online as the head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and so forth. Grade: D-
Gaffes
I know that gaffes and mistakes are unavoidable, but PresBo and his administration seem to be actively trying to set some sort of record. The list of mistakes is too long to list in its entirety. His gifts to foreign dignitaries have been laughable… he gave a collection of US DVD’s to the British PM and an iPod pre-loaded with Obama’s speeches and show tunes to the Queen of England. He has bowed to the King of a Muslim nation and shared a smile and a hearty handshake with a dictator. He allowed the inflammatory AF1 photo-op that panicked New York City. He neglected to hold a formal reception for the British Prime Minister when he arrived. There are many more examples, but you get the point. And no matter what goes wrong, PresBo is more than willing to pass the buck and blame somebody else… if he’s stepped up and taken responsibility for anything, then I missed it. The Obama administration seems bound and determined to live up to the label that was first heard when an Obama spokesman was denying it: Amateur Hour. Grade: D-
Fiscal Policy
PresBo’s fiscal policy is pretty clearly irresponsible, though he is still trying to spin his way out of that. In addition to the stimulus package and the pork spending bill, he has proposed massive amounts of additional spending. Most of that is to be financed with additional borrowing, pushing this year’s deficit above $1.8 TRILLION. The long term debt projection is that it will double in the next 4 years or so. He intends to tax everybody with his cap and trade policies that will result in a massive increase in energy costs. He is trying to spin this by announcing a $100 million “spending cut,” as well as by suddenly embracing “PayGo” financing in order to gain the support of moderate Democrats. Grade: F
Economics
PresBo apparently believes that the US government can tax and spend enough money to improve our economy. He criticized Bush for spending too much, then decided to fix the problem by spending even more. He thinks the way to fix our financial system is to control the banks to the point where they set compensation guidelines for employees and decide who to hire and fire. This nationalization trend actually extends beyond the economic realm, with his choice for Chief Regulator wanting to force people to read liberal online news sources INSTEAD of allowing people to read what they think best. Other examples are available, too, and they point to a disturbing willingness to substitute government control for individual freedom of choice. Grade: F
Summation
This President took a nation that was sidling slowly to disaster and increased the pace of that slide tenfold… in just 100 days. The only action I can think of that I approved of was his giving the Seal Team permission to rescue the American sea caption being held by pirates. I am not happy with his actions to date, and I have no confidence they will get any better.
Overall Grade: F
Read the rest...
What Alabama Politicians Think
It’s time for folks to publish their thoughts on PresBo’s first 100 Days in office. I’ll be doing that this afternoon, but this morning I thought I’d let you know what some Alabama political figures think.
And pay attention to this, people, because what they think of PresBo is a good indicator of their own political philosophy… vote OUT the people who disagree with your opinion.
Politicians who think PresBo is taking the country in the right direction:
Rep Artur Davis (D-Birmingham)
Rep Bobby Bright (D-Montgomery)
Alabama Superintendent of Schools Joe Morton
State Rep. John Knight (D)
State Sen. Roger Bedford (D-Russellville)
Paul Hubbert, head of the Alabama Education Association
Those opposed:
State Rep. Mike Hubbard (R)
Not sure or right for the wrong reasons:
Alabama Community College Chancellor Bradley Byrne – He doesn’t approve of PresBo because not enough stimulus money was given to Alabama education.
Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange – Straddles the fence nicely, leaving us unsure of what he thinks of PresBo’s first 100 days. Typical politician's response, he didn’t answer the question.
Remember what these politicians think, and vote out those you disagree with when you have the opportunity to do so.
Read the rest...
And pay attention to this, people, because what they think of PresBo is a good indicator of their own political philosophy… vote OUT the people who disagree with your opinion.
Politicians who think PresBo is taking the country in the right direction:
Rep Artur Davis (D-Birmingham)
Rep Bobby Bright (D-Montgomery)
Alabama Superintendent of Schools Joe Morton
State Rep. John Knight (D)
State Sen. Roger Bedford (D-Russellville)
Paul Hubbert, head of the Alabama Education Association
Those opposed:
State Rep. Mike Hubbard (R)
Not sure or right for the wrong reasons:
Alabama Community College Chancellor Bradley Byrne – He doesn’t approve of PresBo because not enough stimulus money was given to Alabama education.
Montgomery Mayor Todd Strange – Straddles the fence nicely, leaving us unsure of what he thinks of PresBo’s first 100 days. Typical politician's response, he didn’t answer the question.
Remember what these politicians think, and vote out those you disagree with when you have the opportunity to do so.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Arlen Specter Is Now A Democrat
You mean he wasn’t before?
For those of you who don’t catch the news throughout the day, GOP Senator Arlen Specter, who has served five terms in the Senate as a Republican, has decided to switch parties and become a Democrat. You can read his official statement here.
It’s easy to understand why he decided to switch parties… he wants to come back for a 6th term. This was looking highly unlikely, primarily because of the fact that his supporting vote for the stimulus package allowed it to be passed into law. His constituents were highly upset by this, and a strong challenger announced his candidacy, making Specter’s chances for re-election as a Republican very slight.
Personally, I think that the moment someone decides to change parties in the middle of a term, he should forfeit his seat and let the voters pick again. I mean, if the Democrats elect somebody who switches to be a Republican, doesn’t the majority that selected a Democrat deserve the chance to put another Democrat in his place?
Of course, when it gets right down to it, I think political parties should be abolished, or at least not officially recognized during elections. We elect our city council and Mayor in non-partisan races, and there’s no reason we can’t do the same for every other political office.
Since it looks like Al Franken will soon be confirmed as the Democratic Senator from Minnesota, this will give the Democrats their 60 seats to make them filibuster-proof… at least until November of 2010, when Specter is defeated and (hopefully) replaced by a small-government, fiscally responsible Senator.
So the Democrats will have an 18-month window during which the Republicans can literally do nothing to stop them. They will try to hold their solidarity together long enough to pass sweeping legislation that will change the face of America for decades. And in the process, they will strengthen the anti-Democratic sentiment of the voters, resulting in their losing Senate seats in the 2010 election.
Lesson for PresBo: If your political opposition is a distinct minority and you treat them with disdain, as if they were irrelevant, then when the political winds shift (as they invariably do) and they regain seats and the power that comes with them, don’t be surprised that they don’t like you very much. Political majorities are NEVER forever, and you WILL need their support in the future. Burning bridges is never a good idea.
I know the short-term prospect is bleak, but watch what happens once the Democrats are completely in control and hurriedly passing all their unpopular, big-government legislation. We’ll see a tidal-wave of support for fiscally responsible candidates who will reduce spending, reduce the size and scope of government, and work to pay down our national debt.
The Tea Party Patriots will be working to identify and support candidates in next year’s elections who champion these values. Keep your eye on things, people. And meanwhile, Senator Specter, don’t let the door hit you in the… back on the way out.
Read the rest...
For those of you who don’t catch the news throughout the day, GOP Senator Arlen Specter, who has served five terms in the Senate as a Republican, has decided to switch parties and become a Democrat. You can read his official statement here.
It’s easy to understand why he decided to switch parties… he wants to come back for a 6th term. This was looking highly unlikely, primarily because of the fact that his supporting vote for the stimulus package allowed it to be passed into law. His constituents were highly upset by this, and a strong challenger announced his candidacy, making Specter’s chances for re-election as a Republican very slight.
Personally, I think that the moment someone decides to change parties in the middle of a term, he should forfeit his seat and let the voters pick again. I mean, if the Democrats elect somebody who switches to be a Republican, doesn’t the majority that selected a Democrat deserve the chance to put another Democrat in his place?
Of course, when it gets right down to it, I think political parties should be abolished, or at least not officially recognized during elections. We elect our city council and Mayor in non-partisan races, and there’s no reason we can’t do the same for every other political office.
Since it looks like Al Franken will soon be confirmed as the Democratic Senator from Minnesota, this will give the Democrats their 60 seats to make them filibuster-proof… at least until November of 2010, when Specter is defeated and (hopefully) replaced by a small-government, fiscally responsible Senator.
So the Democrats will have an 18-month window during which the Republicans can literally do nothing to stop them. They will try to hold their solidarity together long enough to pass sweeping legislation that will change the face of America for decades. And in the process, they will strengthen the anti-Democratic sentiment of the voters, resulting in their losing Senate seats in the 2010 election.
Lesson for PresBo: If your political opposition is a distinct minority and you treat them with disdain, as if they were irrelevant, then when the political winds shift (as they invariably do) and they regain seats and the power that comes with them, don’t be surprised that they don’t like you very much. Political majorities are NEVER forever, and you WILL need their support in the future. Burning bridges is never a good idea.
I know the short-term prospect is bleak, but watch what happens once the Democrats are completely in control and hurriedly passing all their unpopular, big-government legislation. We’ll see a tidal-wave of support for fiscally responsible candidates who will reduce spending, reduce the size and scope of government, and work to pay down our national debt.
The Tea Party Patriots will be working to identify and support candidates in next year’s elections who champion these values. Keep your eye on things, people. And meanwhile, Senator Specter, don’t let the door hit you in the… back on the way out.
Read the rest...
A New Civil Rights Problem In Montgomery
Up till now, I've written all my own posts. At this point I'd like to post this piece written by David Beito. It was published in the Tuscaloosa News.
What is happening in the cradle of the modern civil rights movement? Jimmy McCall would like to know. “It was more my dream house,” he laments, “and the city tore it down….It reminds me of how they used to mistreat black people in the Old South.” In 1955, Rosa Parks took on the whole system of Jim Crow by refusing to give up her seat on a segregated Montgomery bus. Today, McCall is waging a lonely battle against the same city government for another civil right: the freedom to build a home on his own land.
Although McCall’s ambitions are modest, he is exceptionally determined. For years, he has scraped together a living by salvaging rare materials from historic homes and then selling them to private builders. Sometimes months went by before he had a client. Finally, he had put aside enough to purchase two acres in Montgomery and started to build. He did the work himself using materials accumulated in his business including a supply of sturdy and extremely rare longleaf pine.
McCall only earns enough money to build in incremental stages but eventually his dream home took shape. According to a news story by Benjamin Solomon, the structure had a “the high slanted ceilings, the exposed beams of dark, antique wood. It looks like a charming, spacious home in the making.” But from the outset the city showed unremitting hostility. He has almost lost count of the roadblocks it threw up including a citation for keeping the necessary building materials on his own land during the construction process. More seriously, he was charged under the state blight law, which allows a municipality to designate a building as a “public nuisance” and then demolish it. Critics have accurately called this “eminent domain through the back door” and warn that opportunities for abuse are almost limitless. In contrast to the standard eminent domain process, for example, property owners do not have any right to compensation, even in theory.
The reaction of Montgomery’s city fathers seemed strange to McCall. Wasn’t he trying to fight blight by building a new home? McCall suspects that wealthy developers were trying to get their hands on the property: a rare two-acre parcel on a major thoroughfare. Unlike countless others in similar straits, McCall fought back and hired an experienced local lawyer. In the middle of last year, he negotiated a court-enforced agreement which gave him eighteen months to complete the home. Only a month after the agreement took effect, the city demolished the structure. Local bureaucrats, obviously in a hurry to tear it down, did not even give him notice. The bulldozers came in the same day as the court order that authorized them. McCall appealed to the same judge who had allowed the demolition. Stating that she had been misled, she ordered the city to pay compensation. Montgomery has appealed and at this writing McCall has not received a cent. McCall thinks that the city intends to drag it out until his money runs out. “I’ve got a lot of fight left in me and all I want is justice,” he states.
McCall’s story of eminent domain through the back door is depressingly familiar to Jim Peera. For almost five years, he has fought a pitched battle with City Hall over his plan to renovate a strategic parcel of 121 apartments in the heart of the Rosa Parks Community, and rent them to low-income senior citizens. Montgomery has a multi-million dollar development plan for his eight-acre site and is using “blight” to condemn and demolish it. Peera has withstood multiple setbacks on his investment including unfounded criminal charges by the city and mysterious fires on his solid block structures. He has repeatedly tried to sell to or partner with the city for a much needed affordable housing development, but it has rebuffed him. “They’re used to forcing black folks to give their properties up via imposing hefty demolition liens, as opposed to buying land at fair market value” he says. Most recently, the city tried to further devalue Peera’s property by reducing the density from “multifamily” to single family, thus making it impossible to provide affordable low-income housing. Although Peera won in two courts, local bureaucrats, much like they are doing with McCall, meet his legal victories with appeals and other delays.
Peera, who had to flee from his native East Africa after Idi Amin expelled its Asian population, does not easily intimidate and is extremely determined to fight property abuse in Alabama. He is trying to mobilize other Montgomery property owners who face the same plight. Through the state’s freedom of information act, he has obtained the names of over several hundred individuals, mostly from minority neighborhoods, who have had their homes summarily demolished under the blight law. The former owners have related to him a litany of arbitrary mistreatment but most were too poor or lacked the necessary information to fight back against the city. “What this City Hall is doing is criminal towards blacks and property owners, and it must be stopped” says Peera.
