When Democrats were persuading Arlen Specter to change parties Specter was promised by Harry Reid that he would be able to keep his seniority on the committees that he is currently on. That is not going to happen as the senate has voted to strip him of all of his seniority on these committees. Sorry Arlen, thanks for coming.
He was lied to. Or was he?
Are Democrats just using his seniority to keep him in line? There is a chance that Arlen Specter could get his seniority back in the next congress if he wins re-election. Perhaps the Democrats are using his seniority as a bargaining chip for the upcoming session.
Arlen Specter made the comment last week that he thought the Minnesota courts should declare Republican candidate Norm Coleman the winner of the contested senate race in that state. That did not set well with his new friends in congress.
Sen. Specter better watch comments like these. They won’t help him in the caucus
That certainly sounds like a threat and it appears as if stripping him of his seniority may be a punishment for his comments. Are they trying to tell him that if he falls in line he will be able to get his seniority back in the next session?
Democrats are denying this is the case, but the timing sure is suspect. Specter was told that if he switched parties he would retain seniority but then it was stripped from him. Something changed and Specter’s comments could have irked Democrats enough to fire this warning shot over the bow towards Specter.
It is either that or they lied to him in the first place and they just can’t be trusted.
Latest New Hampshire Polls (05/04/09)
Before I begin this post let me apologize for not having a link to the numbers that I am about to write about. They appeared in the print edition of the New Hampshire Union Leader but not in the electronic edition. You are going to have to take my word for it, I wouldn’t lie to you. Trust me.
There have been two special elections in the state in the last two weeks to fill a state senate seat and a state house seat; both of these elections were won by the Republican candidates. This has me optimistic that the tide is beginning to turn in New Hampshire and the numbers that I am about to give you show that the tide may be continuing to turn.
UNH did some hypothetical polls on some of the potential upcoming state races and if these numbers hold Senator Judd Gregg might want to reconsider his decision to step down from the United States Senate at the end of his term in 2010. I believe that Senator Gregg thought that his re-election was such a long shot that he decided not to run again. But according to the UNH poll he leads the presumptive Democrat nominee for that senate seat by a margin of 52-33. While my former senator, John Sununu is leading Hodes 46-41.
In the house my current representative, Carol Shea-Porter’s favorablilty rating is down to 38% with an unfavorable rating of 37% , with 27% remaining neutral because they don’t know enough about her. I don’t understand how anybody at this point can not have a position on her (she is in her second term) for better or worse, they just must not pay attention. While Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta, who will probably run against her in 2010 holds a 30% favorability rating. This is sure to change once the mayor starts campaigning and gets his name out there to the voters. 63% of those polled said they don’t know enough about the mayor to have an opinion yet.
My Senator Jeanne Shaheen is still sporting a 47% favorability rating in the first year of her first term but she has already lost nine points since February.
New Hampshire residents are growing tired of the state of politics at both the state and federal levels and if these numbers continue there will be a change in New Hampshire. A change that is long overdue.
It looks like I might owe the department of Homeland Security an apology for my post on right wing extremists and how they have been targeted by the department of Homeland Security as potential domestic terrorists (along with returning war veterans).
The department is non-discriminatory, they feel that almost every single American is a potential terrorist, or at least those with strong opinions, not just we fringe right wingers.
According to this article Homeland Security had written a dictionary that described all of the different Americans who could possibly become domestic terrorists before the department had second thoughts and pulled the dictionary back.
In this dictionary were several groups that could be considered left wing groups. Among those who could be added to the domestic terrorist list are black separatists, animal rights activists, environmentalists, Mexican separatists, and Cuban independence activists.
But there is one question that still remains, and that question is the reason why I do not owe the department an apology after all, why did the department of Homeland Security feel that the dictionary that described possible left wing domestic terrorists should be pulled back but the report on right wing extremists should be released? I am not alone in asking this question.
would be interested in knowing why this lexicon mentioning left-wing extremist groups was deemed inappropriate by DHS and recalled, yet a similar report focusing on veterans, antiabortion activists and anti-illegal immigration activists was fit for distribution and sent out by DHS to law enforcement agencies across the country
That was Representative Peter King of New York and I would love to know the answer. Could it be because our current president went to a church that believes in black liberation theology and thus our dear leader could possibly be categorized as a potential domestic terrorist? Or is it just the fact that Homeland Security sympathises with these various groups and do not wish to incriminate themselves?
