About Us

Name: Stefano
Location: Clayton, MO
Biography
Name:
Email: tectonic.stl@gmail.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Is It Time to Take Back the Democrat Party?

Posted by Stefano on Saturday, October 24, 2009 2:05:30 PM
 I have been thinking about this idea for some time. I would be curious about what your thoughts might be on this subject. Please think about it and comment.

I was once a Democrat. I must say that the thing that drove me from the party was when McGovern declared that he would go to Hanoi on his knees if necessary to gain peace with the communists. That was the last straw. Later, the collapse of the party into rank liberalism confirmed the validity of my decision to leave. There must be millions of citizens in this country who have experienced the same thing, although the catalyst for their move might have been different. The Democrat party has become an “outlaw” in our republic. Their policies and philosophy are antithetical to what the founders of this nation had in mind when the constitution was ratified. They use whatever deceit is necessary to achieve their goals. They place jurists in positions of authority who give lip service to the clear written words of the founding documents, while at the same time they are reading their own subjective feelings and beliefs into their decisions. They give every indication through massive, expensive boondoggles like national health care and climate change bills that they have no respect for our personal liberty and freedom. The Democrat party is now controlled by a leftist fringe that, with respect to the Constitution, is American in name only.

It seems that the most effective current rhetorical mode of gaining political advantage is an appeal for change. Obama used this to good effect last year and he continues to attempt to invoke that tactic in the health care debate by deceptively invoking the charge that those who are opposed to his program want the status quo, not change. Another mode of attack is the “Take back”.   That would be to take back the country or take back the reins of power, as if those in power were there illegitimately. That tactic has been very effective in the recent tea party movement and, of course, was effective during the last national election. 

Is it time to take back the Democrat party? Is it time for change in the Democrat party? There is already a thorn in the side of that party represented by the group known as the “Blue Dogs”. I don’t know if the “Blue Dogs” are truly fiscally and socially conservative as they claim to be, but some no doubt are. The success of the “Blue Dogs” suggests that the Democrat Party is very vulnerable right now to a conservative revolution from within its ranks. 

I believe that it is time to take back the Democrat party from its liberal wing. It’s time for a return to the ideals of the type of Democrats personified by Truman, JFK, and Scoop Jackson. I am not endorsing everything these guys stood for, but their policies are light years away from what we face now with the likes of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, and Baucus. The knee jerk socialist anti-defense, high tax Democrat Party of today bears no resemblance to the party of history. Granted, the socialist overreach of FDR with Social Security and Truman with the takeover of the steel industry reveals a dangerous socialist tendency, but historically the party has never been characterized by the all out crass socialist agenda that we see today. The high tax anti-growth agenda of the majority in Congress has now sparked a grass roots movement that reaches across many demographic lines and is in the process of gutting a vital constituency of the Democrats: senior citizens. The removal of 500 billion dollars from Medicare is more than even a yellow dog democrat can take. Obama has now attempted to bribe seniors with a $250 government check to keep them on his side of the political ledger.  In those states where voters can cross party lines to vote in primaries, the Democrats could be particularly vulnerable.  Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” last year showed that crossovers can be a very effective strategy. I believe that it might be time to recruit conservatives to run against democrats in the democrat primaries. It seems that whenever an “independent “runs, it is as a Republican or Libertarian. The Democrats get a free ride to the general election. We should be challenging Democrats in their own primaries with independent, conservative, fiscally responsible non politician candidates in the mode of conservative democrats of the past and blue dogs of the present time. It’s time to flush as many liberals and bogus blue dogs out of the Democrat party as possible.

If a large number of conservatives were to decide to run against congressional Democrats through next year’s Democrat primaries, the result might include but not be limited to: 

    1.  Some liberals might be defeated, resulting in two conservatives running in the final November election. That would be a good thing. 
    
    2.  The independent might be defeated in the primary, in which case, that person would have the option of endorsing and campaigning for whichever party has the most conservative candidate. 

    3.  Incumbent Democrats would be forced to drain money from their campaign funds to combat a threat from a conservative independent opponent, resulting in their loss of funds for the general election.     

    4.  “Blue Dogs” who are currently in Congress would be forced now to respond to health care bills, energy bills, stimulus bills, budget bills and earmarks in a fiscally conservative manner.

