Last October in New York District 23, the Republican Party bigwigs selected Dede Scozzafava as their candidate over conservative Doug Hoffman. While the Tea Party movement supported Hoffman, party leaders such as RNC President Michael Steele and Newt Gingrich rallied behind Scozzafava.
The election ended in a fiasco, with Scozzafava running party-paid ads against the conservative Hoffman, rather than the Democrat Bill Owens. The ire of the people forced a withdrawal of Scozzafava's nomination and Scozzafava went on to endorse the Democrat candidate rather than the conservative Hoffman.
Are we to assume Phil Gramm has personally vetted Bill Flores, candidate in the runoff primary for Republican candidate to represent Texas District 17? Has Phil Gramm sifted through Mr. Flores' business records with the same eye as will the Chet Edwards War Machine?
Phil Gramm is trusting what he is told, rather than actually verifying the qualities he would revere in a candidate himself.
Our press has been woefully inadequate in researching our candidates and we find ourselves voting for someone that we really don't know anything about, other than what he says. As stated before, The Chet Edwards War Machine will leave no stone unturned in their quest to discredit our Republican candidate. The not knowing if there is something under those rocks troubles me.
The jackalope advises her readers to not be fooled by slick ads and vaulted endorsements from people that know nothing.
Showing posts with label Chet Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chet Edwards. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
A $64,000 Question for Chet Edwards
There is a full Bi-Partisan scandal in Congress that is not getting much attention involving the lobbying firm PMA. According to The Hill - "The firm’s [PMA] founder, Paul Magliocchetti, a former long-time aide on the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, and others at his firm have been substantial donors to several Democratic lawmakers. For example, PMA employees have given Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) more than $134,000 in contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics." The FBI raided the firm's office and seized files in November, 2008.
Chet Edwards (D-TX17) has received almost $64,000 in campaign donations from PMA. This was explained away by Mr. Edwards by his saying a firm in District 17 was represented by PMA. So, now we know how much it costs to buy Chet's vote as chairman of military appropriations.
Paul Magliocchetti donated $1,000 to Chet Edwards in 2008. But other names pop up in connection with donations made to Edwards from employees of PMA as Mr. Magliocchetti used family members, friends, and employees to funnel money to Edwards' campaign coffers.
- Julie Giagardina - associate at PMA donated $1,000 in 2006.
- Rebecca Kingery-Derosa - comptroller at PMA donated $1,000 in 2006
- Richard Efford - associate at PMA donated $1,000 in 2008
- Joseph Littleton Iii - consultant for PMA donated $1,000 in 2008
- John Pugliese - consultant for PMA and also listed as Marriott/Host/Customer Relations [ wine somelier at the Marriott near the Florida vacation home of Magliocchetti] donated $2,500 from Sept. 26, 2005 to May 21, 2007
- Richard Kaelin - Govt. Relations And Leg. Counse, Pma donated $1,000 in 2004
But, there is even more to the story as a $3,500 campaign contribution from Jon Walker is considered. Again quoting The Hill, "Jon Walker is listed as a partner for EVAS Worldwide, a New Jersey-based aircraft safety company, and gave $19,000 to lawmakers as an EVAS employee, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. That is more than 40 percent of the political contributions from the company’s employees overall." However, EVAS has never heard of Walker nor do they have any record of him ever being employed by them.
You can see that the list can grow as the search engines work. Pretty soon we are talking about real money here. Only an investigation of PMA's operations will allow the truth to be known.
Jeff Flake (R-AZ) is presenting legislation to investigate PMA and many Democrats have signed on to make that possible.
The $64,000 Question for Chet Edwards is: Will you sign on in suppport of Rep. Flake's legislation to investigate this Bi-Partisan scandal?
If Edwards will not support the investigate our question will be: What do you have to hide, Chet?
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Chet Edwards Has His Own Radical Ties
In keeping with the huckster phrase "But wait! There's more..." it appears that connections to '60's radicals abound in this current election cycle. Thanks to Kyle-Ann Shiver, American Thinker readers are familiar with Sen. Barak Obama’s links to Saul Alinksy and Bill Ayers. However, for me, in researching Big Labor's campaign donations to my own representative Chet Edwards (D-TX 17), radicals are popping up much closer to home--thanks to the work of 60's radical Wade Rathke.
In researching campaign donations for Chet Edwards, I noticed that for a congressman in a non-union district in the right-to-work State of Texas, Edwards received a huge amount of money from unions. In fact, Edwards is in the top 20 of House members receiving money ($246,100) from labor organizations. But my Democratic Party congressman is not alone. In this 2008 election, Big Labor has funded Democrats with $47,609,244, or 91%, of all their political campaign donations. Although the closest auto manufacturing plant is in San Antonio (a non-union Toyota plant), Edwards has received $8,000 from the United Auto Workers Union. Your first step in determining who is funding your congressman is the Federal Election Commission Campaign Finance Reports and Data page.
However, it was not until I researched a $5000 donation from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to Edwards that the big picture became abundantly clear: radicals have taken over labor organizations under the organizing direction of Wade Rathke. What makes this fact threatening to American capitalism is the Cloward/Pivens Strategy.
A Brief Introduction to Wade Rathke and the Cloward/Pivens Strategy
Wade Rathke is a former member of 60's radical group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). SDS, under the organizing leadership of Tom Hayden, perpetrated the Chicago Riots at the 1968 Democratic Party Convention, the Columbia University takeover, and anti-Vietnam War marches in Washington, D.C.. After a national convention of SDS members in Austin, Texas, a new manifesto was written, with contributor Bernadine Dohrn (Bill Ayers' wife). Eventually, SDS evolved (devolved?) into The Weather Underground.
Rathke is the founder of ACORN and the labor group SEIU. Rathke also serves as chairman of the organizing committee for the AFL-CIO, whose president, John Sweeney, was a former president of SEIU. The purpose of these organizations is to put into practice a strategy penned by two Columbia University sociologists, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who sought to destroy capitalism through managed crisis. According to DiscoverTheNetworks.Org, the Cloward/Piven Strategy "seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse." The method involves using:
Wade Rathke writes that he has been "a professional organizer for thirty-five years. (I have) worked for and founded a series of organizations dedicated to winning social justice, workers rights, and a democracy where 'the people shall rule.'" (In other words, according to Rathke, under America's current constitution the people do not rule.) Rathke's beliefs coupled with the amount of money coming from SEIU into Democratic campaign coffers should be startling enough. Is your congressman on this list?
However, Rathke's connection with the extraordinary breadth of the AFL-CIO with its many affiliated labor unions also making donations, makes it easy to see this is a real problem for the future of the nation as we know it today. How many AFL-CIO affiliated labor groups are listed as donors to your congressman at OpenSecrets.Org? Use this widget at Open Secrets to easily see the amount of cash flowing into Democratic Party campaigns and also your district campaigns from these interconnected unions. These are the facts of Rep. Chet Edwards:
According to WSJ: "[SEIU] adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in "local union funds" equal to the "deficiency," plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized." This coercive method of fund raising may be unlawful. According to Dianna Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute: "Private sector union membership peaked in the 1950s at 36% of the workforce. Now, only 7.5% of private sector workers belong to unions. Yet the DNC will pay homage to the union agenda, including removing the right to a secret ballot for workers voting on whether or not to join unions, higher minimum wages, higher taxes, and extending mandated benefits, such as paid leave, to even the smallest employers."
The issues listed above are the reason why unions are funneling large amounts of cash into Democratic campaigns. SEIU has contributed more that $16,000,000 to Barak Obama. However, as an advocate of the Cloward/Piven Strategy, Rathke's purpose is not to lift up the downtrodden. The strategy is to destroy the capitalist system by pushing the entire workforce into union organizations. Individuals are then under control and are then used to increase demands from employers and government. When the union is unable to meet these demands, such as the current pension fund debacle for auto workers, the debt will be passed off to the American treasury. The long-term strategy is to destroy the American economy.
Radicals have been very busy since exploding onto the scene in the 60's. They have organized, recruited, and are now pouring incredible amounts of money into Democratic Party candidates' coffers. The question we must ask is what do they want in return. These are just a few of the issues of votes and government funding ACORN, SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and others want in return for their donation to my congressman's campaign to continue their war against America.
My representative, Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) has radical connections. The question is, does your representative have these same radical ties?
In researching campaign donations for Chet Edwards, I noticed that for a congressman in a non-union district in the right-to-work State of Texas, Edwards received a huge amount of money from unions. In fact, Edwards is in the top 20 of House members receiving money ($246,100) from labor organizations. But my Democratic Party congressman is not alone. In this 2008 election, Big Labor has funded Democrats with $47,609,244, or 91%, of all their political campaign donations. Although the closest auto manufacturing plant is in San Antonio (a non-union Toyota plant), Edwards has received $8,000 from the United Auto Workers Union. Your first step in determining who is funding your congressman is the Federal Election Commission Campaign Finance Reports and Data page.
However, it was not until I researched a $5000 donation from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to Edwards that the big picture became abundantly clear: radicals have taken over labor organizations under the organizing direction of Wade Rathke. What makes this fact threatening to American capitalism is the Cloward/Pivens Strategy.
A Brief Introduction to Wade Rathke and the Cloward/Pivens Strategy
Wade Rathke is a former member of 60's radical group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). SDS, under the organizing leadership of Tom Hayden, perpetrated the Chicago Riots at the 1968 Democratic Party Convention, the Columbia University takeover, and anti-Vietnam War marches in Washington, D.C.. After a national convention of SDS members in Austin, Texas, a new manifesto was written, with contributor Bernadine Dohrn (Bill Ayers' wife). Eventually, SDS evolved (devolved?) into The Weather Underground.
Rathke is the founder of ACORN and the labor group SEIU. Rathke also serves as chairman of the organizing committee for the AFL-CIO, whose president, John Sweeney, was a former president of SEIU. The purpose of these organizations is to put into practice a strategy penned by two Columbia University sociologists, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who sought to destroy capitalism through managed crisis. According to DiscoverTheNetworks.Org, the Cloward/Piven Strategy "seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse." The method involves using:
"what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change."
Wade Rathke writes that he has been "a professional organizer for thirty-five years. (I have) worked for and founded a series of organizations dedicated to winning social justice, workers rights, and a democracy where 'the people shall rule.'" (In other words, according to Rathke, under America's current constitution the people do not rule.) Rathke's beliefs coupled with the amount of money coming from SEIU into Democratic campaign coffers should be startling enough. Is your congressman on this list?
