For starters, DeFazio is a loud-mouth punk with as much respect for the American political system as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Rather than engage his contenders in honest debate, DeFazio prefers to cast spurious insults and to defame the character of otherwise good Americans. Two examples:

First, check out this video where DeFazio bellowed, “Why do you hate this country so much!” at Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), who happens to be a Marine Corps veteran. (Broun responded coolly:  “I love my country. I’m a U.S. Marine. I’m trying to save my country from financial collapse.”)

Second, from DeFazio’s last campaign against Robinson, when DeFazio authorized the website WhoIsArtRobinson.com. The website, rather than tell you anything about Art, simply asserts that he is a bigot racist who wants to abolish publish schools and store radioactive waste in houses. Art, who has been endorsed by Steve Forbes and a host of respected scientists, will do no such thing. DeFazio is simply a seasoned liar.

Now that his back is yet again against the wall, DeFazio can feel the power he has grown to love slipping from his grasp. As a result, the impossible has happened: DeFazio’s tactics have sunk even lower.

Last week billboards began appearing all over Oregon’s 4th district that appeared to come from Art Robinson’s campaign and appeared to express his positions on the issues of education, social security and federal student loans. The problem? These billboards were actually put up by DeFazio in an undemocratic and corrupt attempt to manipulate the election.

Four of the signs hide or conceal the legally required “Paid for by DeFazio for Congress” disclaimer while three omit it altogether. You can see the signs for yourself in this copy of Art’s civil suit against DeFazio. Put simply, the billboards were intentionally crafted to distort Art’s true policies. (Probably because DeFazio can’t defend his own record.)

By authorizing the use of anonymous billboard attack ads, DeFazio and his campaign have committed an obvious and egregious violation of Federal Election Commission rules. Oregon’s liberal media has ignored the story, which is a part of their previous handling of DeFazio’s outright debauchery. Tragically, polls show that 33% of voters actually believe that DeFazio’s illegal and dishonest billboards actually reflect Art’s true opinions, and with so little time left in the campaign, the Robinson campaign has little recourse but to take to the conservative media and fight the smears.

The race for Oregon’s 4th Congressional District is winnable. DeFazio can and should be tossed out and sent back to his surrogate fatherland, New Zealand. His lies, corruption, and abuse of public trust may have helped him grow rich through the Oregon Kiwi Group, but they have no place in American politics.

—

Update: Robinson is a common last name. I am not one of Art’s sons. And, if I were, I would likely have my doctorate right now as all of his sons, whom he homeschooled, currently have or are in the process of obtaining advanced degrees.

The fruit? Well, it seems that the “watchdog” supposedly responsible for evaluating the Department of Energy’s “Green” loan program is also a $50k+ donor to President Barack Obama. Kind of makes me wonder what else the AP might uncover if ever the strange notion occurred to them that news is more than what their friends and  favorite politicians say in press releases…

For example, if it had occurred to the laudable AP reporters to saunter over to the website of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC.gov, and conduct a simple full-text search for Mr. “Herbert M. Allison Jr.” — a.k.a. the “watchdog” that OK’d the disastrous DoE loan programs — then perhaps Mr. Allison would have been exposed as a long-time Obamaist, and not a mere supplicant to the Obama campaign apparatus.

Indeed, if I were Mr. Allison and I saw today’s reports on his nefarious DoE loan associations, I would be laughing all the way to the bank, wondering, at the back of my mind, how the AP missed the real story.

So what is the real story?

Herbert M Allison Jr., the man selected to evaluate the DoE’s (Obama’s) green energy loan program, is not just a big time donor to Obama, as has been reported today, but is also the Treasury Department signatory for federal loans to General Motors (GM), Chrysler and American Investment Group (AIG). According to SEC filings, Mr. Herbert M. Allison Jr. signed a GM official SEC document as follows:

[Signature Page to Amended and Restated Secured Credit Agreement]

Why, oh why, is DoE’s “watchdog” the U.S. Dept Treasury signer on what appears to be a GM auto bailout/loan for $7.072,488,605? And that’s just a fraction of the federal largess Mr. Alison has redistributed.

Remarks by the President to the White House Press Corps August 20, 2012 – 1:27PM

The President on Medicare: Today, HHS announced that thanks to the health care law that we passed, nearly 5.4 million seniors with Medicare have saved over $4.1 billion on prescription drugs. 

