Press release: Rep. Boose town halls in Norwalk and Pittsfield Township

Editor’s note:  Save the town hall dates on your calendar: 1/31/2011 (Norwalk) and 2/10/2011 (Pittsfield Township).  This press release was issued on 1/19/2011.

BOOSE TO CONDUCT TOWN HALL MEETINGS ON STATE BUDGET ISSUES

LOCAL LEGISLATOR TO PRESENT BUDGET OUTLOOK AND IS REQUESTING FEEDBACK FROM CONSTITUENTS

State Representative Terry Boose (R- Norwalk) announced today that he will be holding two special town hall meetings in his district.  The purpose of the meetings will be to give a presentation about the budget climate that the legislature faces while planning for the next state budget.  After giving the presentation, the representative will open up the floor to allow constituents to make suggestions and voice their concerns.

“There is no doubt that it is going to be a tough budget year, and I wish to take this opportunity to make sure that people are fully informed,” Rep. Boose said. “Everyone is affected by this budget so it is important that people show up at one of these meetings to give me their ideas.”

The meetings will take place at the following times and locations:

  • Monday, 1/31/2011 from 7 pm to 9 pm in Norwalk at the Norwalk High School’s Fisher-Titus Learning Center
  • Thursday, 2/10/2011 from 7 pm to 9 pm in Pittsfield Township at the Lorain County JVS in Lecture Room B

For more information, people are encouraged to call the representative’s office at 614-466-9628.  The 58th House District includes Huron County, western and southern Lorain County, and eastern Seneca County.

Press release: State rep Terry Boose introduces bill to cut salaries of state elected officials

Editor’s note:  Republican state rep Terry Boose represents the Ohio House 58th district, comprised of Huron County and large swaths of eastern Seneca County and southern Lorain County.  This press release was issued on 1/20/2011.

BOOSE PROPOSES MEASURE TO REDUCE SALARIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS

COLUMBUS—State Representative Terry Boose (R-Norwalk) recently introduced legislation that, when enacted, will reduce the salaries of members of the Ohio General Assemblies and statewide elected executive officeholders by 5 percent.

“During these tough economic times, elected officials must lead by example,” said Boose. “Many of our constituents have lost their jobs or had their salaries reduced. Further, the state and many local governments are having difficulties balancing budgets. We should do our part by taking a 5 percent pay cut until the state’s economy turns around.”

In accordance with the Ohio Constitution, the salary decrease would take effect upon the election or re-election of the affected officeholders. House Bill 41 includes a “sunset” provision that would rescind the provisions when Ohio’s real Gross Domestic Product increases in at least two of three years by 2.5 percent or more. It will not impact county elected officials.

“By linking the salary of elected officials to our state’s prosperity, Ohio’s leaders’ economic success will be tied to the success of the state they have been elected to serve,” Boose said. “This is a level of accountability that is especially necessary during these difficult times.”

In the previous General Assembly, Boose jointly introduced this legislation as House Bill 210 with Rep. Seth Morgan in June 2009, but the measure stalled in committee. House Bill 41 will now be sent to the Rules and Reference Committee which will refer it to a standing committee of the House, where it will undergo further consideration.

Committee assignments for Ohio House of Representatives

Editor’s note:  The two-year 129th Session of the Ohio General Assembly convened this month.  Within the Ohio House of Representatives, the Republicans form the majority caucus and the Democrats form the minority caucus.  William Batchelder is Speaker of the House and Armond Budish is Minority Leader.  Each committee of state reps is led by a Republican chair on behalf of the majority caucus and a ranking Democrat on behalf of the minority caucus.  For a directory of all 99 state reps showing their full names, the Ohio House districts they represent, and links to webpages for each of them, you may click this link.

Agriculture & Natural Resources (13 Republicans; 8 Democrats)

  • Majority: Hall (Chair), Derickson (Vice Chair), Balderson, Boose, Buchy, Carey, Damschroder, Goodwin, Kozlowski, Landis, Peterson, Ruhl, Thompson
  • Minority: Okey (Ranking), Clyde, Gentile, Heard, Mallory, Murray, O’Brien, Phillips

Commerce & Labor (9 Republicans; 6 Democrats)

  • Majority: Uecker (Chair), Young (Vice Chair), R. Adams, J. Adams, Blair, McGregor, McKenney, Roegner, Wachtmann
  • Minority: Yuko (Ranking), Antonio, Hagan, Murray, Ramos, Szollosi

Criminal Justice (8 Republicans; 5 Democrats)

  • Majority: Slaby (Chair), Hayes (Vice Chair), Blessing, Bubp, Coley, Hite, Uecker, Young
  • Minority: Winburn (Ranking), Garland, Pillich, Weddington, Williams

Economic & Small Business Development (14 Republicans; 9 Democrats)

  • Majority: Baker (Chair), Buchy (Vice Chair), Anielski, Beck, Dovilla, Gonzales, Grossman, Henne, Kozlowski, Landis, Newbold, Rosenberger, Schuring, Thompson
  • Minority: Williams (Ranking), Barnes, Celeste, Driehaus, Goyal, Luckie, Reece, Slesnick, Winburn

Education (14 Republicans; 9 Democrats)

  • Majority: Stebelton (Chair), Newbold (Vice Chair), Anielski, Baker, Brenner, Butler, Derickson, Hayes, Henne, Hite, Huffman, Kozlowski, Roegner, Thompson
  • Minority: Luckie (Ranking), Antonio, Celeste, Driehaus, Fedor, Gerberry, Patmon, Phillips, Ramos

Financial Institutions, Housing, and Urban Development (9 Republicans; 6 Democrats)

  • Majority: Coley (Chair), R. Adams (Vice Chair), Blair, Brenner, Duffey, Hackett, Hollington, Henne, Stautberg
  • Minority: Goyal (Ranking), Ashford, Foley, Gentile, Milkovich, Pillich

Finance (20 Republicans; 12 Democrats)

  • Majority: Amstutz (Chair), Carey (Vice Chair), D. Adams, Anielski, Balderson, Beck, Burke, Duffey, Gardner, Grossman, Hall, Hollington, Maag, McClain, McGregor, Mecklenborg, Peterson, Sears, Slaby, Stebelton
  • Minority: Sykes (Ranking), Boyd, Garland, Lundy, Reece, Slesnick, Carney, Clyde, Driehaus, Goyal, Phillips, Ashford

Finance Subcommittee on Agriculture and Natural Resources (3 Republicans; 2 Democrats)

  • Majority: Balderson (Chair), Hall, Peterson
  • Minority: Slesnick (Ranking), Driehaus

Finance Subcommittee on Health and Human Services (3 Republicans; 2 Democrats)

  • Majority: Burke (Chair), R. Adams, Sears
  • Minority: Boyd (Ranking), Goyal

Finance Subcommittee on Higher Education (3 Republicans; 2 Democrats)

  • Majority: Gardner (Chair), Mecklenborg, Slaby
  • Minority: Garland (Ranking), Clyde