This tactic could have beneficial effects right now as listed in #4 above. Simply by announcing that an exploratory committee has been formed to decide whether to run might drive current “Blue Dogs” to stand by the promises they made when running last year for Congress. It could drive a stake into the heart of the ill-advised Obama Care program and the Cap and Trade boondoggle. It might cause current conservative Democrats to make true bipartisan coalitions with Republicans to advance a healthcare reform bill that doesn’t take a wrecking ball to our current system.

Perhaps this is just a pipe dream, but I suspect that the comments to this post will be interesting. 


 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama, the Status Quo, Boomers and War Babies

Posted by Stefano on Saturday, August 22, 2009 7:29:44 PM
Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard on-line says that a majority of Americans now prefer "nothing to Obama care."

"For Obama, there's still worse news. Not only has he lost ground, but public support for his health care proposal has collapsed to the point that a majority of Americans prefer no reform at all to his plan. And the more he stumps for it, the less support it attracts. Rather than a peripheral phenomenon, the noisy opposition in congressional town hall meetings turns out to be a reflection of the deep national suspicion of Obamacare."

The President has frequently used the straw man argument that "some people want us to do nothing" or "some would support the status quo" where health care is concerned. Of course, many would like to see a reasonable targeted reform that doesn't use a wrecking ball on our current system, replacing it with a politician-run health care system. So when Obama uses his deceptive "status quo" rhetoric, he now is actually talking about a majority of Americans who prefer nothing to the Democrat proposals in the House and Senate. This is a major setback that may signal an impending defeat for socialist dreams.

Another roadblock to Obama care is rapidly growing among senior citizens. According to Rasmussen Reports, while 44% of Americans strongly oppose Obama care, among seniors, that number rises to 49% strongly opposed. If you've been to any town hall meetings or if you watch closely on TV, you have seen that more than 50% of the attendees of these love fests have been seniors. The Democrat party is beginning to bleed seniors because of a promised Obama care cut of $500-600 billion from Medicare and the strangling of Medicare Advantage. If the Dems keep this up, the baby boomers and war babies of the twentieth century will deep six the progressive socialists to a minority status on a par with what the Republicans experienced after the Great Depresson. We can only hope.


 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Town Hall, Medicare, Deceptive Politicians, etc.

Posted by Stefano on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:33:51 PM
 I attended the Claire McCaskill, Hillsboro, Missouri town hall yesterday where the merits of politician-run health care were discussed.  Although the citizens were loud at times, I thought they were pretty respectful.  It reminded me of British Parliament on C-Span when the Prime Minister is questioned by members of Parliament.  There's lots of yelling and mocking and the Prime Minister doesn't seem to mind.  He gives it as well as he takes it.  Tony Blair was particularly good in this forum.  Our Democrat politicians need to grow a thicker skin.  Some are such wussies that they are cancelling scheduled meetings.
 
It was interesting that yesterday Pres.Obama, Sen.Cardin of Maryland and Sen. McCaskill all used Medicare as proof that government can run a program well.  At least 2 of them also used the UPS, FEDEX, USPS argument.  This is the argument that claims that private companies can compete with money losing U.S. Treasury backed government enterprises.   McCaskill, in at least two of her most recent meetings, has also used a deceptive technique to attempt to sway people.  She asks anyone on Medicare to raise their hand.  Then she asks everyone who wants to give up their Medicare to raise their hand.  Then she says "you see, all of these people love their government run Medicare."  What she neglects to say is that there are no primary health insurance policies for folks over 65 other than Medicare.  Just check esurance.com and you'll see that if you're over 65, you're stuck with Medicare.  In that sector of the health system (age 65+), the public option has driven the free market out of existence.  That's something that they claim won't happen with the public option in the proposed government takeover.  That claim is just more deceptive nonsense.
 
I checked with MO Senator Kit Bond's office yesterday and found that Medicare is an option in the Congressional health program for those over 65. It is part of the roster of HMO's and insurance companies they can choose from.  I would love to know how many Congressmen and Senators over 65 have chosen the Medicare option.  My guess is that there are very few which would give evidence to the assertion that Democrat Congressmen don't really believe in the public option when they make the choice for themselves.  Let me suggest that if you have a Senator or Congressperson over 65, ask that person if he/she optioned into Medicare for their health insurance choice.  Leave a  comment identifying that politician.  That could make for an interesting post.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Embraces the Memory of Eugenics Proponent Margaret Sanger

Posted by Stefano on Saturday, April 25, 2009 12:01:39 PM
A post by Judi Lake at:     http://www.resistnet.com/group/iresisttheantilifeagenda/forum/topics/hillary-in-awe-of-margaret-1
tells of a recent speech by H. Clinton where she speaks in great admiring hyperbolic terms about Planed Parenthood founder and eugenics proponent Margaret Sanger: 
 
“…Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision. "
 
We can now rest assured that the our government will be borrowing money on the public credit card to fund abortions all across the globe, thanks to the Obama administration and H. Clinton.  The goal of Margaret Sanger to eliminate the poor and feeble through progressive eugenics will go forward with pride and joy and money borrowed in your name.  That's certainly worth going into debt for.
 