However, Rathke's connection with the extraordinary breadth of the AFL-CIO with its many affiliated labor unions also making donations, makes it easy to see this is a real problem for the future of the nation as we know it today. How many AFL-CIO affiliated labor groups are listed as donors to your congressman at OpenSecrets.Org? Use this widget at Open Secrets to easily see the amount of cash flowing into Democratic Party campaigns and also your district campaigns from these interconnected unions. These are the facts of Rep. Chet Edwards:
- Misc. Unions (Includes SEIU) - $18,250
- Public Sector Unions - $47,250
- Industrial Unions - $48,000
- Real Estate (Includes Fannie Mae) - $70,000
- Building Trade Unions - $66,500
- Transportation Unions - $67,850
- Civil Servants / Public Officials - $9,500
- Education - $30,950
According to WSJ: "[SEIU] adopted a new amendment to its constitution at last month's SEIU convention, requiring that every local contribute an amount equal to $6 per member per year to the union's national political action committee. This is in addition to regular union dues. Unions that fail to meet the requirement must contribute an amount in "local union funds" equal to the "deficiency," plus a 50% penalty. According to an SEIU union representative, this has always been policy, but has now simply been formalized." This coercive method of fund raising may be unlawful. According to Dianna Furchtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute: "Private sector union membership peaked in the 1950s at 36% of the workforce. Now, only 7.5% of private sector workers belong to unions. Yet the DNC will pay homage to the union agenda, including removing the right to a secret ballot for workers voting on whether or not to join unions, higher minimum wages, higher taxes, and extending mandated benefits, such as paid leave, to even the smallest employers."
The issues listed above are the reason why unions are funneling large amounts of cash into Democratic campaigns. SEIU has contributed more that $16,000,000 to Barak Obama. However, as an advocate of the Cloward/Piven Strategy, Rathke's purpose is not to lift up the downtrodden. The strategy is to destroy the capitalist system by pushing the entire workforce into union organizations. Individuals are then under control and are then used to increase demands from employers and government. When the union is unable to meet these demands, such as the current pension fund debacle for auto workers, the debt will be passed off to the American treasury. The long-term strategy is to destroy the American economy.
Radicals have been very busy since exploding onto the scene in the 60's. They have organized, recruited, and are now pouring incredible amounts of money into Democratic Party candidates' coffers. The question we must ask is what do they want in return. These are just a few of the issues of votes and government funding ACORN, SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and others want in return for their donation to my congressman's campaign to continue their war against America.
My representative, Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) has radical connections. The question is, does your representative have these same radical ties?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Chet Edwards - Wade Rathke: WHY IT MATTERS
To understand the purpose of campaign funding for a congressman of Texas District 17 by trade and labor unions (see my previous post), we must have a basic understanding of the radical philosophy and political strategy of Wade Rathke. After all, we all are aware of that great voter block of the United Auto Worker's Union here in Texas 17. [wink] Why does the great majority of Edwards' campaign funding come from trade and labor unions not represented in our district? What are these unions getting in return from our representative in Washington, D.C.? Open Secrets.org gives eye opening information as to how Big Labor is by far the largest donating PAC to every committee memerbership in Congress this election cycle.
Wade Rathke and the Cloward/Piven Strategy
In 1966, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, both sociologists at Columbia University, penned a strategy to destroy the capitalist system. They believed that as long as welfare kept the American poor satisfied, the poor would never rise up in revolution against the nation. Therefore, it was necessary to create a method to flood the system with demands until the entire American financial structure collapsed. An overloaded and overtaxed capitalist system would not be able to bear the weight of ever increasing demands.
It is important to note that none of these demands are for the benefit of the people for whom these radicals proport to care for and support. The purpose is solely for overwhelming the bureaucratic system with financial demands. It is therefore incumbent upon us to rid ourselves of the notion that their objective is to be a solution to social problems, no matter how beneficial and beneficent these ideas may seem at first glance. The purpose is simply to break the American treasury to further the cause of revolution.
Through ACORN, Rathke has almost achieved his radical goal through the current Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae mortgage and credit crisis. No member of the Democratic Party has gone on record criticizing Congress for this crisis, because either through corrupt willingness or by being an useful idiot dupe, this manufactured crisis was created for this very purpose.
Such a large scale attack is easier to discern than seemingly innocuous demands such as a request by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Union for respirators signed by Chet Edwards. Note the "crisis" of pandemic flu justifying the need for respirators for every State, County, and Municipal Employee, followed by the ever escalating requirements of instruction, fitting, and following OSHA guidelines. These are the hallmarks of the Cloward/Piven Strategy.
Another example is this education idea from brother radicals and friends of Obama, Mike Klosky and Bill Ayers, where students are encouraged to demand their "right" to an education in every way except actually disciplining themselves to learn. This idea has been adopted by the NEA, who also support the campaign of Chet Edwards. In both cases, ever escalating demands are placed upon the treasury with no indication of their need, practicality, or even evidence that such money spent would solve the problem. The very purpose is to always demand more without solving the problem and in most cases, to actually exacerbate the problem.
Remember the purpose is not to help the supposed recipients, but to foment unrest and revolution. Note in the passage below of quotes by William Ayers, that parents and family members are missing from the solution needed to properly guide our "neglected" children in the rites of passage. The more confusion in a child's education under the banner of "help", the better; especially if your goal is civil unrest, not well-educated children.
When the AFL-CIO hires Rathke to teach his method of organizing skills to expand their union membership, they are supporting ever increasing demands and intimidation as the means to their end. According to Project Vote Smart, Chet Edwards supported the AFL-CIO through his votes in Congress 95%. Rathke's creation, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) gives Edwards an 84%. Edwards supports the interests of The United Auto Worker's Union 100%.
View the video at Edwards campaign supporter, the Laborer's Union, to see why Unions are out to buy Edwards' vote out from under the residents of Texas 17. Remember the hidden purpose is to increase demands on employers and the American treasury until the entire capitalist system defaults. The American treasury is not currently responsible for the union's pension plan, but the promise can be read between the lines. Repeatedly the video states: those not supporting Obama do so because of racism.
If unions are able to purchase the election of Chet Edwards, their reward will be the end of secret ballots for employees as to whether to form a union (H.R. 800 Roll Call 118) and the fleecing of the American treasury to fund the pensions of every union member. Unfortunately for these union members, nothing is being done through benevolence for them as individuals, but rather the callous manipulation of their fears to foment unrest and revolution while making increasing demands upon all taxpayers until the entire experiment of free market economics falls never to rise again.
Texas District 17 can not afford to re-elect Chet Edwards.
Wade Rathke and the Cloward/Piven Strategy
In 1966, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, both sociologists at Columbia University, penned a strategy to destroy the capitalist system. They believed that as long as welfare kept the American poor satisfied, the poor would never rise up in revolution against the nation. Therefore, it was necessary to create a method to flood the system with demands until the entire American financial structure collapsed. An overloaded and overtaxed capitalist system would not be able to bear the weight of ever increasing demands.
It is important to note that none of these demands are for the benefit of the people for whom these radicals proport to care for and support. The purpose is solely for overwhelming the bureaucratic system with financial demands. It is therefore incumbent upon us to rid ourselves of the notion that their objective is to be a solution to social problems, no matter how beneficial and beneficent these ideas may seem at first glance. The purpose is simply to break the American treasury to further the cause of revolution.
Through ACORN, Rathke has almost achieved his radical goal through the current Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae mortgage and credit crisis. No member of the Democratic Party has gone on record criticizing Congress for this crisis, because either through corrupt willingness or by being an useful idiot dupe, this manufactured crisis was created for this very purpose.
Such a large scale attack is easier to discern than seemingly innocuous demands such as a request by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Union for respirators signed by Chet Edwards. Note the "crisis" of pandemic flu justifying the need for respirators for every State, County, and Municipal Employee, followed by the ever escalating requirements of instruction, fitting, and following OSHA guidelines. These are the hallmarks of the Cloward/Piven Strategy.
Another example is this education idea from brother radicals and friends of Obama, Mike Klosky and Bill Ayers, where students are encouraged to demand their "right" to an education in every way except actually disciplining themselves to learn. This idea has been adopted by the NEA, who also support the campaign of Chet Edwards. In both cases, ever escalating demands are placed upon the treasury with no indication of their need, practicality, or even evidence that such money spent would solve the problem. The very purpose is to always demand more without solving the problem and in most cases, to actually exacerbate the problem.
Remember the purpose is not to help the supposed recipients, but to foment unrest and revolution. Note in the passage below of quotes by William Ayers, that parents and family members are missing from the solution needed to properly guide our "neglected" children in the rites of passage. The more confusion in a child's education under the banner of "help", the better; especially if your goal is civil unrest, not well-educated children.
"Today's youth face special problems and also have special promise," said Ayers, UIC distinguished professor of education and co-editor of "City Kids/City Teachers" (The New Press). "Adolescence is a period of life that is in many ways neglected, but it is when kids need caring, thoughtful adults in their lives more profoundly than ever." Ayers added that he hopes the forums will eventually become "a site for scholars and youth workers to gather to share approaches in the interest of serving kids better."
When the AFL-CIO hires Rathke to teach his method of organizing skills to expand their union membership, they are supporting ever increasing demands and intimidation as the means to their end. According to Project Vote Smart, Chet Edwards supported the AFL-CIO through his votes in Congress 95%. Rathke's creation, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) gives Edwards an 84%. Edwards supports the interests of The United Auto Worker's Union 100%.
View the video at Edwards campaign supporter, the Laborer's Union, to see why Unions are out to buy Edwards' vote out from under the residents of Texas 17. Remember the hidden purpose is to increase demands on employers and the American treasury until the entire capitalist system defaults. The American treasury is not currently responsible for the union's pension plan, but the promise can be read between the lines. Repeatedly the video states: those not supporting Obama do so because of racism.
If unions are able to purchase the election of Chet Edwards, their reward will be the end of secret ballots for employees as to whether to form a union (H.R. 800 Roll Call 118) and the fleecing of the American treasury to fund the pensions of every union member. Unfortunately for these union members, nothing is being done through benevolence for them as individuals, but rather the callous manipulation of their fears to foment unrest and revolution while making increasing demands upon all taxpayers until the entire experiment of free market economics falls never to rise again.
Texas District 17 can not afford to re-elect Chet Edwards.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Chet Edwards Has His Own Radical Ties
Nearly one third of Edwards' campaign donations come from Labor Organizations and Unions. One of these contributing groups is the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) which is a member group of the AFL-CIO. The SEIU was created by and currently operated by Wade Rathke, who also founded ACORN.
Wade Rathke was a member of the 60's radical group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) along with Tom Hayden. It was SDS, under operational leadership of Hayden that led the 1968 Democratic Party Convention Riots in Chicago. It was SDS that took over buildings on university campuses, in particular Columbia University. SDS organized several Viet Nam War Protest events in Washington, D.C..