Peera has appealed to the State Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and hopes that others will join him. On April 29, Alabamians who believe that their property rights have been violated under eminent domain, either through the back door or the front door, can tell their stories to the Committee at a public forum from 9:00 to 5:00 at Whitely Conference Hall on the Montgomery campus of Troy University.
David T. Beito is chair of the Alabama State Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and professor of history at the University of Alabama. He also blogs at Liberty and Power.
Read the rest...
What is happening in the cradle of the modern civil rights movement? Jimmy McCall would like to know. “It was more my dream house,” he laments, “and the city tore it down….It reminds me of how they used to mistreat black people in the Old South.” In 1955, Rosa Parks took on the whole system of Jim Crow by refusing to give up her seat on a segregated Montgomery bus. Today, McCall is waging a lonely battle against the same city government for another civil right: the freedom to build a home on his own land.
Although McCall’s ambitions are modest, he is exceptionally determined. For years, he has scraped together a living by salvaging rare materials from historic homes and then selling them to private builders. Sometimes months went by before he had a client. Finally, he had put aside enough to purchase two acres in Montgomery and started to build. He did the work himself using materials accumulated in his business including a supply of sturdy and extremely rare longleaf pine.
McCall only earns enough money to build in incremental stages but eventually his dream home took shape. According to a news story by Benjamin Solomon, the structure had a “the high slanted ceilings, the exposed beams of dark, antique wood. It looks like a charming, spacious home in the making.” But from the outset the city showed unremitting hostility. He has almost lost count of the roadblocks it threw up including a citation for keeping the necessary building materials on his own land during the construction process. More seriously, he was charged under the state blight law, which allows a municipality to designate a building as a “public nuisance” and then demolish it. Critics have accurately called this “eminent domain through the back door” and warn that opportunities for abuse are almost limitless. In contrast to the standard eminent domain process, for example, property owners do not have any right to compensation, even in theory.
The reaction of Montgomery’s city fathers seemed strange to McCall. Wasn’t he trying to fight blight by building a new home? McCall suspects that wealthy developers were trying to get their hands on the property: a rare two-acre parcel on a major thoroughfare. Unlike countless others in similar straits, McCall fought back and hired an experienced local lawyer. In the middle of last year, he negotiated a court-enforced agreement which gave him eighteen months to complete the home. Only a month after the agreement took effect, the city demolished the structure. Local bureaucrats, obviously in a hurry to tear it down, did not even give him notice. The bulldozers came in the same day as the court order that authorized them. McCall appealed to the same judge who had allowed the demolition. Stating that she had been misled, she ordered the city to pay compensation. Montgomery has appealed and at this writing McCall has not received a cent. McCall thinks that the city intends to drag it out until his money runs out. “I’ve got a lot of fight left in me and all I want is justice,” he states.
McCall’s story of eminent domain through the back door is depressingly familiar to Jim Peera. For almost five years, he has fought a pitched battle with City Hall over his plan to renovate a strategic parcel of 121 apartments in the heart of the Rosa Parks Community, and rent them to low-income senior citizens. Montgomery has a multi-million dollar development plan for his eight-acre site and is using “blight” to condemn and demolish it. Peera has withstood multiple setbacks on his investment including unfounded criminal charges by the city and mysterious fires on his solid block structures. He has repeatedly tried to sell to or partner with the city for a much needed affordable housing development, but it has rebuffed him. “They’re used to forcing black folks to give their properties up via imposing hefty demolition liens, as opposed to buying land at fair market value” he says. Most recently, the city tried to further devalue Peera’s property by reducing the density from “multifamily” to single family, thus making it impossible to provide affordable low-income housing. Although Peera won in two courts, local bureaucrats, much like they are doing with McCall, meet his legal victories with appeals and other delays.
Peera, who had to flee from his native East Africa after Idi Amin expelled its Asian population, does not easily intimidate and is extremely determined to fight property abuse in Alabama. He is trying to mobilize other Montgomery property owners who face the same plight. Through the state’s freedom of information act, he has obtained the names of over several hundred individuals, mostly from minority neighborhoods, who have had their homes summarily demolished under the blight law. The former owners have related to him a litany of arbitrary mistreatment but most were too poor or lacked the necessary information to fight back against the city. “What this City Hall is doing is criminal towards blacks and property owners, and it must be stopped” says Peera.
Peera has appealed to the State Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and hopes that others will join him. On April 29, Alabamians who believe that their property rights have been violated under eminent domain, either through the back door or the front door, can tell their stories to the Committee at a public forum from 9:00 to 5:00 at Whitely Conference Hall on the Montgomery campus of Troy University.
David T. Beito is chair of the Alabama State Advisory Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and professor of history at the University of Alabama. He also blogs at Liberty and Power.
Read the rest...
Monday, April 27, 2009
He Has GOT To Be Kidding
Have you ever read something so outrageously crazy that you had to stop and listen for the “Twilight Zone” music? That happened to me this morning when I read this article.
Essentially, the President has called for a return to “Pay As You Go”, or PAYGO budgeting. The idea is simple… no tax cuts without spending reductions, and no spending increases without either tax increases or matching spending cuts. The idea is to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.
Yes, you heard right, PresBo wants to reduce the deficit. The man who is planning on a $1.8 TRILLION deficit this year and a $1.4 trillion deficit next year wants rules that would limit his ability to borrow and spend. Reduce it? Heck, his budget and plans REQUIRE that he borrow and spend… in carload lots!
So, where did this come from?
Quite simply, he’s not serious about it. He doesn’t want any form of fiscal responsibility, but he will do and say anything he must in order to get Congressmen on board to support his proposals. In this case, he’s after the fiscally conservative, or “blue-dog” Democrats. They are reluctant to go along with his massive spending projects, and don’t want to see this country sink under the mountain of debt that PresBo is planning on creating. They originated this idea, and in closed-door discussions with PresBo they proposed “PAYGO” as the answer to his question, “What can I do to get you guys on board with my program?”
They wanted PAYGO, so he’s promising PAYGO… and that means large tax increases in the near future. It’s only logical, right? If his spending priorities remain the same and he can’t borrow as much money, then he must raise taxes to compensate… by the very rules he wants to adopt. I don’t think a mere $100 million in “spending cuts,” in the face of an additional $1.8 trillion in spending, is going to be very effective in paying as we go. And there is no WAY PresBo can pursue his massive spending programs, stop relying on borrowed money (debt spending), and raise taxes (massively) and even remotely hope to keep this economy from a renewed plummet that would fulfill the direst predictions he made while trying to scare people into supporting his stimulus bill.
Personally, I don’t think he is worrying about this too much. Here’s what I see as a likely scenario. He tells the blue-dogs that he supports PAYGO and will sign it if it hits his desk, and then work behind the scenes to make sure it doesn’t pass. If it doesn’t pass, he can’t be held responsible for it, and no doubt he’ll still expect votes from the blue-dogs.
PresBo won’t give up his ability to spend money, not even a little bit. This is a dodge to get more support for his spending, and it has dire consequences for both our tax code and us poor taxpayers caught in the recession. And he won’t hesitate at all to adopt any self-contradiction to help himself along.
So cue the music, Rod, and make sure it's set to loop as long as needed.
Read the rest...
Essentially, the President has called for a return to “Pay As You Go”, or PAYGO budgeting. The idea is simple… no tax cuts without spending reductions, and no spending increases without either tax increases or matching spending cuts. The idea is to balance the budget and reduce the deficit.
Yes, you heard right, PresBo wants to reduce the deficit. The man who is planning on a $1.8 TRILLION deficit this year and a $1.4 trillion deficit next year wants rules that would limit his ability to borrow and spend. Reduce it? Heck, his budget and plans REQUIRE that he borrow and spend… in carload lots!
So, where did this come from?
Quite simply, he’s not serious about it. He doesn’t want any form of fiscal responsibility, but he will do and say anything he must in order to get Congressmen on board to support his proposals. In this case, he’s after the fiscally conservative, or “blue-dog” Democrats. They are reluctant to go along with his massive spending projects, and don’t want to see this country sink under the mountain of debt that PresBo is planning on creating. They originated this idea, and in closed-door discussions with PresBo they proposed “PAYGO” as the answer to his question, “What can I do to get you guys on board with my program?”
They wanted PAYGO, so he’s promising PAYGO… and that means large tax increases in the near future. It’s only logical, right? If his spending priorities remain the same and he can’t borrow as much money, then he must raise taxes to compensate… by the very rules he wants to adopt. I don’t think a mere $100 million in “spending cuts,” in the face of an additional $1.8 trillion in spending, is going to be very effective in paying as we go. And there is no WAY PresBo can pursue his massive spending programs, stop relying on borrowed money (debt spending), and raise taxes (massively) and even remotely hope to keep this economy from a renewed plummet that would fulfill the direst predictions he made while trying to scare people into supporting his stimulus bill.
Personally, I don’t think he is worrying about this too much. Here’s what I see as a likely scenario. He tells the blue-dogs that he supports PAYGO and will sign it if it hits his desk, and then work behind the scenes to make sure it doesn’t pass. If it doesn’t pass, he can’t be held responsible for it, and no doubt he’ll still expect votes from the blue-dogs.
PresBo won’t give up his ability to spend money, not even a little bit. This is a dodge to get more support for his spending, and it has dire consequences for both our tax code and us poor taxpayers caught in the recession. And he won’t hesitate at all to adopt any self-contradiction to help himself along.
So cue the music, Rod, and make sure it's set to loop as long as needed.
Read the rest...
Possible Mess For Troy King
It is possible that Alabama Attorney General Troy King has gotten himself in some trouble, specifically with a conflict of interest accusation. It appears that AG King was the featured guest at a high profile party thrown by a developer… just three months before he issued an AG’s opinion that favored that developer.
Ooops.
The accusation centers on Ronnie Gilley’s development project, Country Crossing. Apparently, bingo gaming was integral to the success of the development, and AG King issued an AG’s opinion that essentially required the Houston County Sherriff to issue the gambling permit.
Three months prior to that, Troy King was the featured guest at a party thrown by Gilley.
The developer admits that he needed bingo as a financial "catalyst" to get the development built, and admits that he invited King to the Country Crossing kick-off party in order to boost attendance, and he admits that Troy King actually spoke to the crowd in attendance. He denies ever speaking to King about the requested legal opinion.
Both King and Gilley deny that issuing the AG’s opinion after attending the party was a conflict of interest, and they may even be right. However, a man in King’s position has to be MORE careful than your average legislator, for example. In other words, he must not only avoid conflicts of interest, he must also avoid the appearance of impropriety.
And this he did not do. Because looking at this sequence of events, the appearance of impropriety is strong. Circumstantial, but strong. It is hard to argue that being the guest of honor at a party to celebrate the kickoff of a development project does NOT imply support for the project. And it’s all too easy to imagine that support coloring his actions when it came time to issue the opinion.
By the way, here is the AG’s opinion that King issued on the subject. Read it and decide for yourself.
I’m not sure what he could do to answer this apparent conflict of interest. So far as I know, there is no law or rule that he has broken, so the only thing at risk here is public perception and his future candidacy for office.
Read the rest...
Ooops.
The accusation centers on Ronnie Gilley’s development project, Country Crossing. Apparently, bingo gaming was integral to the success of the development, and AG King issued an AG’s opinion that essentially required the Houston County Sherriff to issue the gambling permit.
Three months prior to that, Troy King was the featured guest at a party thrown by Gilley.
“Join country music legend George Jones to welcome in the New Year. Shake off the winter cold as you dance among the hay bales and listen to a special performance by country music superstar John Anderson. Come dressed for fun and join Attorney General Troy King for a bash you'll never forget!"
The developer admits that he needed bingo as a financial "catalyst" to get the development built, and admits that he invited King to the Country Crossing kick-off party in order to boost attendance, and he admits that Troy King actually spoke to the crowd in attendance. He denies ever speaking to King about the requested legal opinion.
Both King and Gilley deny that issuing the AG’s opinion after attending the party was a conflict of interest, and they may even be right. However, a man in King’s position has to be MORE careful than your average legislator, for example. In other words, he must not only avoid conflicts of interest, he must also avoid the appearance of impropriety.
And this he did not do. Because looking at this sequence of events, the appearance of impropriety is strong. Circumstantial, but strong. It is hard to argue that being the guest of honor at a party to celebrate the kickoff of a development project does NOT imply support for the project. And it’s all too easy to imagine that support coloring his actions when it came time to issue the opinion.
By the way, here is the AG’s opinion that King issued on the subject. Read it and decide for yourself.
I’m not sure what he could do to answer this apparent conflict of interest. So far as I know, there is no law or rule that he has broken, so the only thing at risk here is public perception and his future candidacy for office.
Read the rest...
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Fairhope Tax Increase
It never fails. When the economy turns south and people respond by cutting expenses, many governments want to maintain current levels of spending, or even increase spending levels, by raising one or more taxes. Such is the case for Fairhope, Alabama.