"I am also pleased to tell you that we announced that the United States will once again fund family planning through the United Nations. (Applause.) We are going to fund a contribution of $50 million this fiscal year. That's a 130 percent increase over our last contribution, which was made in 2001. Congress has also approved the Administration's request for $545 million in bilateral assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs this year. And this is a significant increase over last year. Because I and the Administration are not wavering in our commitments to development assistance even in these tough economic times. (Applause.)"
 
Should our economic woes slow down our push to abort unborn children across the world?  H. Clinton doesn't think so, even if we must borrow on the public tab to do so.
 
"Now, some might ask, well, we've got problems here at home - and we sure do. Unemployment is rising. People are losing not only jobs but their homes. We're seeing small businesses that were flourishing a few years ago shut their doors."
 
Amazingly, through her cockeyed thinking, international abortions funded by the taxpayer debt tab will help the U.S.A. in areas of national security.  Go here to read the speech and prepare to be astonished:  http://newsblaze.com/story/20090328122708stat.nb/topstory.html
 
In these videos, Hillary Clinton has her feet held to the fire by Representatives Chris Smith and Jeff Fortenberry.  She uses clever misdirection rhetoric to weasel out of the applied pressure.  Shades of Bill.
 
H. Clinton compares Jefferson and Sanger.
 
 
It's quite interesting that when the pro-life folks compare the evils of slavery and abortion, the pro-choicers scream like stuck pigs, particularly when the Dred Scott case is invoked. In this case, H. Clinton uses Jefferson's ownership of slaves as something to condemn him for while still admiring him. She uses that to say that Sanger's eugenics promoting activities, while bad, are not enough to cause one not to admire all of the good things she did.

No pro-lifer would ever support slavery or abortion, or support the choice to have slaves or the right to choose abortion. You can safely infer that H. Clinton supports the choice to have an abortion but not the choice to have slaves. She is inconsistent here if freedom of choice is paramount. She is absolutely opposed to slavery but she supports abortion. In order to reconcile these inconsistent positions, she must on the one hand oppose the Dred Scott decision that declared that Africans were not persons and on the other hand affirm the Roe vs Wade decision that declared that unborn humans are not persons. The key to the argument is the personhood of the unborn. Margaret Sanger is not part of the core argument but invoking her dispicable record can lead one to the inconsistencies of the pro-choice for abortion proponents.

The Creator, science, and ethics are on the pro-life side of the argument. The pro-choice side is stuck with death, blood, destruction, evil and cognitive dissonance.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Gang is Money Laundering the TARP and TALF Programs

Posted by Stefano on Monday, April 06, 2009 1:48:53 PM
    Now that the Obama brigade has stopped hyperventilating in mock rage at the AIG bonus babies, they are changing course in their approach to compensation of lead executives at financial institutions. Many TARP recipients are planning to return what they owe to the Treasury as quickly as possible and others are intent on avoiding taking TARP money to avoid the legislative restrictions on pay and to avoid the requirement allowing the government to purchase ownership stakes in their companies. The Pelosi/Reid Democrats in Congress put flesh on their mock rage by passing legislation restricting compensation of executives at firms who have received TARP money.  Now Obama needs cooperation from these very institutions to successfully implement the new and improved toxic debt relief program of Treasury Secretary Geithner.  TheWashington Post reports today that many financial institutions will not participate in toxic debt relief if current restrictions apply to them. From The Washington Post:


"Some private investors said, for instance, that they would not help the government buy toxic assets from banks if the congressional restrictions were applied to them. And every major provider of small-business loans has said that it will not participate in the government's program if it has to surrender ownership stakes to the government or submit to executive-pay limits."  
 