Finance Subcommittee on Primary and Secondary Education (3 Republicans; 2 Democrats)

  • Majority: Carey (Chair), Maag, Stebelton
  • Minority: Lundy (Ranking), Phillips

Finance Subcommittee on Transportation (3 Republicans; 2 Democrats)

  • Majority: McGregor (Chair), Beck, Grossman
  • Minority: Reece (Ranking), Carney

Health & Aging (14 Republicans; 9 Democrats)

  • Majority: Wachtmann (Chair), Goodwin (Vice Chair), Balderson, Burke, Duffey, Gardner, Gonzales, Hackett, Hollington, Hottinger, Johnson, McKenney, Schuring, Sears
  • Minority: Fende (Ranking), Antonio, Barnes, Boyd, Carney, Garland, Hagan, Ramos, Yuko

Health Subcommittee on Pension Reform (5 Republicans; 2 Democrats)

  • Majority: Schuring (Chair), Gardner, Hackett, McKenney, Wachtmann
  • Minority: Hagan (Ranking), Ramos

Insurance (13 Republicans; 8 Democrats)

  • Majority: Hottinger (Chair), Hackett (Vice Chair), J. Adams, Burke, Combs, Derickson, Henne, McGregor, Peterson, Schuring, Sears, Snitchler, Wachtmann
  • Minority: Carney (Ranking), Ashford, Fende, Foley, Heard, Letson, Luckie, Stinziano

Insurance Subcommittee on Workers’ Compensation (3 Republicans; 2 Democrats)

  • Majority: Hackett (Chair), J. Adams, Wachtmann
  • Minority: Foley (Ranking), Letson

Judiciary (8 Republicans; 5 Democrats)

  • Majority: Bubp (Chair), McKenney (Vice Chair), Butler, Coley, Huffman, Mecklenborg, Slaby, Stebelton
  • Minority: Murray (Ranking), Letson, Okey, Stinziano, Szollosi

Local Government (14 Republicans; 9 Democrats)

  • Majority: Blair (Chair), Boose (Vice Chair), Baker, Brenner, Butler, Derickson, Duffey, Hackett, Hall, Martin, McKenney, Newbold, Ruhl, Snitchler
  • Minority: Weddington (Ranking), DeGeeter, Gerberry, Heard, Lundy, Mallory, Okey, Reece, Sykes

Public Utilities (14 Republicans; 9 Democrats)

  • Majority: Snitcher (Chair), Beck (Vice Chair), Amstutz, Anielski, Balderson, Coley, Gonzales, Goodwin, Landis, Martin, Peterson, Roegner, Rosenberger, Stautberg
  • Minority: DeGeeter (Ranking), Ashford, Foley, Gentile, O’Brien, Stinziano, Szollosi, Weddington, Williams

Rules & Reference (6 Republicans; 4 Democrats)

  • Majority: Blessing (Chair), Batchelder (Vice Chair), J. Adams, Burke, Gonzales, Grossman
  • Minority: Budish (Ranking), Heard, Phillips, Szollosi

State Government & Elections (14 Republicans; 9 Democrats)

  • Majority: Mecklenborg (Chair), Hite (Vice Chair), J. Adams, Blessing, Buchy, Combs, Damschroder, Dovilla, Gardner, Grossman, Hollington, Huffman, Maag, Young
  • Minority: Gerberry (Ranking), Celeste, Clyde, Fedor, Letson, Lundy, Patmon, Stinziano, Sykes

State Government Subcommittee on Redistricting (3 Republicans; 2 Democrats)

  • Majority: Huffman (Chair), Combs, Dovilla
  • Minority: Letson (Ranking), Clyde

Transportation, Public Safety, & Homeland Security (8 Republicans; 5 Democrats)

  • Majority: Combs (Chair), Damschroder (Vice Chair), Johnson, McClain, McGregor, Rosenberger, Ruhl, Uecker
  • Minority: Mallory (Ranking), DeGeeter, Hagan, O’Brien, Patmon

Veterans Affairs (8 Republicans; 5 Democrats)

  • Majority: Martin (Chair), Johnson (Vice Chair), Bubp, Butler, Hite, Landis, Rosenberger, Young
  • Minority: Pillich (Ranking), Boyd, Fedor, Milkovich, Yuko

Ways & Means (10 Republicans; 7 Democrats)

  • Majority: Stautberg (Chair), McClain (Vice Chair), Amstutz, Baker, Beck, Blair, Boose, Dovilla, Hayes, Maag
  • Minority: Letson (Ranking), Barnes, Fende, Foley, Milkovich, Slesnick, Winburn

Press release: New rules in Ohio House foster transparency & bipartisanship

Editors note: This press release was issued on 1/11/2011.  The state representatives elected to the Ohio House of Representatives last November are now in office and a new session of the Ohio General Assembly has convened.

REPUBLICANS PROMOTE OPEN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND CUT COSTS THROUGH NEW OHIO HOUSE RULES

COLUMBUSThe new Ohio House Republican majority today proposed new governing rules that will promote a more open and fair legislative process for legislators on both sides of the aisle.

“Sixteen years ago, after more than two decades in the minority, Republicans dramatically changed the way the House of Representatives was governed,” said Representative Randy Gardner (R-Bowling Green).  “Today, the new Republican majority says change is needed again.”

Gardner was asked by Speaker William G. Batchelder (R-Medina) to oversee a rewriting of House rules to restore some of the principles that have been lost since Gardner and Batchelder served in House leadership more than a decade ago.

“It is time for us to throw open the doors and the windows of the Statehouse and let the sun shine through again,” Speaker Batchelder said.  “This is the People’s House, and we have put together rules that further our commitment to all Ohioans that the House of Representatives will operate effectively, efficiently and with greater transparency.”

Specifically, the new rules would change the House in three significant ways:

  • The number of full standing committees is reduced by 37 percent, from 27 committees to 17.  Gardner and Batchelder maintain that fewer committees promotes a greater focus on issues and will save the taxpayers additional money with fewer committees. This change alone to legislators’ base salary for committee service will save taxpayers more than a quarter-of-a-million dollars over the biennium.

  • A two-day waiting period or reading period has been re-established for any final votes (conference reports) on legislation with appropriations, primarily aimed at a more open state budget process.  The rule requires two days following a conference committee vote before the House may consider the budget.  Last session, House members were given three hours to read 500 changes in the 3,000-page budget, which spent $50.5 billion.
  • A rule requiring advanced notice of floor amendments has been repealed, meaning any House member may propose a floor amendment at any time.  Under the old rules, members had to have their amendments submitted to the House clerk by 10 a.m.

“When you shut out a legislator from debate and from offering amendments, that legislator’s constituents are shut out of the process as well—and that, we believe, is wrong,” Gardner said.  “We strive to provide a more fair and open process for all legislators regardless of party, so that all Ohioans can be represented.”