At a meeting in Austin, Texas, SDS, along with its splinter cell, Revolutionary Youth Movement, wrote a new manifesto declaring, "You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." and SDS evolved [sic] into the Weather Underground Movement.
Today, Wade Rathke serves as leader of both SEIU and ACORN. He is also chairman of the organizers forum for the AFL-CIO, and is a co-founder and board member of the Tides Foundation. Both SEIU and AFL-CIO are donors to Chet Edwards' campaign.
Wade Rathke was a member of the 60's radical group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) along with Tom Hayden. It was SDS, under operational leadership of Hayden that led the 1968 Democratic Party Convention Riots in Chicago. It was SDS that took over buildings on university campuses, in particular Columbia University. SDS organized several Viet Nam War Protest events in Washington, D.C..
At a meeting in Austin, Texas, SDS, along with its splinter cell, Revolutionary Youth Movement, wrote a new manifesto declaring, "You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." and SDS evolved [sic] into the Weather Underground Movement.
Today, Wade Rathke serves as leader of both SEIU and ACORN. He is also chairman of the organizers forum for the AFL-CIO, and is a co-founder and board member of the Tides Foundation. Both SEIU and AFL-CIO are donors to Chet Edwards' campaign.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Chet Edwards (D TX17) Demagogues Fannie/Freddie Crisis
Today, in his interview on WTAW radio, Chet Edwards gave the current Democratic Party talking points in his assessment of the Fannie Mae/ Freddie Mac meltdown. Edwards blamed deregulation (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Bill) signed into law by President Bill Clinton and Wall Street greed for the crisis that is quickly accumulating to a 1 trillion $ plus bill to the American taxpayer.
What Chet failed to mention were the actual regulations Congress applied to the socialized government entities. Congress alone is responsible for the regulation requiring such little things as the inability to assess the ability of the mortgage applicant to actually pay back the loan or even proof of employment. And just how are these government entities allowed to contribute to political campaigns when private businesses can't, if not through those insidious little congressional regulations? Not to mention those little regulations that allowed the likes of Franklin Raines, Daniel Mudd, Jim Johnson and Jaime Gorelick to score big bonuses and fabulous perks.
These are just a few regulations the jackalope would like to see investigated and deregulated.
We need serious change in Congress. How about starting with one less Democrat in the House of Representatives?
Elect Rob Curnock (R) to represent Texas District 17.
What Chet failed to mention were the actual regulations Congress applied to the socialized government entities. Congress alone is responsible for the regulation requiring such little things as the inability to assess the ability of the mortgage applicant to actually pay back the loan or even proof of employment. And just how are these government entities allowed to contribute to political campaigns when private businesses can't, if not through those insidious little congressional regulations? Not to mention those little regulations that allowed the likes of Franklin Raines, Daniel Mudd, Jim Johnson and Jaime Gorelick to score big bonuses and fabulous perks.
These are just a few regulations the jackalope would like to see investigated and deregulated.
We need serious change in Congress. How about starting with one less Democrat in the House of Representatives?
Elect Rob Curnock (R) to represent Texas District 17.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Monday, August 25, 2008
Chet Edwards Blocks Drilling Motion
This is the jackalope's first video editing project. However, the truth of the project stands clear. While Chet Edwards talks "moderate" here in District 17, he has aspirations of higher positions in the Democratic Party and will vote against the best interest of the people to achieve that goal.
Friday, August 22, 2008
20/20 For Rob Curnock for Congress
The Jackalope is starting a web campaign to raise funds for Rob Curnock For Congress.
The plan is 20 for $20.00 and the Jackalope has made it easy with the SlateCard widget right here on The Jackalope's Voice. Just click on the contribute button and fill out the form to contribute $20.00 (or more) and then email 20 friends asking them to do the same.
The Jackalope's Voice is volunteering her blog to work for the campaign and I would appreciate her readers use this blog for raising web contributions. All money goes directly to Rob's account. However, this volunteer would like to show not only the power of the web, but also the benefits of her creativity. The hardworking farmer ought to receive credit for his hard work.
Chet Edwards (D-17TX) is Nancy Pelosi's choice for Obama's veep. That should speak volumes for those that believe in economic and political freedom.
Remember: Without Economic Freedom, Political Freedom is meaningless.
The plan is 20 for $20.00 and the Jackalope has made it easy with the SlateCard widget right here on The Jackalope's Voice. Just click on the contribute button and fill out the form to contribute $20.00 (or more) and then email 20 friends asking them to do the same.
The Jackalope's Voice is volunteering her blog to work for the campaign and I would appreciate her readers use this blog for raising web contributions. All money goes directly to Rob's account. However, this volunteer would like to show not only the power of the web, but also the benefits of her creativity. The hardworking farmer ought to receive credit for his hard work.
Chet Edwards (D-17TX) is Nancy Pelosi's choice for Obama's veep. That should speak volumes for those that believe in economic and political freedom.
Remember: Without Economic Freedom, Political Freedom is meaningless.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
#DontGo Republicans Wary of Pelosi
The Republican Congressional leaders staying on in the lights off, microphones off, and cameras off House Floor should be wary of Speaker Pelosi's change on oil drilling. The "All of the Above" Energy Plan is a good plan. It deserves an up or down vote.
However, the jackalope disagrees with the idea that this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. She believes that when the economic freedom of the United States is at stake, then the political party standing in the way of that freedom deserves scorn, derision, and ultimately, loss of any political power.
The Democratic Party-controlled Congress made their choice when they voted to adjourn for summer vacation. When party unity stands in the way of economic freedom, that party no longer serves as defenders of the Constitution.
However, the jackalope disagrees with the idea that this is not a Republican or Democrat issue. She believes that when the economic freedom of the United States is at stake, then the political party standing in the way of that freedom deserves scorn, derision, and ultimately, loss of any political power.
The Democratic Party-controlled Congress made their choice when they voted to adjourn for summer vacation. When party unity stands in the way of economic freedom, that party no longer serves as defenders of the Constitution.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Chet Edwards Votes To Leave For Vacation
In considering the events going on this week in the House of Representatives, Texas District 17 should know that Rep. Chet Edwards voted to adjourn for a 5 week break rather than vote, or even debate, on solutions for the nation's Energy Crisis. 15 Blue Dog Democrats had the spine to stand against Speaker Pelosi and voted "Nay" to the adjournment. Chet Edwards (D-TX) was not among these noble men. Those 15 put the prosperity of the nation before partisan politics.
Let this be a clear delineation, that while Chet hails from the heart of conservatism, he is neither a Blue Dog nor a conservative.
Chet's value system has become skewed by the promise of political power. As my Daddy would say, "His plumb bob doesn't hang true right." By reading Chet's description of his faith, it is clear he designates the IRS as the great Collection Plate from which he can dispense the lucre according to his own charitable ideals.
In Chet's world the victims are not the taxpayers trying to make ends meet with what the government allows them to keep; but those who just can't get enough "charity" dispensed through "Bishop Edwards'" munificence in order that their every problem be solved. When political aspirations cause a man to legislate in direct conflict with the will of the people, that man must be removed to allow another to take his place.
There is a man to take his place. Rob Curnock would be an added voice to the Republicans in the House that are calling for a bold energy plan: All Of The Above. The Republicans are the party of ideas. The Democratic Party is the party of "No!"
Either lead or get out of the way. Chet Edwards (D-TX), with his vote to adjourn, exhibited the latter quality - he got out of the way. Time to make it permanent.
Stick a fork in him....he's done.
Let this be a clear delineation, that while Chet hails from the heart of conservatism, he is neither a Blue Dog nor a conservative.
Chet's value system has become skewed by the promise of political power. As my Daddy would say, "His plumb bob doesn't hang true right." By reading Chet's description of his faith, it is clear he designates the IRS as the great Collection Plate from which he can dispense the lucre according to his own charitable ideals.
In Chet's world the victims are not the taxpayers trying to make ends meet with what the government allows them to keep; but those who just can't get enough "charity" dispensed through "Bishop Edwards'" munificence in order that their every problem be solved. When political aspirations cause a man to legislate in direct conflict with the will of the people, that man must be removed to allow another to take his place.
There is a man to take his place. Rob Curnock would be an added voice to the Republicans in the House that are calling for a bold energy plan: All Of The Above. The Republicans are the party of ideas. The Democratic Party is the party of "No!"
Either lead or get out of the way. Chet Edwards (D-TX), with his vote to adjourn, exhibited the latter quality - he got out of the way. Time to make it permanent.
Stick a fork in him....he's done.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Nancy Pelosi [a.k.a. Marie Antoinette] Book Tour
Rather than stay in Washington to work on legislation to solve the nation's energy crisis, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is promoting her new book - "Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters".
America's daughters must understand that this woman stopped a wonderful plan to allow America's young men and women to place part of the Social Security taken from their paychecks by the government into a PRIVATE account of their own choosing. The President's plan would have guaranteed that upon reaching retirement age, at least that personal account would actually contain money, rather than an I.O.U. that's in the government's account.
But, solving a foreboding financial meltdown was not the purpose of this paragon of Democratic Party strategery. Assuming power, for the sake of power is Nancy Pelosi's political strategy with the financial security of America's daughters and sons.
Pelosi assumed power in 1996 with the Democratic Party spin of "Culture of Corruption". Any plan to make America more prosperous and secure for the future has been bottled up in the 110th Congress, while spending/bailout legislation has skyrocketed. Pelosi needs to meet the power of America's daughters and sons voting to repudiate Pelosi and her brand of political scheming.
The republican revolution of France [falsely] accused Marie Antoinette of telling the starving peasants crying for bread, "Let Them Eat Cake". Marie unfortunately met her end upon the guillotine. Multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi, offered no counter plan to President Bush's superb idea, thereby allowing the government to continue to "rob" young people of their hard earned money in the name of Social [In]Security. She's got hers, but she denied you a portion of your own.
The 109th and 110th Congress has stood in the way of sound investments in the future of America and the people. Chet Edwards (D-17 TX) has been a voting asset to Nancy Pelosi.
This is a call to arms of all America's young people - Know Your Power - elect a conservative to Congress.
In Texas District 17 - elect Rob Curnock a real conservative.
Pelosi provides hints of her leadership style only in one instance: her 2005 confrontation with Bush over his proposal to create private retirement accounts in place of the Social Security system.
America's daughters must understand that this woman stopped a wonderful plan to allow America's young men and women to place part of the Social Security taken from their paychecks by the government into a PRIVATE account of their own choosing. The President's plan would have guaranteed that upon reaching retirement age, at least that personal account would actually contain money, rather than an I.O.U. that's in the government's account.
But, solving a foreboding financial meltdown was not the purpose of this paragon of Democratic Party strategery. Assuming power, for the sake of power is Nancy Pelosi's political strategy with the financial security of America's daughters and sons.
But she and her allies chose another strategy.