Regardless of the reasoning, the fact is that the department of Homeland Security did not think that the threat of left wing groups to form terrorist organizations was real enough to keep the dictionary in circulation but they did deem the threat of right wingers valid enough to release the report on right wingers and returning war veterans.
I guess having an uncle on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee has its advantages. At least it does for John Murtha’s nephew, Robert, who received over $4 million in no-bid contracts. And that was last year alone.
Robert Murtha is denying that his relationship to John Murtha is the reason why he was awarded $4 million in contracts from the government last year. I suppose that means he is also denying that being Robert Murtha Sr.’s son has anything to do with it either. Senior is a lobbyist for defense funds and has been awarded millions in defense contracts for his clients.
Said Junior on the reason he was awarded no-bid contracts:
We were uniquely qualified because we had already been doing that work
That sounds an awful lot like the excuse Halliburton made about receiving no-bid contracts in Iraq. The same excuse that people like John Murtha did not want to hear.
The other excuse being thrown around is that the army was too busy to send out the contract for bidding. In short, we are supposed to believe that the army was too busy; that Murtech is the only company that can do this type warehousing; that Junior’s father had nothing to do with the contracts even though he is a major lobbyist; and that it is just a coincidence that Robert Murtha Jr.’s uncle is the man in charge of giving defense contracts.
John Murtha is in this up to his eyeballs, the longer this investigation goes on and the more details we learn the harder it is to believe that John Murtha should be allowed to retain his chairmanship. He has been awarded hundreds of millions of dollars in defense contract earmarks for his district over the years and we are supposed to believe that this was just a coincidence.
Rahm Emanuel: Stopping Iran’s Nuclear Program is Contingent on Israel/Palestinian Negotiations
It is fairly evident to most people that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. At least it is evident to those who are not ultra far leftists who believe that as a country who has nuclear weapons we have no right to tell other countries they can’t have them.
The president also believes that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, sort of. It seems that he is willing to blackmail another country by using Iran’s nuclear program as a bargaining chip.
According to this article, Rahm Emanuel has said that the United States will thwart Iran’s nuclear program only if the Israel/Palestinian peace talks are progressing at a rate that the White House approves of.
This is dangerous territory that the president is entering, to say the least. To basically threaten Israel by holding Iran’s nuclear program over their head is alarming. For us to do nothing while Iran is allowed to build a nuclear program is bad enough, but for us to then use the program that Iran is building in order to intimidate our biggest ally in the middle east is incomprehensible.
The one thing that we can count on is that if the United States under this president is to weak to do anything about Iran than Israel will take matters into their own hands. Israel will not wait around for the United States. Israel will launch a preemptive strike on Iran if that is what it comes to. Maybe that is what this president wants. Maybe he wants Israel to take the heat for attacking Iran or maybe he is just afraid of taking a stand with Iran because of his campaign rhetoric.
The fact of the matter is that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, period. This is not an issue that should be used as a bargaining chip. This is too important for that. If Iran has nuclear weapons no country is safe; it isn’t just Israel that will have to look over their shoulders.
I hope that someday Israel and the Palestinians will settle their differences but that is a separate issue; that issue should have nothing to do as to whether we allow Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.
This is what happens when you oppose this president and his plans. An attorney for Perella Weinberg Partners is claiming that the White House threatened them and warned them not to oppose the president’s reorganization plan for Chrysler.
was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That’s how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence
The White House threatened to use the press corp to embarrass the firm if they continued to oppose the president’s plan. The White House is denying these charges and I wish that I could believe them. But I don’t.
We are talking about the same administration that authorized the bonuses that the AIG executives were going to be paid before turning the tables on the AIG executives and manipulating a pliable portion of the people to believe that the administration knew nothing about the bonuses they authorized. The administration then embarrassed the AIG executives for taking the money that the government said belonged to them to the point where people were protesting the executives outside of their homes and threatening to kill them. At least one executive committed suicide because of the disgraceful actions of the government.