Batchelder noted that only four bills sponsored by GOP members in the past two years passed the House and none in the first six months of the session.  He said that was a stark contrast to the 26 Democrat bills that were passed in the 1995-96 session when he was Speaker Pro Tempore, with 14 minority bills passing in the first six months of session.

“We intend to pass legislation that will benefit all Ohioans, regardless of the party affiliation of the member who sponsors the bill,” Speaker Batchelder said.  “We believe that these rules are the most favorable to the minority caucus than any other session in recent memory.”

. . . And the walls come tumbling down!

Our economy is a house of cards. Our dollar isn’t backed by gold. It’s fiat money. It’s worth is determined by how much confidence the world has in it. If confidence in the dollar is destroyed, so is the dollar. It just becomes worthless paper at that point.

The politicians in DC and the cheaters on Wall Street and the Chicago Democratic Party machine have brought us to the brink of collapse. The bailouts have done nothing to strengthen the house of cards. Keep mounting card on top of card, and, at some point, the house of cards must fall. It must. So long as there are laws of physics it must fall. Our economy will topple. The only question is when. Which card will be the final one that the other cards can support? Which card will be the one that brings the
walls tumbling down?

Is your family prepared to survive through an economic collapse? I saw a big storm coming back in September 2008, and I think it’s here. Maybe it can be staved off until 2012. I definitely think we cannot get past 2014. But maybe it hits us this month.

Sure, we just elected Republicans to take control of the US House of Representatives, and the two major parties now have checks and balances that will prevent extreme partisan agendas from becoming the law of the land . . . in January, that is. The new Congress takes office in January. But maybe the collapse will occur much sooner than 2014. Maybe much sooner than 2012. It might happen this month. Despite the elections, it’s just too late. The wheels are already in motion. All the Democrats, all the Republicans, even all the Libertarians, all the Greens, all of the Constitution Party, all of the Socialist Party, cannot stop what’s already in motion. It’s a bigger mess than we can handle.

If we suffer a total and complete collapse, all your dollars in your bank accounts become worthless, despite any FDIC guarantees.

Therefore, I hope you have supplies already on hand for your family to depend upon if the worst comes to pass. Right now, you may be holiday shopping, and the sales figures seem to be better than expected, as, perhaps, some consumers have so much pent-up desire to shop that they just can’t keep a lid on it anymore. That’s okay. You might as well shop for tangible items right now if the dollar is going to be worthless later. But while you’re doing that shopping (if you’re one of the fortunate ones who still has an income in this economy), make sure you’ve got at least enough necessities on hand to last your household for at least a month. If you can stash away lots more supplies so that you can be self-sustaining for longer than a month, by all means do so. Preparedness can mitigate your feelings of vulnerability when a crisis arises.

I worry about what predicament our deployed troops might find themselves in if our government becomes insolvent, the financial industry is wiped out, and the currency loses all its value.

There are two things in the news that may possibly cause the dam to break this month. The first is the lame-duck Congress, ramming through the rest of the ill-advised uber-liberal agenda in desperation as the clock ticks down and this session ends.

The second is WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks supposedly has 10,000 pages of documents that they are preparing for posting on the web, and the USA’s financial sector will be the object of the expose.

We saw how WikiLeaks caused a scramble at the Pentagon when documents from the war in Iraq were splashed online. After that, the US Department of State was hit by an earthquake that not only may have irreparably harmed our relations with all other nations, but the field of diplomacy, itself, in every country, is now standing outside naked in a cold winter. If WikiLeaks can derail diplomacy worldwide with just a few documents, what could it do to our financial sector?

I think the documents about the financial sector will be so damaging that all confidence in it will be lost. The collapse here will then cascade all over the globe. The worst hit will be Europe. Europe is already teetering. Africa will be in dire straits because so many of those nations only squeak by because of foreign aid. The Far East owns so much of our national debt, they’ll take a big hit. South America might actually weather the storm the best.

Iceland, the first to become insolvent, and Greece the most recent to become insolvent, are relatively small nations in Europe, but when their governments finally scraped the bottom of the barrel and there was no more money there, it had destabilizing effects on the Euro.

Now it’s Ireland’s turn. Ireland denied for weeks and weeks that they were the next to follow in the footsteps of Iceland and Greece, yet it is coming to pass. The politicians in Ireland who are to blame for it all simply wanted to stay in power as long as they possibly could, thus they tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the Irish as long as they could. Sorry, but the crisis is too big to hide. The European Union is coming up with a plan to put Humpty Dumpty together again with the help of the IMF. It still might not be enough, and Europe will teeter on the brink, the Euro imperiled.

Portugal will likely be next. Their politicians are denying that their government will become insolvent, too. If the rescue of Ireland doesn’t crash Europe, maybe Portugal will.

And after Portugal, Spain is suspect. The politicians of Spain are in denial, also. If Europe managed to hold things together during Portugal’s implosion, that’ll be the end of the line. Once Spain implodes, forget it. The Euro is dead, and the European Union is in a shambles. The more solvent nations will retreat back to within their own borders, because they’ll be hard-pressed to meet the demands of their own public, let alone the demands from elsewhere. When America falls, though, not even the most solvent European nations will be spared the bloodletting.

The IMF won’t be of any help, as its chief backing comes from the United States.

If the United Nations weren’t reeling enough from the WikiLeaks targeting the U.S. State Department, it’s biggest donor, the United States, will no longer be able to fulfill its financial commitments to the U.N. The U.N., itself, hasn’t ever had its financial house in order, so they’ll easily buckle under the weight of the wreckage.

Of course the politicians in Washington DC are just as much in denial about the coming collapse as the politicians in Ireland, Portugal, and Spain are. For one thing, they are complicit in our economy’s troubles, so they really don’t want to believe that it will crash, because then everyone will know it was their fault, and from there, power will slip away from them.

The incoming Congressional Republicans are thinking, “OK, now we can get to work and make things better.” They are naive. It’s already out of their hands. They will be so utterly dumbfounded when everything falls apart. “What? How did it happen so quickly? Just when we were about to make a difference for the better with our best-laid plans, it’s a moot point because we’ve already crashed!”

Obama’s Chicago White House may have been planning to bring about this disaster. What? Sabotage? Yes. The liberals he hobnobbed with in Chicago weren’t your run-of-the-mill latte-sippers. Remember Bill Ayers? He’s only one person. There are many others who have programmed this President to sail this course. These are people who have always clamored for a revolution to overthrow the American government and the Constitution that upholds it.

