Dear Congressman Wilson–

So you’ve decided to vote for the healthcare bill. I’ll not waste more pixels trying to convince you of its wrongness–you’re clearly beyond convincing or rational argumentation based in fact, reality, or sanity. I’m especially surprised by your announcement in the wake of the recent elections in which opponents of the government healthcare plan won in Virginia, New Jersey, and even in New York where the victor, Owens, campaigned AGAINST key provisions of the current bill (notably the public option) and still only won because the GOP shot itself in the foot. The nation doesn’t want this plan–that’s not the same as saying the nation doesn’t want ANY plan, but in every poll the key provisions are decidedly unpopular–and increasingly less popular the more we find out about them. Yet you seem to be okay with all that. Against all sense, against all logic, against public opinion, against good governance, against the interests of your district. I can only conclude that you played it right, held out long enough, and got a sweet deal out of it.

So I wonder: what will you get for selling out your pro-life and blue dog convictions in voting for a fiscally irresponsible bill that will subsidize the slaughter of innocents? Judas got 30 pieces of silver; what’s your payoff?

I’m reminded of Robert Bolt’s play, “A Man for All Seasons,” about the patron saint of lawyers and politicians, St. Thomas More. After Sir Richard Rich gives the damning, perjured testimony in exchange for becoming the attorney general to Wales, More explains to Rich, “It profits a man nothing should he gain the world and lose his soul… but for Wales, Richard?”

That play is chock full of great nuggets you would do well to consider. I’ll buy you a copy and even read it to you if you’d like.

One last note. Per Archbishop Burke, for the sake of your immortal soul, I hope you stop presenting yourself for Communion after casting your vote for the healthcare bill until such time as you realize the sin of the vote, repent of it, and bring it to Confession.

You’ll be in my prayers that you reconsider this regrettable decision. Miracles do happen. Perhaps you will think sensibly and consider real, positive reform that addresses the problems in our healthcare system, doesn’t incur massive debt, and doesn’t subsidize another slaughter of the innocents.

In Christ,
Thomas Crowe

Someone whom I trust and who works in local farming in Ohio wrote the following about ISSUE 2 here in Ohio. (The one @ewerickson described so nicely as “banning choking chickens and spanking monkeys.”) In short, it’s a local solution to a concern that national interests may exploit to have more restrictive measures passed in the future. It’s a constitutional amendment to prevent national interest groups from agitating for a simple law that is more to their liking in the future.

First of all, it is important that you vote ‘YES’ for Issue 2. You can go to this website to find out why: www.ohiolivestockcare.com. This will explain some of what you need to be informed about.

The gist of the Issue is to create a Livestock Board made up of 13 members who will monitor reports of abuses of animals and take care of any problems that arise. It is not connected in any way with any local Humane Society, although there will be one member from a Humane Society. If farmers are to make a living from their wise care of their animals, they sure don’t need Washington or any other out of state organization telling them how to do it! They need people who are close to the agricultural community! And people wo live and work in Ohio!

I don’t want to get on my soapbox, but if you are to convince anyone to vote ‘yes’ you need to know what you are talking about.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) [which opposes Issue 2, by the way,] is headquartered in Washington, DC. Their membership consists of mostly vegetarians (who don’t want you to have a choice of what you eat). They have a BIG budget. They managed to get Proposition 2 on the ballot in California, and it passed (mostly because the city folks didn’t have a clue about agricultural practices). Now in California in 2014, they will have no more caged layers, no more broiler houses, and no more gestation crates for hogs. The caged layers are clean and dry, well fed, and just do their job laying eggs. The HSUS painted the picture of poor little chickens living in poop, no water, just turning out those eggs. Not true! The broiler house have chickens that go from hatching to the butcher in 6 weeks, and are those nice meaty chickens that you buy in the supermarket. They are well fed, warm, (or cool) and are cleaned regularly. The gestation crates are for mamma pigs and are small enclosures that prevent the mom from laying on her babies when she has them (or eating them sometimes). Hog farmers know how to raise hogs, beaurocrats [sic] do not!

If this issue fails, in about 5 years you will be paying $5 - $10 for a dozen eggs, and much more for chicken and pork in the supermarket, and who knows where it will be shipped in from! VOTE ‘YES’ FOR ISSUE 2, AND TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS! Sorry so long, but I am rather passionate about this. And join the Farm Bureau if you want to help. $62 a year and many discounts come with a membership.

A friend just wrote the following blistering letter to his and my ostensibly pro-life, “Blue Dog” Democrat Congressman, Charlie Wilson, OH 6. I recommend reading right through the end, but once you start I think you’ll find it hard not to read all the way through. Enjoy…

Dear Congressman Wilson,

I received your letter this past Friday and was frankly disappointed at the way that you persist in repeating thoroughly discredited talking points as though all of your constituents were too dumb to know the difference. Even the AP (not noted for their conservative bias) and FactCheck.org (funded by the left-leaning Annenberg Foundation) confirms the simple fact that the Hyde amendment would not restrict the new streams of federal funding created by Obamacare from funding abortions.

Both Democrat bills do in fact provide taxpayer money for abortions. This is not a matter of opinion; it is not a question of interpretation or legislative intent; it is just a statement of fact. It follows that, like White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, you are either lying about the bill or have not looked into it carefully enough to inform yourself about some of its most troubling provisions.