The City Council will be voting on Monday night whether to levy a two cent municipal sales tax. The Council appears split on it, and the Mayor has announced his opposition, so opponents to the tax definitely have a chance to see it defeated.
If you live in Fairhope, here’s what you should do. Call your councilman and ask to be allowed to address the Council before the vote is taken. You don’t have much time, as the vote is Monday night, so call quickly. Contact information for the council members can be found here. Plan your statements out beforehand, and when you speak before the council, be reasonable and logical. From my own past observations, the more excited and emotional you are, the less they pay attention to you. Tell them what a tax increase in today’s economic climate means to you.
This tax increase is a threat to those who live in Fairhope, but it is also an opportunity for you to stand up and tell your government what you think. Don’t miss this opportunity.
Good luck, Fairhopians.
Read the rest...
The City Council will be voting on Monday night whether to levy a two cent municipal sales tax. The Council appears split on it, and the Mayor has announced his opposition, so opponents to the tax definitely have a chance to see it defeated.
If you live in Fairhope, here’s what you should do. Call your councilman and ask to be allowed to address the Council before the vote is taken. You don’t have much time, as the vote is Monday night, so call quickly. Contact information for the council members can be found here. Plan your statements out beforehand, and when you speak before the council, be reasonable and logical. From my own past observations, the more excited and emotional you are, the less they pay attention to you. Tell them what a tax increase in today’s economic climate means to you.
This tax increase is a threat to those who live in Fairhope, but it is also an opportunity for you to stand up and tell your government what you think. Don’t miss this opportunity.
Good luck, Fairhopians.
Read the rest...
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Jefferson County Occupational Tax
Something interesting is going on in Jefferson County. Apparently, the Jefferson County Commission is frantically trying to convince the Legislature to pass legislation that would make their currently illegal occupational tax… well, legal. Before, that is, the tax disappears entirely.
Let’s go back. Jefferson County has had an occupational tax for a LONG time. About a decade ago, the Legislature passed a law repealing the occupational tax. The Jefferson County Commission sued, and a court ruled that the repeal was invalid because so few legislators actually voted on the bill.
In 2007, a lawsuit was filed challenging the occupational tax on the grounds that the legislature repealed it and that the original court ruling was wrong. On Jan 13, 2009, the judge agreed that the repeal had been improperly overturned. He ruled that it is up to the legislature to set rules on how legislation is voted on, and the court has no jurisdiction to change that.
The County Commission is appealing, and they can continue to collect (but not spend) the occupational tax while the appeal is pending, but as of now it looks like Jefferson County may no longer have an occupational tax.
And people are frantic about it.
The argument in favor of the Legislature “fixing” the tax with legislation is basically this: Jefferson County NEEDS that money and you can’t take it away from them. That’s the same logic the Montgomery County Commission used some years ago when they tried to illegally levy an occupational tax: We need it. Indeed, during the lawsuit opposing the occupational tax (of which I was one of the plaintiffs), many of the County’s arguments in court were exactly that… how badly they needed the money and what bad things would happen if they didn’t get it. Although those arguments prevailed in the lower court, we got a unanimous Alabama Supreme Court ruling that slapped their hands and told them “No!”
I believe that the Jefferson County occupational tax should be allowed to expire. Indeed, I believe that yet ANOTHER lawsuit could prevail if filed, no matter what the Legislature does.
You see, in the decision handed down in the Montgomery County case, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that a County has not the authority to levy an occupational tax itself, but must ask the Legislature to do it. But in a concurring opinion, written by then Chief Justice Roy Moore, he said that ANY county-level occupational tax violated the State Constitution. You see, the State Constitution places a cap on how much income tax, as a percentage of income, we can be required to pay. Our state income tax is currently at that maximum level. Because the language of the Constitution doesn’t say “STATE income tax” but only “INCOME tax,” any tax on income by a county or city pushes the tax level over the Constitutional maximum, and is therefore illegal.
Oh, and the majority opinion also found that an “occupational tax” is, in fact, an income tax.
I understand that concurring minority opinions do not have the force of law, but the logic is laid out painstakingly in that opinion, and appears to me (a non-lawyer) to be sufficiently detailed to form the basis of a lawsuit challenging the Jefferson County occupational tax… or any other local occupational tax in the state.
I would like to tell the Jefferson County Commissioners that your need for money doesn’t make a tax legal. It is my hope that the County’s appeal of the January ruling fails. But if it doesn’t, I hope the plaintiffs in that case file another lawsuit challenging the occupational tax on Constitutional grounds.
Oh, and if you need it, I have a copy of that concurring opinion that you can reference...
Read the rest...
Let’s go back. Jefferson County has had an occupational tax for a LONG time. About a decade ago, the Legislature passed a law repealing the occupational tax. The Jefferson County Commission sued, and a court ruled that the repeal was invalid because so few legislators actually voted on the bill.
In 2007, a lawsuit was filed challenging the occupational tax on the grounds that the legislature repealed it and that the original court ruling was wrong. On Jan 13, 2009, the judge agreed that the repeal had been improperly overturned. He ruled that it is up to the legislature to set rules on how legislation is voted on, and the court has no jurisdiction to change that.
The County Commission is appealing, and they can continue to collect (but not spend) the occupational tax while the appeal is pending, but as of now it looks like Jefferson County may no longer have an occupational tax.
And people are frantic about it.
The argument in favor of the Legislature “fixing” the tax with legislation is basically this: Jefferson County NEEDS that money and you can’t take it away from them. That’s the same logic the Montgomery County Commission used some years ago when they tried to illegally levy an occupational tax: We need it. Indeed, during the lawsuit opposing the occupational tax (of which I was one of the plaintiffs), many of the County’s arguments in court were exactly that… how badly they needed the money and what bad things would happen if they didn’t get it. Although those arguments prevailed in the lower court, we got a unanimous Alabama Supreme Court ruling that slapped their hands and told them “No!”
I believe that the Jefferson County occupational tax should be allowed to expire. Indeed, I believe that yet ANOTHER lawsuit could prevail if filed, no matter what the Legislature does.
You see, in the decision handed down in the Montgomery County case, the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that a County has not the authority to levy an occupational tax itself, but must ask the Legislature to do it. But in a concurring opinion, written by then Chief Justice Roy Moore, he said that ANY county-level occupational tax violated the State Constitution. You see, the State Constitution places a cap on how much income tax, as a percentage of income, we can be required to pay. Our state income tax is currently at that maximum level. Because the language of the Constitution doesn’t say “STATE income tax” but only “INCOME tax,” any tax on income by a county or city pushes the tax level over the Constitutional maximum, and is therefore illegal.
Oh, and the majority opinion also found that an “occupational tax” is, in fact, an income tax.
I understand that concurring minority opinions do not have the force of law, but the logic is laid out painstakingly in that opinion, and appears to me (a non-lawyer) to be sufficiently detailed to form the basis of a lawsuit challenging the Jefferson County occupational tax… or any other local occupational tax in the state.
I would like to tell the Jefferson County Commissioners that your need for money doesn’t make a tax legal. It is my hope that the County’s appeal of the January ruling fails. But if it doesn’t, I hope the plaintiffs in that case file another lawsuit challenging the occupational tax on Constitutional grounds.
Oh, and if you need it, I have a copy of that concurring opinion that you can reference...
Read the rest...
Friday, April 24, 2009
Alabama Hate Crime Bill
It appears as if Alabama’s Hate Crime law may be expanded by a House bill that would add crimes against people because of their “sexual orientation” to the already existing list of race, color, religion, and national origin. The bill has passed the House and now moves on to the Senate.
In my opinion, the Senate needs to vote this bill down. In fact, I would cheer if some legislator introduced a bill to repeal the so-called “Hate Crimes” law entirely.
Yes, I understand the arguments in favor of hate crime laws… in fact, this ADL intro and report is a pretty good synopsis.
But is criminalizing thought really the way we want to go, here? Because that’s what hate crime legislation does.
Let’s pretend that Bob shoots the man who was sleeping with his wife, and Harry shoots his Hispanic boss who fired him. The crime is the same… they both shot someone for something they did. Why should Harry get a longer sentence? Motive is an element of the crime, true, but should the MOTIVE for a crime be a consideration when it comes to sentencing? Hate crime laws abrogate equal protection under the law, and punish the criminal for what he was thinking when he committed the crime.
And that’s wrong. It’s the actual actions that are taken that are important, not the motivations for those actions. Heck, under most hate crime laws, someone who simply shot and killed another person for racial reasons would probably be punished more harshly than someone who killed their victims in horrific ways, such as skinning them alive or torturing them to death. Though the more horrific crimes are undoubtedly the worse ones, hate crime laws tell us that they are somehow BETTER and less deserving of punishment than a quick and clean kill that is motivated by “hate.”
Do we really want to say the motive for a crime is a crime in and of itself?
I don’t think so. We should punish the actual crime, i.e. the actions taken to hurt or kill someone. Even assuming that we can accurately know and prove what someone is thinking, it is inappropriate to punish thoughts.
If a criminal’s thoughts at the time of the crime can be rendered a crime in and of themselves, why can’t our thoughts at other times ALSO be rendered a crime?
Trust me, punishing people for their thoughts is a bad idea, and we shouldn’t be trying to do so. Expanding the law is irresponsible… only by repealing the law can we restore justice in this matter.
Read the rest...
In my opinion, the Senate needs to vote this bill down. In fact, I would cheer if some legislator introduced a bill to repeal the so-called “Hate Crimes” law entirely.
Yes, I understand the arguments in favor of hate crime laws… in fact, this ADL intro and report is a pretty good synopsis.
But is criminalizing thought really the way we want to go, here? Because that’s what hate crime legislation does.
Let’s pretend that Bob shoots the man who was sleeping with his wife, and Harry shoots his Hispanic boss who fired him. The crime is the same… they both shot someone for something they did. Why should Harry get a longer sentence? Motive is an element of the crime, true, but should the MOTIVE for a crime be a consideration when it comes to sentencing? Hate crime laws abrogate equal protection under the law, and punish the criminal for what he was thinking when he committed the crime.
And that’s wrong. It’s the actual actions that are taken that are important, not the motivations for those actions. Heck, under most hate crime laws, someone who simply shot and killed another person for racial reasons would probably be punished more harshly than someone who killed their victims in horrific ways, such as skinning them alive or torturing them to death. Though the more horrific crimes are undoubtedly the worse ones, hate crime laws tell us that they are somehow BETTER and less deserving of punishment than a quick and clean kill that is motivated by “hate.”
Do we really want to say the motive for a crime is a crime in and of itself?
I don’t think so. We should punish the actual crime, i.e. the actions taken to hurt or kill someone. Even assuming that we can accurately know and prove what someone is thinking, it is inappropriate to punish thoughts.
If a criminal’s thoughts at the time of the crime can be rendered a crime in and of themselves, why can’t our thoughts at other times ALSO be rendered a crime?
Trust me, punishing people for their thoughts is a bad idea, and we shouldn’t be trying to do so. Expanding the law is irresponsible… only by repealing the law can we restore justice in this matter.
Read the rest...
Welcome to the PresBo Gong Show!
After watching PresBo’s “Amateur Hour” performance for this long, shouldn’t one of the judges have banged that gong long ago? He makes so many basic mistakes, such as bowing to another head of state, that it’s a wonder his approval ratings are so high.
Let’s start with how comfortable he seems to be when dealing with other heads of state who happen to be brutal dictators. I speak of Hugo Chavez. The expected way for a President to act towards a leader who seized dictatorial control from a Democratic system is with reserve and dignity. Not PresBo. With his inadequate grasp of international relations, he greets Chavez with a huge grin and a hearty handshake.
Heck, if PresBo had been in charge back in 1939, he probably would have thrown a welcome party for Adolf Hitler!
What ARE the new standards? How oppressive and brutal must a dictator be before he forfeits his automatic huge grin and hearty handshake from PresBo? Or is there such a line? Doesn’t he realize that greeting people such as Chavez that way sends a very clear message of support for their regime across the world?
PresBo’s next fumble has to do with his totally incoherent position on the torture memos. Let’s look at how he’s screwing this one up.
His National Intelligence Director, Dennis Blair, admitted in a memo that the waterboarding techniques had yielded “high-value information”… then he omitted that admission from the official report. Thus it appears that the PresBo administration is attempting to suppress that information. Ummm... hiding information from the public to benefit your administration isn't exactly a good thing.
And NOW he wants to prosecute Bush-era officials for policy disagreements… sort of. This policy is so incoherent that only a complete imbecile could be comfortable with it.
Politically motivated and convenient prosecutions over disagreements in policy are what happen in brutal dictatorships, not in a free country. Oh, wait, PresBo loves Chavez… sorry, I forgot.
If the fate of our nation weren’t hanging in the balance, it might be entertaining to watch a completely clueless amateur fumbling about, making one idiotic mistake after another. When, oh WHEN, will PresBo stop making these kinds of foreign relations mistakes? And when will he stop dividing this country with his inept attempts at playing partisan politics?