That Medicare is Obama’s unprompted, top-line message suggests Republican messaging on Obamacare’s $716 billion cut to Medicare has Team Obama fretting. They perceive, rightly, that elderly voters, especially in swing-states like Florida, find Paul Ryan endearing and charming. As a general rule, every time Paul Ryan hugs his mom on stage, Obama loses 1,000 retiree votes in the Sunshine State.

That his health care law will redistributes $716 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare is a fact. Rather than debate the issue frankly, Team Obama has decided to rely on the familiar Democratic model: Look how much your government loves you! Their message: Thanks to Obamacare, millions of seniors have gotten billions of dollars of free preventative care, thanks to Obamacare.

Significantly, the above statement indicates that prescription drug coverage for seniors will feature strongly in the Democrats messaging. Expect the so-called Medicaid “Donut-Hole” to play a large role in the debate as Obama increasingly vies for elderly voters.

The President on Todd Akin:  So what I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women. 

Obama takes advantage of the Akin gaffe to echo a theme from earlier this year: the War on Woman. Note the implicit accusation of misogyny in health care plans that allow politicians – “a majority of whom are men” – to make decisions on behalf of women. Conservatives should expect more messaging of this kind, as Obama seeks to peel female voters away from what could be the handsomest presidential ticket in U.S. history.

As a matter of strategy, conservatives should remind voters that they don’t want any politicians – male, female, intersex or transgender – making health care decisions on our behalf. Moreover, it is President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress who have championed a health care law that does just that: takes decisions and choices away from the American people. Or rather, in Obama’s parlance, the underlying notion, the sub-text, if you will, of Obamacare is that no man or woman is capable of making health care decisions better than the men and women of Government.

The President on Campaign Negativity: Nobody accused Mr. Romney of being a felon.

Okay, Mr. Obama, but what about your deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, who, at the height of the Bainer attacks this summer, said, “Either Mitt Romney, through his own words and his own signature, was misrepresenting his position at Bain to the SEC, which is a felony.” Indeed, it appears that somebody did accuse Mitt Romney of lying and that somebody appears to be a senior campaign aid to Obama. The question is whether the American people still trust Barack Obama.

The President on Welfare Work Requirements: Now, in contrast, you’ve got Governor Romney creating as a centerpiece of his campaign this notion that we’re taking the work requirement out of welfare, which every single person here who’s looked at it says is patently false…  Everybody who has looked at this says what Governor Romney is saying is absolutely wrong. 

Unfortunately for the President it is not the case that “every single person” and “everybody” who has seen Mitt Romney’s ads agree that it is “patently false” and “absolutely wrong.” Quite the contrary. That description might apply to the Romney-Killed-My-Wife Ad run by Obama’s super PAC, an ad even he now denounces. The bottom line is that Obama by fiat yanked Clinton-installed work requirements from certain welfare programs, meaning some individuals will no longer have to satisfy work requirements in order to receive checks.

The question is why does the Department of Homeland Security need such an absurd amount of high grade explosives? The governments answer – that the materials are needed for “Canine Explosive Training Activities” – fails the laugh test.

A former K-9 officer who has extensive experience training police dogs said, that amount of explosives would train – at a minimum – 11,000 bomb dogs. But according to the DHS websites page on Explosive Detection Dog Teams, the agency only operate about 70 bomb sniffing dog teams. Each team, presumably, has one dog. (Labradors, it turns out, are DHS’s favorite breed.)

So either DHS is planning an exponential expansion for its K-9 unit or government officials are being less than truthful about the nature of this federal purchase of an unseemly amount of high grade explosives. And, if this incident were not nefarious-seeming enough already, the agency seems to have gone back and wiped all record of the bid.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

 “As I’ve noted before, Thomas Jefferson once held a sunset dinner here with an envoy from Tunisia — perhaps the first Iftar at the White House, more than 200 years ago.  And some of you, as you arrived tonight, may have seen our special display, courtesy of our friends at the Library of Congress — the Koran that belonged to Thomas Jefferson.  And that’s a reminder, along with the generations of patriotic Muslims in America, that Islam — like so many faiths — is part of our national story.” – BHO

President Obama seems to assume that Jefferson’s possession of a Koran means he was a passionate a proponent of the same multicultural deification so prevalent in today’s Democratic Party. While this convenient revisionist rhetoric would place the American political tradition in line with Obama’s Muslim sympathies, it also casts Jefferson as something he incontestably was not.