"First, you must take down the ratings of your opposition," Pelosi writes. "Second, you must differentiate yourselves from them.
"And third, only when the time is right do you present your platform."
Pelosi assumed power in 1996 with the Democratic Party spin of "Culture of Corruption". Any plan to make America more prosperous and secure for the future has been bottled up in the 110th Congress, while spending/bailout legislation has skyrocketed. Pelosi needs to meet the power of America's daughters and sons voting to repudiate Pelosi and her brand of political scheming.
The republican revolution of France [falsely] accused Marie Antoinette of telling the starving peasants crying for bread, "Let Them Eat Cake". Marie unfortunately met her end upon the guillotine. Multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi, offered no counter plan to President Bush's superb idea, thereby allowing the government to continue to "rob" young people of their hard earned money in the name of Social [In]Security. She's got hers, but she denied you a portion of your own.
The 109th and 110th Congress has stood in the way of sound investments in the future of America and the people. Chet Edwards (D-17 TX) has been a voting asset to Nancy Pelosi.
This is a call to arms of all America's young people - Know Your Power - elect a conservative to Congress.
In Texas District 17 - elect Rob Curnock a real conservative.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Turning Civilization's Virtues Into Liabilities - The Democratic Party War Machine
Over the weekend Senator John McCain met up with the real Democratic Party War Machine (DPWM)—an alternate reality where virtues are turned into the blackest liabilities. Where molesting an intern is a virtue worthy of stalwart Democrats burning every grass crown of righteousness they’ve ever earned, but anything considered true, honorable, pure and of good report is considered a diabolical plot. The spin machine of the DPWM has accelerated to ramming speed. All party members are chained to their oars. Their target now is the one undeniable virtue of John McCain—his war-hero status as a Vietnam POW.
John McCain went through a brutality beyond even the scope of Abu Gharib or Club Gitmo. No quiet times sitting in the recliner listening as a guard read another chapter in the latest Harry Potter series for McCain. No fraternity prank of a sexually charged dominatrix leash or panties on the head for McCain. America is well aware of the atrocities he experienced in the Hanoi Hilton. Only Jack Bauer is able to apply the same rules of torture our enemies apply to their captives; where electricity is more than just a source of power to run a light or radio and bones are meant to be broken to aid in breaking the spirit. McCain only thinks he has experienced the worse a human heart can devise, but he and America are sitting targets for the depths of depravity the Democratic Party will use to sink their opposition.
This depravity graffitis over every virtuous ideal, making the once clear image unintelligible. Like a middle-school student’s book cover, the process begins by filling in all the enclosed spaces of print. As an “o” becomes a black hole, McCain’s Air Force service makes him guilty of not watching out for children in school crosswalks by his indiscriminate bombings. He is Robert Duvall smoking the trees and faceless innocents with napalm because Charlie don’t surf. Genuine torture victim John McCain doesn’t even deserve the idealistic virtue of never cracking under pressure, as Hollywood characters James Bond or Jack Bauer are able to do. So now it is McCain who is guilty of crimes against the United States or is as suspect as the Manchurian Candidate.
For innocent lambs puzzled by evil or obliviously unaware they are sure prey to those intent upon dark work, who think I am an alarmist, I cite the activities of my own Representative and Nancy Pelosi’s choice for Obama’s Vice-President, Chet Edwards (D-TX 17). Also of note is how the DPWM inner circle is revealed as Edwards gives his seminar on “How To Win In The Red States” at a Wesley Clark sponsored event. It is “et tu, Wesley” delivering the past weekend's dagger-stab to Caesar McCain. In the seminar, Edwards lays down the DPWM ground rules:
Edwards further defines Basic Rule 2:
In practicing this rule, Edwards found a “victim” of his Republican opponent’s state-level cut in the CHIP children’s health insurance program, portraying Arlene Wolgemuth’s lower-taxes virtue as the darkest vice:
By playing the “Republicans are always out to starve children” ad, Edwards not only defined his opponent, he left a dark crater where that virtue of cutting government spending once stood. When the DPWM sends out a lightning bolt of destruction, nothing remains but charred rock—as if the Almighty Himself had hovered over the mountain of redemption. But, such is the practice of darkness that it always seeks to mimic the power of God.
Therefore, it is incumbent that we defend the marble pedestal upon which ALL military heroes stand. As I write here in a coffee shop, I pause to visit with a cool prosthetic-sporting Army vet from the Afghan terrorist front. When we refuse to allow the white marble of all war veterans to be graffitied into oblivion, we are defending this hero’s honor as much as John McCain’s. The DPWM is out to destroy any virtue, honor, truth, value, or reputation that gets in the way of their acquisition of power. The history of all things undeniable is destined to the ash heap of fallen civilizations unless we make the conscious decision to fight hard to keep these truths undeniable … and I’m not being an alarmist!
John McCain went through a brutality beyond even the scope of Abu Gharib or Club Gitmo. No quiet times sitting in the recliner listening as a guard read another chapter in the latest Harry Potter series for McCain. No fraternity prank of a sexually charged dominatrix leash or panties on the head for McCain. America is well aware of the atrocities he experienced in the Hanoi Hilton. Only Jack Bauer is able to apply the same rules of torture our enemies apply to their captives; where electricity is more than just a source of power to run a light or radio and bones are meant to be broken to aid in breaking the spirit. McCain only thinks he has experienced the worse a human heart can devise, but he and America are sitting targets for the depths of depravity the Democratic Party will use to sink their opposition.
This depravity graffitis over every virtuous ideal, making the once clear image unintelligible. Like a middle-school student’s book cover, the process begins by filling in all the enclosed spaces of print. As an “o” becomes a black hole, McCain’s Air Force service makes him guilty of not watching out for children in school crosswalks by his indiscriminate bombings. He is Robert Duvall smoking the trees and faceless innocents with napalm because Charlie don’t surf. Genuine torture victim John McCain doesn’t even deserve the idealistic virtue of never cracking under pressure, as Hollywood characters James Bond or Jack Bauer are able to do. So now it is McCain who is guilty of crimes against the United States or is as suspect as the Manchurian Candidate.
For innocent lambs puzzled by evil or obliviously unaware they are sure prey to those intent upon dark work, who think I am an alarmist, I cite the activities of my own Representative and Nancy Pelosi’s choice for Obama’s Vice-President, Chet Edwards (D-TX 17). Also of note is how the DPWM inner circle is revealed as Edwards gives his seminar on “How To Win In The Red States” at a Wesley Clark sponsored event. It is “et tu, Wesley” delivering the past weekend's dagger-stab to Caesar McCain. In the seminar, Edwards lays down the DPWM ground rules:
Let me just say that I am one that believes in the basics. I think that it's the basics that make the difference between a successful company or corporation or a failing one, an effective military organization or an ineffective one, or a winning campaign or not, sometimes.
It's the basics. And there are three basic rules, or 3 basic goals we had in our campaign that were sacrosanct.
1. I would define myself. I wouldn't let others do it, or my opponent do it. We defined ourselves.
2. Secondly, I defined my opponents.
3. And thirdly, we responded immediately if attacked.
Edwards further defines Basic Rule 2:
Let me get to the final, key thing that allowed us to win. Rule #2, I was going to define my opponent. … Take your opponent's greatest strength and turn it into their worst negative. (Emphasis added)
In practicing this rule, Edwards found a “victim” of his Republican opponent’s state-level cut in the CHIP children’s health insurance program, portraying Arlene Wolgemuth’s lower-taxes virtue as the darkest vice:
I'm Jamie Jones. I'm 28 years old. I live in Teague, Texas. I have a little girl that's 3, Bailey.
Two years ago in March, my husband was killed in a house fire. And she got put on CHIPs. That meant no matter what happened, she was going to be okay. And then about 6 months ago, we were denied.
I haven't changed. I didn't get a raise at work. She was just denied.
You know there are so many people out there that work so hard. I don't want welfare; I just want good insurance for my child.
I'm working hard. I could go quit my job tomorrow and she'd be set. But I'm not going to do that. There are a lot of people out there that aren't going to do that and why that group of us has to get hurt, I don't know.
Look at my little girl, look into her eyes and tell her why she's not good enough to be taken care of.
CHET EDWARDS: “I'm Chet Edwards and I approve this message because there's so much at stake.”
By playing the “Republicans are always out to starve children” ad, Edwards not only defined his opponent, he left a dark crater where that virtue of cutting government spending once stood. When the DPWM sends out a lightning bolt of destruction, nothing remains but charred rock—as if the Almighty Himself had hovered over the mountain of redemption. But, such is the practice of darkness that it always seeks to mimic the power of God.
Therefore, it is incumbent that we defend the marble pedestal upon which ALL military heroes stand. As I write here in a coffee shop, I pause to visit with a cool prosthetic-sporting Army vet from the Afghan terrorist front. When we refuse to allow the white marble of all war veterans to be graffitied into oblivion, we are defending this hero’s honor as much as John McCain’s. The DPWM is out to destroy any virtue, honor, truth, value, or reputation that gets in the way of their acquisition of power. The history of all things undeniable is destined to the ash heap of fallen civilizations unless we make the conscious decision to fight hard to keep these truths undeniable … and I’m not being an alarmist!
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Who Is Chet Edwards?
Last Tuesday, June 24, Texans of District 17 learned that victorious Queen Bee Nancy Pelosi vaulted one of her inner-circle drones into the national eye as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate for Barak Obama. Who is Chester (Chet) Edwards and what does he bring to the Democratic Party Presidential ticket?
Chet Edwards, a 20-year member of Congress, assumed control of newly drawn Texas District 17 during the Tom Delay sponsored redistricting. He was the only Democrat able to maintain his seat in Congress in the 1992 Congressional election.
TX 17 is much more than President G.W. Bush’s district. It is home of:
In Congress, Edwards is “one of the few House Members on both the Budget and Appropriations Committees and one of two House Democrats serving on three subcommittees.”
In response to Speaker Pelosi’s announcement, Edwards released this political biography:
But what kind of man is Chet Edwards and what does he bring to the Obama ticket?
After winning the newly drawn District 17 in 1992, Edwards gave an informative political seminar: Winning in the Red States. If Obama practices the Alinsky method of political jujitsu, he’s a piker compared to Edwards. In the seminar, Edwards regales how he politically destroyed his Republican challenger, Arlene Wohlmeguth, by finding a pitiable victim of Wohlmeguth’s state level cuts in the CHIP. program. Edwards played the “Republicans starve children” ad and burned his opposition to the ground. Where Obama wins his races through political duplicity, Edwards is a hard-core Texas politician in the LBJ mold and he knows how to scare his constituents for votes.