Update: Oh wait, nevermind... PresBo has changed his mind. There will be no prosecutions of Bush-era officials. You know, no matter which side of the issue he comes down on, this back-and-forth waffling simply cements his reputation for "Amateur Hour" politics.
Read the rest...
Let’s start with how comfortable he seems to be when dealing with other heads of state who happen to be brutal dictators. I speak of Hugo Chavez. The expected way for a President to act towards a leader who seized dictatorial control from a Democratic system is with reserve and dignity. Not PresBo. With his inadequate grasp of international relations, he greets Chavez with a huge grin and a hearty handshake.
Heck, if PresBo had been in charge back in 1939, he probably would have thrown a welcome party for Adolf Hitler!
What ARE the new standards? How oppressive and brutal must a dictator be before he forfeits his automatic huge grin and hearty handshake from PresBo? Or is there such a line? Doesn’t he realize that greeting people such as Chavez that way sends a very clear message of support for their regime across the world?
PresBo’s next fumble has to do with his totally incoherent position on the torture memos. Let’s look at how he’s screwing this one up.
His National Intelligence Director, Dennis Blair, admitted in a memo that the waterboarding techniques had yielded “high-value information”… then he omitted that admission from the official report. Thus it appears that the PresBo administration is attempting to suppress that information. Ummm... hiding information from the public to benefit your administration isn't exactly a good thing.
And NOW he wants to prosecute Bush-era officials for policy disagreements… sort of. This policy is so incoherent that only a complete imbecile could be comfortable with it.
“So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices -- and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?”
Politically motivated and convenient prosecutions over disagreements in policy are what happen in brutal dictatorships, not in a free country. Oh, wait, PresBo loves Chavez… sorry, I forgot.
“Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame. Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash will grow.”
If the fate of our nation weren’t hanging in the balance, it might be entertaining to watch a completely clueless amateur fumbling about, making one idiotic mistake after another. When, oh WHEN, will PresBo stop making these kinds of foreign relations mistakes? And when will he stop dividing this country with his inept attempts at playing partisan politics?
Update: Oh wait, nevermind... PresBo has changed his mind. There will be no prosecutions of Bush-era officials. You know, no matter which side of the issue he comes down on, this back-and-forth waffling simply cements his reputation for "Amateur Hour" politics.
Read the rest...
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Proposal: Article V Convention
The Wall Street Journal published an article today that made a proposal that has a lot of people thinking… myself included. The article, which you can read here, makes the case for an alternative to Tea Parties and state sovereignty resolutions. Specifically, the author suggests that States begin passing a call for a Constitutional Amendment to consider a Federalism Amendment.
If you have not already, please read it now.
Did you read it? Good, now let’s discuss it.
I admit that I am uneasy about this. As the article points out, the last time we held a Constitutional Convention, we trashed our “Articles of Confederation” and replaced that with what we have now. Although the States can call for a Constitutional Convention for a specific reason, once the convention is convened, its power is unlimited. All bets are off, and the delegates can do anything they wish to do.
And though the author seems to think we can use the THREAT of a convention to force Congress to pass the “Federalism Amendment” in order to avoid the convention, I don’t think it would work that way. For one thing, the Federalism Amendment hits at the center of the Federal Government’s power, and if passed would destroy the Federal Government as we know it today… in comparison, the 17th amendment that the author uses as an example was FAR less threatening to Federal Authority. In their view, if the Federalism Amendment passes then their world is over. They are unlikely to pass the amendment in order to stave off a convention.
It is my opinion that they are far more likely to ENCOURAGE talks of a convention, and then will try to hijack the process once it starts. Remember what our President says… "Never waste a good crisis." I believe we would see special interests and radical activists engaged in a full-on push to control the process and produce something closer to their own world view. The resultant mishmash is not something to be seriously contemplated on an empty stomach. Or a full stomach, for that matter.
In other words, I believe the author's plan is based upon a false premise: that the politicians in office would voluntarily destroy their own power base rather than risk a Constitutional Convention. More likely, they’d take a page from PresBo and try to USE the convention to achieve goals that are otherwise unachievable.
The problem with a maneuver like this is that, if your opponent (in this case Congress) calls your bluff, then you’re stuck with the results of following through on your threat. And the consequences of following through on this are quite likely to be disastrous.
Read the rest...
If you have not already, please read it now.
Did you read it? Good, now let’s discuss it.
I admit that I am uneasy about this. As the article points out, the last time we held a Constitutional Convention, we trashed our “Articles of Confederation” and replaced that with what we have now. Although the States can call for a Constitutional Convention for a specific reason, once the convention is convened, its power is unlimited. All bets are off, and the delegates can do anything they wish to do.
And though the author seems to think we can use the THREAT of a convention to force Congress to pass the “Federalism Amendment” in order to avoid the convention, I don’t think it would work that way. For one thing, the Federalism Amendment hits at the center of the Federal Government’s power, and if passed would destroy the Federal Government as we know it today… in comparison, the 17th amendment that the author uses as an example was FAR less threatening to Federal Authority. In their view, if the Federalism Amendment passes then their world is over. They are unlikely to pass the amendment in order to stave off a convention.
It is my opinion that they are far more likely to ENCOURAGE talks of a convention, and then will try to hijack the process once it starts. Remember what our President says… "Never waste a good crisis." I believe we would see special interests and radical activists engaged in a full-on push to control the process and produce something closer to their own world view. The resultant mishmash is not something to be seriously contemplated on an empty stomach. Or a full stomach, for that matter.
In other words, I believe the author's plan is based upon a false premise: that the politicians in office would voluntarily destroy their own power base rather than risk a Constitutional Convention. More likely, they’d take a page from PresBo and try to USE the convention to achieve goals that are otherwise unachievable.
The problem with a maneuver like this is that, if your opponent (in this case Congress) calls your bluff, then you’re stuck with the results of following through on your threat. And the consequences of following through on this are quite likely to be disastrous.
Read the rest...
Action Request: Alabama Sovereignty Resolution
When I wrote a state sovereignty resolution back in February, I never dreamed it would become this popular… at least in some circles. The resolution was introduced by Rep Greg Canfield, and is now sitting in the House Rules committee awaiting action. The head of the House Rules Committee, Ken Guin, doesn’t want the bill to be discussed by the committee and is essentially killing it by never acting on it.
Apparently the resolution has some support on the committee, but Rep Guin is opposed to it. In other words, if we can get past Ken Guin then we might have a shot of getting it out of committee with a favorable recommendation. This is a BIG if, however.
So, what can we do?
Here is an action plan. I would like to remind you to be polite. Ranting and raving will only predispose them to oppose you.
ACTION:
1. Call Ken Guin's office every day and most assuredly on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Politely, but firmly, request that he allow House Joint Resolution 298 out of Committee, so that the people's representatives may have the opportunity to serve the desires of their constituents, we the people, by voting FOR the Sovereignty Resolution HJR 298.
A. It is NOT his responsibility to decide what the people want.
B. It IS his responsibility to serve the desire of the people of this state in his position as chairman of the Rules Committee.
C. It is wrong of him to hold back what the people rightly desire.
2. Call EACH of the members of the Rules Committee. Likewise, politely, but firmly, request that they 1) encourage Chairman Guin to allow House Joint Resolution 298 out of Committee 2) vote the Sovereignty Resolution HJR 298 out of committee that the people's representatives may have the opportunity to serve the desires of their constituents, we the people, by voting FOR the Sovereignty Resolution HJR 298.
3. Email each member, including Ken Guin, with your request.
4. Call and email YOUR representative and ask them to encourage Guin to let HJR 298 out of committee for a fair hearing on the floor.
May I remind you, also, the 35th Declaration of Rights Objective of government states:
"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."
Regardless of any reason or excuse Mr Guin may give, he took an Oath of office to God and has an obligation to we the people!
Folks, you and I have the authority and power to make the changes. We can sit on the phone (and emails) and keep the lines and email boxes loaded till Mr Guin decides to let that Resolution out of committee IN TIME TO PASS ON THE HOUSE FLOOR!
House Switchboard: 334-242-7600
House RULES Committee Members
Ken Guin, Chair ken@kenguin.com, Ken.Guin@alhouse.org,
James Buskey, Vice Chair James.Busky@alhouse.org
Ron Johnson, Ranking Minority Member Ron.Johnson@alhouse.org
Barbara Boyd Barbara.Boyd@alhouse.org, bboyd@calhouncounty.org
Craig Ford Craig.Ford@alhouse.org
Blaine Galliher Blaine.Galliher@alhouse.org, blaine2@mindspring.com
Todd Greeson Todd.Greeson@alhouse.org
Randy Hinshaw Randy.Hinshaw@alhouse.org
Richard Laird Richard.Laird@alhouse.org, rjlsrdo@teleclipse.net
Jack Page Jack.Page@alhouse.org, reppage@bellsouth.net
Arthur Payne Arthur.Payne@alhouse.org
John Robinson John.Robinson@alhouse.org
Rod Scott Rod.Scott@alhouse.org, scotthrod@yahoo.com
Pebblin Warren Pebblin.Warren@alhouse.org, tiger9127@aol.com
Cam Ward Cam.Ward@alhouse.org, camjulward@aol.com
Email addresses, separated by commas (for sending out an email to the entire committee)
ken@kenguin..com, Ken.Guin@alhouse.org, James.Busky@alhouse.org, Ron.Johnson@alhouse.org, bboyd@calhouncounty.org, Barbara.Boyd@alhouse.org, Craig.Ford@alhouse.org, Blaine.Galliher@alhouse.org, blaine2@mindspring.com, Todd.Greeson@alhouse.org, Randy.Hinshaw@alhouse.org, Richard..Laird@alhouse.org, rjlsrdo@teleclipse.net, Jack.Page@alhouse.org, reppage@bellsouth.net, Arthur.Payne@alhouse.org, John.Robinson@alhouse.org, Rod.Scott@alhouse.org, scotthrod@yahoo..com, Pebblin.Warren@alhouse.org, tiger9127@aol.com, Cam.Ward@alhouse.org, camjulward@aol.com
Read the rest...
Apparently the resolution has some support on the committee, but Rep Guin is opposed to it. In other words, if we can get past Ken Guin then we might have a shot of getting it out of committee with a favorable recommendation. This is a BIG if, however.
So, what can we do?
Here is an action plan. I would like to remind you to be polite. Ranting and raving will only predispose them to oppose you.
ACTION:
1. Call Ken Guin's office every day and most assuredly on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Politely, but firmly, request that he allow House Joint Resolution 298 out of Committee, so that the people's representatives may have the opportunity to serve the desires of their constituents, we the people, by voting FOR the Sovereignty Resolution HJR 298.
A. It is NOT his responsibility to decide what the people want.
B. It IS his responsibility to serve the desire of the people of this state in his position as chairman of the Rules Committee.
C. It is wrong of him to hold back what the people rightly desire.
2. Call EACH of the members of the Rules Committee. Likewise, politely, but firmly, request that they 1) encourage Chairman Guin to allow House Joint Resolution 298 out of Committee 2) vote the Sovereignty Resolution HJR 298 out of committee that the people's representatives may have the opportunity to serve the desires of their constituents, we the people, by voting FOR the Sovereignty Resolution HJR 298.
3. Email each member, including Ken Guin, with your request.
4. Call and email YOUR representative and ask them to encourage Guin to let HJR 298 out of committee for a fair hearing on the floor.
May I remind you, also, the 35th Declaration of Rights Objective of government states:
"That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression."
Regardless of any reason or excuse Mr Guin may give, he took an Oath of office to God and has an obligation to we the people!
Folks, you and I have the authority and power to make the changes. We can sit on the phone (and emails) and keep the lines and email boxes loaded till Mr Guin decides to let that Resolution out of committee IN TIME TO PASS ON THE HOUSE FLOOR!
House Switchboard: 334-242-7600
House RULES Committee Members
Ken Guin, Chair ken@kenguin.com, Ken.Guin@alhouse.org,
James Buskey, Vice Chair James.Busky@alhouse.org
Ron Johnson, Ranking Minority Member Ron.Johnson@alhouse.org
Barbara Boyd Barbara.Boyd@alhouse.org, bboyd@calhouncounty.org
Craig Ford Craig.Ford@alhouse.org
Blaine Galliher Blaine.Galliher@alhouse.org, blaine2@mindspring.com
Todd Greeson Todd.Greeson@alhouse.org
Randy Hinshaw Randy.Hinshaw@alhouse.org
Richard Laird Richard.Laird@alhouse.org, rjlsrdo@teleclipse.net
Jack Page Jack.Page@alhouse.org, reppage@bellsouth.net
Arthur Payne Arthur.Payne@alhouse.org
John Robinson John.Robinson@alhouse.org
Rod Scott Rod.Scott@alhouse.org, scotthrod@yahoo.com
Pebblin Warren Pebblin.Warren@alhouse.org, tiger9127@aol.com
Cam Ward Cam.Ward@alhouse.org, camjulward@aol.com
Email addresses, separated by commas (for sending out an email to the entire committee)
ken@kenguin..com, Ken.Guin@alhouse.org, James.Busky@alhouse.org, Ron.Johnson@alhouse.org, bboyd@calhouncounty.org, Barbara.Boyd@alhouse.org, Craig.Ford@alhouse.org, Blaine.Galliher@alhouse.org, blaine2@mindspring.com, Todd.Greeson@alhouse.org, Randy.Hinshaw@alhouse.org, Richard..Laird@alhouse.org, rjlsrdo@teleclipse.net, Jack.Page@alhouse.org, reppage@bellsouth.net, Arthur.Payne@alhouse.org, John.Robinson@alhouse.org, Rod.Scott@alhouse.org, scotthrod@yahoo..com, Pebblin.Warren@alhouse.org, tiger9127@aol.com, Cam.Ward@alhouse.org, camjulward@aol.com
Read the rest...