Jefferson was perhaps the first Republican to acknowledge the fundamental relationship between Quranic teaching and violence against non-believers and non-Muslim nations. In 1786, he and John Adams met with an ambassador from Tripoli to ask him by what right his nation attacked American ships and impressed American sailors.

The ambassador claimed that the right was founded on the laws of the prophet and written in the Koran. According to him, all nations that fail to acknowledge the authority of Islam were therefore enemies. Given this fact and the Barbary Wars shortly thereafter, Jefferson’s possession of a Koran may be best explained by the oft-repeated aphorism know thy enemy.

But, as Obama has it, Thomas Jefferson’s administration was but a forerunner to  CAIR. But then again, Obama is accustomed to making things appear other than they actually are.

In the same speech, for example, the President said, “Indeed, you know that the Koran teaches, ‘Be it man or woman, each of you is equal to the other.’” The President, remarkably, finds in the Koran the scriptural equivalent of a sound byte and subsequently uses that byte to depict Islam as an advocate for equality between the sexes.

You wonderfully informed RedState readers probably don’t need a reminder about the many other surahs (or verses) of the Islamic holy text which make abundantly clear what Muhammad thought about “women’s rights”—but here’s a little Koranic quotation, just in case:

2:228 – “And they [women] have rights similar to those [of men] over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (But how big is ‘a degree’?)

2:282 – “And call two witnesses from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women.” (a.k.a. female testimony, in a legal sense, is half as trustworthy as that of a man.)

4:11 – “Allah chargeth you concerning [the provision for] your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females.”

I wonder just how many other precepts of Islamic social justice dwell in Obama’s heart…

At least, that’s the narrative being peddled by the left.

Yesterday, a host of Democratic senators and Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius joined Washington’s liberal “think” tank crowd for a press conference to celebrate the myriad new gender specific “preventive” services employers will now be forced to offer coverage for without co-pay. Or as Sebelius has said: “New private health plans must cover the guidelines on women’s preventive services with no cost sharing in plan years starting on or after August 1, 2012.”

For those unaware of the moment of peril at hand, today is the day the Department of Health and Human Services and the Internal Revenue Service will begin compelling U.S. business owners to comply with a regulation Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius promulgated in January, requiring employers to include in extant employee health plans abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, sterilizations, and dual breast pumping equipment.*

On Friday a small victory for conservatism was won when Judge John L. Kane took extraordinary judicial measures to prevent the regulation from applying to a family owned business in Colorado. Judge Kane’s temporary injunction means the Newman family, who happen to own Hercules Industries , will not have to choose whether to violate their religion by offering coverage for abortions to their employees—but only until the court has rendered its final decision.

Should the final verdict fall against the Newman family, the IRS will have license to fine Hercules unto oblivion, or into compliance. The fines, which will increase should a business be fortunate enough to grow, are designed to encourage compliance – compliance with a rule contained not in the 2,700 pages of the Affordable Care Act, but buried in the 10,000 pages of regulations promulgated since Congress dumped a steaming pile of health care legislation on President Barack Obama’s desk on the spring of 2010.

The rule in question offers religious business owners a stark choice: comply with law by providing employees with health insurance plans that include abortion-inducing drugs or face litigation, fines, fees, and all manner of federally-directed regulation, coercion, and ostracism. In practice, the HHS abortion coverage mandate amounts to a tax on individuals who prefer to—and have for decades—run businesses according to religious principle. The Newman family also has the option to cease providing healthcare insurance altogether—that is permissible under the Obama-Sebelius regime.

The following flow chart will help elucidate the decision the central government is foisting upon the Newman’s, as well as every other religious business owner, as of August 1, 2012:

August 1, 2012 – The HHS and the IRS command you to modify your current employee insurance plan to include abortive, sterilizations, and dual breast pump devices.

You can…

Obey your God

If you choose to obey your God, you must:

1.)    Pay a fine to the IRS/HHS that will render your business uncompetitive and eventually insolvent

2.)    Cease providing employee health insurance entirely thus upturning the lives and families of your employees.

OR

You can… 

Obey your Obama-Sebelius

            If you choose to obey your Obama-Sebelius, you must:

3.)    Engage in business activity that facilitates and encourages violations of your religious teaching including the termination of unborn life.