Some of the wonks in Obama’s close circles have clamored for such things as:

  1. using the “green energy” push to accomplish Marxist objectives of redistributing wealth (“economic justice”);
  2. zero population growth, or perhaps even phasing in a depopulation of the planet;
  3. having a domestic military force that could perform security policing of our citizenry not unlike that of the policing our Armed Forces do on foreign soil, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan;
  4. writing a Constitution that would spell out what the government can and will do for you rather than the current Constitution, which states what the government cannot do, thus replacing limitations with bold initiatives;
  5. use the urban public schools to groom the urban youth to become the watchdogs of political correctness and become a massive voting bloc that will support progressive causes (Bill Ayers, himself, advocated for such “education reforms.”);
  6. denuclearize America so it can set the example for other nations to denuclearize, be the vanguard of peace, send no one out to foreign battlefields, and drastically reduce our military;
  7. use the persuasion of power in manipulating the American public if the power of persuasion doesn’t yield the desired effect;
  8. collaborate with the arts community and the media to amplify the desired message, and discredit sources of dissent;
  9. workers of the world unite to usher in a world government guided by the proletariat;
  10. never let a crisis go to waste, as each crisis must serve to consolidate power, and carefully and intentionally orchestrating the emergence of crises may be very desirable if doing so serves to make the public feel more vulnerable and, by extension, dependent on leadership;
  11. shape public opinion with astroturf if grassroots support for the desired agenda is weak, since those who dissent will feel powerless and offer less resistance if they are made to believe they are in the minority;
  12. it is acceptable to overthrow the government if it interferes with the propagation of progressive principles and policies.

There are other radical ideas bandied about within the circles of Chicago political power, but these give you some flavor of the voices that influence the White House.

On that last point, about government overthrow: it can be accomplished through a quisling that is able to consolidate power, through a manipulation of public sentiment, through gaming the system, through martial law, through weakening the power of the people, through violence (Bill Ayers, again), or through scrapping the existing system of governance by causing it to collapse.

I believe the Chicago White House is advancing on all of those fronts.

I’d like to credit the State of Ohio Blogger Alliance (SOB Alliance) for raising the red flags of warning back in 2008 before the presidential election took place. Many of those on the SOB Alliance blogroll posted a 13-part series collectively titled HOPE ON (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now). There were detractors that insisted that the HOPE ON series was over-the-top propaganda, but re-reading those posts now, especially the ones dealing with economics, the HOPE ON series has hit the nail on the head.

HOPE ON part 1 Obama is part of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem
HOPE ON part 2 Obama’s reluctance to drill
HOPE ON part 3 Above Obama’s pay grade
HOPE ON part 4 Can the other side of the aisle even be reached from where Obama is?
HOPE ON part 5 Obama requested $740 million in earmarks
HOPE ON part 6 Obama’s stances ill-defined when voting “present”
HOPE ON part 7 Obama not inspiring our trust
HOPE ON part 8 What are Obama’s intentions for the middle class
HOPE ON part 9 Measure Obama and McCain by their character
HOPE ON part 10 Obama will tax us
HOPE ON part 11 What would Ronald Reagan do?
HOPE ON part 12 Obama isn’t just liberal–he’s extremely liberal
HOPE ON part 13 McCain the real deal

Some excerpts that stand out in my mind:

Part 8: Obama has attempted to portray himself as the champion of the middle class, but the windfall profits taxes and the high-bracket income tax increases proposed by Obama will backfire in the form of rising unemployment as the government dampens earning power, not just of individuals, but of employers as well.

Part 10: Obama talk of federal initiatives and taxes make it sound as if the government creates wealth, but the government doesn’t. The people create the wealth of the nation, and tax policy must reflect that, but Obama’s principles don’t even acknowledge that.

Part 12: The Citizens Club for Growth rated Obama tied for last place with a zero rating in Obama’s first year in [U.S. Senate] office.

Part 13:  Obama has revealed himself to be a socialist. We now have the smoking gun. Now that he’s been pinned down, his counter-argument is that McCain’s platform is based on “selfishness,” which is hardly the way I’d describe John McCain when the chips are down.

Also Part 13:  It’s now been shown that Obama’s reluctant shift toward an all-of-the-above approach toward energy was just a sham, as it’s now come out that the regulatory burden to be imposed on the coal industry during an Obama presidency will be prohibitive. How many more industries, not just in the energy sector, could be impacted by regulatory burdens imposed by Obama remains to be seen.

More part 13:  Obama’s views on education reform aren’t directed at learning or achieving academic success. As shown by his work with Bill Ayers, “social justice” is to be the ultimate imperative that the schools are charged with achieving.

What strikes me about the excerpt from Part 8 is that, indeed, we have higher unemployment than anyone had projected, and Obama’s highly complicated tax proposal presented to the Congress ensures that the government’s regulatory burden upon businesses will only increase, plus, of course, he still wants the taxes to be raised on the very people who are more likely to be business owners, and, in turn, businesses are the very entity that hires workers and brings our unemployment rates down.

The excerpt from Part 10 shows that Obama’s government is very heavy-handed and intrusive. We know that government does not create wealth, but that’s exactly what Obama’s meddling with. Government does not make people healthy, but the government is meddling there, too. The rhetoric loftily asserts that we now have a government who will work on your behalf, that will no longer allow problems to be swept under the rug. Aren’t we all just happy that our government will no longer turn a blind eye to anything? Ooh! Big Brother sees what you’re going through and is here to help. Big Brother will interfere (no, not intervene, I chose the right word: interfere) on your behalf. The funny thing is, I don’t think the main motive for transforming our government into Big Brother is to spy on us. I suspect that they are trying to grow the government big enough to collapse the system so that is is scrapped and can then be replaced with a system of their own design.

The Part 12 excerpt about Obama’s voting record during his first year in the U.S. Senate speaks volumes about where we find ourselves today. How far have we come since then? Back then, he stood for zero growth. Now it’s less than zero. His radical philosophy prevents him from wanting to sustain our employment base.

To placate the citizens, of course Obama’s going to say, with his mouth, that he wants to put people back to work. He’s putting obstacle after obstacle in the way of putting people back to work, so we need to wake up and realize there is another agenda afoot. Obama’s agenda is not a jobs agenda.

If Obama’s agenda were a jobs agenda, he wouldn’t:

  • be pushing for Cap and Trade
  • on top of Obamacare
  • on top of a more complicated tax code
  • on top of a tax hike
  • on top of extending unemployment benefits
  • on top of confusion at the Federal Reserve
  • on top of bailouts for America’s least successful most unethical companies
  • on top of subsidies for industries that aren’t sustainable
  • on top of a Dream Act that will add incentives for additional foreign nationals to immigrate here illegally
  • on top of a moratorium on tapping additional oil and coal energy resources
  • on top of compensating government employees better than the private sector does
  • on top of letting SEIU union leaders shape economic policy
  • on top of continued dysfunction at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
  • on top of a mind-boggling budget deficit
  • on top of an unfathomable national debt.

That’s not how you create jobs. That’s how you collapse the system!

The first excerpt from Part 13 includes a link to the radio interview in which Obama emphasizes “economic justice,” which is a progressive’s euphemistic jargon for the rise of the proletariat A.K.A communism.

On energy, in the 20d excerpt of Part 13, the timing of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was impeccable. We knew that Obama wasn’t sold on the all-of-the-above approach to energy, and now he can smile like a Cheshire cat that he has the most perfect of excuses for continuing our dependence on foreign oil and subsidizing “green” fuel technologies that are money pits because none of them are on the pathway toward self-sustainability. If you want to help Americans, especially during the expensive winter heating season, stop throwing up obstacles to getting the cheapest most reliable domestic sources of energy. The agenda is collapsing the system. Everything points to it.