For a long time this year, I have defended you in conversation after conversation here in the District. I explained to people that you are a relatively new Congressman, that you are a mortician by training and not a lawyer, that you wanted to do the right thing, that (while you clearly wouldn’t say no to President Obama or Speaker Pelosi on spending issues) you really did have a pro-life voting record so far. I pointed out that you had made at least symbolic pro-life votes like voting with the minority to defund Planned Parenthood (symbolic of course because the leadership only allowed a vote knowing that it couldn’t pass). I argued that as soon as you’d had a chance to really understand what was in the bill, you would take a stand.

Though it became harder, I continued to make that argument even after the telephone town hall where you just read the White House and Speaker’s Office talking points. I don’t think I can continue making that case anymore. In fact, I’m not sure that you’d want me to since, at this point, the only case I can make in your favor is starting to sound a lot like “Wilson’s not a liar, he’s an idiot.”

My friends want to know why their Congressman knows less about the bill than they do; why they know what the Capps amendment does and you (as you demonstrate in your letter) do not. You have to admit, it’s a fair question.

Let me be clear, I am not opposed to health care reform. Frankly, I don’t know anyone who believes that we can just let things run as they are. Everyone knows that the current American health care system, while it is the most effective in the world at treating illness, has serious and systemic problems that cannot be left unaddressed: problems of burgeoning costs and problems of access to that system for everyone.

There is a lot of room for legitimate disagreement on how we set about fixing these problems. The stakes are very high. Getting it wrong could be economically disastrous and consensus seems elusive. Entrenched special interests are all pleading for their little piece of the pie and some of your colleagues are clearly more focused on winning the next election than solving the problems. I get it. This is a tough and tangled problem and there just is not going to be a simple solution that everyone is happy with. I’m glad that you have slowed down the insane rush that the White House was trying to gin up and I hope that, despite appearances, your leadership will permit a real debate to take place.

But there are some areas that should be easy to come to consensus on. Seven out of ten Americans are opposed to taxpayer funding for abortion. I haven’t seen the crosstabs but I’d be willing to bet that it’s even higher than that here in Ohio’s 6th Congressional District. When I called your DC office, your staffer Emily told me that you wanted to be “pretty much pro-life” yourself. I’m not sure what that means exactly, but surely it includes not spending taxpayer dollars on abortion.

This is not a question that you can continue to ride the fence on. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own set of facts. The letter that you sent contained grave factual errors. In particular, you cite the Hyde Amendment as though it automatically applies to Obamacare (HR3200); you should know that it does not. You go on to grossly mischaracterize the provisions of the Capps amendment (in language that makes me suspect that perhaps you have been talking to lawyers after all).

Here are the facts. The Capps amendment explicitly requires at least one plan in every area to cover abortion. It requires the public option plan to pay for all abortions where rape or incest are involved. It permits the public option to cover all other abortions, provided that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (a notorious supporter of even the most gruesome late-term abortions) approves.

You are technically correct when you say that the Capps amendment provides that no tax dollars are supposed to be spent directly funding abortions in subsidized private plans. But that’s double-talk and everyone knows it. It’s like saying you’re only putting water in one side of a bucket and not the other. It’s nothing but a dodgy accounting trick. Under the Capps amendment, a private insurance plan, purchased with taxpayer subsidies, can provide full abortion services coverage (and at least one plan everywhere must provide it) so long as the insurance company collects at least “$1 per enrollee, per month” [see section 113(b)(2)(C)].

Whether you want to admit it or not, Congressman, that’s taxpayer-funded abortion. If you have not read the Capps amendment for yourself, I urge you to do so; it is only seven pages long.

I understand that it is difficult to break with your Party leadership. I understand that to do so will upset some of your donors and supporters. But this is a question of maintaining your integrity. It is a test of your character. Can you do the right thing even when it’s hard?

And it is not as though you are all alone in this. As I understand it, there are 40 of your Democrat colleagues in the House who have stepped up with the Honorable Bart Stupak (D-1-MI) to oppose taxpayer-funded abortion and demand at least an up or down vote on Mr. Stupak’s amendment (see below). My friends and I will be praying that you find the courage to join them.

I would appreciate hearing from you. Please write to me again when you’ve made your decision as to which side of this issue you will be on when you come down off the fence.

Sincerely,
Rob Corzine

P.S. Here is the complete text of Mr. Stupak’s amendment that really will do what you claimed in your letter the Capps amendment does:

No funds authorized under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

These just seem to be too easy… I wonder if they’ve already assigned my emails to go directly into the trash…

Dear Congressman Wilson–

Sometime today a resolution to punish Congressman Joe Wilson will come before the House.

I do hope you will vote against this resolution, or, if we are to punish wrongs, I hope you will support efforts to punish Congressman Charlie Rangel as well.

Let us be clear: Congressman Wilson should not have shouted out during the joint session of Congress. But his action does not warrant official sanction for a number of reasons. For one, the rule that forbids a representative from calling the president a ‘liar’ only applies during House business. A joint session is not regular House business so the applicability of this rule is questionable, at best. Second, what Congressman Wilson shouted out was true–the President had, for 30 minutes, been speaking half-truths, distortions, and bald-faced lies for 30 minutes. Many independent organizations have affirmed this, and the actions of Democrats, including the President, to include stronger language preventing illegal aliens from being covered by the House bill have born out Wilson’s assertion.