Here’s the catch: every single one of those scenarios advances—was designed to advance—the Obama-Sebelius final solution.

Option 1, you religious business owners stomach the new fines on faith. Great, new revenue for entitlements and social spending.

Option 2, Fabulous. In government run care, the more the merrier the misery!

And, as for Option 3, well that was really the end destination all along, for Options 1 and 2 are not really options, but punishments designed to encourage strict adherence to liberal conceptions of what is good and what is right.

The Obama administration is charging forward with a regulation that presents not a threat to religious liberty, but a promise.

It’s a promise that if employers refuse to comply with the Obama administration’s secular commandments viz a vis the operation of their family owned businesses, then their businesses will be leveled by fines on faith.

***

*Yes, dual breast pumping equipment is among the new benefits the government is touting:

Breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling: Pregnant and postpartum women will have access to comprehensive lactation support and counseling from trained providers, as well as breastfeeding equipment. Breastfeeding is one of the most effective preventive measures mothers can take to protect their health and that of their children. One of the barriers for breastfeeding is the cost of purchasing or renting breast pumps and nursing related supplies.   (Emphasis mine; however did women breast feed before Obama-Sebelius told them how and gave them the equipment.)

The thousands of pages of tax returns the Democrats are crying about – documents that met the IRS’s standard – show that Romney’s even richer than we thought. Okay. Perhaps he has tithed mindbogglingly much to the Latter Day Saints. Good for him.

Maybe Bain acquired a controlling interest in a company that exported more jobs than products; the market giveth and the market taketh away. Oh well. I frankly don’t think it’s any of my business. I’m surprised to see so many seasoned conservatives lampooning Romney for taking a stand against President Obama’s ugly class warfare campaign rhetoric.

Across the board, conservatives have fallen into the trap of playing according to Team Obama’s rules. The least disclosed President in history should not have moral high ground in calling for documents that have already met the rule of law–especially not among conservatives.

I’m glad to see Romney taking a stand. (For once.) What he needs to do is make bold arguments in favor of capitalism, freedom, and American exceptionalism–all of which can be done by leveraging his leadership of a successful enterprise.

They wouldn’t even really have to be bold arguments. I imagine it going like this:

OBAMA: My opponent… worked a firm… that killed working class jobs!

ROMNEY: What about Dunkin Donuts?

or maybe like this

OBAMA: My opponent… has a lot of experience… creating jobs… overseas!–

ROMNEY: And I could do it here if the tax code wasn’t so wickedly complex.

Romney has made up his mind. And in a practical sense, there is no longer any advantage to Mitt disclosing those files. Conservatives should move on.

We’re not winning when we’re whining.

In the letter, which bears the presidential seal and signature, Obama sings high-minded paeans to Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, but reserves his highest laudation for Cesar Estrada Chavez, co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America (UFW) and apotheosized of the American progressive movement.

To honor Chavez’s pursuit of social justice, our 44^th President writes,

“NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim March 31, 2012 as Cesar Chavez Day.”

The foregoing proclamation, in addition to underscoring the President’s incredible hubris, reveals yet another perplexing deficiency in the former Harvard law professor’s Constitutional understanding. For nowhere in Article II of the U.S. Constitution (the part that defines and limits executive functions, professor…) is the President granted the power to declare holidays. Indeed, even our legal traditions seem to vest not the President but Congress with the authority to declare official holidays.

And if you, like me, are wondering why you did not receive this supra-constitutional proclamation from our Dear Leader, it may be because you don’t have the right skin color.

The addressee of the letter, who asked to remain anonymous, believes he received the letter because he has a Hispanic surname. If his suspicions are correct, and the letter was targeted at Hispanics, then that means U.S. taxpayers footed the bill – more than $2.29 for every letter sent – for Team Obama’s extravagant race-based direct mail campaign.

A better tribute to Mr. Chavez, perhaps, would be securing the U.S.-Mexican border, a goal that played a seminal role in Chavez’s “dream of a more just tomorrow.” Or perhaps the President could start smaller, and offer an apology to Mexico for the hundreds of Mexican citizens who have lost their lives as a result of Eric Holder’s Operation Fast and Furious.