    The Obama gang has found a clever way to avoid the new compensation law passed by Congress and signed by the President. They've created "middleman" entities to launder the money passed out by the TARP and TALF programs.  The money comes from the Treasury to the middle man entity and then on to the institution receiving the aid.  By this clever process, the institution doesn't receive the aid directly from the Treasury and the compensation and ownership provisions of the law are avoided.  Congress, so far, is feigning ignorance but this type of evasion may not be legal.  The Washington Post reports:
 
 
"They are basically trying to launder the money to avoid complying with the plain language of the law," said David Zaring, a former Justice Department attorney who defended the government from lawsuits involving related legal issues. "They are trying to create a loophole to ignore Congress, and I think the courts will think that it's ridiculous."
 
 
    I don't have to wonder what the reaction of Congress would be to this type of evasion if "W" were still President.  No doubt it would be screaming and shouting and running abouting and high crimes and misdemeanors forever and ever from Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Dodd, Frank, and the usual suspects.
 
    The Obama administration and their leader, Barack Obama are again displaying their arrogance and hypocricy in spades.  I say go after them on this nonsense without delay.
 
Here is The Washington Post article:
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama "Amends" Report on $800,000 ACORN payment - Deception? YES!--UPDATE - Gaffe Biden also Denies ACORN connection.

Posted by Stefano on Sunday, October 26, 2008 1:01:58 AM
After multiple public denials by Barack Obama and an explicit denial in the 3rd debate about the extent of his association with ACORN, the Democrat candidate attempts to come clean while no one is paying attention.
 
The Pittsburg Tribune-Review reports, "U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) for services the Democrat's campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.
 
An Obama spokesman said Federal Election Commission reports would be amended to show Citizens Services Inc. -- a subsidiary of ACORN -- worked in "get-out-the-vote" projects, instead of activities such as polling, advance work and staging major events as stated in FEC finance reports filed during the primary."
 
 the linik to the article:   http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html
 
Here is a video of the 3rd debate at the time when the subject of ACORN was raised.
 
 
 
Please note the shaking of the head by Obama denying a relationship with ACORN, and the smarmy smiles he exhibits while McCain speaks.. At one point Obama laughs out loud as if to say that what McCain is saying is ridiculous. In reality, we now know that in front of 10's of millions of voters, Obama is the one making the deceptive statements, and not telling the truth.  Obama says on his involvement with ACORN: "The only involvement I've had with ACORN was I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMV's."  Obama purposely omits the above $800,000.00 given to ACORN by his campaign making his debate statement objectively false.  He purposely omits the $230.000.00 given to ACORN by the Woods Foundation when he sat on the board of that foundation with terrorist William Ayers.  That makes his debate statement objectively false.  He purposely omits the training he himself supplied to ACORN workers in the past.  That also makes his debate statement objectively false.
 
Now, metaphorically, in the dark of night, in the 11th hour of the campaign, when the 10's of millions of people he fraudulently deceived are not looking, he admits the fraud, and lying, by quietly amending his campaign spending report. I particularly love the talking point the Obama campaign has ready (McCain returned some money to some contributor) and the media will happily barf up this obvious misdirection to the public.
 
Update:  Joe Biden also denies the ACORN connection confirmed by the amendment to Obama's campaign finance report.  See the video:
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill Ayres, Weather Underground, Communism, Revolution, and Re-Education

Posted by Stefano on Friday, October 24, 2008 12:12:26 AM
An expose on the book Prarie Fire authored by Bill Ayres, Bernardine Dohrn and two others is now posted on Zombietime blog at:
  http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/  A quick read of the blog entry is worthwhile. 
 
"Bill Ayres is just a respected professor of education."  How many times have you heard that?  Below is a list of activities of the Weather Underground from May 1970 through May of 1971.  A more comprehensive list can be found on Wikipedia at :
May 10, 1970 – The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C. is bombed.[citation needed]
  • May 21, 1970 – The WUO releases its "Declaration of a State of War" communique under Bernardine Dohrn's name.
  • June 9, 1970 - The New York City Police headquarters is bombed by Jane Alpert and accomplices. The Weathermen state this is in response to "police repression."[citation needed]
  • July 23, 1970 – A federal grand jury in Detroit, Michigan, returns indictments against a number of underground WUO members and former WUO members charging violations of various explosives and firearms laws. (These indictments were later dropped in October, 1973.)
  • October 10, 1970 - A Queens traffic-court building is bombed. WUO claims this is to express support for the New York prison riots. [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]
  • October 15, 1971 - The bombing of William Bundy's office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]
  • May 19, 1972 - Bombing of The Pentagon, "in retaliation for the U.S. bombing raid in Hanoi." [NYT, 5/19/72]
  • May 18, 1973 - The bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York. WUO states this is in response to the killing of 10-year-old black youth Clifford Glover by police.
The You Tube video below is part of an interview with a law enforcement infiltrator of The Weather Underground.  Note what he says about what would be done to U.S. citizens who were incapable of being re-educated after the overthrow of the U.S. government.
 