Third, when President Bush spoke to a joint session of Congress on the topic of healthcare in 2005, there was a general, and easily audible murmur of the sort you hear in the English Parliament during ‘Questions for the Prime Minister.’ That general uproar was talked right through by the President and there was never an effort to find out who led it or to punish anyone.

In addition, I find it highly, highly partisan that Congressman Wilson would be held up for punishment for his action, but a man like Charlie Rangel not only gets a pass on his numerous tax evasions and shady dealings, but is permitted to remain chair of the Ways & Means Committee–the very powerful committee that writes the very tax code Rangel has repeatedly flouted.

How is this not hyper-partisanship at its worst? How is this “the most ethical Congress in history”? How is this transparency or post-partisanship? How can any Democrat accuse the Republicans of playing partisan “games” in this climate?

I urge you to vote no on the resolution to punish Congressman Wilson today. And I urge you to support efforts to punish Congressman Rangel. Justice, fairness, and a decent respect for the law demand these things.

Sincerely,
Thomas Crowe
Steubenville, OH

Just sent this to my Congressman via his online e-mail submission form. Oh, it’s Congressman Charlie Wilson of Ohio’s sixth district.

Dear Congressman Wilson–
I was in Washington this past weekend. Sorry I didn’t stop by to see you, but the crowd made it tough to move anywhere. I did, however, enjoy a nice dinner at the Dubliner after standing with more than 250,000 fellow Americans to oppose, among other things, the various attempts by you and your fellow Democrats to takeover the greatest healthcare system in the world.

I do hope you took note of how many people were there. They were not “astro-turf.” They were not paid to be there–they paid to be there, as did I. They were not rabble rousers, nor were they violent. But they were angry–righteously angry at the various attempts by Congress and President Obama to remake this country into a government-run, rather than citizen-run nation.

You have been unfailingly sunny about the prospects for shangri-la to break out should some form of the healthcare bill pass. For the life of me I cannot fathom why, unless you agree that we ought rightly to be a centrally-controlled populous, reliant upon the benfices of Washington for our bread, water, air to breathe, and any comfort we thing we might desire or need.

The peaceable assembly in Washington this weekend was unprecendented. It was not manufactured, nor was it just a bunch of Fox News zombies. We are too busy and intelligent, and you do us a severe disservice if you think otherwise.

You owe your constituents and this country at large your every effort to push back against the efforts by your party leadership, especially the President and his cadre of radical left-wing ‘czars,’ to remake this country into a place where freedoms are granted, rather than protected, by the government.

Sincerely,

Thomas Crowe
Steubenville, OH

So I received a boilerplate response to my previous letter to Congressman Charlie Wilson (D, OH-6). It started out saying, “sorry that we disagree, but…” then went on simply to restate the same grandiose claims that prompted my initial letter. About what I expected.

But then time elapsed and the madness that has taken hold in Washington got so bad that when Hugo Chavez called our President “ignorant” we were compelled to nod in agreement; and when the EU (!) said, “You guys are nuckin futs! a wee bit crazy!” we found ourselves yearning for leaders with the wisdom of the European Union president. (Heck, lots of us actually miss President Clinton!) Strange bedfellows. Is pestilence saddling his horse?

So what happened? Well, the Democrats got the populace ticked about bonuses which, we quickly discovered, the Democrats themselves explicitly sanctioned in law, and my own Cong. Wilson introduced a piece of legislation called the TARP Wage Accountability Act… which is worse than it sounds, if you can believe it.

In touting a bill Hugo Chavez could have written, Wilson actually says, condemningly, “Yesterday I read in the Wall Street Journal that companies - anticipating Congressional action - are trying to go around us [HOW DARE THEY!? DON'T THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE?!] by proposing to significantly increase pay rather than have to deal with scrutiny of bonuses,” and then, in a fit of populist pique, says that his bill will “force companies that took 10 billion dollars or more in TARP funds to abide by the government Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) structure set for military and government employees.” Because, after all, “If the COLA is good enough for our soldiers and government workers, it should be good enough for Wall Street.”

All emphases mine. So’s the confounded stare. Repeated.

Anyone wanna guess how easily a bill like this could be conjoined to Overlord Geithner’s request for authority to seize most any company he deems threatening to the economy and form an unholy two-headed beast that devours the souls of entrepreneurs and the possibility of America being a great nation ever again?

With that, er, inspiration, here’s the latest letter I sent to Congressman Wilson. It’s a little restrained, yes, but I figure saying most of the above, or the bulk of what I’d like to say, may not be the best approach to win friends and influence people. Without further ado:

Dear Congressman Wilson–

Thank you for your quick reply to my previous email. I read your response and am intrigued about the parts where you said you were proud to vote for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and then later said, “Unprecedented accountability and transparency measures will ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and effectively.”

I’m intrigued for two reasons:

1) You were proud to vote for the ARRA, which you claim includes “unprecedented accountability and transparency,” but the bill itself was more than 1,000 pages, and was voted on less than 12 hours after it was released to you and the rest of the world. Now I believe you are a smart man, a quick study, and dedicated to being the most responsible representative of Ohio’s sixth district that you can be, but I find it hard to believe that even you were able to read and digest everything in that bill to be sure it was “responsible.” That sort of railroading is hardly transparent. I’ll give it one thing though: it certainly is unprecedented in its scope, reach, and size. The unprecedented LACK of accountability and transparency that went into the composition and enacting of the ARRA leaves me wondering mightily about how “wisely and effectively” the moneys will be spent.