In the shadow of John Robert’s decision to rewrite Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty into a tax, conservatives and liberals alike have pondered just how the Chief Justice ingeniously served conservative interests while appearing to do the contrary; whether he expedited repeal in the Upper House, gifted the White House to Mitt Romney or rather preserved the High Court’s (his) honor.

But by far the subtlest, slyest nod and wink of the Roberts’ opinion – a give-away largely unnoticed by even the most adept political observers – undoubtedly orbits the conservative movement’s highly secretive plans to dramatically increase gun-ownership nationally using federal policy. Sources close to the matter have said forces are gathering and may coalesce behind a bill pending GOP gains in the Senate this fall. Meaning sweeping victories in November will open the door for the first legislation in American history making the 2^nd amendment mandatory.

The Weaponizing Individuals Makes Plain Sense Act of 2012 (S.308/H.R.30-30) – a.k.a. the Wimps Act – accomplishes its goals by establishing a tax that individuals can avoid paying by purchasing qualified individual or home defense plans. The tax is voluntary, but individuals are compelled by the force of law to pay it should they fail to adequately protect themselves or their households from unforeseen consequences and catastrophes that arise from willful defenselessness.

In the days of militias, homes without guns were scarce, indeed. Yet today nationwide more than 60 million households are under-defended or undefended. These households are essentially free riders—accidental and often thankless beneficiaries of a nation so well armed. All Americans, rich and poor, benefit from government funded emergency response services. Failure to protect oneself or ones household places an unfair burden on taxpayers, who must fund the police, ambulance, emergency services, coroner, etc.

No matter your opinion on gun use and regulation, the vast majority of us will inevitably require emergency services of some kind—services often avoidable for the properly armed. Gun-owners, being natural inhibitors of crime, use taxpayer subsidized services less than non-gun-owners, who willingly surrender themselves and their families to the harsh vicissitudes of an unforgiving world, and dial 911 when reality breaks and enters.But for the price of a small government-approved firearm, such as can be purchased in government-run firearm exchanges, individuals can protect themselves and their households in advance, instead of paying the Wimps’ tax or waiting for emergency services to bail them out.

The Wimps tax will raise less revenue than other failure-to-act taxes, but it will lower private and public defense costs across the board and will not affect your current home defense plan. If you already have a gun or qualified home defense plan, this bill will not affect your coverage. If you like your gun, you can continue to use your gun, and the government will no longer bother you about your gun, so long as you continue to use your gun.

The idea behind Wimps has been part of the vast right-wing conspiracy since the Founding. It was bandied about on the national level at the Heritage Foundation during the 80’s and again during the Clinton years, when conservative scholars were pondering various social improvement methods. However, few acknowledge the existence of such a program and the text of the bill has never seen the light of day. It is rumored to live in the basement of the NRA headquarters, where supporters are keeping it hidden from Grover Norquist. But according to recently leaked information, the bill is massive—10,000 pages or more—and constitutes a comprehensive, cost-saving, national homeland defense initiative.

The Act draws inspiration from Kennesaw, Georgia, a sleepy southern town where firing your gun is optional, but owning it is not. Kennesaw’s compulsory’s gun laws explain, in large part, the utter absence of violent crime from the town. The Kennesaw law of 1982 contained the following language [Sec 34-2]:

(a)    In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b)   Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

The wise elders of Kennesaw foresaw the mad hazard of compelling folks to do something their conscience or their religion told them not to. Thirty years later “religious folk” have fallen from the protected social constructions of modern culture, as sexual liberationists masquerading as the new new civil rights crowd and ethnically/racially-motivated diversity initiatives have supplanted conservative Judeo-Christian ethics as guides for social improvement.

Hence, a healthcare law prioritizing the economies of scale necessary to making a bad policy function—in theory, over the religious consciences of free individuals. On a happier note, sources close to the matter say Wimps contains special exemptions, tax credits, and subsidies designed to promote comprehensive, grassroots homeland defense, while at the same time upholding traditional Constitutional protections of individual liberty.

The tax, which can also be considered a penalty, punishment, fine, fee, command, sandwich, directive or mandate (e.g., NFIB v. Sebelius), is only part of a broader plan aimed at providing universal home protection to all Americans, regardless of race, wealth, or creed or color, and ensuring that even the socio-economically disadvantaged have a fair degree personal security with minimal loss of liberty.