 
 
It's interesting that comments are disabled on the You Tube site for this video.  I'm not sure why but maybe you could hazard a guess.  Comments on this blog are turned on.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (11) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oback and Infanticide

Posted by Stefano on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 2:41:02 PM
 Barack Obama abortion infanticide
 
I'm Oback Arama, and this is the last time I will address the issue of abortion and quote, infanticide, unquote, until I address it the next time.   Many are criticizing my 4 votes against providing health care to products of conception accidently born alive during an abortion.  Why people have a love affair with products of conception is beyond my ability to conceive.  Ha!  Ha!  You know, I went back and checked my record on these votes, because I was sure that I must have voted present at least once on this issue, but not so.
 
Now, we all have heard the old philosophical question, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"  Well, I ask you a similar philosophical question, "If a breathing product of conception with a heart beat dies in a dirty linen closet, and it doesn't get health care, does that make it a person with rights?"  Due to the fact that this question may be above my pay grade, I must be very careful about my answer.  Firstly, I don't pretend to know for sure if these things are living persons with rights, so the safest way to deal with them is to be as careful as possible to protect the right to choose and just assume that they are not human beings.  Therefore, if it's not human, it's not infanticide.  Secondly, I don't want people to twist my words and spread lies saying that I don't support universal, free, Cuban style health care.  But if you put this pre-viable fetus thing in the closet, and of its own accord it ceases to have a heart beat, and stops breathing, and no one is there to see it, really, who cares?  We must at all costs protect the sacred holy right enshrined in the constitution through the Roe vs. Wade decision.  I'm not one to blow my own horn, but it took a great deal of courage for me to lead my party on this issue by denying health care to the born unborn.  Now, as I feared, politically motivated, petty people are attempting to use this against my humanitarian health care initiatives.  But, I stood up when faced with that dangerous political decision, and hit the no button on four different occasions, and protected the sacred right of every woman and brave abortionist to snuff out, by neglect, accidently born alive, breathing human blobs of tissue with heart beats.
 
I hope that I have cleared up any doubts about what I believe and what I have courageously done to show my compassionate, sensitive actions on behalf of human rights and I hope my opponents will now stop these empty personal attacks that never fed a hungry child.  We need to get back now to the central issues of this campaign, like change and hope, and change you can use, and change that works for you, and real change, not change of the last eight years.  I hope that my life issues positions will encourage you to support the coming glorious United States of Oback Arama Nation, by voting for me for President, and not for that old Navy flyer guy.
 
I'm Oback Arama and I approved this message.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BornAliveTruth.org
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sixty Days and Still No Action

Posted by Stefano on Friday, September 12, 2008 6:40:18 AM
<


 
 
Today marks 60 days since President Bush removed the Outer Continental Shelf executive drilling moratorium.  The Democrats in Congress have done absolutely nothing in that time to bring relief to the American people suffering from gas pump sticker shock.  With winter approaching, Americans are going to begin to experience heating oil and natural gas sticker shock and thermostats set below 68 degrees.   Republicans have been trying to force a vote on an "all of the above" energy plan encompassing renewables, nuclear, coal, and the removal of the OCS drilling moratorium.  Democrats are more interested in kneeling before the environmentalist wacko lobby than in taking care of business for the people who elected them.
 
Pelosi is pushing for a sham bill that will allow drilling only where there is no oil and will set the offshore drilling moratorium in concrete.  She would rather "save the planet" than save her country from an energy disaster.  Harry Reid is more interested in exercising his power to block legislation than in doing his duty for his constituents.  With the congressional moratorium expiring on its own in 18 days, it may be to the advantage of the American people that these two incompetents are running Congress and may never agree on a bill that will pass.  Once the moratorium expires, the Senate Republicans can block any attempt at reinstitution of the moratorium, and leasing can begin in earnest.
 
The drilling issue and the surge of the McCain/Palin ticket is beginning to erode the job security of the Democrats in Congress according to a Gallup poll released today.   A revolution may be brewing.
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pelosi Drilling Scam

Posted by Stefano on Thursday, September 11, 2008 12:28:36 PM
Read the below linked article from the Institute for Energy Research.  The Pelosi "compromise" drilling bill is a sham and a scam.  It allows drilling only where there is little oil.  It institutes a permanent ban on drilling on the OCS out to 50 miles replacing the current annually renewable moratorium.  It continues the ban in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.  It lifts the ban beyond 100 miles.  States may opt-in to drilling between 50-100 miles by enacting state law. 
 