2) You say you were proud of the ARRA, and that it has accountability and transparency, and that you were proud to vote for it. However, the legislation which you recently introduced, the TARP Wage Accountability Act, directly contradicts these assertions. As America now knows, the bonuses at AIG which have caused such an uproar and which spurred your legislation were not only entirely lawful and contractual, but were directly included in and sanctioned by the ARRA itself, for which you were proud to vote.

Apart from those issues, I continue to be appalled by the hubris of everyone in Washington who seems to think the only way to keep the sky from falling is if Washington builds a tower tall enough to hold it up. The unprecedented power grab the White House is seeking through Secretary Geithner to seize any financial institution of any sort that they deem threatening to the economy; the suggestion of an international currency; the $5 billion for an expansion of the size, scope, and mandate of Americorps that evokes visions of brainwashed wards of the state mindlessly mouthing the praises of the leaders; the continued promises of creating 3.5 million new jobs (but that number has changed, and will likely change again) on the one hand while talking down the economy and promising that more jobs will be lost even after the “stimulus” kicks in (what kind of ’stimulus’ is that?); the horribly misplaced faith in the denizens of the Capitol who, though rife with corruption, sweetheart real estate deals, money in freezers, “menus,” junkets on the taxpayer dime, poor management of everything they touch, still think there is nothing that will fix the current problems like more involvement and control for them… Something about a fox watching a henhouse comes to mind.

I do not doubt that you, sir, are an honorable man in a very tough position. But I am less than enthusiastic about many of your colleagues and the job that federal bureaucracies have done with most everything.

Your email to me included many very nice ideas and noble goals. The underlying problem, sir, is the philosophy that more and bigger government is the solution. In every single state where that has been tried it has failed. Every. Single. One. And when the present claims–those included in your email–are analyzed against facts, they don’t stand up either. Even the Europeans believe our current track is doomed–and they know a thing or two about a government running an economy into the ground. More on that in my next email.

I do hope you will resist the big-state non-solutions being railroaded through Congress. The people voted for a change as a rebuke to President Bush and his big spending ways. President Obama won in part because of his pledge to reduce spending. Thus far, in hardly two months, with talk of another stimulus and a single-year budget plan larger than the GDPs of most nations on earth combined, the path we are on is anything but fiscal restraint.

I am deeply, deeply concerned for the future, sir, and I hope you will turn back from the tried, tried again, and failed every time big-state solution.

Sincerely,
Crowe

Dear Congressman Wilson–

I previously wrote you and pledged to work for your ouster. While I am still miffed about the massive size of the stimulus and the secretive, irresponsible manner in which it was composed and passed, I believe the only way forward is to work together so the best ideas win out and America moves forward to the brighter future that can be ours, if we just stick to the basic principles that made America the great nation she has been.

That said, I’m concerned about a number of things with regard to the “stimulus package” lately.

Firstly, deception on your website. On the page dedicated to showing how the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act will help the sixth district you cite the Congressional Budget Office’s figure that 74 percent of the funds will be invested by the end of FY 2010. But you fail to note that the same CBO said that while the stimulus may show short-term growth, the long-term effects will be deleterious–actually leading in a net shrink in the economy due to the massive government debt the bill will incur.

Moreover, Congressional Democrats–David Obey and Nancy Pelosi in particular–have practically admitted that they aren’t entirely optimistic about the prospects of the $787 bilion stimulus package by beginning talk of a possible “second stimulus”. Throwing good money after bad is not good business, not good governance, and it is terribly irresponsible.

Also, thus far, the only jobs you’ve pointed to as being “saved or created” by the stimulus bill were two dozen police officers in Columbus who would have been laid off without the money from Washington. Four things: 1) state and local police operations are, and ought to be, the responsibility of the local community to raise and support. If Washington is involved in such a manner as this, there is a problem of federalism which likely (as in this case) results from Washington taking too much money out of the local communities and then sending a portion of it back to finance projects the self-appointed elites in Washington have determined “worthy projects.” This is not the federalism envisioned by the Founders. This is central planning. 2) Two dozen jobs is a pittance for the massive size of the stimulus bill–even only three or so weeks hence from the time is became law of the land. The economy is in dire straits now. It needs all the stimulus it can get now. 3) Those two dozen jobs were government jobs. Important police jobs, to be sure, but government jobs–the kind supported by tax dollars, not by private employment and free market principles. Government jobs, by definition, are a drag on the economy, not a benefit. They don’t produce wealth, but suck it away through taxes from those who do. Many government jobs are Constitutional and necessary. Very, very many are not. 4) Real economic improvement will come when the government stops trying to engineer the economy (a-la coercing banks into giving bad loans and setting up a Ponzi scheme to back them up through the ill-fated Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac apparatus) and lets private citizens keep more of their own money. Real people who are engaged in their own day-to-day lives spend money at a far quicker and more efficient clip than a government bureaucracy. And they do with it what they will, not what the bureaucrats instruct them is really in their best interest.