For example, heads of households who can prove that they are reasonably incapable of defending themselves, their homes and families can apply for the Weak, Unmanly, Servile, Sloth, or Invalid Exemption – a.k.a. Wussi exemptions. To qualify for Wussi exemptions, individuals need only to prove they do not want or cannot buy or use a gun. Qualified Wussie enrollees are thereby exempt from the Wimps Acts’ gun-ownership tax, but must renew their Wussie status annually by writing a letter to their nearest gun-owning neighbor to thank them for their good service defending the homeland, and by sending a notarized copy of said letter to the IRS, which will then apply the credit.

At the other end of the scale, for those Americans who make exceptional commitments to and sacrifices for the homeland—those who really go above and beyond the call—Wimps will deploy Congress’ new social engineering power through a new Good Samaritan rewards program: Providing Arms To Righteous Individuals Opposing Tyranny – a.k.a. the Patriot Program.

The Patriot program provides generous tax credits to heads of households whose home defense systems are so exceptional as to provide substantial material benefit to neighboring families and communities. The Patriot program would distribute subsidies or rather Patriot Awards on the basis of a whole host of factors, including the number and type of weapons owned, ammunition stockpiles and defensive structures, and every homeowner’s personal defensive capabilities such as nun-chucking skills, bow-staffing skills, computer hacking skills, etc.

Qualified Patriots earn awards ranging from $5,000 a year for moderate neighborhood security contributions, to $10,000 a year for households with exemplary pro-social security protocols. (Top Patriot Award recipients will be invited to the annual Patriot conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, where Patriots from across the nation will discuss defense strategies, GSA will provide the entertainment, and the Secret Service will bring the hookers.)

And, as recent events demonstrate, Americans must be prepared for all manner of diverse threats to our homeland, whether from terrorists, treasonous ATF and DOJ operatives, resource hungry space invaders or reanimated flesh-eating corpses. Therefore, homeland defenders who go above and beyond the Patriot provision may qualify for additional awards and even in kind assistance from the federal government through that Patriot program’s A-Z extender—that is, the Providing Arms to Righteous Individuals Opposing Tyranny… Aliens and Zombies.

_ _ _ 

S.E. Robinson

Alcee told the Rules Committee that some people were calling H.R.1408 an earmark –  that is, his staffer read it on RedState – and he wanted to know if the rumors were true. Doc–clearly unfamiliar with the complexities of Alaskan native land claims–stumbled and bumbled before admitting that he really didn’t know that much about the legislation being heard before his committee.

But rest assured, Don Young  assuaged all grievances about the bill with some convincing arguments and a powerful pronouncement against bulldip.Watch the video yourself here.  You could also read the excerpts below. (Warning: Viewing Congressional proceedings may cause drowsiness.)

Is Young playing coy or does he really not read RedState?

—

“we’re asking for 77 M acres of land to be transferred to Sealaska ”

“There’s no old growth timber involved in this”

“Sealaska will then support a sustainable timber rotation in perpetuity”

“it’s already protected by designation so it cannot be harvested”

“they’re trying to stay away from the old growth timber”

“H.R.2578 supports timber jobs”

“failure to pass this bill will result in the failure of Sealaska timber program as early as 2012″

—

Here’s where it gets interesting. I just might be the #bulldip he’s talking about…

—

“and now Mr. Speaker, I’d like to go to the bull-dip awards . . . for information put out on this legislation ”
-  (again) “we’re talking about 77,000 acres that have already been cut”
- “the bull dip award goes to those people that say there are transfer of 50,000 miles of road”

—

Sorry, I have to butt in again because what he said is just silly. Please examine the following chart from the Alaskan DOT.

50,000 miles? Brother, you’ve been to Alaska, right? Surely Young simply gaffed, misspoke–or did whatever it is we’re calling it these days when someone special accidentally lets a little bull-dip dribble down his chin on camera.

—

- “maybe 500 miles of road, but it’s roads that have already been built on acres that have been harvested”
- “it will be used for public use, there is no restriction”

—

Here’s the best part:

—

“the idea that we would have people sending out propoganda”
“I know there’s an outfit called Redstate saying this is going to cost the Federal government money and it’s a give-away”

—

The CBO estimates revenue losses for the U.S. Forest Service resulting from H.R.1408 (now contained in H.R.2578) will total $2 million. If you read the CBO report closely, you’ll notice it has bulldip of its own.

#bulldip