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
It's Good To Be The King
I’ve written before about PresBo’s “The Buck Stops Somewhere Else” mentality, but now it seems as if others are beginning to notice it, as well. Only this author calls it The Obama Doctrine: Don’t Blame Me!
He makes some excellent points.
When will PresBo do what a President is supposed to do and assume responsibility for the government of this nation?
But then, what do we really expect from a man who is determined to be the King of all he surveys?
He has a point.
We are looking at a man who thinks he has the power to do whatever he wants, and the chutzpah to shovel the blame for everything onto somebody else.
But responsibility is not something you can ignore… or rather, even if you do ignore it, it has a way of coming back to haunt you. PresBo is taking a lot of actions that are FAR beyond the scope of his actual authority, and eventually he will be unable to avoid the accounting.
Read the rest...
He makes some excellent points.
“On Saturday, at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, Daniel Ortega spoke for 50 minutes. In his filibuster, Ortega bragged about Central America's opposition to U.S. foreign policy: "We all got together, united so we could defeat the expansionist policy of the United States." Obama responded with patriotic fervor, defending his country. Or not. "I'm grateful President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was 3 months old," President Obama mewled. In short: Don't blame me. It's an answer that echoes back to the 2008 campaign. When Obama was questioned about his association with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers, he famously scoffed, "I was 8 years old." In short: Don't blame me.”
When will PresBo do what a President is supposed to do and assume responsibility for the government of this nation?
But then, what do we really expect from a man who is determined to be the King of all he surveys?
“Less than a hundred days in, the fully articulated ideological contours of his vision remain unclear—just as he wishes. It suits Obama’s self-image as a mere pragmatic problem solver to never explain, to float from power grab to usurpation as if nothing but thoughtful reaction to the exigencies of the moment guides him. But it’s already obvious that those actions veer strongly toward expansive government, limiting our options in every aspect of national life.”
He has a point.
“Business and the economy: Here Obama’s grip is far less subtle. He’s clear and decisive: the financial and industrial economy is his, and he’ll do with it as he pleases. What’s decided for the U.S. is what’s decided for General Motors, as presidential pressure pushes out GM chief Rick Wagoner. Obama and his man at
Treasury, Timothy Geithner, want the power to confiscate any company whose failure they claim threatens the larger economy. ”
We are looking at a man who thinks he has the power to do whatever he wants, and the chutzpah to shovel the blame for everything onto somebody else.
But responsibility is not something you can ignore… or rather, even if you do ignore it, it has a way of coming back to haunt you. PresBo is taking a lot of actions that are FAR beyond the scope of his actual authority, and eventually he will be unable to avoid the accounting.
Read the rest...
Tea Parties Have Made Themselves Felt
In case you were wondering, the Tea Parties held a week ago have made themselves felt. How? Oh, in various ways.
I think the most important result to date is that it’s shown just how out of touch with public opinion our ruling class… excuse me, I mean our elected officials in DC… actually are. In a new Rasmussen poll, 51% of people view the Tea Parties favorably, with 33% viewing them VERY favorably. Only 33% hold an unfavorable opinion. And our elected officials? Not one respondent indicated they held a very favorable opinion of the Tea Parties, and only 18% viewed them favorably at all. At a time when HALF THE COUNTRY views Tea Parties favorably, 80% of the political class disagreed.
Whoops.
As the economy continues to worsen, thanks in large part to the fiscal policies that PresBo is foisting on us, you can expect to see more Tea Parties and other protests.
And another new poll, this one from Pew Research, shows that Americans are more knowledgeable about politics than DC thinks they are.
Now, you may disagree and think that the Tea Parties were useless, impotent, and ultimately will change nothing. If that is true, then why are Tea Party opponents so darned angry? And they are… the vitriol that we are being subjected to is quite vicious.
And do you want a snapshot of something that fills me with cheer? PresBo’s approval index is the lowest it’s been since he took office, and his disapproval index is the highest it’s been.
I think the most important result to date is that it’s shown just how out of touch with public opinion our ruling class… excuse me, I mean our elected officials in DC… actually are. In a new Rasmussen poll, 51% of people view the Tea Parties favorably, with 33% viewing them VERY favorably. Only 33% hold an unfavorable opinion. And our elected officials? Not one respondent indicated they held a very favorable opinion of the Tea Parties, and only 18% viewed them favorably at all. At a time when HALF THE COUNTRY views Tea Parties favorably, 80% of the political class disagreed.
“David Axelrod, a top adviser to President Obama, on Sunday characterized the protests in dozens of cities on the day federal income taxes are due as potentially ‘unhealthy’.”
Whoops.
As the economy continues to worsen, thanks in large part to the fiscal policies that PresBo is foisting on us, you can expect to see more Tea Parties and other protests.
“This is why government will tend to grow in excess of what a true democracy really wants. At least, it will grow until those $15 hits accumulate to such a level that people have finally had enough, and in a seemingly spontaneous eruption, the average voter finds the energy to fight back. Apparently, this is what happened last week.”
And another new poll, this one from Pew Research, shows that Americans are more knowledgeable about politics than DC thinks they are.
“As I wrote last, the idolaters who attended Obama events last year seemed entranced by the candidate’s persona, while the tea party participants seemed preoccupied with serious issues of long-term public policy. Which side was more intellectually serious? So I was heartened to see a poll, conducted March 26-29, by Pew Research, which showed that most of the American public knows more about the economic crisis than one might have thought. Large majorities know that TARP money is intended to get banks to lend more and that China holds more U.S. government debt than any other country. People are evidently paying attention, and to a greater extent I think than they usually do.”
Now, you may disagree and think that the Tea Parties were useless, impotent, and ultimately will change nothing. If that is true, then why are Tea Party opponents so darned angry? And they are… the vitriol that we are being subjected to is quite vicious.
And do you want a snapshot of something that fills me with cheer? PresBo’s approval index is the lowest it’s been since he took office, and his disapproval index is the highest it’s been.
This is a good thing, as the more things shift, the more pressure Washington will feel to change policies to be more in line with what people really want.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Dow Tumbles… Why?
As most of us know, mostly because supporters of the Obama administration are making sure to trumpet it, the stock market has trended upwards for the past couple of weeks. It got to a point where Obama almost declared the recession over and the recovery in process… his economic projections definitely got rosier at that point. But yesterday the Dow tumbled by hundreds of points. So, why did this happen?
As usual with financial issues related to the stock market, the reasons aren’t simple and clear. In fact, multiple reasons probably combined to result in the drop. Let’s take a look.
According to CNS News, the financial sector powered the decline because of concerns about future loan defaults and how well the financial companies will fare. In other words, the underlying problem hasn’t been solved, people realize that, and they will continue reacting to it.
Another thing that may be playing a part, according to the Wall Street Journal, is the Fed’s move to convert their preferred shares in bailed-out companies for common stock… thus giving them a greater amount of ownership and making it harder for the companies to pay back. They call this de-facto nationalization, and say that we can recognize it when we see it… and we don’t like it.
As a matter of fact, some of the bailed-out banks are wanting to pay back their TARP funds… if President Obama allows them to. Did you catch that subtle little point? Banks want to pay back their debt to the government, but the President doesn’t want them to. Why not? Because when the debt vanishes, so does the government’s control over the banks.
As I write this, the Dow is up about 70 points from where it closed yesterday. Look for a lot of ups and downs in the market in the near future. And it is still my opinion that the stock decline isn’t over, and that the market will fall again. I say this because the underlying problems haven’t been corrected. PresBo is just bailing the boat like mad and pretending everything is fine. Flooding the market with cash and cutting interest rates will only work for so long.
Read the rest...
As usual with financial issues related to the stock market, the reasons aren’t simple and clear. In fact, multiple reasons probably combined to result in the drop. Let’s take a look.
According to CNS News, the financial sector powered the decline because of concerns about future loan defaults and how well the financial companies will fare. In other words, the underlying problem hasn’t been solved, people realize that, and they will continue reacting to it.
Another thing that may be playing a part, according to the Wall Street Journal, is the Fed’s move to convert their preferred shares in bailed-out companies for common stock… thus giving them a greater amount of ownership and making it harder for the companies to pay back. They call this de-facto nationalization, and say that we can recognize it when we see it… and we don’t like it.
As a matter of fact, some of the bailed-out banks are wanting to pay back their TARP funds… if President Obama allows them to. Did you catch that subtle little point? Banks want to pay back their debt to the government, but the President doesn’t want them to. Why not? Because when the debt vanishes, so does the government’s control over the banks.
As I write this, the Dow is up about 70 points from where it closed yesterday. Look for a lot of ups and downs in the market in the near future. And it is still my opinion that the stock decline isn’t over, and that the market will fall again. I say this because the underlying problems haven’t been corrected. PresBo is just bailing the boat like mad and pretending everything is fine. Flooding the market with cash and cutting interest rates will only work for so long.
Read the rest...
Shelby: Part of the Problem?
Senator Shelby doesn’t get it. I freely admit that he led the fight against the stimulus bill, but he is one of the largest porkers in Congress. In his mind, pork is fine as long as it flows to Alabama. A case in point is the $27 million that Shelby is funneling into Alabama for an airport in Huntsville.
I understand that the airport in Huntsville is probably glad to get that money, but this is a textbook example of pork spending. It is a project that will benefit one area in a single state, but Federal tax money is being spent on it.
And please keep in mind that “we need the money” has never been an excuse for theft. Every thief who ever stole someone else's property has “needed the money” and still gone to jail. In this case, the fact that the airport can say “we needed the money” doesn’t make it an appropriate way to spend federal tax dollars. Alabama takes in approximately 3 dollars in federal spending for every dollar paid by Alabama taxpayers. That means that people in Oregon, Michigan, Delaware, Minnesota, Connecticut, and other states are paying for this airport grant in Huntsville. How is that even remotely okay?
This is exactly the behavior that results in massive federal spending that pushes our national debt higher and higher each year.
Senator Shelby… SHAME ON YOU!
Read the rest...
I understand that the airport in Huntsville is probably glad to get that money, but this is a textbook example of pork spending. It is a project that will benefit one area in a single state, but Federal tax money is being spent on it.
And please keep in mind that “we need the money” has never been an excuse for theft. Every thief who ever stole someone else's property has “needed the money” and still gone to jail. In this case, the fact that the airport can say “we needed the money” doesn’t make it an appropriate way to spend federal tax dollars. Alabama takes in approximately 3 dollars in federal spending for every dollar paid by Alabama taxpayers. That means that people in Oregon, Michigan, Delaware, Minnesota, Connecticut, and other states are paying for this airport grant in Huntsville. How is that even remotely okay?
This is exactly the behavior that results in massive federal spending that pushes our national debt higher and higher each year.
Senator Shelby… SHAME ON YOU!
Read the rest...
Monday, April 20, 2009
Protest Against Police Roadblocks
As anyone who is even moderately aware knows, the Montgomery Police have been conducting roadblocks over the past few months, the stated purpose of which is to check for automobile insurance.
If you ask me, the real reason is to generate revenue.
I had a short brush with such a roadblock a while back. I was coming home for lunch and pulled past my driveway, paused while I made sure nobody was coming behind me, and backed into my driveway. While making sure it was clear, I noticed six or seven police cars at the far end of the street. As I backed into my driveway, I noticed one of the police cars pulling out of a driveway and heading my direction. I was putting my key into the front door to open it when the cruiser stopped in front of my house. The officer driving it asked if I had pulled into the driveway to avoid the roadblock. I said, “No, I live here.” He asked me why I had stopped and waited, and I told him to make sure it was clear… I didn’t want to back into somebody. He said okay, I entered my home, and he went back to the roadblock.
Some people claim the roadblocks are racist and target minorities and poorer communities. All of them don’t, obviously, or there wouldn’t have been one on my block. There is even a protest scheduled for tonight to express pretty much that opinion.
I don’t think it's racist, I think the police are placing the roadblocks in spots most likely to yield violations, and I think their motivation is revenue-oriented. With city revenue falling off due to the economy, I think the MPD is doing what it can to increase the flow of revenue into city coffers. I don’t think it has anything to do with safety or enforcing the law at all… that’s the smokescreen, the plausible excuse they are using to justify their revenue-enhancement strategy.