There is no doubt in my mind that the administration purposely authorised the bonuses to be paid and then used the White House press corp to stoke the populist flames of outrage for political advantage.
I find it perfectly plausible then that the administration would threaten to embarrass a firm for having the gall to oppose dear leader. We have seen it before from this administration. The arrogance from this administration is astounding. There is no room for opposing views of any kind with this administration.
This president is looking to interfere in private industry in a manner in which has never been seen before. And if you oppose him at all he is more than willing to sick the lapdog media on you. There is room enough for only one opinion in this administration. We must all fall in line or face the consequences.
This may be the kind of Chicago thug politics that the president is used to but this ain’t Chicago anymore.
Democrats Will Not Fund Gitmo Closing
House Democrats will be voting shortly on a new war funding bill. When they do vote on the bill there will be one interesting portion of the bill that will be missing.
There was to be $80 million allocated to the prisoner relocation plan as part of the president’s plan to close GITMO. House Democrats have nixed that portion of the bill. There will be no funding to relocate the GITMO detainees in the upcoming war funding bill.
I am still of the belief that GITMO is not going to close. I feel that the executive order the president signed which ordered the prison closed was nothing but a PR move to satisfy the far left and make it appear that he was fulfilling a campaign promise. If it was not a PR move and he signed the order without thinking through what was to happen to the detainees than that was extremely irresponsible and shortsighted.
We are now in the position where nobody knows where these prisoners are going to be released and there is talk that many of them will be released in the United States. No politician in their right mind who faces re-election next year would ever vote to fund relocating terrorists on United States soil.
This funding was dead before it even had a chance. This is a blow to the administration and the president’s plan to close GITMO. Perhaps the president should have thought this through before he rashly decided to try to follow through on a promise that I don’t think he is going to be able to keep.
The Shifting Global Warming Argument
We have all seen how the environmentalists have been shiftingthe argument from “global warming” to “climate change” as it was learned that the earth is in a cooling period. Suddenly it seemed stupid to be warning of the warming planet and the damage being done by humans when the planet was cooling. This is all part of the effort by the environmentalists and their all too willing nanny state politicians whose only true goal is to regulate and tax us until we have lost our freedoms and liberties.
Much like Janet Napolitano (other than calling veterans possible terrorists) will not use the term terrorist; she prefers “man caused disaster” to terrorist attack, she will not use the term “war on terror”; preferring the term “overseas contingency operation”, the environmentalists are now urging a change in the terminology being used to promote “global warming.”
Yes we have all seen this shift in the conversation over the last few months and now according to this article we can see that it has indeed been a concerted effort to change the global warming lexicon because people just do not believe this hoax is real. (And they see the alarmists as a bunch of tree hugging hippies.)
The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”
The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica
According to the article the alarmists have had trouble drumming up support for the issue. People just aren’t warming up to the issue. Out of twenty issues people who were polled were concerned about, global warming was dead last, so instead of trying to convince people that global warming is real they have decided to change the terms used to make their scam seem more believable.
“We know why it’s lowest, when someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument.
That is because that is exactly what this issue is– a political issue not a scientific issue. If it was a scientific issue the leading voice wouldn’t be a washed up politician who stands to make millions of dollars if the alarmists ever succeed in forcing their regulations on us.
We have seen this coming, we have known that this was the case and now it is official. Global warming is over so it is time for them to rephrase the argument and come back at us again.
Here is a list of the new suggested terms to be used when talking about the hoax formally known as global warming:
-
Instead of “global warming”, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.”
-
instead of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.”
-
cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”
-
instead of “Energy efficiency” speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.”
-
drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”
They want to get away from “carbon dioxide” because in reality it is a vital and necessary part of nature without which plant life would die. They want to get away from “cap and trade” because it is a tax on the American people and they want to re-frame it as somehow we are going to get a refund out of this scam. As far as “our deteriorating atmosphere” goes, didn’t they already try that with the hole in the ozone layer years ago? Are they really going to bring that argument back?
If these people were ever to tell the truth they would admit that this is all about regulating behavior and not protecting the planet. The talking points to be issued addresses the fact that people are worried about there freedoms and so the argument is going to be turned into a patriotic argument.
Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology
They are going to try to present to us that giving up personal freedoms and liberties for the greater good is patriotic and American.
But here is the real kicker in this article:
emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument.
Now we have gotten to the heart of the issue; they can’t rely on scientific argument. There is no scientific argument to be made yet because scientists still haven’t reached a conclusion. We are told there is scientific consensus, but the fact that some scientists agree but many still do not does not mean that debate is over. There is still ongoing arguments in the scientific community even as the political community tells us that the debate is over.
So that brings us to the real issue; common sense. That is what this is all about and all that it has ever been about. Most people use common sense, we don’t want to hurt the planet, we take care of it. Most of us use common sense when it comes to the environment and energy consumption. But that isn’t good enough for the environmentalists and the politicians; they want to regulate common sense. Pure and simple. In other words they are nothing more than nanny state politicians who, as I have been saying, want to regulate and control our behaviors. They believe that they are smarter than us and know what is best for us and therefor they believe that they need to tell us how to live. They believe it is for our own good. In their eyes the government is the “common” sense.
And finally:
And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”
Starting last month Americans began to receive a tax credit in their weekly paychecks of around $13. (Which will fall to $8 next year) I hope that you weren’t planning on keeping that money because the chances are good that you will have to give it back when you fill out your taxes next year.
It seems as though the IRS is changing their tax tables around and because of this many people will have to return their tax credits. But don’t worry, you won’t be affected unless you belong to one of the following groups:
- married couples in which both spouses work
- workers with more than one job
- retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension
- Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income
In other words, if you are an average American trying to make ends meet you will probably be giving that tax credit back, or at least part of it. As the article linked to above states, people who receive little or no money back from the IRS at the end of the year are the ones who will be most hurt by this. The rest of us will be getting a smaller return.
The IRS knows that there is a problem and they have a solution. Any idea what that might be? Take a guess before you read on.
If you are married and both spouses work, you might consider having taxes withheld at the higher rate for single filers. If you have multiple jobs, you might consider having extra taxes withheld by one of your employers
Pay more now so that you don’t get screwed later. Isn’t that just typical? My suggestion to them would be for them to fix the problems and not punt it to us next year.
If the idea behind the tax credits is to give people more money in their paychecks to spend and thereby stimulate the economy, doesn’t the IRS’s solution of having more taxes taken out of your paycheck nullify the desired effect?
Am I missing something here?
Medicaid Made $19 Billion in Improper Payments, And We Want the Government to Run Health-Care?
The president wants to provide universal health-care to all Americans. But the government already runs Medicaid, government health insurance for low income people, so it seems logical that we should look at how efficient that program is run before deciding whether the government should run our health-care also.
Medicaid paid out $19 billion in improper payments last year alone. And these payments for the most part were not fraudulent claims that were filed, they were government errors.
most of those payments were the result of errors, not deliberate fraud
The government wasted $19 billion of taxpayer money on Medicaid because of their own ineptitude. That number would surely grow in proportion to the amount of people added to the health-care system once all Americans are covered under the government health-care plan.
But maybe the Medicaid example is the exception to the rule. Maybe the other government programs are run more efficiently than Medicaid. Not! Medicaid’s improper payments only account for about 25% (and considering that Medicaid is just one program that represents a huge percentage of the mismanagement of funds by the government) of all of the government’s improperly paid benefits.
According to the report, the U.S. government made an estimated $72 billion overall in improper payments last year. Of that total, Medicaid doled out almost $19 billion. Seventy-seven other programs were responsible for the remaining $53 billion
And there were 11 more programs which did not report estimates. We are closing in on government run programs improperly paying $100 billion in benefits and we want the government to run the health-care system?
But just in case you are still on the fence about the government running health-care, don’t forget that the president hasn’t even fill out the department of Health and Human services yet– the department that will be in charge of overseeing the health-care system.
When the government gets involved in issues where they don’t belong there are only two things that we can count on.
1. The government will screw it up
2. The cost will go up
As P.J. O’Rourke once said, if you think health-care is expensive now just wait until it is free.
Truer words have never been spoken.