Veterans are, in the words of Bonfire of the Vanities race pimp Rev. Bacon, “Steam Control” and Edwards knows how to keep the steam stoked and ready for his political machinations. In 2004, Edwards successfully stoked his Veteran steam to near explosion by playing a carney shell game with a willing and gullible press to get the headline he wanted in order to scare his own vote base: Lawmakers Work To Fill $1 Billion Gap In Funding For VA Lawmakers. The game involved bringing up a shortage in funding for veterans in a budget committee rather than in the appropriation committee of which Edwards is a member.
Edwards is a prime mover in the insidious Democratic Party activity of insinuating that our government is not giving enough money, care, or help to group “X” in order to emotionally cripple their own voter base. This disgusting practice allows the perpetrator to self-anoint himself as the benefactor to his victim voter. Nothing is more debilitating to the mental health of a veteran than to start a whisper campaign that they are in fact being used and tossed away. What veterans must recognize in order to not fall under the spell of such duplicity is that the Democratic Party cares nothing for a military man until he in fact is blessed enough to actually become a veteran. Note in the above mentioned bio/press release that Edwards only lists massive spending increases for veterans and nothing for active duty troops.
Edwards first vote in this current Congress was the party line vote that refused to fund the surge in Iraq. Ditto the F.I.S.A. bill that has remained in limbo underneath Speaker Pelosi’s desk blotter until last Tuesday when Edwards gushingly reported to his constituents in his weekly radio interview that in a massive move of “bi-partisanship”—a constant buzzword in Chetspeak—Congress finally came together to pass the FISA bill. In the alternative world of those in the know, that means Congressional Democrats finally dug the bill out of the dark hole they had hidden it for almost 4 months and actually put the bill up for a vote.
This is a brief introduction to the man Nancy Pelosi has selected for Obama’s Vice-President and the method of power he would bring to the ticket. This would be a powerful Democratic ticket and Republicans would be wise to attend a Fight Club seminar before challenging an Obama/Edwards merger because as Fight Club says, “How much can you know about yourself if you’ve never been in a fight?” Chet Edwards knows how to fight and is not afraid of the dark alley.
Chet Edwards, a 20-year member of Congress, assumed control of newly drawn Texas District 17 during the Tom Delay sponsored redistricting. He was the only Democrat able to maintain his seat in Congress in the 1992 Congressional election.
TX 17 is much more than President G.W. Bush’s district. It is home of:
- Texas A&M, a behemoth of bureaucrats, researchers and an airport beholden to tax funding,
- Fort Hood, another leviathan, a 340 square mile installation (217,337 acres) and the only post in the United States capable of stationing and training two Armored Divisions. This makes Fort Hood a tax funded construction contractor’s dream,
- Baylor University and Medical School, another higher education facility with its hand ready to be shook in allegiance,
- a collective of the Southernism known as “Yellow Dog Democrats”—ranchers, cotton and corn farmers, country folk, and retired military.
In Congress, Edwards is “one of the few House Members on both the Budget and Appropriations Committees and one of two House Democrats serving on three subcommittees.”
In response to Speaker Pelosi’s announcement, Edwards released this political biography:
Edwards is the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. In his first year as Chairman of the House Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee in 2007, Congressman Edwards authored a historic increase of $11.8 billion in veterans’ health care and benefits, the largest increase in veterans funding in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration (VA). Today, the Appropriations Committee unanimously passed the fiscal year 2009 bill, which increases VA spending by $2.9 billion above the President’s request and $4.6 billion more than the historic fiscal year 2008 level.
But what kind of man is Chet Edwards and what does he bring to the Obama ticket?
After winning the newly drawn District 17 in 1992, Edwards gave an informative political seminar: Winning in the Red States. If Obama practices the Alinsky method of political jujitsu, he’s a piker compared to Edwards. In the seminar, Edwards regales how he politically destroyed his Republican challenger, Arlene Wohlmeguth, by finding a pitiable victim of Wohlmeguth’s state level cuts in the CHIP. program. Edwards played the “Republicans starve children” ad and burned his opposition to the ground. Where Obama wins his races through political duplicity, Edwards is a hard-core Texas politician in the LBJ mold and he knows how to scare his constituents for votes.
Veterans are, in the words of Bonfire of the Vanities race pimp Rev. Bacon, “Steam Control” and Edwards knows how to keep the steam stoked and ready for his political machinations. In 2004, Edwards successfully stoked his Veteran steam to near explosion by playing a carney shell game with a willing and gullible press to get the headline he wanted in order to scare his own vote base: Lawmakers Work To Fill $1 Billion Gap In Funding For VA Lawmakers. The game involved bringing up a shortage in funding for veterans in a budget committee rather than in the appropriation committee of which Edwards is a member.
“I was accused of making partisan attacks. Now some of those people have apologized to me and are saying I was right and they were wrong,” Edwards said.
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a member of the House Budget Committee, said Edwards’ efforts in that committee wouldn’t have made a difference because the panel votes on a budget blueprint, not appropriations.
Edwards is a prime mover in the insidious Democratic Party activity of insinuating that our government is not giving enough money, care, or help to group “X” in order to emotionally cripple their own voter base. This disgusting practice allows the perpetrator to self-anoint himself as the benefactor to his victim voter. Nothing is more debilitating to the mental health of a veteran than to start a whisper campaign that they are in fact being used and tossed away. What veterans must recognize in order to not fall under the spell of such duplicity is that the Democratic Party cares nothing for a military man until he in fact is blessed enough to actually become a veteran. Note in the above mentioned bio/press release that Edwards only lists massive spending increases for veterans and nothing for active duty troops.
Edwards first vote in this current Congress was the party line vote that refused to fund the surge in Iraq. Ditto the F.I.S.A. bill that has remained in limbo underneath Speaker Pelosi’s desk blotter until last Tuesday when Edwards gushingly reported to his constituents in his weekly radio interview that in a massive move of “bi-partisanship”—a constant buzzword in Chetspeak—Congress finally came together to pass the FISA bill. In the alternative world of those in the know, that means Congressional Democrats finally dug the bill out of the dark hole they had hidden it for almost 4 months and actually put the bill up for a vote.
This is a brief introduction to the man Nancy Pelosi has selected for Obama’s Vice-President and the method of power he would bring to the ticket. This would be a powerful Democratic ticket and Republicans would be wise to attend a Fight Club seminar before challenging an Obama/Edwards merger because as Fight Club says, “How much can you know about yourself if you’ve never been in a fight?” Chet Edwards knows how to fight and is not afraid of the dark alley.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Stop Fighting, Start Fixing
Or, Don't Go Down Fighting, Just Go
When it comes to politics, I must admit to "fighting" fatigue. Hillary Clinton tells us she is fighting for families. Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) tells us he is fighting for veterans and families not wanting welfare, but some other vague non-welfare welfare so their children get health care through SCHIP. All this political "fighting for" never addresses the fact that the "fighter's" victims/opponents are simply other American individuals and families that basically want to mind their own business and have others do the same.
Even in high school I thought the "fighting" word pretty stupid. I remember standing at parade rest in the end-zone, Friday Night Lights glaring, as the stadium announcer welcomed the "J. Frank Dobie Fightin' Longhorn Band." What a stupid statement: fightin' Longhorn band. Were we some sort of uniformed gang standing in the end zone looking for an opportunity to march onto the field clubbing our opposition with our musical instruments? Even then the whole "fighting for this" or "fighting for that" seemed inane.
Don't people ever just talk, come to a conclusion of the best course of action, and then proceed in an amicable fashion? Or have common sense and civility left us entirely? Has the the "fighting" mentality of the Contrary Generation been going on so long that they are incapable of accepting defeat when it comes their way? When the President vetoed Congress' expansion of an approved expansion of the S-Chip Bill, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) told his constituents in his weekly WTAW radio interview that Republicans and Democrats needed to come together in "good faith" and write an (obviously identical) bill. The reality that the Democrat position was overruled was completely ignored.
The "good faith" line always reminds me of the rite of sharing a campfire with the caveat that I disarm myself while allowing my comrade to remain fully armed and dangerous. Common sense is the casualty of this wall/head banging, creating a psychological disconnect to reality. Senator Kennedy's fighting seems to be obsesed with water. And does Senator Kennedy really think he can pontificate the "torture of water boarding" when a number of people remember a poor girl drowning in Ted's Cadillac as he wandered the shoreline thinking how to save his political career? The irony of such a situation has the makings of magnificent farce; yet it is accepted as not only normal but profound. The shrill, viper-tongued, lamp-throwing Hillary is the champion fighting with, er, for ... the family? David Mamet--even Shakespeare--could not have written a more sublime farce.
As we enter this next year of political campaigning in earnest, any candidate using the F-words ("fighting for") instead of ardent declarations to defend our American strengths and values (the Constitution, our troops, free enterprise, individual freedom and family) should be instantly and firmly advised to get back to specifics. Irresponsible rhetoric attempting to engage fighting between fellow Americans is just plain tiresome. The republican (little "r") ideal of the best idea winning upon its own merit must resoundingly rebuke the F-words mentality of boilerplate bludgeoning that passes for political discussion.
Even in high school I thought the "fighting" word pretty stupid. I remember standing at parade rest in the end-zone, Friday Night Lights glaring, as the stadium announcer welcomed the "J. Frank Dobie Fightin' Longhorn Band." What a stupid statement: fightin' Longhorn band. Were we some sort of uniformed gang standing in the end zone looking for an opportunity to march onto the field clubbing our opposition with our musical instruments? Even then the whole "fighting for this" or "fighting for that" seemed inane.
Don't people ever just talk, come to a conclusion of the best course of action, and then proceed in an amicable fashion? Or have common sense and civility left us entirely? Has the the "fighting" mentality of the Contrary Generation been going on so long that they are incapable of accepting defeat when it comes their way? When the President vetoed Congress' expansion of an approved expansion of the S-Chip Bill, Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) told his constituents in his weekly WTAW radio interview that Republicans and Democrats needed to come together in "good faith" and write an (obviously identical) bill. The reality that the Democrat position was overruled was completely ignored.
The "good faith" line always reminds me of the rite of sharing a campfire with the caveat that I disarm myself while allowing my comrade to remain fully armed and dangerous. Common sense is the casualty of this wall/head banging, creating a psychological disconnect to reality. Senator Kennedy's fighting seems to be obsesed with water. And does Senator Kennedy really think he can pontificate the "torture of water boarding" when a number of people remember a poor girl drowning in Ted's Cadillac as he wandered the shoreline thinking how to save his political career? The irony of such a situation has the makings of magnificent farce; yet it is accepted as not only normal but profound. The shrill, viper-tongued, lamp-throwing Hillary is the champion fighting with, er, for ... the family? David Mamet--even Shakespeare--could not have written a more sublime farce.