Could I be wrong? Sure, it’s possible. But, to quote an old movie, “I believe my opinion to be correct.”
And if I’m correct, the MPD should stop immediately. Their job is to uphold and enforce the law, not to function as tax collectors. And if they are focusing on revenue, then this constitutes an abuse of power.
Read the rest...
If you ask me, the real reason is to generate revenue.
I had a short brush with such a roadblock a while back. I was coming home for lunch and pulled past my driveway, paused while I made sure nobody was coming behind me, and backed into my driveway. While making sure it was clear, I noticed six or seven police cars at the far end of the street. As I backed into my driveway, I noticed one of the police cars pulling out of a driveway and heading my direction. I was putting my key into the front door to open it when the cruiser stopped in front of my house. The officer driving it asked if I had pulled into the driveway to avoid the roadblock. I said, “No, I live here.” He asked me why I had stopped and waited, and I told him to make sure it was clear… I didn’t want to back into somebody. He said okay, I entered my home, and he went back to the roadblock.
Some people claim the roadblocks are racist and target minorities and poorer communities. All of them don’t, obviously, or there wouldn’t have been one on my block. There is even a protest scheduled for tonight to express pretty much that opinion.
I don’t think it's racist, I think the police are placing the roadblocks in spots most likely to yield violations, and I think their motivation is revenue-oriented. With city revenue falling off due to the economy, I think the MPD is doing what it can to increase the flow of revenue into city coffers. I don’t think it has anything to do with safety or enforcing the law at all… that’s the smokescreen, the plausible excuse they are using to justify their revenue-enhancement strategy.
Could I be wrong? Sure, it’s possible. But, to quote an old movie, “I believe my opinion to be correct.”
And if I’m correct, the MPD should stop immediately. Their job is to uphold and enforce the law, not to function as tax collectors. And if they are focusing on revenue, then this constitutes an abuse of power.
Read the rest...
Of Tea Parties And Terrorists
I watched the news coverage of the Tea Party movement, and the vast majority characterized it as an “anti-tax” protest. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. We were mostly criticizing the SPENDING priorities of our Federal government. We object to so-called “stimulus” spending, pork packages, and bailouts. These are not responsible and effective uses of taxpayer money… of OUR money.
We also object to massive deficit spending and raising taxes to pay for such programs… but our protest is rooted in the out-of-control spending that we’re currently seeing.
But they continue to label our movement as “anti-tax.” For example, take this statement from Presidential Advisor David Axelrod:
We are directing the Tea Party protests at the correct target… the politicians who think that the taxpayers are a never-empty cookie jar from which they can draw an unlimited amount of money to pay for any spending program that they wish to sponsor.
And beyond being “bewildered” by the Tea Parties, they continue to look at us with suspicion and fear. We’re terrorists, you know.
Now it turns out that conservative activist groups have been under investigation since at least December. Be clear on this, it started under Bush and continues today under Obama. I don’t care who sponsors such clearly inappropriate measures, I don’t care to what political party they belong, I will continue to condemn politicians for their actions.
And Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano continues to stick her foot in it as she defends that DHS report. Now she says that veterans are victims of those nasty right-wing terrorist groups.
And she said this despite the fact that the DHS report admitted they had no evidence of any violence being committed or planned by “right-wing extremist” groups.
Look, the entire report is based upon unfounded claims and accusations, no matter how the spin-doctors try to spin it. It demonizes groups who oppose specific policies of our new President after this “historical election.” Previous reports have taken care to specify particular groups, whereas this report can apply to virtually any conservative who opposes Obama’s political policies.
We are not terrorists, and you cannot render political dissent illegal. If Obama is really targeting political opponents with FBI investigations, I hope the impeachment hearings are organized quickly.
Read the rest...
We also object to massive deficit spending and raising taxes to pay for such programs… but our protest is rooted in the out-of-control spending that we’re currently seeing.
But they continue to label our movement as “anti-tax.” For example, take this statement from Presidential Advisor David Axelrod:
"The thing that bewilders me is this president just cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people. So I think the tea bags should be directed elsewhere because he certainly understands the burden that people face."
We are directing the Tea Party protests at the correct target… the politicians who think that the taxpayers are a never-empty cookie jar from which they can draw an unlimited amount of money to pay for any spending program that they wish to sponsor.
And beyond being “bewildered” by the Tea Parties, they continue to look at us with suspicion and fear. We’re terrorists, you know.
Now it turns out that conservative activist groups have been under investigation since at least December. Be clear on this, it started under Bush and continues today under Obama. I don’t care who sponsors such clearly inappropriate measures, I don’t care to what political party they belong, I will continue to condemn politicians for their actions.
And Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano continues to stick her foot in it as she defends that DHS report. Now she says that veterans are victims of those nasty right-wing terrorist groups.
“The report is not saying that veterans are extremists. Far from it. What it is saying is returning veterans are targets of right-wing extremist groups that are trying to recruit those to commit violent acts within the country. We want to do all we can to prevent that.”
And she said this despite the fact that the DHS report admitted they had no evidence of any violence being committed or planned by “right-wing extremist” groups.
Look, the entire report is based upon unfounded claims and accusations, no matter how the spin-doctors try to spin it. It demonizes groups who oppose specific policies of our new President after this “historical election.” Previous reports have taken care to specify particular groups, whereas this report can apply to virtually any conservative who opposes Obama’s political policies.
We are not terrorists, and you cannot render political dissent illegal. If Obama is really targeting political opponents with FBI investigations, I hope the impeachment hearings are organized quickly.
Read the rest...
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The United States of... Mexico?
Although I don’t talk about it too much, illegal immigration is something I feel strongly about. In other words, I’m against it. I think the border needs to be closed and those lawbreakers already here need to be evicted. For those that disagree, I’m sorry, but what’s the use of having laws if we don’t enforce them?
A new report brings the magnitude of this problem into focus. According to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, 11% of all Mexicans born are now living in the USA.
The report states that more than 7 million of the 13 million Mexicans living in the US are here illegally. You can get the Pew Hispanic Center’s statistical fact sheet here.
I think this says something, and something powerful, about our troublesome neighbor to the south. That neighbor is far worse than the fat lady who does her gardening in pea green hot pants. That neighbor is more like the one with nine kids who like to play in our back yard, turn over our grill, steal our lawn ornaments, trample our garden, and smash the occasional window in our house.
Despite what groups like La Raza say, this is not Mexico. If we don’t take steps reduce the impact of illegal immigration from the south, however, our problems will get worse.
We have immigration laws on the books. Enforce them.
Read the rest...
A new report brings the magnitude of this problem into focus. According to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, 11% of all Mexicans born are now living in the USA.
The report states that more than 7 million of the 13 million Mexicans living in the US are here illegally. You can get the Pew Hispanic Center’s statistical fact sheet here.
I think this says something, and something powerful, about our troublesome neighbor to the south. That neighbor is far worse than the fat lady who does her gardening in pea green hot pants. That neighbor is more like the one with nine kids who like to play in our back yard, turn over our grill, steal our lawn ornaments, trample our garden, and smash the occasional window in our house.
Despite what groups like La Raza say, this is not Mexico. If we don’t take steps reduce the impact of illegal immigration from the south, however, our problems will get worse.
We have immigration laws on the books. Enforce them.
Read the rest...
Friday, April 17, 2009
Terrorist Groups
I know things don’t always work out as we plan them to, but never in my life did I expect to be a terrorist. I found out recently, however, that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may well consider me to be one. Merry Christmas to me.
It seems that DHS published a little report recently, that identifies and defines the threat of “Right Wing Terrorism.” The report was titled: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” You can find the text of the report here. And this isn’t just an informational report written to justify a job, it is intended to be “provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”
So, who is included in this list? Well, if you’ve purchased a gun or ammunition in anticipation of further restrictions on gun ownership, then YOU are.
See? They’re really worried that Americans may actually be exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms… and if you DO exercise that right, you may be a terrorist. Obviously, if you exercise your rights, then you MUST be a terrorist and a danger to others.
Now, just who is a rightwing extremist? Well, if you oppose Obama and his policies, then YOU are. Don’t believe me?
Gee, and here I thought I was engaged in political dissent… yet another right retained by citizens of the USA. Isn’t it an unconstitutional restriction of free speech to label people who express disagreement with the President’s politics as terrorists? Oh, wait, I’m sorry. Nasty terrorist that I apparently am, I mentioned the C word. Constitution.
You’re a terrorist and rightwing extremist if you believed that NAFTA was a bad idea and that illegal immigrants take jobs away from citizens.
The report also makes reference to “rightwing paranoia.”
And just what “reasonable gun control measures” have sparked this unjustified “paranoia?”
Oh, geeze, that IS reasonable! Hey, I’m sorry for mistakenly being paranoid that the government may be trying to accomplish… exactly what the report just admitted they were trying to accomplish.
Right wing extremism, the report says, “…may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
Remember that massive demonstration we held two days ago in front of the Alabama State House? According to several sections of this report, we are all terrorists… or at least “Rightwing Extremists”… and therefore a potential danger to the safety of the United States.
If you ask me, this report brands anybody who opposes the policies of the Obama administration as an extremist and potential terrorist. Essentially, it takes PROTECTED political speech and tries to criminalize it.
The people who compiled this report should be fired, and the report should be scrapped. And if President Obama EVER appears to agree with this report or one like it, he should be impeached. That’s not extremism talking, that’s patriotism. The rights of the citizens, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, are more important than the policies of any President. Opposing policies that are harmful to the rights and freedom of the citizens of the United States is not extremism or terrorism… it’s patriotism!
Read the rest...
It seems that DHS published a little report recently, that identifies and defines the threat of “Right Wing Terrorism.” The report was titled: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Environment Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” You can find the text of the report here. And this isn’t just an informational report written to justify a job, it is intended to be “provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.”
So, who is included in this list? Well, if you’ve purchased a gun or ammunition in anticipation of further restrictions on gun ownership, then YOU are.
“Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement.”
See? They’re really worried that Americans may actually be exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms… and if you DO exercise that right, you may be a terrorist. Obviously, if you exercise your rights, then you MUST be a terrorist and a danger to others.
Now, just who is a rightwing extremist? Well, if you oppose Obama and his policies, then YOU are. Don’t believe me?
“Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use.”
Gee, and here I thought I was engaged in political dissent… yet another right retained by citizens of the USA. Isn’t it an unconstitutional restriction of free speech to label people who express disagreement with the President’s politics as terrorists? Oh, wait, I’m sorry. Nasty terrorist that I apparently am, I mentioned the C word. Constitution.
You’re a terrorist and rightwing extremist if you believed that NAFTA was a bad idea and that illegal immigrants take jobs away from citizens.
“Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico.”
The report also makes reference to “rightwing paranoia.”
“Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence.”
And just what “reasonable gun control measures” have sparked this unjustified “paranoia?”
“On the current front, legislation has been proposed this year requiring mandatory registration of all firearms in the United States.”
Oh, geeze, that IS reasonable! Hey, I’m sorry for mistakenly being paranoid that the government may be trying to accomplish… exactly what the report just admitted they were trying to accomplish.
Right wing extremism, the report says, “…may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
Remember that massive demonstration we held two days ago in front of the Alabama State House? According to several sections of this report, we are all terrorists… or at least “Rightwing Extremists”… and therefore a potential danger to the safety of the United States.
If you ask me, this report brands anybody who opposes the policies of the Obama administration as an extremist and potential terrorist. Essentially, it takes PROTECTED political speech and tries to criminalize it.
The people who compiled this report should be fired, and the report should be scrapped. And if President Obama EVER appears to agree with this report or one like it, he should be impeached. That’s not extremism talking, that’s patriotism. The rights of the citizens, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, are more important than the policies of any President. Opposing policies that are harmful to the rights and freedom of the citizens of the United States is not extremism or terrorism… it’s patriotism!
Read the rest...
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Montgomery Tea Party Video
We have video of yesterday's Tea Party. It has been divided into seven segments and is available on YouTube.
Video #1
Video #2
Video #3
Video #4
Video #5
Video #6
Video #7
Read the rest...
Video #1
Video #2
Video #3
Video #4
Video #5
Video #6
Video #7
Read the rest...
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Montgomery Tax Day Tea Party Report
Today, Montgomerians came together and loudly told the politicians in Washington DC that we don’t LIKE what they are doing, and that we can’t tax and spend our way to prosperity! All told, 2,500 people attended the Montgomery Tea Party, and they made a very loud and enthusiastic crowd indeed. There were so many people that we overflowed not only onto the street, but across it onto the other side of the street and up the hill on that side!
Pictures are here and here.
Video is available here
The day dawned bright and sunny, if a bit chilly. Our organizers arrived at the State House very early, around 9:00 AM… at which time we received our unpleasant surprise of the day. Another rally was scheduled to start at 10:00 AM and they said they would run until 11:00 or 11:15. This severely limited our setup time… and a few people began showing up for our rally BEFORE THE OTHER ONE ACTUALLY BEGAN! They finished at about 10:30, and we immediately began setting up.