And from the final excerpt of Part 13, it appears that the Ayers-propelled education reforms will, once implemented, groom the youth for their role in the new system that replaces the collapsed one.

The WikiLeaks website founder is on the run right now. He’s given the ultimatum that if he is taken into custody, all the documents at WikiLeaks will instantly go public. That could happen any day now, and Mr. Assange of WikiLeaks will be the “fall guy” whose infamy will be forever memorialized in history books as the one who precipitated the crash of the world’s economy.

When we reach the “What do we do next?” phase when we’re all shell-shocked and feeling vulnerable, Obama, as President of the United States of America, will set forth a new blueprint, the likes of which we’ve never seen before, and when he does, we will finally come to understand what his meaning of the word “transformation” is.

David Arredondo guest blog: The Trojan Horse AKA the Dream Act

Editor’s note:  David Arredondo is a Lorain resident, very involved in the Lorain community and a highly visible member of the Coalition for Hispanic/Latino Issues & Progress (CHIP).  He is the vice chair for the Lorain County Republican Party.  He’s often a featured guest on WEOL radio to discuss his work with international students at Lorain County Community College (LCCC) as well as sharing a center-right perspective on political issues.  He’s also appeared as a Republican pundit on Feagler & Friends, which airs on the PBS affiliate in Cleveland, WVIZ.  Professionally, David Arredondo is the Director of International Student Services at Lorain County Community College.

THE TROJAN HORSE A.K.A. THE DREAM ACT

Talk of the Dream Act should be just that, talk; there is no reason for its passage now as it is constituted. Its passage would be costly and wasteful and continue to exacerbate an immigration system that needs to be replaced, not reformed.

Legalizing a segment of the 12million undocumented persons in this country does not help the process of replacing our current 19th-Century based system predicated on “Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor.” Verily, most of the 12 million here unlawfully may be described as “the tired and poor.” Regardless of the state of our economy, it makes no sense to permanently absorb into our economy these millions who will require massive government assistance.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that at minimum under the Dream Act, 1 million will enroll in American colleges with costs of more than $6.2 billion a year. Once again there will be a Federal mandate for the states to provide in-state tuition and financial aid. In states like California, Texas and Arizona, the costs would be even more.

The Dream Act requires an undocumented student to complete at least 2 years of college to earn permanent residency and later citizenship.Those of us in the higher ed industry know that 2 years of studies doesn’t qualify a student for much.

Perhaps the hidden effect that Liberals don’t mention is that once the student qualifies for Permanent Residency, his parents, siblings, and extended family can then apply for the same thing under our current immigration system. Looks like a Trojan Horse to me.

This is all the more reason that the proposed Dream Act must be defeated. This is why we need to replace the current system with one that puts security first and does not provide for Amnesty for the millions “tired and poor” who would be a burden on local, state and federal governments. A new system predicated on residency and citizenship for “the Best and the Brightest” is needed but only after careful study of the needs of our country and economy. “Chain Migration” that allows for one permanent resident to bring entire extended families needs to be eliminated as well.

Democrats are to blame for having the votes to do pass the Act unilaterally and failing to do so these past two years. It does not look likely that the Dream Act or Amnesty will pass anytime soon. However, I could propose a sensible and streamlined act that might.

1. Give all current undocumented children brought here by their parents who are under the age of 26 and give them the opportunity to enlist in America’s armed forces for at least 4 years. At that time they would be eligible for permanent residency and citizenship. In the military they would be trained for a specific occupation that will serve them when they muster out. Their service would make them eligible for the G.I. bill which gives them the opportunity to enroll in university for further education and training.
2. Suspend current immigration law that allows their parents who brought them here illegally from qualifying for Permanent Residency. In short, the only beneficiaries of Dream Act 2.0 law should be those who actually completed their military service.

Over the next several years we need to prioritize our nation’s needs–national security,job creation, economic growth, deficit reduction, and smaller, more efficient government.


James Williamson guest blog: Dear Santa, this is what I wish for during the 2012 election cycle . . .

Editor’s note:  James Williamson is one of my (DJW’s) younger brothers.  He is an Ohio native currently residing in Nevada.

A 2012 WISH LIST

Election season is over.  The campaigns for 2012 have not begun yet.  That means we are at a point at which the field is wide open for the next cycle and we can dream up any scenario we like.  So, in my letter to Santa this year, I’d like to ask for a few things for 2012 (because it will need to start in motion now for it to come to fruition by then).

Dear Santa,

There are so many things that I would like to ask for but I’ll try to keep the list short in hopes that I will get at least one wish.

1.    Sovereign fiscal sanity. I’d like to see it spread to the whole world but if that can’t be done then at least bring it to the US.  Nothing leads to poorer decisions than desperation, which is where the major governments of the world are headed right now.

2.    More incumbents retiring or getting defeated. While it was gratifying to see a bumper crop of new freshmen in the US Congress this year, I hope that we get even more next time.  Part of the difficulty that we have with solving our current problems with government is that the people that helped create them are the ones in charge of fixing them.  We need fresh blood and fresh thought . . . and lots of it.

3.    The death of professional lobbyists. OK, so this is probably never going to happen, but remember I called it a wish list.  One of the problems that we have today (as the Buckeye RINO has pointed out before) is that Congress no longer writes its own legislation and often doesn’t even know all the details of the legislation when they vote on it.  The actual text of most legislation is written by lobbyists or, more commonly, clients of the lobbyists.

4.    A requirement to identify who writes all text included in legislation. If we could identify who is writing the actual text of the legislation, then maybe judges could use a similar philosophy with statutory law that is used in tort law:  In case sof ambiguity, the decision will generally favor the one who did no draft of the contract (or, in this case, legislation).  Maybe that would deter corporations from getting involved in the bill writing process and our lazy representatives and senators would have a reason to do something besides take sides, bicker, and make closed-door deals when creating new legislation.

5.    A simplified tax code. I work for a retired colonel who is very intelligent and quite successful.  Once we were talking about taxes and he mentioned that when he does his taxes with an electronic filing system he will watch the tax meter and react when the number goes up or down.  It reminded me of playing pinball or gambling.  What is wrong with our tax code?  Why does it have to be so complex that even people with Ph.D.’s can’t figure out their tax liability until the IRS instructions for filing a return are published?  Corporations can afford to hire people to dedicate themselves full time to try to figure this out, but most individuals can’t, so the government strategy is to take too much and then refund back what they aren’t entitled to by law.  Would you like to pay your utility bills this way?  I read a recent article that suggests that the government can only get about 19% of GDP no matter what they do.  This is because higher taxes stifle economic growth.  So if 19% of GDP is the magic number, then why don’t we just set it there (or preferably lower) and stop all the games of cat and mouse with deductions and credits?  (OK this discussion could go on for another hundred pages so I’m going to cut it off here.)