This bill is a pig with no lipstick and must be denounced as such.  GOP Congressmen and Senators must allow the moratorium expire at the end of the month.
 
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/09/11/no-energy-nancys-new-energy-plan/
 
 

Countdown Clocks at WishAFriend.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Cannot Define Victory

Posted by Stefano on Monday, September 08, 2008 9:50:17 AM
Is this statement even remotely plausible?  The candidate who wants a 16 month withdrawal time table regardless of the circumstances on the ground accuses the other candidate of attempting to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?
 
 
 
The question from Stefanopoulous is simple.  Define victory.  I believe that he could define victory with respect to his campaign but it again seems that victory for his country is not definable. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nothing Comes From Nothing

Posted by Stefano on Friday, September 05, 2008 9:58:03 AM
Charles Krauthammer says in a column today that McCain has forfeited the experience weapon against Obama by choosing Sarah Palin.
 
 
I disagree.  The selection of Palin does not negate the inexperience issue for Obama. In fact, his executive inexperience is brought into focus and accentuated by her superior executive experience. McCain has cleverly opened a two front war on Obama/Biden. Obama cannot defend his executive inexperience, only rationalize it. It will not go away and will continue to dog him. Now he must defend his empty "change and hope" position at the same time. I say empty because he has no concrete "change" record to substantiate his rhetoric. He will be on the defensive from now to November with no weapon but his empty platitudes.  As Maria sang in The Sound of Music, "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could", and that is all that Obama has to offer with his vacuous legislative, and executive record. 
 
McCain's surrogates including Giuliani, Thompson, Huckabee, Romney, and Palin must pound hard on both fronts over the next 60 days and keep Obama/Biden stuttering in defense.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Drilling Letter From Russ Carnahan (D-MO 3rd Dist)

Posted by Stefano on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 9:54:33 PM

 
I must say that the Democrats are on message and on talking points when they contact their constituents.  I am just about convinced that they think the citizens of this country are a bunch of morons.  They have been puting out the exact same talking points for the last 37 days since President Bush lifted the executive drilling ban. Anyone who thinks that Pelosi, Reid, and company are going to allow a true vote on drilling needs to read this letter that was just received today.  This is their true position and the poor,  the middle class, working Americans, and retired folks can just "eat cake" as far as they're concerned.  It's damn the drilling, full speed ahead on pipe dream alternative energy and those "hundreds of thousands of good paying green jobs."  It used to be millions; what happened?
 
 
A Message From Congressman Russ Carnahan‏
From: CongressmanCarnahan@mail.house.gov
Sent: Wed 8/20/08 6:40 PM

Dear  

Thank you for contacting me in regard to America's energy needs. I appreciate hearing from you and I welcome the chance to respond.

 When talking with people here in Missouri, I repeatedly hear about the pain at the pump. I, like you, grimace every time I fill up my gas tank.

 In order to address this energy crisis, we need to fundamentally change the way America powers itself. While the United States has almost 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, we use 24 percent of the world's oil. We have more oil wells than any other country on Earth. And no matter how many more we drill, we will never again pump as much as we did during the1970s. In fact, our oil production peaked around 1970. Since 2000, the number of wells drilled on land has climbed about 66 percent - from 3,000 to nearly 5,000 - while the price of gasoline has more than doubled since 2001. Even self-described oilman, T. Boone Pickens said, "This is one emergency we can't drill our way out of." I agree with this statement, and believe that we must address the root of the problem - America's addiction to oil. With high gas prices crippling the American economy, this country needs a long-term energy plan to lower gas prices, make American more secure, create green jobs, and combat climate change.

 While I am not against domestic drilling, I am against giving oil and gas companies more drilling rights, whether in ANWR, on the Outer Continental Shelf, or elsewhere on U.S. soil, when they are not drilling on the land currently available to them. I voted in favor of a bill to require the oil companies to drill on the 68,000,000 acres federal land that is already leased to them for drilling. Moreover, the areas with the vast majority of oil and gas are already open to drilling. According to federal government surveys, 82 percent of the area which contains natural gas in the outer continental shelf and 79 percent of the outer continental shelf with oil is available for leasing. Significantly, this was before Congress opened more space for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in 2006.