As we enter this next year of political campaigning in earnest, any candidate using the F-words ("fighting for") instead of ardent declarations to defend our American strengths and values (the Constitution, our troops, free enterprise, individual freedom and family) should be instantly and firmly advised to get back to specifics. Irresponsible rhetoric attempting to engage fighting between fellow Americans is just plain tiresome. The republican (little "r") ideal of the best idea winning upon its own merit must resoundingly rebuke the F-words mentality of boilerplate bludgeoning that passes for political discussion.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Respect Belongs To The Individual
Tom Wolfe's The Painted Word tells of his epiphany when viewing minimalist abstract art. Wolfe became aware that the black and white paintings of Barnett Newman or Mark Rothko were the result of a refining fire in the massive, world-wide, time-eternal libraries of spiritual understanding. The paintings, in a sense, distilled ages of literature. Wolfe was on to something. Professor of Fine Arts Robert Rosenblum wrote of Newman's Stations of the Cross series:
This sentence is comprehensible if and only if the reader is steeped in the volumes that reveal that Passion. Even then, the physical realities of what actually happened when our Messiah was arrested and crucified escape us. What is missing is the true concept of respect.
The reasonable and proper understanding of the concept of respect remains the recognition of past personal development built upon the foundation of ultimate truths. It is complete foolishness to look upon the end results - wealth, power, or personality - and believe it worthy of respect any more than we can understand the Passion of the Christ simply by viewing a series of paintings at a museum.
The present Post Modern culture has not only reduced the inscrutable mysteries of meaning into mere painted black and white lines, but we project this attitude in our daily lives and think we have gained insight and understanding. Kind of like Clark Griswold's attitude of seeing the Grand Canyon (okay..okay...let's go!) before pointing the station wagon toward Wally World for a 'real' vacation. The post-modern mind shallowly accepts the final synthesized product as the lesson to be learned without the bother of exploring the volumes of thought the final product represents.
Those that demand true respect the most, deserve it the least. But how do we know this basic truth unless we explore the countless volumes of past commentary? The etymology of respect is English, from Latin respectus, literally, act of looking back, from respicere to look back, regard, from re- + specere to look. In Western thought, respect became a commodity of the free man. The feudal man was told whom he was to respect without choice and without the ability to regard the character of the man. If he did regard the character of the person of means, it amounted to nothing unless the entire system were to be overturned. Power in feudal times belonged to those that seized it or were appointed by divine right.
By the Age of Enlightenment, respect came to be a worthy commodity, granted and retained according to the free will of the individual. The American Declaration of Independence and Constitution declared the respect of the individual according to secular and political terms. Respect became an individual's raw material and this new Constitution provided the protection to develop that raw material in our personal pursuit of happiness. The respect garnered by the individual as he lived his life was valued at all costs by the owner. The gift of pledging personal respect to add to that of another individual was a sober event. Respect is only as dear as the individuals bearing it behave.
This is the freedom that the United States of America was created to protect and to nurture. A new order of men established according to the value of the individual. No worldly connections should be able to earn a man respect; this new order required men to build their own. The foundation stones of respect -- duty, honor, commitment, righteousness -- are the same for all men. All men were equal upon achieving the age of consent. From that point, development of personal respect was the deciding factor in the value of that respect. America was designed to reward choice, not connections. To decide or choose is to live in freedom.
The Post-Modern world has supposedly freed itself from all that baggage stored in the libraries of philosophical thought. They were all "out with the old/ in with the new." To ponder out the good from the bad, the enduring from the au currant, was so yesterday. The Post-Modernists are respect thieves. Anyone with integrity who operates in righteousness is vilified for doing so. Post-Modernists add up their stolen respect like notches on a gun. Every day they take aim at a new target and then proceed to destroy their prey.
Freed of the past form of constitutional respect, post-modernists can destroy the integrity of men of respect while being completely devoid of the characteristics of respect themselves. Stolen respect creates a wealth of power. Stolen respect is sold on the political table and we see such odd bedfellows as the burly guys of the labor union's support for girly-man presidential candidate, John Edwards. Freed from working out your own respect before an omniscient God, a Post-Modernist can answer the question, "Did you have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski?" with a transcendental musing on the legal meaning of "is".
These leaders spend so much political time destroying any opposition or buying respect back in the home district that they fail to do that which they were elected to do. Keep bridges from falling down, protect the border, defeat those who would do us harm, honor the Constitution -- these things require men of integrity, righteousness, honor, diligence, justice; all the historical aspects of respect. To expect anything of value, of worth and principle from a Post Modernist is complete foolishness. Without examination of the qualities that have stood the test of time, respect devolves back into a feudal age of power, coercion and compulsion. This is our future unless something is done.
Today's leaders are leaders because they were elected 20-30+ years ago. Most have never worked any other job other than politics. The current thought of accepting the end result of power in exchange for the age old qualities of personal respect has allowed the incumbent to rule rather than the Constitution. Our Congress is full of 'appointed' Lords and Ladies rather than men of respect. Why should we be surprised to find corruption, malfeasance, lack of character, and incompetence on both sides of the aisle?
We have allowed our leaders too much respect for the end result of position rather than observing the qualities of their own personal respect. Even worse, in doing so, we have devalued our own respect and become unwashed wastrels begging at the trough of government largess. We continue to vote for our appointed representative to keep the money flowing even though that representative's votes tell sensible constituents to go pound sand. When Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) was questioned about his vote not to fund the troops of the surge in Iraq, (a vote that had many of his constituents furious) he laughed and said, "That's what's great about a democracy." (!) This cocksure presumption comes from having purchased his position through distribution of taxpayer money. Such is the attitude of any elected official when citizens sell their self-respect.
The Post Modernist sees the black and white paintings of The Stations of the Cross and thinks himself a better person on the hierarchy of mankind, rather than having met the truth of his need to develop his own personal respect. When the '60's radicals did away with such arcane rules as respect for authority (i.e. police and military) or office (i.e. Republican Party) they paved the way for a legalistic regard for respect. If you doubt that the United States went through a cultural upheaval that has taken us backwards one need only look at the wall of a local classroom where they will see a poster put up by a teacher to describe how students are to treat her and how she will treat them. While these placards use the word respect, the behavior sought is better termed etiquette or common courtesy. Behavior is not respect. Not even good behavior. Treating someone kindly is not the same as respecting them. However, doing so is an investment in your own commodity of respect. Today, politically correct rules seek to enforce honor to those not willing to cultivate their own respect. All these Post Modernist views of respect are in opposition to the original intent of our Constitution.
To understand respect is to appreciate the value of your own existence and then that of others. A freeman's respect is qualified by his own ability to cultivate that raw material that makes us all equal. The process of developing these abilities are free and available to every man: discipline, work ethic, and integrity. To truly appreciate respect is to recognize and accept the rules and spiritual foundation that created it. The recipient cannot claim the final product as truly his own, unless he dares enter into the great volumes of the past to continue the qualities of men who have set us apart and put us on the road to establish community and civilization. It is to this end that the everlasting qualities of respect are revealed, not by viewing a canvas of end results and assigning upon them respect. Civilization suffers when respect is coerced or stolen from the holder by thugs or those holding political office and authority . The future of our nation depends upon respect remaining the commodity of freeman.
Here the ultimates pertain to death and resurrection, evoked by the primal duality of black and white, and of taut linear forces that, like paths of feeling, quiver and strain against a field of raw canvas, translating the sequence of Christ's martyrdom into irreducible, abstract metaphors, and totally transforming the corporeal Passion into a spiritual one.
This sentence is comprehensible if and only if the reader is steeped in the volumes that reveal that Passion. Even then, the physical realities of what actually happened when our Messiah was arrested and crucified escape us. What is missing is the true concept of respect.
The reasonable and proper understanding of the concept of respect remains the recognition of past personal development built upon the foundation of ultimate truths. It is complete foolishness to look upon the end results - wealth, power, or personality - and believe it worthy of respect any more than we can understand the Passion of the Christ simply by viewing a series of paintings at a museum.
The present Post Modern culture has not only reduced the inscrutable mysteries of meaning into mere painted black and white lines, but we project this attitude in our daily lives and think we have gained insight and understanding. Kind of like Clark Griswold's attitude of seeing the Grand Canyon (okay..okay...let's go!) before pointing the station wagon toward Wally World for a 'real' vacation. The post-modern mind shallowly accepts the final synthesized product as the lesson to be learned without the bother of exploring the volumes of thought the final product represents.
Those that demand true respect the most, deserve it the least. But how do we know this basic truth unless we explore the countless volumes of past commentary? The etymology of respect is English, from Latin respectus, literally, act of looking back, from respicere to look back, regard, from re- + specere to look. In Western thought, respect became a commodity of the free man. The feudal man was told whom he was to respect without choice and without the ability to regard the character of the man. If he did regard the character of the person of means, it amounted to nothing unless the entire system were to be overturned. Power in feudal times belonged to those that seized it or were appointed by divine right.
By the Age of Enlightenment, respect came to be a worthy commodity, granted and retained according to the free will of the individual. The American Declaration of Independence and Constitution declared the respect of the individual according to secular and political terms. Respect became an individual's raw material and this new Constitution provided the protection to develop that raw material in our personal pursuit of happiness. The respect garnered by the individual as he lived his life was valued at all costs by the owner. The gift of pledging personal respect to add to that of another individual was a sober event. Respect is only as dear as the individuals bearing it behave.
This is the freedom that the United States of America was created to protect and to nurture. A new order of men established according to the value of the individual. No worldly connections should be able to earn a man respect; this new order required men to build their own. The foundation stones of respect -- duty, honor, commitment, righteousness -- are the same for all men. All men were equal upon achieving the age of consent. From that point, development of personal respect was the deciding factor in the value of that respect. America was designed to reward choice, not connections. To decide or choose is to live in freedom.
The Post-Modern world has supposedly freed itself from all that baggage stored in the libraries of philosophical thought. They were all "out with the old/ in with the new." To ponder out the good from the bad, the enduring from the au currant, was so yesterday. The Post-Modernists are respect thieves. Anyone with integrity who operates in righteousness is vilified for doing so. Post-Modernists add up their stolen respect like notches on a gun. Every day they take aim at a new target and then proceed to destroy their prey.
Freed of the past form of constitutional respect, post-modernists can destroy the integrity of men of respect while being completely devoid of the characteristics of respect themselves. Stolen respect creates a wealth of power. Stolen respect is sold on the political table and we see such odd bedfellows as the burly guys of the labor union's support for girly-man presidential candidate, John Edwards. Freed from working out your own respect before an omniscient God, a Post-Modernist can answer the question, "Did you have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski?" with a transcendental musing on the legal meaning of "is".