6.    A balanced Congress. Congress always makes bad moves when one party thinks they can act with impunity in the spirit of “getting things done”.  I think the cases of Congress not doing anything are better than Congress doing something poorly.  I’m not terribly concerned about the final outcome (although, with the Tea Party Movement successes being within the Republican party, I do tend to favor them) as long as one party needs the support of the other to get legislation passed.

7.    An independent White House. Probably too much to hope for, but I really wish we could have a president that doesn’t belong to either the Democratic or Republican party.  In theory, that would keep him party-neutral and not give one party or the other the advantage in Congress by having the president on “their side”.  A third party candidate would work, but I don’t see them having any more luck getting elected than an independent.

8.    More power returned to the states. Despite what detractors say about the nation’s founders, i.e. that the founders wanted, above all, a strong federal government (their reasoning is that the Constitution created a stronger government than the Articles of Confederation that existed previously) the founders also wanted strong state governments and strong protections for individuals.  It’s about balance.  The citizenry, the municipalities, the states, and the federal government all have their respective responsibilities and limits.  One of the reasons US Senators were selected by the states before the enactment of the 17th Amendment was to maintain the balance of power between the states and the federal government.  For some reason, we have forgotten that and have trodden the 10th Amendment under foot.  Can someone remind our government that the people (not the the federal government) are sovereign?  Can the states remind the federal government why we had a revolution in the first place?  Do they remember why we rebelled against king George?  Apparently not.

Well Santa, there are probably a lot of good girls and boys with much simpler wish lists this year but why ask for toys when they just wear out, break, or get tiresome?  Why not ask for something more meaningful than mindless entertainment or pleasure?  Is that asking too much?

Sincerely,

James Williamson

P.S.   I wouldn’t want you to think that I am an ingrate. I am thankful for for my Christmas gifts from previous years: Thankful we have our independence from Britain;  thankful we have religious freedom;  thankful we have a strong military that protects us from foreign aggressors . . .  I could continue the list but I think you can fill in the rest.

Sean Kalin Stipe guest blog: Libertarians on the verge of something big in Lorain County

Editor’s note: Sean Kalin Stipe, Lorain resident, former (maybe future?) Libertarian candidate for Lorain City Council, finds some good news for Lorain County’s Libertarians after crunching the election numbers.  In this post, Stipe suggests the point of reaching the critical mass necessary to burst upon the scene as a major political party with many election-winning candidates may be just around the corner for the Libertarian Party.

THE NUCLEAR BOMB AND THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

Early in the nuclear age, a test was performed on an atoll in the Pacific. Several years after the first test of a hydrogen bomb on Bikini Island in 1954, it was used for scientific study. What was being sought was the answer to the question of how soon the effects of radiation would dissipate from a virtual wasteland. A colony of monkeys were transported to the island with some limited success. The primary food source was coconuts. It was found that while the inside of the nuts were safe, there was residual radioactive material on the husks.

10 monkeys were taken away and taught how to wash the husks in the water before eating the nuts. Shortly after they were returned, twelve monkeys started washing, then fifteen, then twenty. As the numbers increased, a magical number was reached and something outstanding happened. This has been noted as “The Hundredth Monkey.” Almost instantly when the 100th monkey started washing the coconuts, nearly every one of the thousands of monkeys on the island performed the same behavior.

Our first ten “monkeys” started the Libertarian Party in 1971 in Colorado. It’s been a slow but steady process, but the party has grown in numbers. Often, when looking at election results, there is disappointment in our results. But disappointment only comes with huge expectations. If the goal is to get to the “hundredth monkey,” then we are actually quite close to achieving to goal of getting Libertarians elected on a large scale.

It might be considered short sighted to compare results from the 2006 and 2008 elections, but we are at that point where our growth can only be described as exponential. The results are not final, but Lorain County saw an increase in in people who voted Libertarian of 13 times compared to our presidential candidate of 2008. That is a growth of 1,300 percent. If we experience just the same increase, we will win the presidential election.

While the number of monkeys are few that get actively involved by asking why we wash the coconuts and how, many more are watching and learning. Many more are watching them. It’s an explosive exponential growth. We are very close to that “100th Monkey.”

“Hanging chads?” Guam vote recount

What we learned from the 2008 Senate race in Minnesota between Al Franken and Norm Coleman is that, when the results between candidates are very close, you must recount and recount and recount the votes until the Democrat wins.  If the Democrat hasn’t won yet, then it’s not yet time to stop recounting.

If there’s any scorn for Al Gore within the Democrat party, it’s because he stopped recounting too soon in 2000, and he should have called for progressives everywhere to march on the Supreme Court and burn it to the ground unless SCOTUS allowed recounting in Florida to continue until the Democrat won.

Guam, one of the 57 states of the USA (if you’re Obama, but it’s a territory of the USA if you aren’t Obama), also held its elections last Tuesday.

The following information was gleaned from Guam Pacific Daily News.

Guam Democrats are thankful to both Al Gore and Al Franken for the vote recount blueprint.  Because of Al Franken, they know that they have to keep recounting until the Democrat wins, and because of Al Gore, they know that any imperfection on any paper ballot creates ambiguity, requiring the best psychics to be assembled to channel the spirits to reveal the intent of each voter.  Luckily, Democrats have the numbers needed on the 7-member Guam Election Commission Board if, after all other attempts, gaming the system is the only other way to thwart the will of the people.

The Republican ticket for Governor and Lieutenant Governor appears to have defeated the Democrat ticket by 583 votes. That, indeed, sounds like a very small margin, but the voting population on Guam is smaller than that of any state in the USA.  In many states, automatic recounts are triggered only when the vote margin is within one percent or within less than one percent (in Ohio, it’s one-half of one percent).  In many states, recounts in races with larger vote margins must be paid for by the candidates’ campaigns or political parties.  In Guam, however, the Guam Election Commission can widen that vote margin for an automatic recount however they see fit, and, in this particular case, they’ve decided to stipulate that within a 2 percent margin the territorial government will pay for the recount.  Perhaps if they manage to overturn election night results, the Commission will be emboldened enough to call for recounts in future elections if the vote margin is within 3 percent (why stop there . . . maybe 5 percent).

The ballots will have no hanging chads, as HAVA (Help America Vote Act), passed in the wake of the Florida recount of 2000, required supposedly more reliable voting methods.  Guam uses optical scan ballots, which are the preferred ballot option for Democrats because electronic voting machines are hard-wired to rig elections in favor of Republicans.  Optical scan ballots provide more opportunities for Democrat quibbling because they are filled out by hand, and, as anyone knows, you can assert that anyone who failed to fill out such a ballot perfectly would be a voter trapped in poverty, possessing a poor education, thus unable to follow simple directions.  Anyone knows that the intention of every impoverished voter is to vote Democrat.  Only millionaires and billionaires who want tax breaks to move jobs overseas would intend to vote for Republicans.