After that, things went virtually without a hitch. We quickly set up the speaker stands, our flags, our tables, and a large bell on a nicely decorated framework. People continued to arrive. By 11:00 am, we had a good 50-75 people already present and ready to start. By 11:30 we had over 500 people in the crowd. We started promptly at noon with the ringing of the bell, after which our bagpipers starting playing around the corner and marched into place. At that time, we had well over 2,000 people in the crowd, with more coming!
The crowd ROARED their approval when the bagpipers appeared, and I knew then that this event would SHINE. Once the bagpipers finished “Scotland the Brave,” I welcomed everybody to THEIR Tea Party, and they roared again. As the event progressed and each speaker took his or her turn at the microphone, the crowd responded enthusiastically and VERY noisily.
Our speakers did a fabulous job, and the crowd seemed very sympathetic and responsive. My biggest regret was that several of the speakers ran over, and we had to cut one speaker and most of the people from the crowd who wanted to speak. We ended the Tea Party at ten minutes after 1:00 PM, and the bagpipers played a closing song for us.
We are beyond pleased with the result.
We gathered almost 1,200 signatures for our petitions, Boomer T’s gave away every pork sandwich they brought, and more than 250 people signed up to be volunteers for future events!
The day was a rousing success, and hopefully will get the attention of the politicians. We don’t want and can’t afford business as usual, and that’s what we told them. It was lovely, and I’m STILL smiling!
We had three or four camera news crews present, as well as a reporter from the Montgomery Advertiser. We did get pictures and video, and will upload them to our website as soon as we possibly can.
I would like to reiterate that this is not the end of the movement, but the barest beginning! We garnered many new volunteers to help us with future efforts. We will have future Tea Parties and other events, and we will be engaging in activism to change the makeup of Congress. In order to change the fiscal policy, we must elect people who are willing to make that change. And we will be taking steps to help make that happen.
Read the rest...
Pictures are here and here.
Video is available here
The day dawned bright and sunny, if a bit chilly. Our organizers arrived at the State House very early, around 9:00 AM… at which time we received our unpleasant surprise of the day. Another rally was scheduled to start at 10:00 AM and they said they would run until 11:00 or 11:15. This severely limited our setup time… and a few people began showing up for our rally BEFORE THE OTHER ONE ACTUALLY BEGAN! They finished at about 10:30, and we immediately began setting up.
After that, things went virtually without a hitch. We quickly set up the speaker stands, our flags, our tables, and a large bell on a nicely decorated framework. People continued to arrive. By 11:00 am, we had a good 50-75 people already present and ready to start. By 11:30 we had over 500 people in the crowd. We started promptly at noon with the ringing of the bell, after which our bagpipers starting playing around the corner and marched into place. At that time, we had well over 2,000 people in the crowd, with more coming!
The crowd ROARED their approval when the bagpipers appeared, and I knew then that this event would SHINE. Once the bagpipers finished “Scotland the Brave,” I welcomed everybody to THEIR Tea Party, and they roared again. As the event progressed and each speaker took his or her turn at the microphone, the crowd responded enthusiastically and VERY noisily.
Our speakers did a fabulous job, and the crowd seemed very sympathetic and responsive. My biggest regret was that several of the speakers ran over, and we had to cut one speaker and most of the people from the crowd who wanted to speak. We ended the Tea Party at ten minutes after 1:00 PM, and the bagpipers played a closing song for us.
We are beyond pleased with the result.
We gathered almost 1,200 signatures for our petitions, Boomer T’s gave away every pork sandwich they brought, and more than 250 people signed up to be volunteers for future events!
The day was a rousing success, and hopefully will get the attention of the politicians. We don’t want and can’t afford business as usual, and that’s what we told them. It was lovely, and I’m STILL smiling!
We had three or four camera news crews present, as well as a reporter from the Montgomery Advertiser. We did get pictures and video, and will upload them to our website as soon as we possibly can.
I would like to reiterate that this is not the end of the movement, but the barest beginning! We garnered many new volunteers to help us with future efforts. We will have future Tea Parties and other events, and we will be engaging in activism to change the makeup of Congress. In order to change the fiscal policy, we must elect people who are willing to make that change. And we will be taking steps to help make that happen.
Read the rest...
Tea Party Time!
Four hours from now Montgomery will have its chance to show the politicians in Washington DC what we think of the irresponsible fiscal policy that they are currently embracing. We are hoping to have a couple of hundred people attending, but would be thrilled were you to prove that we dramatically underestimated you.
Visit our website for details.
You still have a chance, you haven't missed it yet. Come out at High Noon today, to the Alabama State House on South Union Street, and join us as we tell our political leadership that we cannot tax and spend out way to prosperity!
Repeal the pork; Cut taxes and spending!
Read the rest...
Visit our website for details.
You still have a chance, you haven't missed it yet. Come out at High Noon today, to the Alabama State House on South Union Street, and join us as we tell our political leadership that we cannot tax and spend out way to prosperity!
Repeal the pork; Cut taxes and spending!
Read the rest...
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tea Party Tomorrow!
I know I'm focusing on this to a great degree, but please bear with me. The Tea Party is important, I think, and it's something we want to focus on as we lead up to it. In just 24 more hours, our next revolution begins!
I have been asked by several people why we are doing this and what we hope to accomplish. The two purposes for this Tea Party are pretty simple.
The first purpose for the Tea Party is to join all of our individual voices together for one great shout of protest against the current irresponsible fiscal policies coming out of Washington DC. Individually we would be ignored, but by having a huge turnout for hundreds of Tea Parties across the nation on a single day, we make a much more visible and measurably larger presence.
The second purpose of tomorrow's Tea Party is to attract those interested in being part of the ongoing nationwide movement. It will serve as a launching point for continuing education and activism activities that will bring an understanding of the underlying principles upon which the Constitution and our nation were founded. Future Tea Parties will be held, and we will be sponsoring other efforts to make sure the fiscal policy changes.
Tomorrow's Tea Party is not the end of our efforts, it is the beginning.
I hope to see everyone at High Noon on Wednesday at the Alabama State House. For more details, see the official website for the Montgomery Tax Day Tea Party.
Read the rest...
I have been asked by several people why we are doing this and what we hope to accomplish. The two purposes for this Tea Party are pretty simple.
The first purpose for the Tea Party is to join all of our individual voices together for one great shout of protest against the current irresponsible fiscal policies coming out of Washington DC. Individually we would be ignored, but by having a huge turnout for hundreds of Tea Parties across the nation on a single day, we make a much more visible and measurably larger presence.
The second purpose of tomorrow's Tea Party is to attract those interested in being part of the ongoing nationwide movement. It will serve as a launching point for continuing education and activism activities that will bring an understanding of the underlying principles upon which the Constitution and our nation were founded. Future Tea Parties will be held, and we will be sponsoring other efforts to make sure the fiscal policy changes.
Tomorrow's Tea Party is not the end of our efforts, it is the beginning.
I hope to see everyone at High Noon on Wednesday at the Alabama State House. For more details, see the official website for the Montgomery Tax Day Tea Party.
Read the rest...
Monday, April 13, 2009
Two Days Until Tea Party
We are exactly TWO DAYS (or 48 hours) away from the Tea Party. Final preparations are going well, and it's going to be a fantastic event.
Join us at High Noon on Wednesday, April 15th in front of the Alabama State House for the Montgomery Tea Party!
Repeal the pork; Cut taxes!
Read the rest...
Join us at High Noon on Wednesday, April 15th in front of the Alabama State House for the Montgomery Tea Party!
Repeal the pork; Cut taxes!
Read the rest...
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Easter Wishes
No politics today. But here's wishing a good Easter to everyone. And we'll see you again on Monday.
Read the rest...
Read the rest...
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Liberal Revelation
I love it when people who have acted in one way for a long time “suddenly realize” things that the rest of us have known all along. These revelations usually mean a lot to those involved, but frankly I can’t help but smile a little.
In this case, we’re talking about the notoriously liberal Washington Post. In an editorial from April 10th, they suddenly realized that rich people pay more than their fair share of taxes. Good for you, guys… but what took you so long?
They now understand how much the rich pay, though they still haven’t made the leap to understand the inequity of it.
So in their world, it’s fair for a group to earn 19% of income and pay 28% of taxes. It’s fair for a group to earn 55% of income but pay 70% of taxes. So I will disagree with them and say, yes, the income tax system IS "egregiously stacked against the wealthy. "
They also claim to understand the basic point that we are trying to drive home in our Tea parties.
This is why the Tea Parties are being organized, to tell BOTH parties that we need significant tax cuts and spending reductions.
So to the Washington Post I say, “Good for you!” You’re almost there, but not quite. Keep working on it.
For the rest of you, I’ll see you at High Noon on April 15th in front of the Alabama State House.
Read the rest...
In this case, we’re talking about the notoriously liberal Washington Post. In an editorial from April 10th, they suddenly realized that rich people pay more than their fair share of taxes. Good for you, guys… but what took you so long?
“In 2006, the top 20 percent of earners paid 70 percent of all federal taxes. On average, they paid 26 percent of their income to the government. The very richest -- the top 1 percent of taxpayers, with household incomes of over $332,000 -- paid 28 percent of all taxes, with an effective tax rate of 31 percent. The middle three quintiles paid rates of 10, 14 and 18 percent. The lowest 20 percent of households paid only 0.8 percent of all federal taxes -- and the bottom 90 percent of households paid only 45 percent.”
They now understand how much the rich pay, though they still haven’t made the leap to understand the inequity of it.
“Nor is the system egregiously stacked against the wealthy -- who, after all, receive the bulk of the income. The top quintile earned over 55 percent of the income, and the top 1 percent earned a full 19 percent of all income.”
So in their world, it’s fair for a group to earn 19% of income and pay 28% of taxes. It’s fair for a group to earn 55% of income but pay 70% of taxes. So I will disagree with them and say, yes, the income tax system IS "egregiously stacked against the wealthy. "
They also claim to understand the basic point that we are trying to drive home in our Tea parties.
“Much of the budget gap should be covered by spending cuts, but judging from recent budget proposals by both parties, neither has an appetite for reductions anywhere near what will be needed.”
This is why the Tea Parties are being organized, to tell BOTH parties that we need significant tax cuts and spending reductions.
So to the Washington Post I say, “Good for you!” You’re almost there, but not quite. Keep working on it.
For the rest of you, I’ll see you at High Noon on April 15th in front of the Alabama State House.
Read the rest...
Friday, April 10, 2009
Tax Day Tea Party Alert!
This is an important update for those wishing to attend the Montgomery Tax Day Tea Party at High Noon on April 15th in front of the Alabama State House.
We had been recomending that people park at Cramton Bowl or Paterson Field (about eight blocks from the State House) and then take the trolley into town. We were erroneously informed that the trolleys run every 20-minutes during the day, when they actually only run that route in the early morning or later afternoon. You CAN park at Cramton Bowl, but there is no trolley and you'll have to walk. We recommend against parking at Paterson Field, as they have games scheduled that afternoon.
You can also park at Union Station, which has a parking deck and a trolley stop, and the trolleys DO run every 20 minutes during the day. We are working on more options and will let you know.
For more information, visit the Tax Day Tea Party Website.
Read the rest...
We had been recomending that people park at Cramton Bowl or Paterson Field (about eight blocks from the State House) and then take the trolley into town. We were erroneously informed that the trolleys run every 20-minutes during the day, when they actually only run that route in the early morning or later afternoon. You CAN park at Cramton Bowl, but there is no trolley and you'll have to walk. We recommend against parking at Paterson Field, as they have games scheduled that afternoon.
You can also park at Union Station, which has a parking deck and a trolley stop, and the trolleys DO run every 20 minutes during the day. We are working on more options and will let you know.
For more information, visit the Tax Day Tea Party Website.
Read the rest...
McCarthyism, Part II?
Okay guys, hang on to your hats. It seems as if we may have a budding Senator McCarthy among us. I refer to a US Congressman from Alabama, Representative Spencer Bachus. In a recent speech to Jefferson County elected officials at the Trussville Civic Center, Bachus said that 17 members of the US House are Socialists.
Oh for heaven’s sake, give me a break!
Does nobody remember Congressman Joe McCarthy and his crusade against members of the Communist Party? I know a lot of people are wary these days of communism and socialism, but the problem with these kinds of things is that they are more often witch-hunts than anything else.
I sincerely hope Rep Bachus isn’t about to embark on a pattern of naming “known socialists” and trying to generate media hoopla. His announcement of 17 socialists in the US House sounds incredibly like McCarthy’s “205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party.” The accuracy or the details don’t matter, it’s the allegation that generates the outrage.
I’m not sure how much outrage will actually be generated even if there are 17 socialists in Congress… heck, if anything, I think that figure is low. But we really don’t need a round of accusations of this or that.