 While Americans are spending record amounts at the pump, oil companies are raking in record profits. This past quarter, the top 5 oil companies posted a combined profit of $44 billion in second quarter profits - up 42 percent more than last year. And this year, profits for the top five oil companies are projected to top $160 billion - far exceeding last year's record of $123 billion. Since 2001, the major oil companies have amassed close to $600 billion in profits. These record profits are not being used to invest in alternative and renewable energy, nor are they being used in such a way as to offset the price of gas for consumers. For example, in 2007, ExxonMobil spent only $10 million on renewable energy.

 I believe we need to seek out short-term solutions to bring prices down while developing a long-term strategy to power our future with less oil. We have not sufficiently harnessed our renewable natural resources. Since coming to Congress, I have been working hard for all of my constituents to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, bring down record gas prices, and launch a cleaner, smarter energy future for America that lowers costs and creates hundreds of thousands of good paying green jobs.

 In the short term, I, and other members of Congress, have been calling on President George Bush to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is almost filled to capacity. This has a proven track record of reducing the price of oil within weeks. When President Bush released a small portion from the Reserve in 2005, the price of oil dropped 9.1 percent.

 While continuing to advocate for immediate relief at the pump, I have advocated for increased utilization of our enormous natural gas reserves, as we transition into a low carbon economy. In order to make this transition, we need more investment renewable energy such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and biomass waste, while upgrading our transmission power grid, so that more energy gets from its source to its destination without losing it. We can fund these bold renewable energy investments by repealing billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for oil companies that are raking in record profits. Lastly, we must curb excessive oil speculation that is causing major market disturbances which prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand in the energy commodity market.

 In the coming weeks, Congress will continue to debate energy solutions to bring real relief to American families. Please know that I will continue to support and encourage legislation that will lower energy costs, decrease our dependence on foreign oil and protect our environment. Once again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future on this or any other issue of concern.

 
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama, Qualified to Command?

Posted by Stefano on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 1:30:28 AM
Having personally worked as an airline pilot for 31 years, I can assure you that every pilot watches every other pilot closely every flight. Flight instructors evaluate pilot performance to a strict standard. One of the unwritten principles that most every airline pilot uses when evaluating other pilots is embodied in the question: “Would you put your spouse and children on a flight commanded by that pilot?” If the answer is an unequivocal “yes”, the pilot passes: if “no” or “I’m not sure,” the pilot does not pass.

Let me ask you two hypothetical questions. Would you put your wife and children on an airplane piloted by Barack Obama? Would you put your spouse and children on an airplane piloted by John McCain? If you answered “yes” to either of these questions, I must question your commitment to the continued survival of your family. We know that Obama has no experience as a pilot and although McCain was once a pilot, I seriously doubt that he is current in flight proficiency.  

I remember the comedic movie “Airplane” where the pilots of an airliner in flight become disabled by food poisoning and a former pilot riding as a passenger is summoned to the cockpit to bring the plane to a somewhat safe landing. Innumerable jokes and gags permeate the story but one gag that isn’t explored is to ask a non- pilot to the cockpit to bring the plane in safely.   In the sequel to the movie “Airport” titled “Airport 1975”, which is an unintentionally funny movie, the pilots of an airliner are disabled by a midair collision with a light aircraft. Unfortunately there are no pilots aboard and a ridiculous air to air transfer of a pilot is accomplished to bring the plane home safely. In both cases, a real pilot is written into the story to bring the plane home safely. The reason for this is obvious: Even in a comedy, no one in the audience with half a brain is going to believe that an inexperienced non-pilot could bring a big airliner into an airport safely.

What if the above situation occurred in real life and the pilots of your flight were disabled. McCain and Obama are the only ones on the flight available to fly the airplane.  You must choose one of the two to pilot the plane. Who do you choose? Would anyone in his right mind choose Obama?  He’s never flown an airplane. He wouldn’t have a clue as to how to safely put an airliner on a runway. McCain was a Naval Aviator and a proficient pilot in his past. Although he has no experience flying an airliner, he could at least keep the plane right side up and would have a decent chance of bringing the plane home safely. Experience here is the key to making your choice.

One of the primary jobs of the U.S. President is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.     What kind of experience do the two candidates have with respect to the Armed Forces?