Which brings me to my next point. Your latest email update talks about how jobs will be created through a government program intended to help people weatherize their homes via government grants funded by the stimulus. So here we have government bureaucrats (paid by tax dollars) running a program (funded by tax dollars) evaluating which people who apply for the grant program are worthy of the funds (others’ tax dollars) to weatherize their homes. I suppose a few private contractors who do some of the actual work will get business they may not have gotten otherwise, but think: if the tax dollars hadn’t been taken in the first place, those people could have opted to weatherize their own home with the money that hadn’t been taxed away, and all the money that was drained out of the economy to run the bureaucracy that dispensed the funds would not have had to be sucked out of the economy either. That’s a bunch of money still in the economy where it could be invested or spent in ways that truly create wealth-creating jobs.

And my final point, which builds on what has come before, is a note on what the government could really do to spur the economy to ridiculous growth. Seeing that we enjoyed an unprecedented 55 consecutive months of uninterrupted job creation and economic growth during the previous 8 years, and seeing that that stretch began after the tax cuts which ended the mild recession of 2000-2001, I propose that the most assured way to spur growth in the economy is through tax cuts–payroll taxes to help the lower and middle class workers, cap gains taxes to assist small business owners (the real backbone of our economy, and those who employ the majority of Americans), and income tax cuts across the board to assist all tax payers. This way, real Americans who work in non-government, and therefore not-tax-supported, jobs will have more of their own money today, immediately, to spend and move the economy forward. Hundreds of millions of Americans doing their individual day-to-day thing can and will do more for the economy than hoards of bureaucrats crafting plans and reviewing applications and dispensing funds with strings attached and red tape.

For the good of nation, I implore you to call for this far more responsible and, frankly, American plan that respects the wisdom of the American worker, upholds the freedom and independence of the consumer, recognizes the incredible engine of wealth-creation that is the American market, and brings us back from the precipice of a bleak, socialist, centrally planned future.

Sincerely,
Crowe
Steubenville, Ohio

My cousin is married and has a son. Her husband is of a different race than she and I are. Before going on maternity leave she worked for a major investment firm. She wrote the following in a mass family email chain about the election…

Emotional arguments aside (muslim influences, lack of flag pin, blah blah etc.) I cannot find one single solitary point I agree with him on. Not one. Certainly not race relations (imagine if I called Ian’s family typical black people HA!), his tax policies, the way he views people like me (and I am not even close to being one of the “rich folks”), his blatantly Marxist views, his associations with shady organizations (not even talking about Ayers here), the fact that his campaign refuses to answer challenging questions and the fact that he views the Constitution as fundametally flawed. I have audio recordings. The fact that he refuses to tell Americans to take personal responsibility for living beyond their means. You bought too much house, I hope your plasma TV and stainless appliances keep you warm in the cardboard box you DESERVE. I am not joining any McCain or Bush fan clubs by any stretch of the imagination. But just because one is well spoken and stands for change, doesn’t mean that it is good. Change for change sake isn’t always best. Because it looks like Obama is winning, I have been fearing for my job. Guess what, my company will probably be giving pink slips to 5,000 by the end of the year. Maybe I can get some of that redistribution. Or perhaps you can redistribute your house to my family, you don’t deserve it anyway. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. For you young Crowes (and older for that matter) I challenge you to read the Federalist papers, Marx and then Obama’s speeches and book. You tell me what is fundamentally flawed.

And there it is.

Obama already has a massive party planned in Chicago for election night. Based on how close the polls are, and how skewed are the “likely voter” models which frequently expect ridiculously high Dem turnout and ridiculously low Republican turnout, I’m still confident of a McCain victory. I think the Obama people agree with me. As do the McCain people. That means there will be a whole mess of Obama supporters with religious rage, nothing productive to do, and a whole city to do it in… After all, wasn’t there some hint of riots if Obama loses?

1968 may seem tame.

I know I’m not the only one to post on this, but thought this aspect was worth noting in particular.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner filed suit with the SCOTUS to avoid being forced to do what she can to make sure the Ohio election is not a sham. She said,

As things now stand, the secretary must reprogram the statewide voter registration database by Friday — after Ohioans have begun voting, and as she and the 88 county boards of elections are undertaking other efforts to ensure that the general election in Ohio will be a smooth one.

Boo-friggin’–hoo. You have to set up a system by which the counties can check on names that have already been determined not to mesh with the drivers licenses and social security rolls.

But, of course, it is far more important to the Dems for an election to go smoothly than for each citizen’s vote to be counted fairly. Dems tend to lose fair elections.

Rapists always love it when their victim doesn’t fight back, and especially love it when someone else ties the victim up for them ahead of time.

The state of Maryland is sending out signs with a large pumpkin and the words “NO CANDY AT THIS RESIDENCE” to sex offenders and requiring them to post it on their door during Halloween trick-or-treat activities. Additionally, the sex offenders must stay at home, keep their outdoor lights off, and not answer the door. Violations of this directive could be viewed as a violation of parole.

Good idea. Take steps to prevent the possibility of a problem. Prevent the “near occasion of sin,” as Catholics would put it.

But then the Maryland peeps reveal their internal Pharisee.

The letter which accompanies the sign says, “Halloween provides a rare opportunity for you to demonstrate to your neighbors that you are making a sincere effort to change the direction of your life.”