The tabulating machines involved in the recount are programed to halt if an optical scan detects any irregularities, so that the ballot that causes the halt can be examined by humans.  There is a contingency plan if not enough ballots are irregular.

Democrat Party Treasurer Joey Duenas hinted at the pretext for continuing with recounts.  Machines, he argued, would not halt for ballots that contained votes for write-in candidates in which the bubble isn’t filled in next to the line where the candidate’s name is written.  In the past, the Guam Supreme Court has ruled that such write-in votes do not count unless the appropriate bubble is filled in.  That might not daunt Duenas, who patriotically declared,”Every vote is sacred to me.”

Perhaps if the shoe were on the other foot, with Democrats leading election night results, the votes might not have been sacred enough to call for a recount.

Press release: Incoming Republican majority in the Ohio House of Reps to seek greater transparency

Editor’s note:  The Republican Caucus of the Ohio House of Representatives issued this press release on 11/4/2010.  Republicans have been in the minority of the Ohio House for the past two years, but, as the election results show, they will form the majority in the upcoming session commencing in January.

REP GARDNER TO PRODUCE OHIO HOUSE RULES

COLUMBUS—House Republican Leader William G. Batchelder (R-Medina) today issued the following statement:

“I am pleased to announce that our caucus has asked Representative Randy Gardner (R-Bowling Green) to begin crafting the House Rules for the 129th General Assembly. Previously, Representative Gardner served in this capacity in 1994, when he successfully brought an unprecedented level of transparency to the House of Representatives.

With Ohio facing such large challenges, it is more important now than ever before that the House operate in a way that will encourage the public to be fully engaged with the work that is done here.  It is with this in mind that we are honored to have Representative Gardner provide his experience and knowledge as we move forward in designing our operational framework.”

Rep. Gardner issued the following statement:

“I am honored to have been asked by my colleagues to produce this necessary function for a successful 129th General Assembly of the Ohio House of Representatives.  Our new Rules will ensure an effective, efficient House for both sides of the aisle and will promote a thorough, diligent work ethic by lawmakers to benefit Ohioans. There is no question that we must restore a minimum two-day waiting or reading period before final votes are taken on our state budget bills. The people of Ohio and all House members must be provided time to know what’s in the bills before we vote.”

In the 128th General Assembly, House members were forced to vote on the final version of the state budget bill with approximately 2 ½ hours to read the Conference report before voting on the measure. The bill included more than 500 changes in the 3,000 page document.

Mme. Speaker Pelosi, I wonder if you would clarify something. . . ?

Beginning in the summer of last year, our Representatives in Congress began convening town hall meetings to extol the virtues of proposed health care system changes.  The reception wasn’t so good.

Also making news were groups of detractors widely known as the Tea Party.

I’m trying to remember, way back then, how you characterized the negative feedback that garnered media coverage . . .

Correct me if I’m wrong, but, didn’t you say it was mere astroturf?

I think you did.  I think you said it was nothing but astroturf.

I wonder if you would care to elaborate further on that observation in light of the most recent election results.  Do you still think it’s astroturf?

Election results match up well with Buckeye RINO endorsements

Though I said in my prior post that I still wouldn’t be happy though Republicans were projected to do well in Congressional races, I have to say, looking through election results, I’m not sad either.  Their are many reasons to smile.

The candidates I endorsed did reasonably well.

In Cuyahoga County, with the new form of government, the Republican didn’t win the county executive race.  Plus, of the 11 county council winners, only three are Republicans.  I’m not sure if that will put enough distance between the county government and the scandalous rascals who will make every attempt to infiltrate it.  On the bright side, having 3 Republicans in county office is a huge improvement over zero (and it’s been zero for a long time).

The last time I checked, the Erie County Auditor race was too close to call.  There’s still a chance it could turn out the right way, in favor of Rick Jeffrey.

Unfortunately, Jeff Krabill didn’t win the 80th District seat in the Ohio House of Representatives.  He certainly came awfully close, though, as incumbent Dennis Murray didn’t even garner 50% in his successful re-election bid.  A Libertarian candidate, though not a winner, clearly influenced the outcome of that race.  If the Libertarians didn’t have a candidate on the ballot and it were a two person race, I don’t see how Dennis Murray would have been appealing to a Libertarian.  In a two-person race, I think Krabill would definitely have been the one who captured more than 50% of the vote.  Krabill can take solace in 3 facts: 1) He retains his seat on the Sandusky school board; 2) It took BOTH a Democrat AND a Libertarian to defeat him, as the Democrat couldn’t have done it alone; and 3) as a result of the 2010 Census and other Republican election victories, there may be a redesigned district, perhaps a more favorable one, for Krabill to run in if he chooses to take another shot at state rep in 2012.

In another race contested by more than two candidates where the winner captured less than 50% of the vote, the outcome was much more to my liking.  There was a four-way race for Lorain County Commissioner, and Joe Koziura came out on the short end of the stick. 😀  Republican Tom Williams is the new county commissioner.  Starting in January, Lorain County taxpayers will finally have an advocate working on their behalf in county offices.

Skip Lewandowski didn’t win his state rep race in the 56th District, and he would have been an excellent state rep.  Rae Lynn Brady didn’t win in the 57th, either.  On the upside, Terry Boose easily won re-election in the 58th District, Rex Damschroder prevailed in the 81st District, and the GOP recaptured the Ohio House of Representatives.

In the 13th state senate district, Gayle Manning won.

Kathleen McGervey won her election to the state school board.

The Kasich/Taylor ticket uprooted Ted Strickland from the governor’s office.

David Yost won for Ohio Auditor and Josh Mandel for Ohio Treasurer.

The GOP will lead the reapportionment process for designing new legislative district boundaries based on the new 2010 Census figures.

Maureen O’Connor and Judith Lanzinger won races for the Ohio Supreme Court.

Bob Latta won re-election.  Peter Corrigan, Rich Iott, and Tom Ganley did not win, but 5 Ohio Democrat U.S. Representative incumbents (Mary Jo Kilroy, Steve Driehaus,  John Boccieri, Zack Space, and Charlie Wilson) were defeated by Republican challengers, so, in January, the Ohio delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives will include 13 Republicans and 5 Democrats.  As expected, the GOP, nationwide, picked up more than 60 House seats.

Rob Portman won the race for U.S. Senate, and the GOP made nationwide gains there, with at least a net gain of six Senate seats since the special election in Massachusetts that sent Scott Brown to Washington DC.

There you have it.  Lots to smile about this time around.

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

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.

Democrats that can’t win fair and square resort to cheating: Voter fraud alert–Lorain County

A voting fraud scheme in Lorain County has bubbled to the surface.  This message was forwarded from Jennifer Wasilk, of Amherst City Council (emphasis mine):

Voters in Lorain County have reported that this week they have received phone calls from unidentified callers who are posing as Board of Elections workers.  The caller tells the voter that an absentee ballot has already been sent to them and that they haven’t mailed it back. SENIOR CITIZENS APPEAR TO BE THE TARGET OF THESE PHONE CALLS. Ohio voters must request an absentee ballot be sent to them.   None of these voters requested an absentee ballot, because they plan to vote at the polls on Election Day.  Whoever is responsible may be doing this to intentionally confuse people into thinking that they may be receiving an absentee ballot and that they shouldn’t go to the polls.  The Lorain County Board of Elections and the Ohio Secretary of State do not know who is doing this.  They need to know so that this potential voter fraud can be stopped.

If you receive one of these calls:

1. Ask the caller what organization that the caller is with.  Note if the caller claims to be from the Board of Elections.  The Board of Elections does not make these calls.
2. Write down the phone number, if you have caller ID.
3. Call the Lorain County Board of Elections.  Report the information that you get from the caller, and ask if an absentee ballot has been requested in your name.  You may ask for Deputy Director Jim Kramer at 440-326-5902.

But the Democratic cheating is more widespread than this.

How does a PAC have political ads already in the can, ready for release, just 2 days after the PAC was created?  According to Ohio law, no funds can be raised or expended until after a Designation of Treasurer form is filed.  Prior to that filing, there is no PAC.  A PAC is created by filing a Designation of Treasurer form.  According to Ohio campaign finance laws, at the time of the filing of the Designation of Treasurer form, the PAC starts with a zero $ balance.  Having ads already produced indicates that there were funds available and funds expended BEFORE the PAC was formed, which is ILLEGAL.  Among those behind the PAC are a firm in the employ of House Speaker Armond Budish.  There’s also an issue of illegal coordination that needs to be explored.  Here’s a press release from Ohio House Republicans on 10/25/2010 calling for an immediate investigation (emphasis mine):

Two weeks before one of the most influential mid-term elections in a generation, an organization known as “Our Future Ohio” has surfaced in Ohio to benefit struggling Democratic candidates throughout the state.

“Ohio has a new ominous hazard that will assist the Ohio Democrats’ efforts to steal the election from voters who have had enough of their oppression,” said House Republican leader William G. Batchelder (R-Medina).  “Questions need to be answered about this threat. How did “Our Future Ohio” file on a Thursday and have fully produced political ads just two days later?

To date, the group has spent more than $2.3 million to attack leading gubernatorial candidate John Kasich and Ohio House candidates Matt Carle and Ron Young. “Our Future Ohio” has named Alan Melamed as their spokesman. Melamed is the President of Melamed Communications, and the company’s website lists the House Democratic Caucus and Speaker Armond Budish (D-Beachwood) as clients.

“This reeks of impropriety surrounded with so many questions that the public should know,” said Asst. Leader Louis Blessing (R-Cincinnati). “Coordinated expenditures between a corporate-funded PAC and candidates is illegal. The facts remain; Mr. Melamed, a self-proclaimed “chief strategist” for the Speaker, House Democratic Caucus and Melamed Communications, has been paid as a vendor by the House Democratic Caucus and House Democratic campaigns.”

Batchelder further stated that the Ohio House Republican Organizational Committee intends to file an elections complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission against “Our Future Ohio” and the House Democratic Caucus for illegal coordination. He expressed great concern and urgency that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner institute her own investigation into this scandal.

The Democratic cheating is more widespread than this, though.

In Cincinnati, a few high school students were released during the school day to be transported in order to vote early at the Hamilton County Board of Elections.  The students were supplied with a list of the Democrat Party’s slate of candidates.  No information was supplied to the students about any candidates that were not Democrats.  Afterward, the students were rewarded for their votes with ice cream.  A former school principal (who distributed the slate cards) and a current social studies teacher (who accompanied the students while they were being transported) have been identified among those alleged to have facilitated the voting excursion.  The current Hughes High School principal also potentially faces discipline.  Here are excerpts from an article exposing both the former principal and the current teacher that was published by the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Cincinnati Public Schools will hold a disciplinary conference this week with the principal and social studies teacher who were involved in an Oct. 13 voting outing for Hughes High School students that spurred a lawsuit and public outrage . . .

. . . The lawsuit alleges three vans carrying 31 students were transported to the elections board and given only Democratic sample ballots . . .

The article then names these three adults, but stated there were other adults, volunteers, who took part.  Cincinnati Public Schools policy stipulates that such volunteers accompanying students during the school day shall have already completed satisfactory background checks, but, in this case, the current principal did not ascertain beforehand whether background checks had been conducted for the adult volunteers.

But the Democratic cheating is more widespread than that.

The Ohio Elections Commission is a bipartisan body charged with investigating electioneering complaints brought before them.  The OEC has ruled against the House Democratic Caucus Fund for ads that claim Republican state reps Barbara Sears (from the Toledo area) and Todd Snitchler (from the Canton area) voted to allow child molesters and sex offenders to work as school bus drivers.  Here’s a 10/27/2010 press release from the Ohio House Republicans:

The Ohio Elections Commission today ruled that the smear campaigns launched by the House Democratic Caucus Fund against Reps. Barbara Sears (R-Monclova Twp) and Todd Snitchler (R-Uniontown) are false. The ruling discredited the Democrats’ claims that, in opposing House Bill 19, Sears and Snitchler voted to allow child molesters and sex offenders to work as school bus drivers. The House Democratic Caucus Fund agreed to a stipulation that they violated the false statement statute in lying about the voting records of Rep. Sears and Rep. Snitchler.

“The Democrats have shown that they know no bounds when it comes to their dirty gutter politics,” said Ohio House Republican Organizational Committee director Mike Dittoe. “All they’ve done is waste time by distracting from the facts.”

Sears filed the elections complaint on the grounds that the House Democratic Caucus lied in two television ads. Contrary to these ads, prior to HB 19, criminals who were convicted of molesting and abusing children were already prevented from being school bus drivers. House Bill 19 actually weakened the restrictions on convicted criminals who could pose a threat to Ohio’s schoolchildren.

“I’m pleased that the OEC cleared my and Rep. Snitchler’s names and provided the people of Ohio with accurate information,” said Sears. “As a mother, there is nothing more important than protecting our children and keeping our communities safe. Fear mongering should not have been used to try to frighten parents and sway their votes.”

Previously, the Ohio Elections Commission had ruled against House Democrats for two other claims advertised against Snitchler.  The OEC has also ruled in favor of House Republicans who advertised that Democrat state reps Ray Pryor, Connie Pillich, and Nancy Gardner voted to cut state school funding by $32 million.  The OEC ruled against the Ohio Democratic Party for ads against Pillich’s Republican challenger, Mike Wilson, alleging that he wanted to cut funding for police and safety forces.

In past election cycles, I’ve posted blog articles discussing other ways that Democrats game the system.  Examples can be found at the links here, here, here, here, and here.  So these episodes of cheating are not an anomaly this year.  This is part of the Democrat Party’s modus operandi.

Guest blog: Behind enemy lines

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

Reidrally(1)10/22/2010

Reidrally(2)10/22/2010

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 . . .