John McCain

 McCain grew up in a military family. His father and grandfather were both four star admirals in the U.S. Navy. He lived the Navy life from birth to his retirement from the Navy in 1981. McCain spent 23 years in the Navy as a commissioned officer and retired with the rank of captain which is equivalent to a colonel in the Army. He was a decorated naval aviator and a prisoner of war. He was the commander of a naval training squadron that won a Meritorious Unit Commendation. He attended the National War College.   He served as the U.S. Navy’s liaison to the U.S. Senate. McCain is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Much more can be said about McCain’s military experience but it is indisputable that he has a well rounded perspective having spent more than 45 years on the inside of the military as a navy dependent and a member of the navy, and more than 26 years as a civilian legislator participating in crafting legislation and reviewing policies affecting the military. 

Barack Obama

Obama serves on the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee. Obama has no direct or indirect military experience.

Some say that McCain has an edge in this category. This isn’t just an edge; it’s more like the New York Yankees against the worst middle school girls softball team in the country.  It’s difficult to understand how anyone in their right mind could say that Barack Obama is remotely qualified to be Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. Obama and his supporters may talk about how smart he is and what a quick study he is and what a great organizer he is, but when it comes down to experience, he is less than a neophyte on military matters. Generals like Wesley Clark may endorse him but he is still stuck with a deficient background.  Our military service is an all volunteer force but he chose to serve elsewhere. I might say that if you had a non-military person who had served in the houses of Congress for twenty-five or thirty years on military oversight committees, you might make an argument for that person for the position of Commander-in-Chief. Obama hasn’t even completed one term in the Senate. His bid for Commander-in-Chief is a bridge too far and a potential disaster. I don’t care who his Vice President is or who his Defense Secretary is. The President will be the commander and the last word on all things military. The Democratic Party has irresponsibly nominated an incompetent person for the job. We cannot allow this man to become Commander-in-Chief any more than we could allow him to fly an airliner with our family aboard.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Letter to Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-3rd dist. MO) - Reconvene Congress

Posted by Stefano on Friday, August 08, 2008 10:54:07 AM
Dear Mr. Carnahan:

The United States economy is heavily dependent on energy. It is imperative that the US government not stand in the way of our ability to produce affordable energy to run our industries, our infrastructure assets, our commercial and residential real estate assets, and our individual and corporate transportation systems. I noticed on your website that a component of your long term vision is to "Lower energy prices, create hundreds of thousands of new 'green' jobs, provide incentives for clean, renewable energy and fight potential energy price gouging and price fixing by OPEC". I believe that your long term goal to lower energy prices is commendable but I believe that we need some short term relief right now from the escalation of energy prices. The goal of new "green jobs" is a good one also but many of your constituents in the airline industry, the travel industry, the automobile industry, and the trucking industry are quite concerned about the jobs that they have right now. The high price of all types of transportation fuel is causing increasing layoffs and business failures. Many working class folks are unable to even afford getting to work. I'm all for development of alternative, clean, renewable energy sources but that is a long term vision that will not affect our energy problems for some time to come.

What we need from you and the Congress is an energy policy that includes alternatives like solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, clean coal and coal to liquids, and also increased domestic oil production. I keep hearing from your caucus that we cannot drill our way out of our energy problems. That argument disregards what I have already said about a comprehensive policy. The production of domestic oil through drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, oil shale in Colorado and other western states, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico is our energy bridge to a future of renewable energy and nuclear energy. Without the drilling, our economy will go into a tail spin. You say on your website that you have "...been working in Washington to make certain the economic challenges facing ordinary people aren’t forgotten." This is your opportunity to put your statement into action. The poor and the working class are hit the hardest by high energy prices. Poor folks spend upwards of 50% of their income on energy. A doubling of prices is devastating to their budgets and their ability to survive. You can do something about that right now.

Twenty-five days ago President Bush lifted the executive ban on Outer Continental Shelf, ANWR, and other oil production. Up to this date Congress has done nothing to lift the Congressional ban on such drilling. In fact neither house of Congress will even allow an up or down vote on such drilling due to the obstruction of Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid. I am personally unhappy that the Congress went on vacation for five weeks without taking a vote on this vital issue. A growing number of members of the House of Representatives has called for Speaker Pelosi to reconvene the House for the purpose of allowing a vote on increasing American-made energy. Human misery is not acceptable when we have the resources in the ground to enable a smooth transition to sustainable energy. I urge you to take a courageous stand apart from the obstructionists in your party for the people of Missouri and the people of the United States. Take a step toward the liftng of the ban on drilling by calling on the Speaker to reconvene Congress for a vote on a comprehensive energy plan. This could be the most important vote you ever make for our economy and our national security.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »