National Politics | Buckeye RINO

Congress predicted to be more Republican, but I’m still not happy

November 1, 2010 — buckeyerino

Election time is here.

Republican prospects for making gains in Congress appear to be in the offing.

But I’ll still be unhappy with Congress.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m energized about voting.

But I also have a melancholy feeling that won’t dissipate even with Republican control of Congress and the statehouse.

Why? We Republicans recycle way too much of our garbage. If I were speaking of environmental issues, you wouldn’t see a problem with that. No, I’m talking about derelict Republican politicians who resurface in elective office when they didn’t do a good job before the Democratic tide of 2006 rolled in. Perhaps no example illustrates this better than Jon Husted, who was Speaker of the House back in 2006, and now he’s the Republican candidate for Ohio Secretary of State. Why is this guy still around? Did we actually like the job he did and want to bask in those glory days again? No. It’s not as if I want O’Shaughnessy to win. I don’t. I endorsed the Libertarian, Charles Earl, in that race, but I have no expectation that he’ll come anywhere near winning this election. I expect Earl’s percentage share of the vote will be in the very low single digits. My conscience won’t let me offer my support to either Husted or O’Shaughnessy.

Many might say we want some new blood to take the reins of government. But do we see any new faces? Senator Voinovich is stepping down, so we’ll get some turnover for that seat, and I expect Rob Portman will win it handily, but is either Portman or Lee Fisher a new face?

Even if a tidal wave sweeps Republicans into power this time around, aren’t these the same guys that have been in the pipeline for about 4 years now? Were any of them that stellar back in 2006 to say,”Hey, how about recapturing the seat you just lost?” I think at least some of us, at least me, had been hoping the old guard would concede defeat and some newer faces would emerge to try to give the Republican Party an image makeover.

The best headlines this year were the ones where Tea Party favorites defeated the establishment in GOP primaries. I’m not 100% on board with the Tea Party (maybe I’m 80% on board with them), but I’m very happy that they’ve become a sizable enough group to do some GOP housecleaning. Heaven knows we’ve badly needed it. I wish there were some astonishing Tea Party victories here in Ohio, rather than down in Kentucky, over in Delaware, way out there in Nevada, and all the way up in Alaska. But I’ll take what I can get.

The Tea Party is really a middle-of-the-road constituency. Many among them are not hardcore Christian conservatives. Many are independent voters and ardent supporters of minor political parties. The mainstream media has it all wrong. These are not the people on the extreme conservative fringe of the political spectrum. They are the people that live next door or down the street, or maybe even you, yourselves.

And with that false MSM portrayal of the Tea Party, the establishment has woven a narrative that the Tea Party favorites are too radical, too extreme, to represent the voters.

The word “radical” is used to describe change. It is a change that is an abrupt departure from what was considered the norm. I think what the establishment finds so radical about the aspirations of the Tea Party is that the establishment would be replaced by the Tea Party favorites. There’s nothing really extreme in the ideology. It’s all about a reluctance to relinquish power. The crop of establishment Republicans we have before us have pretty much used ideology as just mere words to rally the masses. They don’t really vote that way as legislators. As legislators, they enjoy the perks of cutting deals, of being power brokers. They are drawn to those halls of power for exactly those reasons. They don’t really do our bidding. That’s how we end up with a Congress we have a low opinion of.

I’d be in favor of some radical change.

With no favorable track record for the establishment to run on, since they are such hypocrites with all their conservative talk, and a focus on their track record would truly expose their hypocrisy, they have made these elections about the question marks that surround the Tea Party favorites instead of about themselves. Radical. Extreme. Untested. Inexperienced. Unqualified. You are being told that Tea Party candidates are radical and extreme.

In reality, the most radical and extreme thing the Tea Party hopes to do in electing candidates this year is to replace the establishment. That’s what’s so unappealing to the establishment, is that the Tea Party’s aim is to put the incumbents out of a job, replaced by one of their own. Otherwise, the establishment Republicans are borrowing Tea Party credos for their own propaganda about what they, themselves, stand for. If the Tea Party is so extreme, so radical, why are the establishment Republicans echoing exactly what the Tea Party faithful are saying? Is it just pandering for votes? Of course it is. They want to co-opt the Tea Party message for themselves to win enough votes to put them over the top, but those messages really don’t convey what these Republican establishment types are all about nor do they really describe how they govern.

Pure and simple, the charges of “radical” and “extreme” are a last-ditch desperate effort of the entrenched establishment to hold on to power.

What’s worse is that the establishment really thinks that they are entitled to that power.

They’ll tell you that a Christine O’Donnell in Delaware or a Joe Miller in Alaska have no rightful claim to seats in the U.S. Senate. In O’Donnell’s case, the establishment conceded a November GOP defeat just as soon as the primary election outcome in Delaware was announced. They took their ball and went home. They gave up. They quit.

The most perfect illustrations of the establishment’s sense of entitlement are Charlie Crist in Florida and Lisa Murkowski in Alaska.

Former Florida Governor Crist, desperate to remain part of the national GOP establishment that he’d networked with, pulled out of a GOP primary race with Marco Rubio so that he didn’t have to make an early exit. He’s running as an independent, instead, grasping at anything he can cling to so that he can stick around.

Lisa Murkowski had no intention of an early exit, either. After a primary election defeat at the hands of Joe Miller, she got back in the race as a write-in candidate. She’s that addicted to the power she wielded. She can’t bring herself to walk away. She is trying to claw her way back into the Senate any which way she can.

Joe Miller and Christine O’Donnell have found themselves ridiculed for episodes from their past. Should this disqualify them from serious consideration? Lisa Murkowski may think so, but I’ve been around the block enough to know that all those establishment politicians have episodes from their past that they hope will go unnoticed. Christine O’Donnell, if she were placed on the scale with some sitting GOP Senator, and the blemishes from each one’s past weighed, would her demerits be any weightier than those already in the halls of power?

Lisa Murkowski, go ahead and point a finger at Joe Miller. There are four fingers pointing back at you.

I am absolutely disgusted when a sitting politician intones that a challenger is unqualified to be a legislator. I’m not swayed by their citations of “experience” as a reason to support them over anyone else.

The qualifications for being a Senator are the same as for being a registered voter except for a residency requirement (reside in the state you represent) and an age requirement (over 30 years old). How could anybody that meets those requirements possibly be unqualified? And what advantage is it to be an experienced legislator than an inexperienced one? The more experienced you get as a legislator, the farther removed you are from the constituents you represent, and the closer the orbit around lobbyists becomes as you are exposed to their tempting propositions for a longer duration of time.

It’s okay for legislators to be amateurs. In fact, it’s the ideal for them to be amateurs. When amateurs write our laws, they are likely to be more fair to the ordinary people of the United States, because they feel and experience what we feel and experience. Though it was pooh-poohed by the establishment and the MSM, I thought it was a major selling point when Christine O’Donnell said in an ad, “I’m you.”

Our Constitution has checks and balances built into it to ensure that our nation retains a government of the people, by the people, for the people. There are the separation of powers between the branches of government (executive, judicial, legislative) to check and balance each other. The Congress, itself, is structured with checks and balances. It doesn’t consist of one person issuing decrees. In the Senate, there are 100 persons and in the House there are 435, so, within each chamber, they check and balance each other, plus one chamber checks and balances the other chamber. So, if a Tea Party favorite really does turn out to be a train wreck, the damage done is limited.

There are also checks and balances between amateurs and seasoned professional public servants.

The executive branch enforces the laws. They administer. A politician who aspires to the executive branch ought to demonstrate some relevant experience. The resume of an executive branch candidate is highly relevant. You need someone with a lot of honed skills to be effective in the executive branch, and experience can demonstrate effective skills.

Judges are also professionals. Their chief qualifications are revealed by their resume. They interpret the law, review it to insure a law’s fidelity to the Constitution, and deliberate over very complex matters painstakingly set forth in courtroom hearings. They administer justice and balance the rights of the accuser with the rights of those accused when charges are lodged and suspects brought to trial.

But government decisions made only by professionals would lead us down the path of elitism which gives way to aristocracy which gives way to tyranny.

Voting is not the only check and balance amateurs have upon the professionals. Though a judge presides over a court room, a jury of amateurs decides the outcome. Though the executive branch carries out the law, it was intended for amateurs to make them. Turnover was to be encouraged so that we would have some amateurs arriving with each successive election cycle, while others who’d been in Congress a long time would eventually return to private life. That’s why elections for the U.S. House of Representatives occur every two years, to encourage such turnover to keep the Congress in touch with the people. There ought to be no career legislators. A career in elected political office is only fitting for the executive branch (and the judicial branch, although in the federal government, being a judge is not an elected office).

Yes, I want to show Democrats the door. I will be voting Republican for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. But I’m not elated that, in many cases, the Republicans poised to capture seats are the same ones we were disenchanted with back in 2006.

Posted in National Politics, Politics in the MSM, State Politics. Tags: National Politics, Politics in the MSM, State Politics. 1 Comment »

Guest blog: Behind enemy lines

October 24, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This blog article was authored by James Williamson, one of the younger brothers of yours truly. James grew up in Ohio, but he currently resides in Nevada, so he has a bird’s eye view of perhaps the most talked about U.S. Senate race in the nation. It’s such a high profile Senate race that President Obama was in Las Vegas on Friday night (10/22/2010), so James went to the Harry Reid rally, even though he doesn’t support Reid, just to see the President (who he doesn’t support, either). The title of this article is referencing his attendance at that rally. Like much of the rest of the electorate, James is highly energized about issues of national politics, so much so, that these days he wants to blog (more often than I do) to get a few things off his chest.

BEHIND ENEMY LINES

It’s not every day the President of the United States comes into town. In fact, it’s such an unusual event that even I succumbed to curiosity. OK, so my wife was the one that wanted to go . . . but since I had never been able to say that I had seen a sitting President (or any President for that matter) in person, I went along. I will confess that at first I wanted to shout “vote for Sharron Angle,” but I restrained myself and I’m glad I did . . not worth taking the chance of being pummeled . . .

On this occasion, the President was in town to rally support for the endangered Senate majority leader. (I may add that this was my first time seeing a Senator in person, as well.) Interestingly enough, I found that if you didn’t get caught up in the shouts and chanting it was really difficult to tell who exactly he was talking about.

President Obama said he wanted to break away from old style politics: A Washington without partisan bickering, politics where the candidate with the most money and cynicism doesn’t always win. He called for the parties to work together in a bipartisan way for the good of the people. Who were you talking to Mr. President? Look in the mirror when you make such statements.

Another interesting statement was that neither he nor Harry Reid was born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Then he lauded Reid for being a common man saying that he had humble beginnings and remembers what it is like to have to work for a living and struggle to make ends meet. Who are you trying to fool? I never went to a private school while growing up (OK, I technically went to a private college, but BYU tuition was less than Ohio State for me), nor was I privileged enough to have an Ivy League education. As for Reid, yes, he may remember what it is like to be a common man, but that’s just it: he has to remember. I’ll bet he has to think about it a long time to remember, though, because that is now ancient history . . .

Obama also decried campaign smear ads by Republicans and fear mongering ads by groups that aren’t even affiliated with the candidate, groups with funny names that have donors that can’t be identified. Funny, when my brother (none other than the Buckeye RINO) was here helping me move in, he saw such an ad campaigning against Sharron Angle . . . It was in Spanish, but he noted that the endorsement by Reid was missing (“I’m Harry Reid, and I approved this message”). I have since heard that ad and many others attacking Sharon Angle that don’t have Harry Reid’s endorsement at the end. Most of them use very negative pathos suggesting that Angle is not only radical but dangerous based on sound bites from some of the things that she has said that don’t sound very good on the surface but aren’t really all that scary. (Remember that Angle is a novice. Reid has had lots of practice speaking in public about sensitive issues, Angle has not.) I live here in Las Vegas, NV now and I can say that I have heard more of this type of attack ads directed at Angle than I have directed at Reid… Who are you talking to Mr. President?

When the rhetoric turned to bragging about accomplishments, Obama and Reid both touted their health care reform. Obama claimed that health care reform is making health care more affordable for consumers. Oh really? Then why am I faced with a 100% increase in the health insurance premium portion that I pay, plus why is the company I work for paying an additional 25% for 2011? To be fair, the dollar amounts are roughly equal, because the company I work for pays a much larger portion of the premium than I do, but combining them both represents roughly a 30% increase. So how is a 30% increase more affordable? Have we changed the rules of mathematics? If so, could you explain to me the new rules so I can understand them too?

Obama said that we should move forward and not backwards, that we needed new thinking. So when Reid bragged that the high speed rail line to California and the I-15 corridor work would bring thousands of jobs to the area in response to the economic downturn, was that a fresh idea? Is that new thought? Wait a minute, I seem to remember another time when we had a major economic fallout and the government started a mega-project in southern Nevada . . . Oh, yes! The great depression and the Hoover Dam . . . Original thinking there, Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid. Glad you are here to come up with all these new ideas. So what happens if it doesn’t improve the unemployment in Nevada? Will you then say “It would have been worse if we hadn’t”, or will you blame the Republicans for ruining it?

Well if you want some really new ideas Mr. President, some radical ones, I have a few. How about agreeing to allow use of our national parks by the native Americans as part of restoring trust after years of abuse and land grabs? How about returning power to the states by eliminating federal agencies and programs that are better handled on a local level, like education and welfare? If you are so anti-imperial, how about starting right here at home? In order to compete in the world economy, why not negotiate with the rest of the Americas to adopt the US dollar the way the European Union has? (This has already worked well in Ecuador.) Why not take it one step further and open the door to allow the states of Mexico to join our Union? Maybe then we could keep illegal immigration at bay once conditions inside the country improve and they are no longer drawn northward. (Of course you would have to cut off federal entitlement programs for that to work.) Maybe then we could get the gang wars under control if we could send in our military instead of theirs. Maybe then we could keep our retirees, that flee southward trying to keep themselves financially afloat, so that they retire inside the boundaries of the expanded US? That’s radical thinking. This is something no politician is even talking about, a new idea. Re-creating the New Deal under a different name is not a new idea.

After another year, and after we are ready for the next campaign, we’ll check in, Mr. President, and see if you are having any luck with that original thought. If you haven’t by then, we can help you out . . .

Posted in Health Care, National Politics. Tags: Health Care, National Politics. Leave a Comment »

Buckeye RINO 2010 general election endorsements

October 22, 2010 — buckeyerino

Endorsements:

(Lots of Republicans, to be sure, but not all–skip to the bottom of the post to see those who aren’t)

In Cuyahoga County government elections this year, the first such under the new charter, vote for all the Republicans you possibly can, including Dolan at the top of the county ticket. There is a partisan dimension to the corruption in Cuyahoga County. That’s the reality. The most powerful and entrenched Democrats caused it. Don’t harbor delusions that they are out of the picture now. They will find ways to infiltrate the new structure of government, too. They always do. To hamper such efforts at infiltration by corruptocrats, sweep out as much Democrat residue as you can by voting Republican this election. Farmers rotate crops because planting the exact same crop every year can diminish the productivity of the land. Likewise, every now and then, Cuyahoga County needs a crop of Republicans at the helm to keep the county fertile and productive. Allowing the Democrats to remain entrenched over the course of decades must necessarily lead to complacency and corruption. You can elect Democrats some other election down the road, after they’ve gotten the message drilled into their heads that they can’t keep up the shenanigans.

For Erie County Auditor, please elect Rick Jeffrey, not only for this reason, but because of what I’ve already noted about Erie County Commissioner Tom Ferrell (there’ll be another opportunity to oust Ferrell in 2012, when his current term ends–don’t waste it). Sometimes, I think Ferrell aspires to be a Dimora and incumbent auditor Tom Paul aspires to be a Russo. In the Auditor’s office shortly after Paul was sworn in, he wrongfully dismissed a top employee who performed her job well and did not have black marks on her record. The former employee filed suit over the dismissal, and she won. Erie County taxpayer money had to be squandered to legally defend an indefensible decision, and, on top of that, pay the penalty ordered by the court. Was Tom Paul sorry for what he’d done? No. He said he’d do it all over again, even with the same outcome. Who benefited from Tom Paul’s indefensible decision? Commissioner Tom Ferrell’s wife, that’s who. She was promoted to the position that Tom Paul wrongfully cleared out. Let the voters clear out Paul from his position and thumbing his nose at the taxpayers when he intentionally did the wrong thing.

For Lorain County Commissioner, trust me, you don’t want Joe Koziura, though he’s the good old boy who’s the darling of the Democrat machine. Vote for Tom Williams. Lorain County voters have rejected proposed county tax hikes on more than one occasion. They still haven’t rejected the politicians who keep attempting to hike those taxes. It’s time that they did. Joe Koziura is ready and willing to increase your taxes. Tom Williams has pledged that he will oppose all such attempts. Furthermore, if Koziura is elected, that would put three Lorain Democrats on the Lorain County Commission. Not only is that an unbalanced commission, one that doesn’t represent the county as a whole, there are no good ideas nor effective elected leaders originating from Lorain. That should be plainly evident by looking at what a disaster Lorain is, especially in comparison to the rest of the municipalities and townships in the county. Why would you want a county run into the ground the same way that the city of Lorain has? From the school board to city government, to county government, to those who represent the area in the Ohio General Assembly, there are no elected government officials from Lorain who have a handle on what it is they ought to be doing for the betterment of the community, with perhaps the lone exception of Jim Smith on the school board.

Having said that, also in need of replacement is the darling of the local SEIU, Sue Morano. Please vote for Gayle Manning for Ohio Senate. Here’s a link to Manning’s campaign webpage: http://gaylemanning.com

I’ve already urged voters to support Republicans for the Ohio House of Representatives this year.

It does no good to replace Joe Koziura as state representative with a Koziura disciple, Dan Ramos, who was an actual Koziura staffer down in Columbus. We don’t need to elect a Columbus insider. Columbus does not have our best interests in mind. The Plain Dealer had the good sense to endorse Henry “Skip” Lewandowski (you’ll have to scroll down the PD page to see the endorsement), and, for a change, the Lorain Morning Journal also endorsed Lewandowski for state representative in the Ohio House 56th District. Here’s Lewandowski’s campaign webpage: http://www.skipforohiohouse

In the Ohio House 80th District, which stretches from Erie County up into Ottawa County, please elect Jeff Krabill for state representative. Since 2001, Krabill has held a seat on the Sandusky school board. Incumbent Dennis Murray puts K-12 education on a back burner, but it’s an issue that the Ohio General Assembly spends a lot of time on in each session they convene. Feel free to consult ohio.gov for more specifics on the bills which Murray is a primary sponsor of. I failed to find any regarding education. Many of the bills primarily sponsored by Murray concentrate on legal requirements and legal penalties, so I’m sure the trial lawyers all over Ohio are grateful to Murray, who is a lawyer himself, for finding ways to keep lawyers employed, even while the rest of the private sector is shrinking. For example, lawyers would need to get involved in home improvements if the owner wants a company to come in and provide more than $1000 worth of improvements. That’s HB 557. If you commit some kind of menacing criminal offense toward another person, there are, of course, criminal penalties. For more fresh meat for lawyers, consider this: What if we elevated the criminal charge to the next higher degree because a homeless person was intimidated? That’s HB 509. If you feel like intimidating someone, find out where they live, first, because it’ll cost you extra if that someone is homeless. Then there are the frivolous bills, like a commemorative day (HB189), a War of 1812 bicentennial commission (HB 168), and commissioning a new statue to represent Ohio in Washington DC to replace an existing statue which represents Ohio (HB 581). HB 532 tinkers with exemptions to the taxable portion of estates, but, if it were me, I’d rather get rid of estate taxes altogether. Why is the state entitled to a chunk of the a$$et$ that a person accumulated over a lifetime? Did the state, somehow, earn it? Let’s mandate a “computer take-back program” to recycle your electronic devices and create the Electronic Waste Advisory Council to get the program off the ground. That’s HB 447. Municipalities and minor league baseball teams should be encouraged to partner with each other, shouldn’t they? So if a minor league team plays home games on municipally owned property, then no property taxes will be assessed. That’s HB 401. Murray sponsored two bills that offer sanctions against employers who would terminate employees that are victims of domestic violence (HB 167) or employers who would terminate employees, who, during legal proceedings, are testifying regarding the company (HB 170). These last two bills have noble purposes, but HB 170, in particular, seems hypocritical coming from Murray, and his role on the Sandusky City Commission in the dismissal of a Sandusky police chief. (Read “Smackdown on Women in Sandusky.” It has quietly become the #1 most widely read blog post here at Buckeye RINO.) By the way, what does any of this have to do with the challenges facing Erie and Ottawa counties right now? I dunno. Vote for Jeff Krabill. This is the Krabill campaign webpage: http://www.jeffkrabill.com/about

If you look at the top of the left hand column of this blog, you will see a search window. Just type in some keyword, and it will pull up all the Buckeye RINO entries containing that keyword. As a suggestion, type in “Terry” followed by “Boose.” There’s a lot of Terry Boose on this blog. Read through the articles and consider this: Unlike Murray, in the neighboring district, Boose has introduced and pursued issues that are keenly relevant to his district and to the challenges his constituents (and voters all over Ohio) are currently faced with. Re-elect Terry Boose for state representative in the Ohio House 58th District. Here is the Boose campaign webpage: http://www.terryboose.com/

I’ve been very wordy with all these endorsements, so let me handle the rest with bullet points:

Rae Lynn Brady for state representative for the Ohio House 57th District.
Rex Damschroder for state representative for the Ohio House 81st District.
Kathleen McGervey for state school board.
Bob Latta for Ohio’s 5th Congressional District seat.
Rich Iott for Ohio’s 9th Congressional District seat.
Peter Corrigan for Ohio’s 10th Congressional District seat.
Tom Ganley for Ohio’s 13th Congressional District seat.
Rob Portman for U.S. Senate.
Maureen O’Connor and Judith Lanzinger for Ohio Supreme Court.
Kasich/Taylor to replace Strickland at the top of Ohio’s executive branch.
David Yost for Ohio Auditor.
Josh Mandel for Ohio Treasurer.
Charles R. Earl for Ohio Secretary of State.
Dual endorsement, take your pick: Robert Owens or Richard Cordray for Ohio Attorney General.

Yeah, on those last two executive branch offices, you read them right.

Please vote.

Posted in Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics. Tags: Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics. 2 Comments »

Guest blog: Tea Party will not hurt the GOP

October 14, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: James Williamson, one of my younger brothers, an Ohio native, but currently residing in Nevada, authored this blog piece and has previously written guest blogs for Buckeye RINO, which you may read here, here, here, and here. While I’ve often offer election endorsements, it is true that I don’t often make predictions of the outcomes. I’m more interested in how I think you should vote rather than how I think you will vote. I have offered predictions about trends in economics, foreign affairs, and religion, though. Further, I wouldn’t go out on a limb and say the Tea Party Movement belongs to the Republicans, as independents, Libertarians, moderate Democrats, and those from other minor political parties are welcome to participate in the Party, and have, in fact, participated in significant numbers. I concede that the public perception may be that a coalition of independents and a splinter group of Republicans (the ones who have “gone rogue”) are the nucleus around which the Tea Party Movement has coalesced, and that the MSM plays up the dynamics of the interactions between the Tea Party Movement and the GOP, thus portraying the Tea Party Movement and the GOP as joined at the hip. I think Sharron Angle surprised everyone with $14 million raised during the latest financial reporting cycle, which underscores the assertions that James has printed here.–DJW

TEA PARTY WILL NOT HURT THE GOP

Recently there have been some statements by prominent members of the Democratic Party that tea party candidates will weaken the GOP by placing radicals on the ballot that cannot get elected in a general election. Don’t be fooled this nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the Democrats. There are at least three reasons why the Tea Party candidates will not hurt, but actually may help the GOP’s chances of taking back Congress in November.

1. The schism within the party isn’t really a schism. Ironically it was the Republicans two years ago who were pointing at the Hillary Clinton – Barack Obama runoff that touched of serious debate (and name calling) within the Democratic Party and tried to say that the Democratic Party was on the verge of falling apart. No such luck for the Republicans then and no such luck for the Democrats now. Again, ironically, it was Bill Clinton who tried to calm critics in his own party by saying that there was nothing wrong with having rigorous debate within the party, that it was all part of the political process, and that there was no reason to run around yelling “The sky is falling.” The same Bill Clinton that is now calling the Tea Party candidates radicals and extremists. Politically motivated or just an astute observer? I’ll let you decide that. Despite all the rhetoric, the Tea Party movement belongs in the GOP. It wouldn’t survive in the Democratic Party because it runs against everything the Democrats believe in. The fundamentals of the movement do strike a chord with Republicans, though, as it would be impossible to win a primary if it didn’t. The mere fact that the Tea Party candidates are winning GOP primaries is evidence that no third party is forthcoming. After all, it was when Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t win his party’s nomination that he formed the Bull Moose Party. The Tea Partiers may be upstarts within the Republican Party but they definitely belong to it and the RNC better get used to the idea.

2. Anti-establishmentarianism is stronger than the establishment wants to believe. It is so strong (and not without reason) that I predict that record numbers of newcomers to Congress will be elected this year. (I haven’t done the math, but at this point that may not be much of a prediction since there are so many newcomer candidates and vacating incumbents.) Why else could Sharron Angle be virtually tied with Harry Reid in the polls? If Angle has no political experience, no money (compared to Reid), and no brains (according to her critics) then why is she running neck and neck with the highest ranking official in the Senate? The answer is simple: Voters don’t care about experience and they don’t care how much money you have. I will make one more prediction on this one (even though the Buckeye RINO doesn’t like to make predictions, I have no qualms about doing so. I don’t get embarrassed when I’m wrong.): Money won’t matter this election. In fact it may actually hurt you come November because you will be viewed as the establishment AKA the enemy. These are perfect conditions for the Tea Party Movement and without the anti-establishment mood the movement would never have gotten off the ground.

3. The GOP needed a whipping. As many others have noted, both parties have been swinging wildly left on the political spectrum. Republicans barely have more fiscal restraint than Democrats. Even on moral issues there has been a leftward drift. Some may think that this is a reflection of the change in thought of the public or even simply progress in political thought, but support for the Tea Party Movement refutes those notions. The public has not shifted to the left. The political elites have. With things out of balance and Washington being ever deafer to constituents, a pull back to the right is necessary to keep things in balance. I would point out that even in Europe so-called right-wing “extremists” have made a lot of headway in the last decade.

I might even go so far as to say that the Tea Party Movement may actually become what saves our political process and averts outright revolution. You can only ignore your constituents for so long before they get angry and only so long after that before they go for their guns…. Of course I could be wrong on that count too. The Tea Party Movement may not be enough to get the blue bloods in Washington to listen and we may need a second American Revolution…

Posted in National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: National Politics, Politics in the MSM. 1 Comment »

Why Obama should appeal a court decision against “Don’t ask, don’t tell”

October 13, 2010 — buckeyerino

Obama favors repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” So does Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. They are of the opinion that coming out of the closet should not be cause for discharge from the military, nor should it be a bar to enlisting, so long as homosexuals in the military are following all the orders and rules given to them that everyone else must follow.

So it should be a welcome gift that a federal judge in California ruled that the Pentagon must strike down the the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, right?

But the Obama Administration is mulling an appeal over the ruling, which might baffle many in the LGBT community, and it may baffle many others who are center-left on social issues, particularly the issues that confront the LGBT community.

But Obama absolutely ought to appeal, even though doing so would be seemingly contradictory in light of his wish to abolish “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The reason is this simple: Separation of powers between the branches of government. This federal judge, while feeling that “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” isn’t constitutional, is making a ruling that is not constitutional.

The President of the United States is Commander-in-Chief of the nation’s military. The Congress has war powers. The judicial branch of the federal government is absolutely nowhere in the chain of command. In fact, the military has its own separate courts.

If this federal judge is permitted to run afoul of the Constitution and issue orders to the military, what kind of anarchy might ensue? Potentially, every federal judge in the nation could be issuing orders to the military.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” preserving our Union and our Constitution requires an appeal based on the constitutional separation of powers.

We cannot have a military that has every federal judge as its boss. There must be a unitary chain of command. All military authority flows through just one channel.

Congress has the power to repeal “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Secretary Gates and the personnel at the Pentagon are gathering information together for a report to Congress and are preparing to give testimony in Congressional hearings on the policy. Secretary Gates confirmed that the change in policy must be pursued through the channel of authority delineated in the Constitution.

Let’s not throw the Constitution into the trash bin. Allowing all federal judges to give orders to the military would do just that. To prevent our Constitution from being shredded, the decision cannot be allowed to stand, thus the Obama Administration should absolutely file an appeal.

Posted in National Politics. Tags: National Politics. Leave a Comment »

Marcy Kaptur lives in a glass house & throws rocks at Rich Iott

October 12, 2010 — buckeyerino

It makes a lot more sense to call U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur an Osama Bin Laden sympathizer than to call GOP nominee Rich Iott a Nazi sympathizer.

Did she really say, in her press release characterizing Iott’s war re-enactments as equivalent to an endorsement of WW II Nazis, “To perpetuate such a twisted and dangerous view of history is outrageous and indefensible?”

Well, let’s step back in time to March 1st, 2003. The Toledo Blade attributed quotes to Marcy Kaptur from an interview that smacks of revisionism to me. And, by the way, her take on Osama Bin Laden omits any sympathy toward Jews. Who is a more clear and present danger to Jews, Israel, and even America, today? Adolph Hitler or Osama Bin Laden?

“One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown”

And she said this, too:

“I think that one thing that people of faith understand about the world of Islam is that the kind of insurgency we see occurring in many of these countries is an act of hope that life will be better using Islam as the only reed that they have to lean on.

“I think that people of faith understand that for many of the terrorists, their actions are acts of sacred piety to the point of losing their lives. And I think that people of faith understand that there is a heavy religious overtone to the opposition.”

Do people of the Jewish faith understand and put into perspective the actions of the terrorists from such a sympathetic view? There are many within the Jewish community who exhibit religious tolerance and do not harbor personal enmity against their Muslim neighbors in America, but I don’t think there are many who would view the terrorists in the same light as Marcy Kaptur does.

From the myriad emails I get from those of the Christian faith, I’d say no, they don’t understand. Not in the way that Marcy Kaptur understands. Many don’t even understand my pleas for religious tolerance on this blog.

To be sure, I have, more than once, called for more religious tolerance, and my plea for religious tolerance extended to Muslims in America. Check it out for yourself by clicking this link and this link.

But we’re talking about terrorists, not about Muslims in America who obey all our laws.

And if the actions and propaganda of the Islamic terrorists in other parts of the world are couched in terms of “a heavy religious overtone,” what does the heavy religious overtone consist of, and to what end is it purveyed?

Annihilation of Israel? Annihilation of the largest population of Jews outside of Israel, namely New York City? Annihilation of America, which terrorists refer to as “the great Satan?” Aren’t these perversions of Islamic teachings aimed toward such ends?

But Marcy Kaptur made nary a mention of the terrorists’ rampage against the Jewish religion (nor of anti-Semitism, in general) in her interview, nor in her “clarification” a few days later (World Net Daily article from March 8,2003). She only referenced the religious convictions of the Americans engaged in the Revolutionary War against the British crown and her own Catholicism. Is this omission tantamount to whitewashing what the terrorists truly stand for and strive for? You decide. But read what follows before you do.

In her interview, she was pleading for peace, to take no military action against such an “insurgency we see occurring in many of these countries.” In the aftermath of the Holocaust, didn’t we solemnly resolve “Never again?” Don’t these terrorists wish to emulate the Holocaust?

Her remembrance of the history surrounding the American Revolution and the motives of the American colonies’ rebellion is on shaky ground. This is no benign revisionism. It is “a twisted and dangerous view of history” when applied to Osama Bin Laden and his ilk.

Massachusetts was a Puritan colony. Maryland was a Roman Catholic colony, settled by those who felt Great Britain under the Church of England was too religiously oppressive. Yet there were colonies that were settled in large numbers by the adherents of the Church of England.

The Puritans sought to escape persecution in England by relocating, first to the Low Countries off England’s shore, and, shortly thereafter, in Massachusetts. But that didn’t mean that the Puritans of Massachusetts championed religious liberty. Why did Roger Williams leave Massachusetts and take on an important role in the colony of Rhode Island? Roger Williams wanted more religious liberty than could be found in Massachusetts.

With all these competing religions in the 13 colonies, religious liberty in America had to be hammered out during the framing of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Religious liberty was not achieved by rebelling against Britain in the American Revolution, nor did it instigate the rebellion. Though Americans had a lengthy list of grievances against Great Britain, heavy taxation without any representation in Parliament was the actual spark that led to the Revolution.

Armed conflict in the name of religion happened in Northern Ireland, in the Christian reconquest of Moorish Spain, during the Crusades in the Holy Land, and in many other places throughout time, but not here on American soil, not even during the American Revolution.

Yet Marcy Kaptur portrayed the terrorists as akin to Revolutionary Americans. Such revisionist statements, if believed, would evoke sympathy toward the terrorists point of view. Even in her clarification, though she spoke out against terrorists, she did not abandon this faulty view of history and defended her comparison between the terrorists and the Americans who fought the War of Independence. Make no mistake, the Islamic Jihads occurring in other regions of the world are not wars for achieving independence. Quite the opposite. And with this comparison as the rationale for “peace” with the terrorists, her “twisted and dangerous view of history is outrageous and indefensible.” If we exit the fight against terror in the name of peace, would peace really flourish under the rule of the terrorists? There is no peace, whether we fight or not, but the fight against terror serves to protect us. I think protecting ourselves is a worthwhile endeavor. I thank God for the courageous women and men in our nation’s military who provide the most important public services rendered by any persons on the government payroll.

Marcy Kaptur further revises history, during her interview, by asserting that the attacks against us were brought about by ourselves. We bear some blame in the attacks.

” . . . we have to learn to coexist in a world with religious states that we may not agree with and find ways to cooperate.”

Those “religious states” have even more need “to learn to coexist” than we do. We are at the vanguard of finding ways to cooperate and coexist in the world. We do better at it amongst ourselves within our own borders than any other country in the world does, and we endeavor, throughout the world, to follow that same ethic.

And further:

” . . . I think this is such an important moment in history is because the United States cannot become the target of the anguish of the dispossessed in the most undemocratic region of the world.”

Two things about that statement bother me.

The first is that we can make ourselves a target of the dispossessed. Last time I checked, there are more dispossessed in the world who would rather migrate here than who would attack us. We don’t target ourselves and we don’t make targets of ourselves. The terrorists who cannot abide democracy choose to target us of their own volition. We ought not to abandon democracy, not even to avoid being targeted.

The second is that, in “the most undemocratic region of the world,” the dispossessed would do far better to alleviate their anguish by contending against their own tyrants than to contend against us. They should be seeking to gain their independence from tyranny.

If Rich Iott is a Nazi sympathizer for playing the role in such re-enactments, then whenever anyone stages a revival of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s “The Sound of Music,” we should disavow and repudiate the actors who appear as Nazis in that musical as being sympathetic to the perpetrators of the Holocaust. Hollywood ought to banish actors who play the roles of Nazis in their films for the very same reason. Kaptur’s reasoning in denouncing Iott on these grounds is a prime exhibit of the politics of personal destruction and character assassination. There’s no merit to what she alleges.

Kaptur’s posturing against Iott is mudslinging. Let’s call it what it is.

Apparently, there are Kaptur henchmen who are defacing Iott yard signs with swastikas . . . or are these Kaptur supporters who have gone rogue? In this Blade article, a Kaptur spokesperson, Mary Chris Skeldon isn’t so convincing in keeping Kaptur distanced from the vandals.

“For him to blame the actions of others on our campaign is ridiculous and a sign of desperation.”

The Kaptur campaign made a ridiculous charge in the first place that associated Iott with swastikas. Why wouldn’t the Kaptur campaign’s mudslinging be the impetus for such antics? And isn’t it the mudslinging, itself, a hallmark of desperation on Kaptur’s part?

Kaptur wants this story to be in the headlines rather than issues of domestic policy. As an incumbent representative to Congress, shouldn’t she want the headlines to be the causes she championed in Congress? Shouldn’t it be about the legislation she delivered on and the legislation she’d pursue if re-elected? Nope. Iott must be polling within single digits of Kaptur. She stooped this low against Iott, but not against prior contenders that she bested by double digits.

Iott, for his part, has remained focused on issues, with press release after press release talking about reforming Congressional earmarks and reversing downward economic trends. He’s the one taking the higher road.

Posted in National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Leave a Comment »

Obama’s highly political “economic policy” speech in Parma

September 8, 2010 — buckeyerino

Listening to a speech billed as revelatory of Obama’s economic proposals, I was hard-pressed to identify any new direction in White House economic policy.

Before a cherry-picked audience of Cleveland-area Democrats, Obama tried to fire up his political base in advance of the November elections. His remarks were enthusiastically received by those in attendance, but my own take on Obama’s address was that it was the very epitome of political double-speak.

This is, by no means, an exhaustive list of all the double-speak featured in Obama’s speech, so feel free to add to the list in the comments section:

He decried inheriting a deficit of a trillion plus from the previous administration. Then he portrayed his actions of the following year, also incurring a deficit of a trillion plus, as a rescue from a national financial meltdown and as an investment in the future, particularly an investment in education.
He called for tax breaks for small businesses. Most small businesses are not corporations. A large number of small businesses are owned by private individuals, and such businesses report their profits or losses on the business owner’s personal income taxes. Taxes on annual incomes over $250,000 are set to increase dramatically as temporary tax cuts expire, thus increasing the tax burdens for a significant number of small businesses.
He stated that he favored a free marketplace, yet the policies he is pursuing, especially redistribution of wealth and government investment in industries that aren’t self-sustaining, continue the trend toward a centrally-planned economy.
He stated that the middle class didn’t reap any economic benefits when the legislative and executive branches of federal government were controlled by Republicans. He stated that the middle class was shrinking under Republican rule, and that he intended to grow the middle class starting with making temporary middle class tax cuts permanent. On the other hand, he acknowledged a high unemployment rate with a forecast that it will take a long time for private sector employment to rebound. Widespread unemployment has hit the middle class hard, and threatens to shrink the size of the middle class.
He derided our largest corporations and our most influential industries for being left to regulate themselves while taking credit for saving our nation from a financial meltdown. The most influential industry that regulated itself was the financial industry, and the largest corporations within that industry, who were the most egregious with their excesses, were the beneficiaries of bailouts that Obama supported. As for self-serving regulators and bad actors in the financial industry instrumental in its demise, it should be noted that, in the Obama administration, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, and Larry Summers are charged with the responsibilities of financial industry oversight.
Though acknowledging that he and his party have the clout to enact laws without the help of the Republican Party due to the overwhelming Democrat majority in the current Congress, Obama, over and over again, scapegoated the Republican caucus for thwarting the legislation that the White House sought to advance.

One of the most astonishing claims that Obama made was that Ohio’s economy had grown over the past several months. Is that what Ohio’s economy looks and feels like to you? To me, the comment was designed to bolster the faltering Strickland gubernatorial campaign.

His frequent negative references to John Boehner alongside his criticisms that Congressional Republicans wanted to revert to failed economic policies of the past that put our nation’s economy in the ditch indicated to me that Obama is alarmed at the number of Ohio’s Congressional races now rated as tossups rather than rated as leaning toward the Democrat incumbents.

Stemming the Republican tide in the polls leading up to the general election, particularly in the swing state of Ohio, was clearly the main aim of the President’s speech.

Congressional Republicans must indeed share in the blame for our nation’s economic collapse.

Republicans (and Democrats) aided in distorting the marketplace, thus short-circuiting the natural corrections characteristic of a free marketplace. These marketplace distortions create an uncompetitive business climate (with the health care coverage provider industry among the least competitive). These marketplace distortions take many forms, from regulations that favor some industries and corporations over others; to earmarks and government investments in enterprises that aren’t self-sustaining; to regulatory bodies comprised of the agents of the largest corporations in an industry to the exclusion of smaller businesses and neutral, disinterested, independent parties; to forging private-public partnerships and forming hybrid private-public companies; to steering government contracts; to government marketplace intervention in the interest of political expediency; to carving out exceptions to the tax code for politically connected companies. Lobbyists secure these marketplace advantages using incentives such as political campaign contributions.

Republicans (and Democrats) have enacted federal budgets that have run up deficits and incurred more government debt.

The business community is complicit in these machinations that have brought about our nation’s economic plunge beyond what has already been stated. For example, the business community has clamored for greater government transparency and accountability, yet transparency and accountability should apply to the business community as well. The Wall Street meltdown should never have happened after the debacle of Enron and the related demise of the Arthur Anderson accounting firm, but unethical business leaders continue to sidestep accountability, as the recent bailouts clearly illustrate.

These are the factors that ran our economy into the ditch–not free market capitalism, not limited government, not austere government spending, and not low tax rates.

In this speech, President Obama states that our nation has already tried the “failed” Republican approach of free market capitalism, limited government, austere budgets, and low tax rates. Personally, I think the Congressional Republicans have talked the talk, but have not walked the walk, thus the approach Congressional Republicans give lip service to has NOT been tried. Rank-and-file Republicans, independents, Libertarians, and even clear-thinking Democrats hope that Congressional Republicans have gotten the message (a message delivered through public polling that shows the electorate’s overwhelming disapproval of Congress and through rallies such as those organized by Tea Party groups) and finally mean what they say.

So, as we approach the November elections, should we support Congressional Republicans or Congressional Democrats? Isn’t there a risk that Congressional Republicans still won’t walk the walk? For myself, at least the Congressional Republicans are saying the right things about free markets, limited government, budget cuts, and tax cuts, while the Congressional Democrats and the President, himself, eschew such principles, leading me to support the Republican candidates for Congress. After all, who is more likely to deliver on those right things? I think since the leading Republicans are at least talking about pursuing those right things, they are more likely to deliver on them than leading Democrats are, since the Democrats are talking about pursuing an opposite approach.

Posted in National Politics, Politics in the MSM, State Politics. Tags: National Politics, Politics in the MSM, State Politics. Leave a Comment »

Guest blog: NY State may be awash in red ink, but a state taxing the indigenous Seneca Nation is unconstitutional

August 26, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This blog article was written by James Williamson, one of my younger brothers, who is an Ohio native and, for now, an Alaska resident (his employer, a company owned by Alaskan Natives, soon plans to transfer him to another office in another state). James married a woman from among the indigenous Otavalo people of Ecuador, so his learning curve pertaining to indigenous American peoples is fairly steep. James has written three prior guest blog pieces for Buckeye RINO that dealt with recent schisms between states and the federal government. In the last two guest blog pieces, Imminent Rebellion: The Tar Pit, and Imminent Rebellion: the new Fort Sumter, the federal government and several states, most notably Arizona, do not see eye to eye on the immigration issue. His initial guest blog piece Imminent Rebellion: States vs the Federal Government spotlighted the rising tide of states reasserting their 10th Amendment rights, such as Texas, with its governor, Rick Perry, openly talking about secession. The state of New York has not seceded, but they are acting like a nation unto themselves when they ignore treaties between the USA and indigenous tribes, such as the Seneca Nation (counted among the league of Iroquois Nations), with their latest tax grab scheme. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, representing a city with a voracious appetite for tax revenues collected beyond the city limits, stated he’d grab a cowboy hat and a shotgun to forcibly seize money from the Senecas on behalf of a fiscally irresponsible New York State.

Don’t Mess with the Natives!

Recently I read an article that caught me by surprise. The mayor of our nations largest city is calling for the governor of New York to grab “a cowboy hat and a shotgun” and beat the natives into submission. You can read the text here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/19/seneca-nation-wants-bloomberg-cowboy-hat-shotgun-comment/

And the follow-up article here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/21/american-indian-tribe-miffed-bloomberg-remark-sues-block-ny-cigarette-tax/

Of course the natives are not happy…

At first this may seem a trivial dispute, but what caught my attention was that the taxes were being levied upon the Iroquois Nations not by treaty, but by a state legislature. Why is it that all dealings with American Indians in the early days of our country were by treaty and had to be signed by the president and ratified by the senate, but the governor of New York and the mayor of New York City are able to levy a tax on the Nations of the Iroquois through state legislation?

Let’s start with the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 2, which reads, “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” This of course was later modified by the 14th Amendment. You will note a striking similarity between the previous sentence and the following sentence from the 14th Amendment. “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.’

This may appear to be trivial but I assure you it is not. Why were the Indians (Native American tribes) not taxed? Could it be that they were considered sovereign nations? If they were not considered sovereign then why was it necessary to sign treaties with them and have them ratified by congress in the same manner as any other sovereign nation?   The answer of course is that they were recognized as sovereign then. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”. Sorry Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Paterson, you are not allowed by the constitution to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. Congress is.

Interestingly enough American Indians in their entirety were not considered citizens until 1924 with the passage of the Native American Citizenship Act. (Everyone else got it in 1868 with the 14th Amendment.) Even so, the first state to guarantee the right to vote was Utah in 1957. Yes, that’s right it took longer for them than women or blacks.   But I digress…

Returning to the question of sovereignty and citizenship the 14th Amendment of the Constitution states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Hmm… If the American Indian nations are sovereign then are they subject to the jurisdiction of the US and therefore citizens? If the child of an ambassador is born in the US, the child may not be considered a citizen because an ambassador is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the country of their parents because they are on U.S. soil for diplomatic purposes and, as such, granted immunity (at least in theory) from U.S. laws.   So what conclusions can we draw? Well, it would appear to me that an American Indian is only a citizen and bound by the laws of the United States if he so chooses. Otherwise he is a citizen of, and subject to the laws of, the tribe or nation to which he belongs and not subject to the federal government of the United States or to any of the states.

Interestingly enough, the Iroquois nations are the only tribes that issue their own passports. Yes, the very nations that are balking at this unconstitutional taxation of the Indians. Why would they issue their own passports and refuse to travel on U.S. passports if they wanted to be counted as U.S. citizens and be subject to its laws? See the link below for the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/sports/17lacrosse.html

Now it’s understandable the Mr. Paterson and Mr. Bloomberg would want to tax the Iroquois nations. Their governments are bleeding red ink and they want revenue wherever they can get it. Since they have already been squeezing the life out of everyone else, the relatively tax-free Iroquois Nations probably look like a popsicle in the middle of the fires of hell…

I would have to question the wisdom in this policy. Is it wise to antagonize a group of people who don’t consider themselves part of your culture, race, or nation when you have already removed them from their ancestral lands, decimated their population, destroyed their culture, and deprived them of liberty?   You have taken their coat and cloak already and now you want the sandals, staff, and undergarments as well? Why not beat up a kid for his shoes and then take his lunch money too? Why not chase a bear into its den to take the food right out of its mouth? What Mr. Bloomberg fails to understand is that, in the mind of the Seneca Nation, he is the bully that has been stealing their lunch for a very, very long time. He better pray that the kid getting his lunch money taken neither finds bigger, meaner friends, nor suddenly experiences a growth spurt and gains some more muscle mass…

Next time Mr. Bloomberg pick on someone your own size. Try riding through downtown New York City with your cowboy hat and shotgun and get the mafia bosses to comply with the law and let’s see how you fare…

Posted in International Politics, National Politics, Politics in the MSM. Tags: International Politics, National Politics, Politics in the MSM. 1 Comment »

An open letter to the political leaders of the newly emerging Afghanistan: Try religious tolerance to defeat the Taliban

August 21, 2010 — buckeyerino

To Hamid Karzai and all the other political leaders in the newly emerging modern Afghanistan:

You are in the process of setting up your government. You are in the process of winning the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan people to win their allegiance to the government you are setting up. You are in the process of framing your constitution and laws by which the Afghan nation will be governed.

I wish to offer a suggestion that at least a small measure of religious tolerance be incorporated into the legal framework of the new Afghan nation that you are working to establish. I wish to explain how it could benefit your government.

The United States of America, while not perfectly exercising religious tolerance, has pioneered incorporating religious freedom into a nation’s constitution. Since the founding of our nation, other nations have seen wisdom in some of the provisions of our Constitution, and have used some of them in writing their own body of laws.

I am not aware of any nation, however, that has granted to their people the same or greater magnitude of religious freedom that our Constitution affords us, the people of the United States. Even many of the nations of the supposedly “more enlightened” Europe still, nominally, have state religions. As a result, no non-Muslim nation is more accommodating to the Muslim faith than the United States of America.

Sure, a national debate in the U.S. has arisen surrounding plans to erect a mosque in New York City near Ground Zero, where terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center by flying airplanes into them. Public opinion polls show that the decision to build a mosque there is an unpopular one. Certainly much public pressure will be exerted in an effort to dissuade from proceeding with those plans. President Obama has said that he has made no pronouncements on whether or not there is wisdom in the decision to build a mosque there. But, at the end of the day, there is the Constitution of the United States, and if anything were to stave off the abandonment of the plans to build a mosque there, it is the Constitution that will do so. President Obama has affirmed this.

Meanwhile, there are other non-Muslim nations, such as Australia, which has no Bill of Rights, that have experienced violent strife between non-Muslims and Muslims. The Australian government seems to have little effect in eliminating the occurrence of such vigilante mob riots. Also, there are non-Muslim nations, such as many in Europe, that seek to regulate how Muslims within their borders dress themselves, and even regulate against the erection of minarets on mosque properties. Despite the public opinion polls showing the unpopularity of the plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero, I am of the firm opinion that no non-Muslim nation is a greater friend to the Muslim faith than the United States of America. Muslims within our borders thus derive benefits from a Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion.

I do not expect the new Afghan nation to mirror the United States in this regard. I know that the people of Afghanistan are not prepared nor predisposed to allow such a degree of religious freedom. But I would like to suggest some “baby steps” that can be written into Afghan law that would be of benefit to the new Afghan government.

The more a government wishes to enforce adherence to the tenets of religion, the more it will resemble the Taliban. In a world where global communication takes place ever more frequently, populations are more exposed to philosophies outside that religion, and the temptations that accompany such exposure. It can’t be helped. A government can’t stop communications from beyond the borders from reaching its citizens to the extent that it once was, when travel occurred at a much slower pace, and communications from outsiders much less frequent. To ensure adherence to religious tenets, such as Sharia law, governments must resort to more and more oppressive measures if they wish to counteract the influence of outside philosophies.

Behold the nations that do, in fact, desire to counteract outside influences. The measures they take become increasingly more invasive into the daily lives of private citizens. In the West, we might call it Big Brother. The origins of that term “Big Brother” are contained within writings that are not permitted by Islam, but I don’t know what corresponding term is that’s used among Muslims to convey the same meaning. Perhaps it suffices to say that governments wishing to counteract such influences will seek to spy on every citizen’s life to guard against any departure from the tenets of Islam, such as banning Blackberry devices until the means of decoding the encryption is disclosed to the government.

Another more oppressive way to counteract outside influences is through fear, with harshly severe penalties meted out against citizens and their families for increasingly smaller infractions of Islamic tenets. Fear is the means adopted by the Taliban to counteract outside influences.

The grip of government over citizens must grow ever more tightly over time in order to maintain compliance. Citizens are chafed by such measures, and voluntary allegiance to such a government may be compromised. Will dealing with citizens much more harshly counteract the waning voluntary allegiance of citizens? I suggest that there are more underpinnings of the Muslim exodus to the West, particularly to America, than just economic opportunities or the desire to spread the Muslim faith among infidel nations. I suggest that many Muslims that have migrated to America do so, in part, because they do not choose to live in fear.

If you want to win allegiance away from the Taliban, you must not only provide greater economic opportunities, you must also grant citizens a relief from fear. To do so, the new Afghan government must relax the grip upon the citizens to regulate every aspect of life. They must trust the conscience of the citizens. The government must trust that citizens will make decisions compliant with Islam of their own volition. On the occasions where citizens deviate from the tenets of Islam, the penalty must not be so severe that citizens feel a lesser allegiance to the government. If the government is to mete out much milder penalties, then the ultimate aim and desire of the government must not be to strictly enforce adherence to the tenets of Islam.

Instead, peace that mitigates against the rivalries that always exist among diverse populations should be paramount.

That peace, through the laws that you design and through the order that you exercise in your administration, yields a more stable government and a more stable society. As volatility decreases, outside investments in Afghanistan will increase. As investment increases, economic opportunities and prosperity will increase. As prosperity increases, loyalty to the government will increase. This has been the experience of the United States.

Allegiance to the Taliban will dissipate, and the new Afghan government will have no tendency to evolve into a regime that resembles the one under Taliban rule.

When the foreign troops withdraw, more than military and policing measures must be put in place to prevent the overthrow of your new government by the Taliban. A population that will not tolerate nor cooperate with the Taliban is also essential to such resistance against the Taliban.

Relaxing the grip on the citizenry can only coincide with a small measure of tolerance toward deviation from Islam. If you do not permit any deviation, then your government must become like the harsh regime under the Taliban, or the harassing and increasingly invasive regime governing neighboring Iran. Those are the choices. Make your decision about what kind of a government you want to be.

I spoke of “baby steps” incorporated into the legal framework of the newly emerging Afghanistan, and now that I’ve explained some of the reasons why and some of the benefits that will accrue, let me suggest what those “baby steps” might be.

There must be freedom of conscience. This means freedom to believe the philosophy that one wishes to believe. Acting on those beliefs, or practicing the tenets of those beliefs, however, would be subject to law. In essence, one would not be penalized for beliefs, only for actions proscribed by law. Therefore, an infidel, such as a Christian, would be permitted Afghan citizenship, with all that is entailed by citizenship, such as the right to vote and the ability to apply for and receive a passport, without being punished for merely believing what the infidel believes. In the past, Afghan citizens discovered to be Christians might face execution. For those who are discovered, by whatever means, to be infidels, such as Christians, no legal penalty would apply so long as their actions were within the parameters allowed by law.

Beyond beliefs, infidels ought to have a right to act upon those beliefs in a small measure. Such actions permitted under the law, and the prohibitions subject to penalty under the law, might be as follows:

Infidels may assemble and worship together under the following circumstances: They must not worship outdoors or in any place that is designed to make their worship conspicuous to passers-by. The infidels cannot purchase property on which to build an edifice for worship, as such an edifice would be construed as advertising a religion other than Islam. The infidels cannot assemble for worship in public buildings or businesses. The infidels must assemble in tents and private homes unadorned by any images incompatible with Islam. The infidels must not advertise. The infidels must not solicit more followers, such as carrying out missionary, evangelizing, or any other ministries designed for recruitment. The infidels shall not operate schools. Any instruction must only be given clandestinely in private homes or during the course of the worship assemblies.

Infidels shall not speak ill of Islam, even in private conversation, even when assembled privately for worship, nor by writing or drawing.

Infidels may possess books of scripture so long as they are only viewed or used in private homes or at worship assemblies. They must be stored in an enclosed space that conceals them from view to visitors to the home (in a closed box or trunk or wrapped in an opaque material would be okay, but not on a bookshelf, nor resting, uncovered, upon the floor). They must be concealed when carrying them outdoors, such as to another private home or to a worship assembly. The book cover can only label its title in words. It cannot be adorned with religious symbols. No sales of such scriptures can be transacted entirely within Afghanistan. They must be purchased from beyond the nation’s borders, whether purchased in person and conveyed back to Afghanistan concealed in the buyer’s luggage, or purchased by orders placed inconspicuously by mail, phone, internet, or some other third party, to be shipped to the buyer by mail or other parcel courier. If shipped to Afghanistan, the book should be wrapped to conceal the book completely, and the packaging can only display the name and address of the buyer, and the return address, with no name, of the distributor or seller, along with any postage stamps, bar codes, or other markings that couriers need for routing the packages to their destinations. If foreign sellers balk at complying with such shipping requirements, do they want to do business with Afghan citizens, or not? If they do, they’ll meet the requirements.

Only when assembled, or alone in private, so as not to have the intent of being heard by passers-by, may infidels utter prayers or speeches that are not in keeping with the Muslim faith.

In any week, the holy day used for religious observances by the infidels shall be the same as the holy day used by Muslims. Saturday or Sunday assembly for worship, such as is customary in non-Muslim nations, will, instead, take place on Friday.

Apparel worn by infidels must be apparel that is also acceptable for Muslims to wear. The same applies to hairstyles, makeup, jewelry, purses, wallets, and body markings.

There must also be some kind of legal penalty against Muslims who harass infidels on the basis of religion when the infidels are compliant with all Afghan laws, with the penalties meted out on a sliding scale commensurate with however egregious the harassment was proven to be.

With these minimal “baby steps,” Afghan exiles who left the Muslim faith might consider being repatriated, further strengthening the population’s resolve not to tolerate nor cooperate with the Taliban. Those who are repatriated might also benefit the nation by bringing back whatever skills or wealth they may have acquired abroad. Foreigners may feel less endangered by guarantees of these minimal religious protections, whether conducting business or performing volunteer service.

I believe when Afghan citizens sense the difference between the new Afghan government and the old Taliban regime, they’ll prefer rule under the new government over rule under the Taliban. I believe the citizens will favor more freedom over more fear.

Perhaps Afghans will be able to tolerate more than these “baby steps,” and maybe religious freedom can be expanded a little bit more. Yes, there is a risk of more exposure to Western ways, and all the perceived negatives entailed with it, but Western ways will be increasingly exposed, anyway, by virtue of the shrinking global village we all live in. Helping Muslims to withstand the temptations of Western ways little bit by little bit by peacefully living with infidels in their midst is more useful than not building up the strength of one’s convictions, and becoming easy prey to temptations when the Western world, inevitably, bursts upon them with full force. When that day comes, isolation from infidels will not have prepared them.

The American experience with religious freedom has been a good one. Even “baby steps” in that direction will reap some benefits. If you step in that direction, don’t fear the future. It will be better than the past.

Posted in International Politics, National Politics. Tags: International Politics, National Politics. Leave a Comment »

One more Iott town hall meeting scheduled

August 19, 2010 — buckeyerino

Rich Iott, U.S. representative candidate for Ohio’s 9th Congressional District had already announced a schedule of town hall meetings (shown here), including one tonight (8/19) in Sandusky at 6:30 pm at the Erie County Senior Center, 620 E. Water Street.

Added to the schedule on August 30, at 7 pm, in Holland, OH, is a town hall meeting to be held in the Holland Branch Library, 1032 South McCord Road.

Kipton, Port Clinton, and Oak Harbor are the other communities Iott will be visiting between tonight and September 2nd.

Ohio’s 9th Congressional District includes nearly all of Lucas County, all of Ottawa County, all of Erie County, and southern Lorain County.

Posted in Announcements, Local Politics, National Politics. Tags: Announcements, Local Politics, National Politics. Leave a Comment »

Press release: Iott Signs No Pork Pledge

August 18, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This press release was issued on 8/17/2010. Ohio’s 9th Congressional District stretches from Lucas County through Ottawa County, Erie County, and into southern Lorain County.

Iott Signs No Pork Pledge

Rich Iott, candidate for Ohio’s 9^th Congressional District, has signed the No Pork Pledge sponsored by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

CAGW, which advocates the elimination of waste and inefficiency in government through nonpartisan public education programs and lobbying activities, in July named incumbent Rep. Marcy Kaptur their ‘Porker of the Month’ for “gaming the House Democrats’ prohibition on awarding earmarks to for-profit companies and wasting taxpayers’ money.”

Upon notice of the award, Iott said:

“Politicians like Marcy Kaptur, who’ve been in Washington so long that they actually think this sort of wasteful spending is a good thing, have brought our county to the edge of bankruptcy with a debt approaching $14 trillion. Now is the time to acknowledge that earmarks need to stop and that her so-called ‘legislative priorities’ are not the priorities of the taxpayers she’s supposed to represent.

“Ohio’s 9^th Congressional District needs a businessman who understands that “eviscerating earmark reform and wasting taxpayers’ money” (as the CAGW called it) is not the way to create economic growth in the district, the state or the nation.

“When I’m elected, I promise to end ‘pay-to-play’ corruption, and bring some real-world, common sense business experience to Capitol Hill.”

In following through on that promise, Iott signed the No Pork Pledge which reads:

I, Rich Iott, pledge to the constituents of the 9^th Congressional district of the state of Ohio and to the American people that I will not request any pork-barrel earmark, which is defined as meeting one of the following criteria:

Requested by only one chamber of Congress

Not specifically authorized

Not competitively awarded

Not requested by the President

Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding

Not the subject of congressional hearing

Serves only a local or special interest

“When career politicians each try to get their own piece of the pie, it is the taxpayers who are left with an empty plate – and the bill. While I don’t need to sign a pledge to remember that my obligation is not to spend taxpayer money on pork, I’m happy to put my commitment in writing so the voters can hold me accountable,” Rich Iott said.

Posted in National Politics. Tags: National Politics. Leave a Comment »

The Constitution, at times, to some people, is an inconvenient thing, but worth preserving

August 16, 2010 — buckeyerino

Can we stop with the assaults on the Constitution already?

What impacts us the most noticeably is the erosion of the Bill of Rights because it spells out the rights of American citizens.

Freedom of the press. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of peaceable assembly. Freedom to bear arms. Freedom to remain silent when suspected of a crime. Freedom to have a jury of your peers decide the outcome of a case when you are tried on criminal charges. Freedom to not be compelled to testify against yourself in court. Freedom to have an attorney represent you when you are detained as a suspect. Freedom to not have your privacy, your domicile, invaded and personal property confiscated during the course of a criminal investigation unless you are presented with a warrant issued by a judge. Freedom for citizens to retain powers not expressly reserved unto the federal or state governments.

And there are other freedoms beyond these.

Yet they are all under assault.

It’s inconvenient for the Department of Homeland Security to obtain warrants to gain access to private conversations that take place by phone or email.

It’s inconvenient that attendees of a town hall meeting voice disagreement with an elected official.

It’s inconvenient to have a secret agenda that gets sniffed out by the press.

It’s inconvenient that police aren’t the only ones that can bear arms.

It’s inconvenient that a religion might suggest that you commit sin.

It’s inconvenient that you can’t coerce your family members to remain members of the religious denomination they grew up with.

It’s inconvenient that police aren’t able to coerce an admission of guilt from a suspect.

It’s inconvenient that a suspect might request an attorney before agreeing to respond to the questions of the police.

It’s inconvenient to Mirandize suspects.

It’s inconvenient that a prosecutors can’t have a case decided by a judge biased in their favor, and, instead, have it decided by a unanimous verdict from a jury.

It’s inconvenient for a Tea Party gathering to take place just outside a venue where elected officials are trying to drum up support for the policies they want to implement.

And there are other inconveniences, depending on who you are and what coercion you want to exert.

And now the latest fad is to attack the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is a very useful amendment. Among the ramifications of the 14th Amendment is that states cannot infringe upon rights granted by the Constitution to citizens. It’s not contained in the Bill of Rights, but it applies the Bill of Rights to the laws of every state in the Union. Most importantly, citizenship could not be withheld from those born on American soil simply because a special interest group, or a state, wanted them excluded. Large segments of our population would not have been truly free without the 14th Amendment.

The current controversy surrounds “anchor babies,” which are children born on U.S. soil to parents that do not have a legal right to reside here, and the birth of the child allows those illegal immigrants to get a foot in the door.

I think there are other ways to handle illegal immigrants so that they are legally required to leave the United States even after having a baby born here, even a baby who is a U.S. citizen. A baby who is entitled to be a U.S. citizen. A baby that has a guarantee of U.S. citizenship. I may tackle such a proposal in an upcoming blog piece.

But if you are going to repeal an amendment or portion thereof, shouldn’t you choose one that took a measure of freedom away from citizens, such as the 16th Amendment that established an income tax?

I don’t want citizenship withheld from babies born on our soil. I think it’s dangerous for the integrity of our Constitution to even entertain such a notion.

I don’t want any of our Constitutional rights and freedoms to be curtailed because there are those who find it inconvenient.

Don’t you dare touch the 14th Amendment! Stop endangering our Constitution!

Our Constitution and the rights it grants are the envy of billions of individuals who live beyond our borders. Why in the world do we want to attack it? Why would we want to nullify portions of it that granted more freedoms to citizens? It amounts to insanity. It amounts to stupidity. It amounts to betrayal. It amounts to sabotage. It amounts to Big Brother. It amounts to oppression. It amounts to tyranny. It amounts to the destruction of our republic.

I love our Constitution. I hold it dear. Stop messing with it.

Posted in National Politics. Tags: National Politics. 2 Comments »

Ohio’s most liberal Representative to Congress is Betty Sutton

August 12, 2010 — buckeyerino

Need some good reasons to vote for Tom Ganley for Congress? There are boatloads of them. Some of the most obvious reasons, for voters who are paying attention, would be the contrasts between Tom Ganley and the Democrat incumbent representing Ohio’s 13th Congressional district, Betty Sutton.

If you are unfamiliar with Tom Ganley, the Republican nominee, I would urge you to visit his campaign website for an introduction to him.

If you’re a 13th district voter, you should already know U.S. Rep. Betty Sutton.

Did you know that, in the 111th Session of Congress, she has voted the Democrat Party line, as defined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 99% of the time? This ties her with 9 others for 15th place on the list of those voting the Democrat Party line. Only 14 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are ahead of her on that list, and one of those 14 is Nancy Pelosi. Another one of those 14 ahead of her is Pelosi’s Number 2, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, but his voting record only supersedes hers by one-tenth of one percent. ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT SEPARATES HER FROM THE NUMBER 2 DEMOCRAT IN THE U.S. HOUSE! Keep in mind that there are 433 (two vacant seats, otherwise 435) House members, and that 255 of them are Democrats. 15th place is rarefied air, indeed.

If you’re curious about how loyal other Democrat members of Ohio’s delegation are to Nancy Pelosi, the Washington Post presents this webpage. 56 Democrats are ahead of Tim Ryan, with a voting record that’s 98.4% in line with Nancy Pelosi. Mary Jo Kilroy and Charlie Wilson clock in with 98.1%. Marcia Fudge is pegged at 97.7%.

By contrast, no Ohio Republicans show as much loyalty to the Republican Party line as these 5 Ohio Democrats do to the Democrat Party line. Overall, Democrats in the U.S. House are more monolithic in their loyalty to the Democrat Party line than Republicans are to theirs. Are Congressional Republicans the monolithic obstructionist “Party of No?” With only 180 Republican members of the U.S. House, to begin with, Republicans have very little power to block the majority party. When legislation that Pelosi wants is “obstructed” from passage, defectors from her own party made that “0bstruction” possible. The record shows, however, that defection is more rare among Democrats than among Republicans. I can only interpret that to mean that Republicans are more bipartisan.

Oh, you wanted to know the rest of the Pelosi-loyalty numbers for Ohio’s Congressional Democrats: Marcy Kaptur, 96.2%; Steve Driehaus, 94.7%; John Boccieri, 93.8%; Zack Space, 93.2%; Dennis Kucinich, 91.6%. OK, Kucinich is far more liberal than this Pelosi-loyalty percentage would indicate, but I still maintain that he’s not as liberal as Betty Sutton.

In my book, Nancy Pelosi is uber-liberal, firmly entrenched in the left-wing of the left-wing of the Democrat Party, as is her constituency back in her San Francisco & vicinity home district, California’s 8th Congressional district. Here’s a map of Pelosi’s home district, just so you can get an idea of who her constituents are. Therefore, in my book, the more one votes the Democrat Party line, which line is defined by uber-liberal Nancy Pelosi, the more liberal one is likely to be, with few exceptions. By that standard, Betty Sutton is Ohio’s most liberal Representative to the U.S. House, and our state has some fairly liberal Congress members.

I know some of you will say “Dennis Kucinich doesn’t vote as often with Nancy Pelosi because he’s even further to the left than Pelosi is.” I disagree. There may be a very small handful of issues where Kucinich is further left than Pelosi, but I can think of a number of occasions, particularly during Presidential Democrat Primary debates, when Kucinich has made statements that are much more mainstream, some of which even I, DJW, had to agree with. I truly believe that both Pelosi and Sutton are more liberal than Kucinich.

Now, I want you to look at this map of Ohio’s 13th Congressional district, covering the northern half of Lorain County, a wide stripe of southern Cuyahoga County, a wide stripe of northern Medina County, and the western half of Summit County. Now I ask you, which community in that district is as liberal as Betty Sutton? I don’t think Lorain or Elyria are. I should know. I’ve campaigned in those communities, myself. Oberlin is the most liberal community in Lorain County, and it’s in Marcy Kaptur’s district, not Sutton’s. Does the constituency of Betty Sutton’s home district resemble the constituency of Nancy Pelosi’s home district? I don’t think so. I think there’s a terrible mismatch between the pulse of the 13th district and the ideology of Betty Sutton, and I think it’s high time that the voters knew that Sutton is out of touch with them.

(By the way, how frequently is she hosting live, in-person town hall meetings?)

In 2006, when U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown left the 13th District seat open in order to vie for his Senate seat, there were crowded fields in both the Democrat and Republican primaries to succeed him. In the nomination contests, no candidates reached a majority (over 50%) of each respective party’s votes. Carpetbagger Betty Sutton was nominated with 31.29% of the Democrat vote. Two keys to her nomination victory were Sherrod Brown’s endorsement and Emily’s List’s backing. Emily’s List, by the way, is a PAC that endorses female candidates who embrace uber-liberal feminist political positions (as opposed to mainstream feminist political positions), with the most important tenet to embrace being support for abortion-on-demand. To Emily’s List, Sarah Palin is the most disgusting piece of crap on the planet.

Lorain Mayor (at the time) Craig Foltin was nominated with 37.46% of the Republican vote. I was an unabashed supporter of Foltin, and gave some help to his campaign as a volunteer.

Betty Sutton won the seat in the November 2006 elections when anti-Republican sentiment had reached its high-water mark in Ohio in the wake of some widely publicized scandals that tarnished some of Ohio’s Republican politicians. It was a difficult political environment for Foltin to campaign in that year.

There was a former U.S. President who had a campaign mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Oh yeah, that was Bill Clinton. Way back then, I guess Sutton wasn’t paying attention. Should we forgive her for it?

Besides knowing the district and its needs very well, Foltin understood a number of things about economics, unlike Betty Sutton, who has to be told how to vote on economic issues because she can’t figure out such things by herself.

In 2008, I endorsed Dave Potter for Congress over Sutton, and much of my decision was based on their relative understandings of economics. Potter knew economic principles quite well, while Sutton has to rely on others for guidance on economic decisions, and those those guiding Sutton seem to be more rooted in mythology than reality.

At the time of Sutton’s campaign against Potter, this is what she touted as her economic record:

Rep. Sutton supports the suspension of purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) temporarily. Filling the SPR takes 70,000 barrels of oil off the market each day, even though the reserve is 97 percent full with enough to meet our national security needs. At a time of record prices, suspending these government purchases, as we have done in the past, could reduce gas prices by 5 to 24 cents a gallon — a critical first step for America’s families, businesses, and the economy.
Rep. Sutton has joined with other Freshman House members to urge the President to temporarily suspend purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This would allow more oil to remain on the market and could drive down the price of gas for consumers by as much as $.25 a gallon.
Rep. Sutton is also a cosponsor of H.R. 5473 to temporarily suspend shipments to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Rep. Sutton is a cosponsor of H.R. 2372 – WEAN Off of Oil Act (DeLauro) – Imposes a 50% tax on crude oil profits over $50 per barrel by major oil companies and directs proceeds to the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
House passed bill to deal with price-gouging/fixing at the wholesale and retail level: Rep. Sutton cosponsored and the House passed H.R. 1252 – Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act (Rep. Stupak) – Protects consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels by setting criminal penalties and permitting states to bring lawsuits against wholesalers or retailers.
House passed bill to address price fixing at the OPEC level: Rep. Sutton voted for and the House passed H.R. 2264 – No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC) – Authorizes the Justice Department to take legal action against OPEC state-controlled entities that participate in conspiracies to limit the supply, or fix the price, of oil.
Market Manipulation: Rep. Sutton is a cosponsor of the Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices Act, H.R. 594 (The PUMP Act). This bill would amend the Commodity Exchange Act to extend its jurisdiction to certain: (1) “included energy transactions” traded on an electronic trading facility; and (2) certain energy commodities involved in over-the-counter transactions. This would address market manipulation on the commodity level and empowers the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to impose civil and criminal penalties for price manipulation and other violations of such Act.
Oil savings from the Energy Independence and Security Act: The bill increases fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon in 2020. The fuel economy and renewable fuel standards combined will save the U.S. 2.3 million barrels of oil a day in 2020, which is about what we import from the Persian Gulf today. This act is important as we reduce our dependence on oil. The fuel economy provisions alone will create 149,300 jobs, and save consumers $22 billion at the pump every year starting in 2020 ($700 – $1000), even after paying for the fuel-saving technology needed to meet the standards.
The Energy Independence and Security Act also invests in clean renewable energy. (Since the bill did not repeal all of the subsidies paid to big oil, Rep. Sutton joined with other Freshman House Members and signed two letters urging Congressional leadership to continue to pursue an increase in a renewable electricity standard (RES) and to pass renewable energy and efficiency tax incentives paid for by ending subsidies to big oil companies. Sutton also voted for H.R H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, which passed the House. This bill contains provisions to end unnecessary subsidies to big oil companies and instead provide tax incentives to invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Long-term Reinvestment in Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing. Rep. Sutton wrote a letter, co-signed by several other members of Congress, to the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development urging funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Incentive Program. This program was authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and provides low interest loans to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers. The loans would cover up to 30% of the cost of retooling a manufacturing facility in the United States to produce advanced technology vehicles or their key components, e.g., engines and transmissions.

My own take on the above bullet points is as follows:

Sutton’s measures vis-a-vis the Strategic Petroleum Reserve=a drop in the bucket, so that wipes out the first 3 bullet points. In hindsight, those measures did not bring about the savings they projected. Other marketplace factors, such as supply and demand, brought the gasoline prices down from record highs.

The fourth bullet point just means that when oil prices were already high, she wanted to add more taxes to make the prices higher.

5th bullet point, redundant. We already have state laws that protect us from retail price gouging.

6th bullet point, silly, because our Justice Department can’t really take on OPEC countries, and going after the companies only induces a shell game.

7th bullet point, half measure. The whole futures market is in need of overhaul. Tweaking is insufficient. Even as of August 2010, we still don’t have the kind of marketplace reforms that our economy needs.

8th bullet point, 2020 is a long way off, so, nice maneuver to look like you’re doing something when, in the short run, the status quo is maintained. Further, is it the government’s responsibility to dictate to the automobile manufacturers what the consumers want? Or are consumers capable of buying what they want and skipping over what they don’t want? Do car companies want to respond to what consumers want, in the interest of selling cars? Or would they rather thumb their nose at consumers, and have cars rust on the sales lots?

9th bullet point, Sutton signed two letters.

10th bullet point, Sutton wrote a letter.

As the 2008 campaign season was winding down to a close, the matter of government bailouts came before Congress. There were two votes held on a bill to bail out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion, because the first try didn’t succeed. Sutton voted no the first time, but she didn’t seem to know why it was a good thing to vote no. The bill was no better the second time around. But in between the first vote and the second vote, Sutton set up a conference call between Presidential candidate Barack Obama and freshman Democrats who voted no. Hitching her wagon to the Obama juggernaut, I believe, is what interested Sutton in changing her vote. No matter if you embrace Keynesian economics or, like me, reject the government’s economic manipulations prescribed by Keynesian economics, the gist of the bill did not change, therefore, votes should not have changed. But some people, like Sutton, switched their votes, which means they don’t have an inner compass that guides them on economic issues. Peer pressure, lobbying, twisting arms, fear tactics–those are the reasons people would change their vote.

When Sutton held a press conference to explain the vote switch, it was heavily scripted, and spoken like an automaton. The Cleveland Plain Dealer had a clip of it that you can see here. Those aren’t genuinely her words that are being spoken. It was an act of ventriloquism, and she was the dummy. But even if you took her words at face value and gave her the benefit of the doubt that those words did originate from her, the message still makes no sense.

Since then, she hasn’t met a bailout she didn’t like, including the bailout for state education budgets across the nation that was voted on two days ago.

Her support of cap-and-trade clearly shows she has no interest in defending your pocketbooks from being emptied. If enacted, the public will see sharply increased electric bills, especially in Ohio.

Tax cuts are expiring, and the tax codes will change the way you calculate deductions–for the worse.

We should definitely mention “Cash-for-Clunkers.” Sutton was all about “Cash-for-Clunkers.” For about a month or so, consumers were given a window of opportunity to trade in their old cars for new ones and reap the benefit of a government subsidy to do so. Are subsidies free money? When the government offers a rebate on a purchase, do they just wave a magic wand, and a fairy godmother makes it all happen? No. The government must either confiscate more of the public’s money, or print more of their own money. Did “Cash-for-Clunkers” prime the pump? What do you think? What’s the economy like, right now? Today? This very minute that you are reading this? If you don’t measure the value of “Cash-for-Clunkers” in dollars squandered by the government in a failed attempt to stimulate the economy, but measure the value in terms of reduced carbon emissions, what do you think? Did it work? Are polar bears partying on the ice floes because carbon emissions were actually reduced? I don’t think even one little ice cube in the Arctic Ocean was saved from melting because of “Cash-for-Clunkers.”

The government can subsidize, it can bail out, it can rebate, it can stimulate this aspect of the economy, and that aspect of the economy, and we needn’t worry about where the money comes from, for the majority caucus is firm on its commitment to be budget neutral–no increase in budget deficits, no increase in the national debt. Inefficiencies can be weeded out, and that will pay for all these proposals. That’s especially true in the case of Obamacare. But I’m here to tell you that it’s all a myth. Sutton has worked to propagate just such a myth. Obamacare will have REAL costs, and you’ll feel them acutely when you file your taxes next year.

With no economic moorings, Sutton has just gone with the flow, been driven by the wind, and tossed by the waves. Spend. Spend. Spend. Spend. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

She’s all excited because she gets to make a difference! She’s delivering on providing all the social supports she always wanted to! She’s subsidizing the common folk. She’s giving health care to those who couldn’t afford it. Oh, business is being adversely affected? Don’t worry, we’ll bail them out. She’s putting lots of money into renewable energy because the industry can’t be profitable and certainly can’t yield the output our economy needs, but what price can you put on being loved by the environmental special interest groups? Isn’t being loved more important than the dollars squandered on ventures that won’t yield returns? Enrollment might be dropping at the public schools in your area, but, don’t worry, teaching staffs won’t be cut! Congress to the rescue! She has such compassion for those who are out of work, so she’ll vote to extend unemployment benefits again and again and again. By the way, the federal government might be hiring, so, why not apply? She plans to keep voting for government expansion, so if you don’t get hired by the government today, try again another day.

Doesn’t Betty Sutton know that she’s feeling giddy because she’s on a shopping spree to end all shopping sprees with money that comes for free? It’s not free money, but she’s not ready to learn where all the money comes from right now. She’s not done dispensing her government charity for worthy causes. When every constituent group has been cared for, that’s when she’ll have a chance to be schooled on where the money comes from.

Let’s boil it down to this: Sutton clearly believes in a centrally planned economy.

Soviet bloc governments used to centrally plan economies. Look what happened to them. Their propaganda stated that it was for the public good. North Korea still has a centrally planned economy. North Korea’s propaganda states that it’s for the public good. How are they faring?

Sutton also says it’s for the public good.

Sutton is so liberal, she’s a Soviet.

How are we doing?

Posted in National Politics. Tags: National Politics. 2 Comments »

Press release: Town hall meetings with Congressional candidate Rich Iott

August 12, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: Rich Iott is the Republican nominee for Ohio’s 9th Congressional seat, which is currently held by Marcy Kaptur. The district encompasses most of Lucas County (a chunk of SW Lucas County is excluded), all of Ottawa County, all of Erie County, and nearly half of Lorain County (the south and west, except NW, areas of Lorain County, are included). This press release was issued on 8/12/2010.

Iott Schedules District Town Hall Meetings

Rich Iott, candidate for Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, announced his District Town Hall schedule today.”Last year during the August recess, our representative, Marcy Kaptur, was surprisingly absent at a time when many voters in the 9th Congressional District had questions about the over-reaching health care bill,” Iott said. “This year, as voters want answers about the troubled economy and why career politicians are jeopardizing the futures of our children and our grandchildren with out-of-control spending and record debt, she is again conspicuous in her absence.”

“I want to actually represent the people in the 9th District – and I’m not afraid to meet with them to hear their concerns, answer their questions and be accountable to them,” he said.

Schedule:

August 19, 2010 – Erie County Town Hall
6:30 p.m.
Erie County Senior Center
620 E. Water St.
Sandusky, Ohio

August 26, 2010 – Lorain County Town Hall
7 p.m.
Kipton-Camden Recycle Center
417 State St (SR 51)
Kipton, Ohio

September 1, 2010 – Ottawa County Town Hall #1
7 p.m.
Ida Rupp Public Library
310 Madison Street
Port Clinton, Ohio

September 2, 2010 – Western Ottawa County & Eastern Lucas County
6:30 p.m.
147 West Main Street
Oak Harbor, Ohio

A town hall meeting for western Lucas County will be announced shortly.

Posted in National Politics. Tags: National Politics. 3 Comments »

Press release: Rich Iott on federal bailouts of the states, “Over-spending has got to stop.”

August 12, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This press release was issued on 8/10/2010. Ohio’s 9th Congressional district encompasses most of Lucas County (the part of the county that’s not included is in the southwest), all of Ottawa County, all of Erie County, and nearly half of the land area of Lorain County (the south and southwest are included). Rich Iott is the Republican nominee challenging the incumbent Democrat Marcy Kaptur (who cast a yes vote on this latest bailout bill, HB 1586) for the 9th Congressional seat. The final version of HB 1586 passed by both the U. S. House and the U. S. Senate can be read on these three pages: page 1; page 2; page 3.

Rich Iott, candidate for Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, issued the following statement following passage of HR 1586 – the Education, Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act:

“Today the House passed a second so-called stimulus, this time to bail out schools and states.

“What the career politicians in Washington fail to understand is that the over-spending has got to stop. There are good examples across the country, and right next door in our neighboring state of Indiana, where responsible governments have cut spending and encouraged job growth, resulting in budget surpluses of hundreds of millions of dollars.

“In May, Toledo voters rejected an income tax for their school system. Their message was clear – that with an 11.6% unemployment rate, they have no more money for failing schools. By Congress passing this bill in Washington today, the tone-deaf politicians have decided to spend tax dollars from all Americans to bail out the schools that local taxpayers refuse to give additional funds to. Even the liberal Washington Post criticized this measure as “more of an election-year favor for teachers unions than an optimal use of public resources.”

“Career politicians in Washington are again substituting their personal preferences for the will of the people they are supposed to represent. They are, again, ignoring what the voters are telling them.

“The first so-called stimulus failed to do what Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her supporters said it would. Unemployment rose – and so did the debt. You need to look no further than the fact that, 18 months after the first stimulus became law, they’re still talking about the need to create jobs.

“And while that’s bad enough, they’re planning to pay for this current spending by cutting the Food Stamp program – but not until 2014. So where is the money going to come from to cover the $26.1 billion cost? It’s going to come from increased taxation on businesses, ‘future’ savings in various programs and more borrowing against the future earnings of our children and our grandchildren.

“And when the time comes to cut the Food Stamp program in order to get the anticipated ‘savings,’ no one really believes that Congress will do so. In fact, most people will wonder how many times between now and then Congress will actually spend those same projected savings on favors for other special interests.”Congress needs to take a serious look at its profligate spending and get its own fiscal house in order, which would serve as a good example to state and local governments to do the same.”

Posted in National Politics. Tags: National Politics. Leave a Comment »

« Older posts

Newer posts »

	Roger S on Why use Wright to judge O…
	Scarlett H on My opposition to charter …
	James Williamson gue… on James Williamson guest blog: I…
	James Williamson gue… on James Williamson guest blog: I…
	James Williamson gue… on James Williamson guest blog: I…

Buckeye RINO

Left of Center

Miscellaneous

Right of Center

State of Ohio Blogger Alliance

Recent Post Index

What Others Say

Spam Blocked

Congress predicted to be more Republican, but I’m still not happy

Guest blog: Behind enemy lines

Buckeye RINO 2010 general election endorsements

Guest blog: Tea Party will not hurt the GOP

Why Obama should appeal a court decision against “Don’t ask, don’t tell”

Marcy Kaptur lives in a glass house & throws rocks at Rich Iott

Obama’s highly political “economic policy” speech in Parma

Guest blog: NY State may be awash in red ink, but a state taxing the indigenous Seneca Nation is unconstitutional

An open letter to the political leaders of the newly emerging Afghanistan: Try religious tolerance to defeat the Taliban

One more Iott town hall meeting scheduled

Press release: Iott Signs No Pork Pledge

The Constitution, at times, to some people, is an inconvenient thing, but worth preserving

Ohio’s most liberal Representative to Congress is Betty Sutton

Press release: Town hall meetings with Congressional candidate Rich Iott

Press release: Rich Iott on federal bailouts of the states, “Over-spending has got to stop.”

Buckeye RINO

Meta

Archives

Pages

Creative Commons; Some Rights Reserved

Twitter Updates