Full stop. Sex offenders may in fact want to demonstrate that they are making a sincere effort to change the direction of their lives, but taking action under threat of a parole violation doesn’t qualify. All compliance demonstrates is that the sex offender wants to avoid jail time — which, with our modern prison system, is a really dangerous place for sex offenders. Compliance demonstrates self-preservation, not “I’m trying not to be a sexual predator.” Coerced activity, by definition, is not honest, sincere activity. Our courts accept coercion as a mitigating factor in guilt. Christianity accepts coercion as a mitigating factor in culpability for grave sin.

It’s the same idiocy as the liberals’ notion that the only way the poor can be helped is if the government steps in to “spread the wealth around,” to quote the liberals’ current standard bearer and most committed, most prominent, politician. They say, “You’re going to help your fellow man, or you’re going to go to prison… There. Now aren’t you a good person for helping your fellow man? Aren’t you patriotic?” To which the response is, “Well, not on this score. I’ve been robbed at gunpoint so some bureaucrats could do with less efficiency and at greater overhead cost what I would do on my own if left to my own devices. I am patriotic, but this has nothing to do with my patriotism.”

Liberals fail to see the inherent contradiction in forcing people to be good and then thinking it denotes a good disposition. Liberals are like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time: good external actions (performed under threat of punishment) are what’s important. “The masses” cannot be trusted to have good motives and do good deeds, even if they screw up occasionally. And, like the Pharisees, they seek to quash the ideals and activities of those who think differently — i.e., those who think more people ought to be trusted with their own resources to do the good on their own with their own conscience as guide.

Seems like Liberals assume humanity is fundamentally evil and must be coerced to good action. Conservatives, OTOH, assume people are fundamentally good and will help each other out. As far as government, liberals think government is the tool by which those-who-know-better force the good outcome they seek; while conservatives see government as the last check to protect society from those individuals who go bad in one way or another. Which is the more hopeful vision of humanity? Which characterizes the USA — by far and away the most generous and giving nation on earth in private charitable donations? Which encourages personal responsibility and rewards individual accomplishment? And then, which discourages and punishes those?

I don’t know if it is possible completely to rehabilitate sex offenders. I think it prudent to take practical steps to keep them apart in some way, or at least keep people aware of their presence and whereabouts. But it’s counterproductive and misleading to ascribe “a sincere effort to change the direction of your life” to actions which are really only compliance with directives given under threat.

[okay, so i was impatient. It's a stupid system they have there -- can't tell when a comment has been posted. My comment did post... 16 times. Once for every time I tried to post it and thought it wasn't being posted. My bad. Glad there are so many things on RS these days that this small little diary got lost in the shuffle.]

I tried to post the following comment on a CBSNews.com article:

Has CBS completely forgotten about objectivity? Anyone who reads the original article at the Des Moines Register site would see that the editors of that paper — the ones who actually interviewed McCain — had a very different take than the AP reporter here, or the CBS editor who took snippets.

This is sham news. This is an absolute dereliction of duty by CBS, as is the vast majority of the coverage of this election by the vast majority of major “news” outlets. It’s damaging to our republic that depends upon a well and fully informed citizenry to elect the candidate they prefer rather than the one packaged to them.

When I click “Publish,” that button gets grayed out and this appears:

The Publish button will be enabled shortly. We have temporarily disabled it so everyone has an opportunity to comment.

After a few moments that text goes away and the button is enabled. I click it again. The same thing happens again. Repeatedly.

CBS is no longer even trying to be objective.

Joe Biden thinks socialism is patriotic.

Observe:

Biden wants to “take money [from people who make more then $250,000] and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

But “to put something back” generally means “to restore something to its former place of residence; to return something to that place from whence it came, whether it came voluntarily or was removed by force.” In the case of taking moneys from those who “make” (i.e., “earn”) more than $250,000 per year and giving it “back” the only way correctly to apply the action implied by the phrase “put it back” would be to give it back to those from whom it was taken (i.e., the ones who make (earn) more than $250,000) through coercive taxation measures. Giving it to those who did not earn it is not “putting it back” at all; that’s wealth redistribution.

He didn’t even put lipstick on that pig, he just called it “the animal from whence comes bacon” and thought we, being distracted by the mention of tasty bacon, wouldn’t notice that it’s a pig either.

Of course, he may mean that the money taken coercively from those who make more than $250,000 rightly belongs to those who did not earn it. In that case we’re looking at good old class warfare with the forces of amorphous “change” agitating and militating against those who “have more” on behalf of those who merely “have.” Perhaps we should coin a term for those who make more than $250,000… perhaps “bourgeoisie“?

Biden claims that paying taxes is the “patriotic” thing to do (comrade), and claims that the bourgeoisie has a duty to be patriotic. The middle class, however, will be treated with a tax cut… does that signify “negative patriotism” on the part of the middle class? I mean, if it’s patriotic to do one’s duty to “help get America out of the rut,” then shouldn’t we all pitch in to this mighty patriotic duty and surrender more money to the guv’mint?

In fact, if Biden had paid better attention in CCD he’d know that his notion of “being patriotic” doesn’t follow Biblical principles. Remember the story about a woman who gave the very little she had for the good of others and was credited as having given far more than the wealthy had given out of their largess? Biden obviously is not a good Catholic so we can’t fault him for not knowing his Bible, but the story teaches us that those who support a cause — in the case of that story the cause was the Temple, in our case it’s patriotism — out of their limited resources exhibit a greater level of dedication to that cause than those who give out of largess. So the middle class, and especially the poor, have a greater opportunity to show patriotism by giving just a little bit of money than do the bourgeoisie…

Pity the bourgeoisie.

Joe Biden thinks socialism is patriotic.

Observe:

Biden wants to “take money [from people who make more then $250,000] and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

But “to put something back” generally means “to restore something to its former place of residence; to return something to that place from whence it came, whether it came voluntarily or was removed by force.” In the case of taking moneys from those who “make” (i.e., “earn”) more than $250,000 per year and giving it “back” the only way correctly to apply the action implied by the phrase “put it back” would be to give it back to those from whom it was taken (i.e., the ones who make (earn) more than $250,000) through coercive taxation measures. Giving it to those who did not earn it is not “putting it back” at all; that’s wealth redistribution.

He didn’t even put lipstick on that pig, he just called it “the animal from whence comes bacon” and thought we, being distracted by the mention of tasty bacon, wouldn’t notice that it’s a pig either.

Of course, he may mean that the money taken coercively from those who make more than $250,000 rightly belongs to those who did not earn it. In that case we’re looking at good old class warfare with the forces of amorphous “change” agitating and militating against those who “have more” on behalf of those who merely “have.” Perhaps we should coin a term for those who make more than $250,000… perhaps “bourgeoisie“?

Biden claims that paying taxes is the “patriotic” thing to do (comrade), and claims that the bourgeoisie has a duty to be patriotic. The middle class, however, will be treated with a tax cut… does that signify “negative patriotism” on the part of the middle class? I mean, if it’s patriotic to do one’s duty to “help get America out of the rut,” then shouldn’t we all pitch in to this mighty patriotic duty and surrender more money to the guv’mint?

In fact, if Biden had paid better attention in CCD he’d know that his notion of “being patriotic” doesn’t follow Biblical principles. Remember the story about a woman who gave the very little she had for the good of others and was credited as having given far more than the wealthy had given out of their largess? Biden obviously is not a good Catholic so we can’t fault him for not knowing his Bible, but the story teaches us that those who support a cause — in the case of that story the cause was the Temple, in our case it’s patriotism — out of their limited resources exhibit a greater level of dedication to that cause than those who give out of largess. So the middle class, and especially the poor, have a greater opportunity to show patriotism by giving just a little bit of money than do the bourgeoisie…

Pity the bourgeoisie.

Youngstown, Ohio has produced some doozies of political drama. Who can forget Jim “Beam Me Up” Traficant, the long-time Congressman (for whom I voted twice), or, more recently, disgraced philandering Ohio AG Marc Dann, (for whom I did not vote)? Both are Democrats, as a politician must be to win around this union-dominated former steel center.

Two more Democrats have further distinguished the Mahoning Valley lately, injecting race into Presidential politics in a way no responsible politician would or should. And this on the eve of a McCain-Palin event at the regional airport north of town today (Tuesday 16 Sept.) and a Biden rally downtown later this week.

“Race — that’s the only reason people in the Valley won’t vote for him,” said state Rep. Thomas Letson of Warren, D-64th, about Barack Obama, his party’s presidential nominee. “There are 1,000 reasons to vote for Obama [ed. -- and they are...?] and one reason why you won’t — race.”

…

It is the independents, the “swing voters” and Democrats who are or will support Republican John McCain who are the “racists,” Letson and state Rep. Robert F. Hagan of Youngstown, D-60th, said.

…

“When we speak to swing voters and we talk of issues, the only reason they’re undecided is because of race,” Hagan said.

How irresponsible and absurd.

The reaction from the vice chairman of the Mahoning County Republican Party, Mark Munroe, was spot-on:

“These guys have gone off the deep end,” he said. “This is probably the most absurd and disgusting comment we’ve heard from our elected Democratic legislators.”

While acknowledging “race may explain why some people vote for or against Obama,” Munroe said there are many reasons why people wouldn’t support him. They include, he said, Obama’s inexperience, his “liberal voting record,” and his position on the war in Iraq.

Emphases mine, because Munroe makes a very important point — while there may well be some racists who simply won’t vote for a black man, how many people have decided to vote for Obama solely on the basis of his race? “It’s time for a black President, all other factors be damned.” In fact, while on the USS Kearsarge for Operation Continuing Promise the only three Obama supporters I met were black, and two of them openly admitted their choice was because Obama is black. They failed to see the racism inherent in that position.

Now, in full disclosure, I have relatives who fall into both categories. My very Ukranian grandfather, a long-time union member who hasn’t even considered voting for a Republican in his entire life, will vote for McCain. God bless him, but my 85 year-old grandfather is racist. My dad, on the other hand, is a rather successful small business owner (a non-union custom cabinetry shop in the very-union Youngstown area) — one of McCain’s “fundamentals of the economy” — and is registered Democrat. He will vote for McCain simply because Obama is a terrible candidate and McCain is a good, if not great, candidate.

If Democrats in the Mahoning Valley need to flail about this wildly Obama is in trouble in Ohio. I already believed he was, but evidence to back up my hunch is welcome.

More evidence: I’ve listened more to local talk radio lately. While the hosts are as reflexively anti-Republican as ever, even as they occasionally claim still to be “undecided,” those calling in have been noticeably more pro-Republican than usual.

Hillary Clinton, the Smartest Woman in America and would-be first female President, issued the following statement on August 30, the day Sarah Palin’s selection was announced:

We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin’s historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.

That’s it. Thirty-nine words of perfunctory political pablum in response to one of the most significant political moves ever. Thirty-nine words are all the first serious female POTUS candidate can muster when another woman (a self-made, accomplished, experienced woman) follows in the path that she herself has helped blaze. Thirty-nine insipid words.

Nothing on Clinton’s campaign website about Palin. (There is new content since she dropped out — a link to assist Gustav victims, a link to her 2008 convention speech, and a tribute to the late Ohio Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones — so she is clearly still updating the site.)

Nothing on her Senate website, though the “For Sale” sign there makes me think many things vis-a-vis the Clintons apart from the mortgage crisis info it’s intended for.

She didn’t appear on any Sunday talk shows. She hasn’t spoken about Palin at Obama rallies since then. (I’m taking an educated guess at this, since well-disseminated well-nigh Gospel-esque Hillary-on-Palin quotes are conspicuous by their absence)

Nothing but those 39 words. Why?

Could Hillary be sitting back with her arms folded, smiling coldly at her own party, staring holes through anyone who looks her way, all as if to say, “Hey stupid Jackasses — this wouldn’t be an issue if I were the nominee.” Could she secretly be rooting for a McCain victory? Methinks that one is quite likely.

Perhaps she realizes that Sarah Palin represents everything she would like to be, but is not — self-made, happily married, real-world experienced, executive-experienced, non-strident, young, attractive, compelling, and wildly popular. Oh to be in the mind of the Smartest Woman in America, who has just been out-maneuvered by a PTA-member Hockey Mom.

Preface: With Gustav battering the Gulf Coast, the GOP convention all but on hold, and most political rhetoric toned down for a day or two, I thought this an appropriate lull to present my final post on Operation Continuing Promise. Also, since this is Labor Day, consider what your armed forces are doing: securing the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, mobilizing to clean up the Gulf Coast once Gustav is finished, and conducting this humanitarian mission in Latin America. We truly have a remarkable force laboring for us, representing us, the world over. Happy Labor Day. — Crowe

Operation Continuing Promise may have been an a-typical military mission, but one basic tenet of military operations has held true: when the bullets start flying, the plan carefully laid out goes right out the window. The last day featured a series of last-minute changes for the better, and one huge decision to stick to the plan when flexibility would have been understandable. I’ll take you through a blow-by-blow chronicle of the day…

0600: For whatever reason, I was not on the manifest to take a helo over when I first reported to muster. This means that without higher-up intervention I’m not going to shore for the final day in Nicaragua and I’ll miss the celebrations and ceremonies. I alerted ENS Day, the Public Affairs Officer, and, figuring I simply wasn’t getting off the boat, went up to the Wardroom to get the breakfast I had missed. Was halfway through my eggs when Day burst into the Wardroom: someone with enough clout had intervened and I was headed over in the last flight. I finished my eggs and French toast without much hurry — the last flight wouldn’t leave for at least another 1.5 hours.

0700: Waiting for flight; got bumped up to an earlier flight. This new flight has me spending the day with the US Air Force Prime BEEF (Prime Base Engineer Emergency Force) and Navy Seabees who are heading out to finish up a few projects, including one they took on after arriving in country. Everyone will wind up at the municipal park for the “closing ceremony” which is the city’s farewell to Operation Continuing Promise and is also the formal opening of the refurbished park.

Read More →

Don’t have much here, I just don’t have access to RedHot or a live blog to post it there.

But seriously: she’s a bona fide outdoors-woman effectively and meritoriously breaking the glass cieling who is not rough on the eyes.

So she’s red meat, a good garden salad, and all in an attractive presentation.

If you tell me she smokes the occasional cigar I might melt.

On the Stephanie Miller program this morning, she and a co-host were fake-giddy over the Palin selection. “Fake” giddy because I’ve rarely heard a more fake laugh after obviously not-funny material.

Anyhow. When I clicked it on they were talking about having “the former Mayor of Wasilla” in charge of everything. They began slagging her on experience and turned to how she couldn’t even win Ms. Alaska. Creepy fake laughter intersperse throughout. That was the meme — lack of experience. They also tried a “gotcha” by saying “she’s a celebrity, just like the GOP is painting Obama as a celebrity”

The only time they mentioned the fact that she is a governor is to talk about “she is under investigation for possibly abusing her power as governor to try to have her former brother-in-law fired from his job as a state trooper.”

Then Paul Begala came on and it got fun. They talked about how she won’t peel away Clinton voters because, “when I think Hillary Clinton I don’t think inexperience light-weight.” (Of course, that’s precisely what many, many people think when they think “Barack Obama,” but that’s beside the point, apparently.) Begala brought up McCain’s age, his four-time bout with cancer, and Palin’s inexperience. And then they agreed this was the worst veep selection ever, with Begala even proclaiming “this pick makes Dan Quayle look like George Washington.”

They’re apoplectic and don’t realize that their main thrusts of attack will backfire on them. (Or they’re trying to delay that eventuality but realize it will come like that Mac truck off in the distance.) The most glaring problem for them is they are attacking our veep nomination with attacks that are even more valid (youth, inexperience, corruption, celebrity status) against their POTUS nominee.