These leaders spend so much political time destroying any opposition or buying respect back in the home district that they fail to do that which they were elected to do. Keep bridges from falling down, protect the border, defeat those who would do us harm, honor the Constitution -- these things require men of integrity, righteousness, honor, diligence, justice; all the historical aspects of respect. To expect anything of value, of worth and principle from a Post Modernist is complete foolishness. Without examination of the qualities that have stood the test of time, respect devolves back into a feudal age of power, coercion and compulsion. This is our future unless something is done.
Today's leaders are leaders because they were elected 20-30+ years ago. Most have never worked any other job other than politics. The current thought of accepting the end result of power in exchange for the age old qualities of personal respect has allowed the incumbent to rule rather than the Constitution. Our Congress is full of 'appointed' Lords and Ladies rather than men of respect. Why should we be surprised to find corruption, malfeasance, lack of character, and incompetence on both sides of the aisle?
We have allowed our leaders too much respect for the end result of position rather than observing the qualities of their own personal respect. Even worse, in doing so, we have devalued our own respect and become unwashed wastrels begging at the trough of government largess. We continue to vote for our appointed representative to keep the money flowing even though that representative's votes tell sensible constituents to go pound sand. When Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) was questioned about his vote not to fund the troops of the surge in Iraq, (a vote that had many of his constituents furious) he laughed and said, "That's what's great about a democracy." (!) This cocksure presumption comes from having purchased his position through distribution of taxpayer money. Such is the attitude of any elected official when citizens sell their self-respect.
The Post Modernist sees the black and white paintings of The Stations of the Cross and thinks himself a better person on the hierarchy of mankind, rather than having met the truth of his need to develop his own personal respect. When the '60's radicals did away with such arcane rules as respect for authority (i.e. police and military) or office (i.e. Republican Party) they paved the way for a legalistic regard for respect. If you doubt that the United States went through a cultural upheaval that has taken us backwards one need only look at the wall of a local classroom where they will see a poster put up by a teacher to describe how students are to treat her and how she will treat them. While these placards use the word respect, the behavior sought is better termed etiquette or common courtesy. Behavior is not respect. Not even good behavior. Treating someone kindly is not the same as respecting them. However, doing so is an investment in your own commodity of respect. Today, politically correct rules seek to enforce honor to those not willing to cultivate their own respect. All these Post Modernist views of respect are in opposition to the original intent of our Constitution.
To understand respect is to appreciate the value of your own existence and then that of others. A freeman's respect is qualified by his own ability to cultivate that raw material that makes us all equal. The process of developing these abilities are free and available to every man: discipline, work ethic, and integrity. To truly appreciate respect is to recognize and accept the rules and spiritual foundation that created it. The recipient cannot claim the final product as truly his own, unless he dares enter into the great volumes of the past to continue the qualities of men who have set us apart and put us on the road to establish community and civilization. It is to this end that the everlasting qualities of respect are revealed, not by viewing a canvas of end results and assigning upon them respect. Civilization suffers when respect is coerced or stolen from the holder by thugs or those holding political office and authority . The future of our nation depends upon respect remaining the commodity of freeman.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Bridges and Bureaucracy
A main lesson of the Minneapolis highway bridge collapse is that politicians don't spend our money wisely, because they are too busy spending it to get themselves re-elected. This can only be fixed by us, the taxpayers and voters.
As it is now, unless a bridge is "new and improved" a true bureaucrat would never fund it. Remember Texas Governor Ann Richards cuting the ribbon on the World Trade Bridge in Laredo, proudly proclaiming it as her "gift to the people of Texas"? So, since the first job of an elected official is to get re-elected, the money allocated to every congressional committee and sub-committee is nothing more than oil used to lather up the boys and girls for the political equivalent of WWF. A bureaucrat knows his constituents are fools and could never see something so obtuse as investment in the future continuity of the country if it's just plain keeping things functioning correctly. Unless, that necessary infrastructure is deemed bad ( new refineries? nuclear power? never!) and is to be build in your constituent's backyard; then the bureaucrat can ensure re-election by being against it.
Since some tax monies are meant to support the nation's infrastructure and our bridges are falling down, the logical solution of the bureaucrat is to raise taxes. Like children, they have no shame that they participated in frivolous spending and now have no money for essentials. Only when taxpayers identify - and reject - congressional pork in their own backyard will this silliness stop. My congressman, Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) , is proudly earmarking my district in a manner that enslaves his constituents to his beneficence with your tax money. Many children rebel against a parent that gives money instead of parental love and nurturing. Should we taxpayers be any different? Chet gives us your money, but he votes contrary to our values. I rebel! .
The question of whether the beat goes on, or the crumbling walls of the eminence front is knocked down on rests in the action of united individuals. Things crumble when what's everybody's business becomes nobody's business. This is also the stumbling block of uniting individuals. In contrast to the bureaucrat, statesmen spend tax funds first for essentials and only then consider either returning the money to the the taxpayers or investing in projects that would benefit the future. We need statesmen, but we must vote them in and support them when they are attacked by the Left and the MSM. The truth is that there are statesmen involved in a struggle for our liberty and freedom, much like the Minneapolis highway bridge victims who suddenly found themselves trapped in their cars and plunging into the dark water. The philosophical question for us is: Do we blame Bush and accept even higher taxes or do we bravely jump into the water to save lives and the future of our republic?
As it is now, unless a bridge is "new and improved" a true bureaucrat would never fund it. Remember Texas Governor Ann Richards cuting the ribbon on the World Trade Bridge in Laredo, proudly proclaiming it as her "gift to the people of Texas"? So, since the first job of an elected official is to get re-elected, the money allocated to every congressional committee and sub-committee is nothing more than oil used to lather up the boys and girls for the political equivalent of WWF. A bureaucrat knows his constituents are fools and could never see something so obtuse as investment in the future continuity of the country if it's just plain keeping things functioning correctly. Unless, that necessary infrastructure is deemed bad ( new refineries? nuclear power? never!) and is to be build in your constituent's backyard; then the bureaucrat can ensure re-election by being against it.
Since some tax monies are meant to support the nation's infrastructure and our bridges are falling down, the logical solution of the bureaucrat is to raise taxes. Like children, they have no shame that they participated in frivolous spending and now have no money for essentials. Only when taxpayers identify - and reject - congressional pork in their own backyard will this silliness stop. My congressman, Chet Edwards (D-TX 17) , is proudly earmarking my district in a manner that enslaves his constituents to his beneficence with your tax money. Many children rebel against a parent that gives money instead of parental love and nurturing. Should we taxpayers be any different? Chet gives us your money, but he votes contrary to our values. I rebel! .
The question of whether the beat goes on, or the crumbling walls of the eminence front is knocked down on rests in the action of united individuals. Things crumble when what's everybody's business becomes nobody's business. This is also the stumbling block of uniting individuals. In contrast to the bureaucrat, statesmen spend tax funds first for essentials and only then consider either returning the money to the the taxpayers or investing in projects that would benefit the future. We need statesmen, but we must vote them in and support them when they are attacked by the Left and the MSM. The truth is that there are statesmen involved in a struggle for our liberty and freedom, much like the Minneapolis highway bridge victims who suddenly found themselves trapped in their cars and plunging into the dark water. The philosophical question for us is: Do we blame Bush and accept even higher taxes or do we bravely jump into the water to save lives and the future of our republic?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
There Is No I In Democrat
The collectivist ideas of the leaders in the Democratic Party are not a secret. Each Democrat Presidential candidate has announced plans of Big Government control of our health care. However, FEMA's response to hurricane Katrina revealed the sluggish, grinding wheels of entrenched bureaucracy. The truth of a bureaucracy is: process is more important than solution. Solution is feared because it could end the necessity of their position. Also, most bureaucrats vote for the party of collectivism either through ethos or job security. To a bureaucrat,fouling the plans of an opposing administration is an admirable task.
The constant murmur of the MSM credits the faults of a bloated government to theopposing administration as if a passing administration is synonymous with government. The MSM perpetuates this dark lie through its constant white noise murmur machine that seeks to obliterate contrary thought. Collectivist government, good; Republican administration, bad.
However, something tremendous happened when the Senate thought they could blithely pass another bureaucratic reform with the Immigration Bill. Our hierarchal government leaders were as soundly rebuked as King John at Runnymede. Rather than the simple-minded Michael Moore definition of a collectivist "We the People", the arrogant elected officials met the "We the People" of the individual. The united action of individuals shut down the Capital Hill phone system. The uniting idea was that the government was not trustworthy to do that which they promised. The power of individuals unified by an idea is unquantifiable.
Every day I hear the lament that Republicans have no leader. I discount that whine as a passing of responsibility. There is a great moment in the movie National Treasure when the character Ben Gates, frustrated because no one believes his warning of a threat to steal the Declaration of Independence, looks upon the revered document and reads the line:
…it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Not only do we have the right, we also have the DUTY — the responsibility — to do something to provide new guards, new representatives, for the future of national security from a fascist Caliphate and liberty at home in this war on the individual. The melting of the Capital Hill phone system is evidence that we have the power necessary for change.
Responsibility belongs solely to the individual. Each of us knows what must be done to stop this collectivist march. Their murmur has become a subversive clamor, declaring the nation broken. We know this argument only serves the purpose of entrenched bureaucrats acting in their collectivist best interest while stalwartly supported by intransigent Democrats. Their condescending arrogance is incongruous with the ideals that established this nation.
We do not need a leader to tell us this or to tell us what action needs to be taken in preparation for the next election. Pruning deadwood and rooting out bad seeds must be done before we can ever hope to plant a new course of action. The murmur machine must be humbled so that new seeds can take root in preparation for the intense change we are demanding. We must not allow our precious vote to continue the bad because the good isn't good enough. Such reasoning leads to cultural destruction and besides note it is the MSM murmur machine telling you of your dissatisfaction. The individual bears that responsibility. Our vote is required.
Because my own district was mad at the Republicans for playing the earmark game, Chet Edwards (D-TX District 17) is now earmarking himself into a lifetime seat in Congress, even though the man is the antithesis of our cultural values. Chet Edwards is the epitome of the absent father, buying off his children rather than representing the values that respect his constituents.
Every state has districts struggling to replace an entrenched Congressman. They are like Chet Edwards, bringing home the bacon, but are not the kind of man you’d be proud to call Daddy or follow as a leader. Lift your comrades up as they engage in the fight. Don’t let our front line falter when the negative accusations reach those shrill high notes. Press forward, keeping your eye on the prize - the establishment of a foundation for change. Just as we must crush the fascist Caliphate into the pit of hell from which it came, we must use the power of united individuals to crush collectivism and stun the murmur machine used against us. As individuals united by an idea we have the power to make a change. Just raise your hand in commitment in the fight for individual freedom. The Federalist Party ceased to be because of their arrogant condescending attitude toward the citizenry they tried to control with Federal power. The ideas of the Federalist were despised by the people. The Democratic Party was established on the ash heap of slavery and their collectivist ideas are real time slavery. They must be defeated because of their ideas. Remember there is no “I” in Democrat.
The constant murmur of the MSM credits the faults of a bloated government to theopposing administration as if a passing administration is synonymous with government. The MSM perpetuates this dark lie through its constant white noise murmur machine that seeks to obliterate contrary thought. Collectivist government, good; Republican administration, bad.
However, something tremendous happened when the Senate thought they could blithely pass another bureaucratic reform with the Immigration Bill. Our hierarchal government leaders were as soundly rebuked as King John at Runnymede. Rather than the simple-minded Michael Moore definition of a collectivist "We the People", the arrogant elected officials met the "We the People" of the individual. The united action of individuals shut down the Capital Hill phone system. The uniting idea was that the government was not trustworthy to do that which they promised. The power of individuals unified by an idea is unquantifiable.
Every day I hear the lament that Republicans have no leader. I discount that whine as a passing of responsibility. There is a great moment in the movie National Treasure when the character Ben Gates, frustrated because no one believes his warning of a threat to steal the Declaration of Independence, looks upon the revered document and reads the line:
…it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Not only do we have the right, we also have the DUTY — the responsibility — to do something to provide new guards, new representatives, for the future of national security from a fascist Caliphate and liberty at home in this war on the individual. The melting of the Capital Hill phone system is evidence that we have the power necessary for change.
Responsibility belongs solely to the individual. Each of us knows what must be done to stop this collectivist march. Their murmur has become a subversive clamor, declaring the nation broken. We know this argument only serves the purpose of entrenched bureaucrats acting in their collectivist best interest while stalwartly supported by intransigent Democrats. Their condescending arrogance is incongruous with the ideals that established this nation.
We do not need a leader to tell us this or to tell us what action needs to be taken in preparation for the next election. Pruning deadwood and rooting out bad seeds must be done before we can ever hope to plant a new course of action. The murmur machine must be humbled so that new seeds can take root in preparation for the intense change we are demanding. We must not allow our precious vote to continue the bad because the good isn't good enough. Such reasoning leads to cultural destruction and besides note it is the MSM murmur machine telling you of your dissatisfaction. The individual bears that responsibility. Our vote is required.
Because my own district was mad at the Republicans for playing the earmark game, Chet Edwards (D-TX District 17) is now earmarking himself into a lifetime seat in Congress, even though the man is the antithesis of our cultural values. Chet Edwards is the epitome of the absent father, buying off his children rather than representing the values that respect his constituents.
Every state has districts struggling to replace an entrenched Congressman. They are like Chet Edwards, bringing home the bacon, but are not the kind of man you’d be proud to call Daddy or follow as a leader. Lift your comrades up as they engage in the fight. Don’t let our front line falter when the negative accusations reach those shrill high notes. Press forward, keeping your eye on the prize - the establishment of a foundation for change. Just as we must crush the fascist Caliphate into the pit of hell from which it came, we must use the power of united individuals to crush collectivism and stun the murmur machine used against us. As individuals united by an idea we have the power to make a change. Just raise your hand in commitment in the fight for individual freedom. The Federalist Party ceased to be because of their arrogant condescending attitude toward the citizenry they tried to control with Federal power. The ideas of the Federalist were despised by the people. The Democratic Party was established on the ash heap of slavery and their collectivist ideas are real time slavery. They must be defeated because of their ideas. Remember there is no “I” in Democrat.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Maybe It Was About The Money After All
Over and over, financial planners tell us that the path to wealth is a balanced portfolio. Grandma pointedly reminded us to not put all our eggs in one basket. Grandma, being the wise woman she was, knew that counting on only one thing, one hope, one idea would leave her grandkids vulnerable to things outside their control. So, we wisely spread our precious savings across several different investment opportunities just in case something outside our control happens.
In a previous post, It's Not The Money It's The Message It Sends the jackalope described a certain shady deal between Chet Edwards (D-Tx. 17), our military, and the predatory insurance company American Amicable. This insurance company is located in Waco, Texas; Chet's home stomping grounds.
So, dear readers and fellow constituents, it might interest you to learn that Chet Edwards' portfolio is 100% invested in insurance. Maybe he knows how to control things a bit more than the rest of us when it comes to those things normally outside human control. How else to explain an intelligent person putting all his eggs in one basket?
In a previous post, It's Not The Money It's The Message It Sends the jackalope described a certain shady deal between Chet Edwards (D-Tx. 17), our military, and the predatory insurance company American Amicable. This insurance company is located in Waco, Texas; Chet's home stomping grounds.
So, dear readers and fellow constituents, it might interest you to learn that Chet Edwards' portfolio is 100% invested in insurance. Maybe he knows how to control things a bit more than the rest of us when it comes to those things normally outside human control. How else to explain an intelligent person putting all his eggs in one basket?
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Chet Edwards - Democrat First, American Second
Chet Edwards (D-TX17) has an unjustified reputation as a conservative Democrat. The reality is that he follows closely the far left ideas of the Democratic Party. He is careful to never be photographed with members of his party that would tarnish that carefully constructed persona, but his voting record mirrors theirs in most respects.
A major problem concerning the (il)legal immigration issue is that nothing is backed up by enforcement. Legislation is a great concept, but unless it is actually followed through in practice we only worsen the situation. Problems become a "make work" project for Congress allowing them to posture and prattle for the news camera rather than the hard work of solving a problem. If they were to solve the problem then they would have nothing to preen about before the Sunday Talking Head hosts. Making hard decisions is not always conducive to Congress' first job: re-election. And it goes without saying that pleasing their idiot hick constituents back home could make them persona non gratia with the tony Washington cocktail circuit. This is a problem for even some (most?) Republicans.
It is in this light we must contemplate the current (il)legal immigration bill because the law of human nature dictates that we get the behavior we reward. Any legislation that does not first address the problem of a porous border is doomed to be a future and much larger problem. If our schools and social programs are already overburdened, inaction concerning the open border issue means in mere months these taxpayer funded programs will be exponentially so. Tax funds are not some bottomless coffer regardless of how legislators may treat them.
It is not wrong for citizens to prefer to keep as much of their own money to provide for their own family and extended family. This is the intent of the proverb: Charity begins at home. Unbridled taxation to provide social services for illegal aliens will eventually make all native and naturalized citizens wards of the state because it will lead straight to poverty because the more services provided, the more people will come. To assert so is not to be anti-immigrant, but rather to recognize the reality of human nature.
That explained, this morning in his weekly radio interview, Chet Edwards (D-Tx17) distanced himself properly from the Senate's illegal immigration bill. He listed off his requirements: illegals must pay a fine, learn to speak English - even their children - so illegals can provide better for themselves rather than expecting to receive myriads of social welfare, and oh yeah that other thing, border security.
Wait a minute, he just described the current embattled Senate Bill. By listing border security last, Edwards makes clear his priority. After 16 years in the House, Edwards understands perfectly the reality of not enforcing the laws he passes. He has a history of not enforcing the laws he votes for. He is facile in speaking the "correct" talking points, knowing that those constituents who are not well-versed politicos will hear his words outside the context of political realities and nod their heads thinking the incessant bickering has been solved.
The political reality is that the Senate and House Democratic majority could pass the current bill and the President would sign it into law. Their dilemma comes when the people, realizing that the problem is not in fact solved, blame them for passing a problem intensifier. President Bush will not be running for office ever again. To blame him would be moot and the proverbial chickens will come home to roost infecting the Democratic Party with its political pox.
This is why the word bi-partisan is the key word. If the Republicans do not play this game, and fall into the sprung trap, Democrats will not pass this bill. This indicates that the bill was never in the best interest for the long run of the country, but rather another piece of legislation whose main purpose is the destruction of their political foes. The ugly truth is that our Representative is extremely adept in playing this game. It is Mr. Edwards' and his Party's behavior that constitutes a major loss to his constituents and to the nation.
A major problem concerning the (il)legal immigration issue is that nothing is backed up by enforcement. Legislation is a great concept, but unless it is actually followed through in practice we only worsen the situation. Problems become a "make work" project for Congress allowing them to posture and prattle for the news camera rather than the hard work of solving a problem. If they were to solve the problem then they would have nothing to preen about before the Sunday Talking Head hosts. Making hard decisions is not always conducive to Congress' first job: re-election. And it goes without saying that pleasing their idiot hick constituents back home could make them persona non gratia with the tony Washington cocktail circuit. This is a problem for even some (most?) Republicans.
It is in this light we must contemplate the current (il)legal immigration bill because the law of human nature dictates that we get the behavior we reward. Any legislation that does not first address the problem of a porous border is doomed to be a future and much larger problem. If our schools and social programs are already overburdened, inaction concerning the open border issue means in mere months these taxpayer funded programs will be exponentially so. Tax funds are not some bottomless coffer regardless of how legislators may treat them.
It is not wrong for citizens to prefer to keep as much of their own money to provide for their own family and extended family. This is the intent of the proverb: Charity begins at home. Unbridled taxation to provide social services for illegal aliens will eventually make all native and naturalized citizens wards of the state because it will lead straight to poverty because the more services provided, the more people will come. To assert so is not to be anti-immigrant, but rather to recognize the reality of human nature.
That explained, this morning in his weekly radio interview, Chet Edwards (D-Tx17) distanced himself properly from the Senate's illegal immigration bill. He listed off his requirements: illegals must pay a fine, learn to speak English - even their children - so illegals can provide better for themselves rather than expecting to receive myriads of social welfare, and oh yeah that other thing, border security.
Wait a minute, he just described the current embattled Senate Bill. By listing border security last, Edwards makes clear his priority. After 16 years in the House, Edwards understands perfectly the reality of not enforcing the laws he passes. He has a history of not enforcing the laws he votes for. He is facile in speaking the "correct" talking points, knowing that those constituents who are not well-versed politicos will hear his words outside the context of political realities and nod their heads thinking the incessant bickering has been solved.
The political reality is that the Senate and House Democratic majority could pass the current bill and the President would sign it into law. Their dilemma comes when the people, realizing that the problem is not in fact solved, blame them for passing a problem intensifier. President Bush will not be running for office ever again. To blame him would be moot and the proverbial chickens will come home to roost infecting the Democratic Party with its political pox.
This is why the word bi-partisan is the key word. If the Republicans do not play this game, and fall into the sprung trap, Democrats will not pass this bill. This indicates that the bill was never in the best interest for the long run of the country, but rather another piece of legislation whose main purpose is the destruction of their political foes. The ugly truth is that our Representative is extremely adept in playing this game. It is Mr. Edwards' and his Party's behavior that constitutes a major loss to his constituents and to the nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