My advice to Bachus is to accept this as a mistake, learn from it, and not repeat it.
Read the rest...
Oh for heaven’s sake, give me a break!
Does nobody remember Congressman Joe McCarthy and his crusade against members of the Communist Party? I know a lot of people are wary these days of communism and socialism, but the problem with these kinds of things is that they are more often witch-hunts than anything else.
I sincerely hope Rep Bachus isn’t about to embark on a pattern of naming “known socialists” and trying to generate media hoopla. His announcement of 17 socialists in the US House sounds incredibly like McCarthy’s “205 people in the State Department that were known to be members of the American Communist Party.” The accuracy or the details don’t matter, it’s the allegation that generates the outrage.
I’m not sure how much outrage will actually be generated even if there are 17 socialists in Congress… heck, if anything, I think that figure is low. But we really don’t need a round of accusations of this or that.
My advice to Bachus is to accept this as a mistake, learn from it, and not repeat it.
Read the rest...
Thursday, April 9, 2009
My Apologies
I just wanted to drop a quick note apologizing for the reduced number of posts, as well as their slightly erratic timing. With the Tea Party looming next Wednesday, I am very busy. I will endeavor to get back to normal once the Tea Party is history.
Thanks for understanding.
Read the rest...
Thanks for understanding.
Read the rest...
Presidential CYA
It appears as if many people are objecting to PresBo’s deep bow to the Saudi King. In fact, so many people are up in arms over it that the White House has decided that it never happened. That’s right, PresBo did NOT bow to the King of Saudi Arabia. Instead, he just had to lean WAY over to shake hands with the shorter monarch.
Yeah, right. And the Queen of England is right now singing along with her brand new iPod, that the Obamas preloaded with show tunes.
PresBo isn’t THAT much taller than the Saudi King, and his bow didn’t stop when they were at eye level. PresBo bowed at the waist until his back was parallel with the floor, putting his head about level with the King’s stomach. Don’t believe me, though, far from it. We have video, and the bow in question comes in a little after the 50-second mark.
PresBo bowed, but now doesn’t have the guts to admit it. Instead he’s doing what he has always done: trying to talk his way out of embarrassment after doing something incredibly stupid and revealing of his true intentions.
PresBo, please listen to me. You bowed. You meant to bow. And you don’t regret bowing. Your only regret is that the camera operator for that Italian reporter caught it on tape and word got around. Admit it, and at least we’ll have that much honesty out of you.
Read the rest...
Yeah, right. And the Queen of England is right now singing along with her brand new iPod, that the Obamas preloaded with show tunes.
PresBo isn’t THAT much taller than the Saudi King, and his bow didn’t stop when they were at eye level. PresBo bowed at the waist until his back was parallel with the floor, putting his head about level with the King’s stomach. Don’t believe me, though, far from it. We have video, and the bow in question comes in a little after the 50-second mark.
PresBo bowed, but now doesn’t have the guts to admit it. Instead he’s doing what he has always done: trying to talk his way out of embarrassment after doing something incredibly stupid and revealing of his true intentions.
PresBo, please listen to me. You bowed. You meant to bow. And you don’t regret bowing. Your only regret is that the camera operator for that Italian reporter caught it on tape and word got around. Admit it, and at least we’ll have that much honesty out of you.
Read the rest...
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
More on the Presidential Bow
As you know, PresBo executed a full bow from the waist for the King of Saudi Arabia, in spite of more than 200 years of tradition that American Presidents DO NOT BOW to foreign royalty. I mean, this nation fought, sacrificed, and bled to free itself from royalty, and to bow is to discredit the memory of that struggle.
It now appears as if former President Clinton was excoriated in the press for making a slight indication of a bow. Not a bow… but almost. Don’t believe me? Read the NY Times article on the subject. And that was just a slight inclination of the head! Where is the outrage and condemnation of this FULL BOW that PresBo executed for the head of a Muslim nation? You certainly won’t find it in the mainstream press.
Presidents do not bow to foreign monarchs. Heck, AMERICANS do not bow to foreign monarchs. Why not? Because the bow is a show of submission from a subject to their monarch. And Americans do not have monarchs. Presidents cannot show submission to foreign monarchs, as it can only create problems in the future.
So, how are you enjoying the newest reality show: “The Presidential Amateur Hour!” Can you hear the radio ad?
Proof positive that the man who is President DOES matter, and it has nothing to do with a good smile, a tailored look, and the ability to speak well. We must choose better than this, America, if we wish there to BE an America in the future.
Read the rest...
It now appears as if former President Clinton was excoriated in the press for making a slight indication of a bow. Not a bow… but almost. Don’t believe me? Read the NY Times article on the subject. And that was just a slight inclination of the head! Where is the outrage and condemnation of this FULL BOW that PresBo executed for the head of a Muslim nation? You certainly won’t find it in the mainstream press.
Presidents do not bow to foreign monarchs. Heck, AMERICANS do not bow to foreign monarchs. Why not? Because the bow is a show of submission from a subject to their monarch. And Americans do not have monarchs. Presidents cannot show submission to foreign monarchs, as it can only create problems in the future.
So, how are you enjoying the newest reality show: “The Presidential Amateur Hour!” Can you hear the radio ad?
“A totally clueless President makes things up as he goes along. Join the rest of the nation as we cringe and protest at his repeated gaffes. Whether it’s bowing before a foreign monarch, giving a head of state a DVD collection, or forgetting to host a formal reception for the Prime Minister of England, you are sure to find SOMETHING to groan about.”
Proof positive that the man who is President DOES matter, and it has nothing to do with a good smile, a tailored look, and the ability to speak well. We must choose better than this, America, if we wish there to BE an America in the future.
Read the rest...
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Grocery Tax Bill
No, this isn’t the bill that would remove the sales tax on groceries while forcing us to pay state income tax on our Federal income tax liability. This is a different bill.
This bill would change state law, which currently requires counties and cities to have a uniform sales tax on all items, and allow cities and counties to drop the sales tax on grocery items… if they so choose. It has passed out of committee, and could be voted on next week.
I have not read the text of this bill, but from what I understand it does nothing but allow cities and counties to have a non-uniform sales tax, i.e. remove the local sales tax on groceries. It doesn’t actually affect any tax rates, nor does it mandate any compensating tax increase to offset the reduction in sales tax.
I tentatively do not oppose this bill. I will read the bill and get back to you at a later date with a more definitive recommendation.
Keep in mind that, if passed, your locality might try to use it to lower grocery taxes… and they may also seek a compensating tax increase. We must remain alert to these attempts, and we can fight them as they arise.
Read the rest...
This bill would change state law, which currently requires counties and cities to have a uniform sales tax on all items, and allow cities and counties to drop the sales tax on grocery items… if they so choose. It has passed out of committee, and could be voted on next week.
I have not read the text of this bill, but from what I understand it does nothing but allow cities and counties to have a non-uniform sales tax, i.e. remove the local sales tax on groceries. It doesn’t actually affect any tax rates, nor does it mandate any compensating tax increase to offset the reduction in sales tax.
I tentatively do not oppose this bill. I will read the bill and get back to you at a later date with a more definitive recommendation.
Keep in mind that, if passed, your locality might try to use it to lower grocery taxes… and they may also seek a compensating tax increase. We must remain alert to these attempts, and we can fight them as they arise.
Read the rest...
Another Government Power Grab By King Obama
It’s called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, and it is supposedly aimed at protecting our computer-based infrastructure, i.e. the internet. It would create a cybersecurity advisor reporting directly to the President, as well as the entire infrastructure of the new entity under him. It’s being billed as a serious government attempt to address network security issues. It is, however, a naked power-grab.
Why do I say it is a naked power grab? If you read the bill yourself, you can find gems like this within it.
That, by the way, is in reference to “Federal government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information system and networks.” In other words, the internet.
Need more? Okay, how about this one?
So the President can violate any Federal, State or local privacy law to obtain any information on the internet. And by Presidential fiat and on a whim, the internet could be shut down at any time with this bill. It’s good to be the King, isn’t it?
This puts an unprecedented amount of power directly into the hands of the President. If you wanted to create a traditional monarch in this country, such a step would be critical. We are seeing this kind of thing a lot, lately: the Federal government seeking huge expansions of power and scope. The final result will be a massively empowered Federal government, an executive branch with far more powers than it should ever have, and an impoverished, enslaved populace.
This is a bad bill, ladies and gentlemen. Read the bill, understand the scope of the powers it is demanding, and then urge your Congressmen to vote the way you think they should.
Read the rest...
Why do I say it is a naked power grab? If you read the bill yourself, you can find gems like this within it.
“The Secretary of Commerce shall have access to all relevant data concerning such networks without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access.”
That, by the way, is in reference to “Federal government and private sector owned critical infrastructure information system and networks.” In other words, the internet.
Need more? Okay, how about this one?
“The President may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network.”
So the President can violate any Federal, State or local privacy law to obtain any information on the internet. And by Presidential fiat and on a whim, the internet could be shut down at any time with this bill. It’s good to be the King, isn’t it?
This puts an unprecedented amount of power directly into the hands of the President. If you wanted to create a traditional monarch in this country, such a step would be critical. We are seeing this kind of thing a lot, lately: the Federal government seeking huge expansions of power and scope. The final result will be a massively empowered Federal government, an executive branch with far more powers than it should ever have, and an impoverished, enslaved populace.
This is a bad bill, ladies and gentlemen. Read the bill, understand the scope of the powers it is demanding, and then urge your Congressmen to vote the way you think they should.
Read the rest...
Monday, April 6, 2009
Montgomery Tea Party – Update!
I’m pleased to say that plans for the Montgomery Tea Party have been finalized. Speakers at the event will include:
Kevin Elkins, News Radio 1440 talk host
Greg Budell, WACV 1170 talk host
Tim James
John Rice
John Killian, Birmingham pastor
State Senator Harri Anne Smith
State Representative Greg Canfield
State Representative Barry Mask
Ashley Johnston will read an excerpt from a Patrick Henry speech
Also attending and speaking if time permits will be State Senator Scott Beason and State Representatives Robert Bentley and Cam Ward.
But that’s not all. We plan on having a 5-minute segment where anybody attending the Tea Party can come to the microphone and speak for 30-seconds each. We will have Adam Brooks from Christ Community Church singing “America the Beautiful,” and Birmingham-based Alabama Pipes and Drums will kick us off with “Scotland the Brave.”
We have an offer from Boomer T’s to offer free barbecue pork sandwiches to the first fifty people who ask for them, and are in the process of checking with the State House to make sure this will be okay. It’s kind of symbolic, you know? Pork belongs in a sandwich, not in a budget.
Petitions will be on hand for people to sign, and I am trying to arrange for a limited number of copies of the “Pig Book”, which is written yearly by Citizens Against Government Waste.
This is going to be a noteworthy event, and should draw media attention from around the area. And as part of the national movement, we will be part of a true grass-roots movement aimed at taking our government back. Democrat and Republican elected officials have together contributed to our troubles with their willingness to overspend our money, so it’s up to ordinary people like us to stand up and say “NO!”
I invite everyone to come out and join us on April 15th at High Noon in front of the Alabama State House. Bring yourselves, your friends, signs (if you want one), a water bottle (it will probably be hot), and a bell or noisemaker to help us “ring a bell against the bailout.”
Repeal the pork; Cut taxes!
Read the rest...
Kevin Elkins, News Radio 1440 talk host
Greg Budell, WACV 1170 talk host
Tim James
John Rice
John Killian, Birmingham pastor
State Senator Harri Anne Smith
State Representative Greg Canfield
State Representative Barry Mask
Ashley Johnston will read an excerpt from a Patrick Henry speech
Also attending and speaking if time permits will be State Senator Scott Beason and State Representatives Robert Bentley and Cam Ward.
But that’s not all. We plan on having a 5-minute segment where anybody attending the Tea Party can come to the microphone and speak for 30-seconds each. We will have Adam Brooks from Christ Community Church singing “America the Beautiful,” and Birmingham-based Alabama Pipes and Drums will kick us off with “Scotland the Brave.”
We have an offer from Boomer T’s to offer free barbecue pork sandwiches to the first fifty people who ask for them, and are in the process of checking with the State House to make sure this will be okay. It’s kind of symbolic, you know? Pork belongs in a sandwich, not in a budget.
Petitions will be on hand for people to sign, and I am trying to arrange for a limited number of copies of the “Pig Book”, which is written yearly by Citizens Against Government Waste.
This is going to be a noteworthy event, and should draw media attention from around the area. And as part of the national movement, we will be part of a true grass-roots movement aimed at taking our government back. Democrat and Republican elected officials have together contributed to our troubles with their willingness to overspend our money, so it’s up to ordinary people like us to stand up and say “NO!”
I invite everyone to come out and join us on April 15th at High Noon in front of the Alabama State House. Bring yourselves, your friends, signs (if you want one), a water bottle (it will probably be hot), and a bell or noisemaker to help us “ring a bell against the bailout.”
Repeal the pork; Cut taxes!
Read the rest...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)