Friday, July 30, 2010
I saw LBJ one time.
I was a kid in Clemson S.C. and LBJ came to town. He was on a whistle stop tour. There must have been several hundred people crowded around the railroad station that day in 1960 during the campaign--JFK vs RMN, and LBJ and Henry Cabot Lodge were running for Vice President. It was thought that it would be a close election, and the vote of South Carolina might elect a President. S.C. Governor Fritz Hollings was supporting the JFK/LBJ ticket and LBJ came through Clemson S.C. on a whistle stop tour. You don't see much campaigning like that any more, but it was popular for the first half of the last century. LBJ came out on the back balcony of the caboose (I believe it was) and made a rip-roaring speech. Then, when it was over, the train left, for his next stop in Seneca SC, and then Westminster SC, then on into Georgia. I enjoyed seeing LBJ that day. Kenneth Stepp.
Elect More Democrats like Harry Truman, HHH and LBJ!
Elect More Democrats to have things like Medicare. Holbert for Congress. Out with Hal Rogers. KY-05!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Public shifts in favor of Health Care Reform Act!
"From the non-profit part of Kaiser, which runs a well-respected health poll, via the Hill:
Americans view Democrats’ signature health reform bill more positively now than at any point since it was signed into law, a new poll found Thursday.
50 percent of the public say they view the new healthcare law favorably, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that has been tracking public opinion about the legislation since it became law.
35 percent of adults said they view the law unfavorably, while 14 percent had no opinion.
The July numbers mark the strongest support for reform since it reached a low in May, when the Kaiser poll found the public opposed the law 44-41 percent."
Hal Rogers and all the Republicans voted against the Health Care Reform Act. They intend to abolish it if they have the votes in Congress to do it. Protect the Health Care Reform Act. Elect More Democrats. Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05-D. Out with Rogers!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Herald-Leader looks at Hal Rogers KY-05-R.
"Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010Comments (26) | Recommend (2)
"Rogers brings prosperity to a few
"Rogers brings prosperity to a fewYou can give U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Somerset, this: He truly believes that charity begins at home.
"Home, for Rogers, doesn't just mean his congressional district, the second poorest in the nation, or even the state of Kentucky. It almost literally means home: his family, his closest allies and strongest supporters.
"Herald-Leader reporter John Cheves' stories about Rogers unconscionable funneling of money to pet projects that build up his political capital or enrich his financial backers and family members would always be distressing, but are now particularly so.
"Hal Rogers
Friday, when the first of Cheves' stories appeared, another headline on the front page read: "Jobless aid restored, but employment outlook dim."
"Inside the paper were pictures of mattresses placed end-to-end on the floor at the Hope Center's emergency center for homeless people. The facility, with 118 beds, regularly gives shelter to 200 people a night. Center officials believe the economy has increased both the number of residents and the length of their stays. In addition, they note, it's close to highways that bring in people from Central and Eastern Kentucky.
"Thank goodness the Hope Center is building additional capacity because, only the day before, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had told Congress the economy is "unusually uncertain" and unemployment will likely remain high.
"Rogers and those who speak for him tell us it is absolutely coincidental that one of Rogers' major campaign donors, J.C. Egnew, is chairman of the board of the Somerset-based non-profit National Institute for Hometown Security, which has benefited from $52 million in federal earmarks orchestrated by Rogers. And as chance would have it, Egnew also owns a tent-making company that has gotten millions in federal orders. NIHS' commercialization director, Shannon Rickett, also just happens to be chairwoman of the Republican Party in Rogers' 5th Congressional District.
"Likewise, we're assured it's just happenstance that Rogers has gone ape over federal funding to protect cheetahs in Namibia while his daughter is grants administrator for the Cheetah Conservation Fund.
"Rogers knows we're poor in Kentucky; but does he have to add insult to injury by acting like we're dumb, too?
"These aren't coincidences unless politics and human nature have undergone some radical and isolated transformation in the 5th District.
"Although not quite so clear, it hardly seems a coincidence that, while Rogers heaps federal funds on a favored few, the many go wanting. The 2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau found that 27.6 percent of all Rogers' constituents, and 35.8 percent of the children, lived in poverty, by far the highest for any congressional district in Kentucky. Median household income was $26,824, a pittance compared to Rickett's $80,000 a year.
"It's instructive to note that Rogers was among the House Republicans who voted against extending benefits for the long-term unemployed despite the fact that his district includes counties with some of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
"Kentuckians are suffering, few more than his constituents, but Rogers continues unabated in viewing the federal treasury as a checkbook to benefit his closest allies.
"No one man, not even a powerful congressman in his 15th term in office, could change the economy of a region, much less a state or the country. But it's no coincidence that Rogers' district has remained mired in an economic nowhere land while a favored few have benefited from the congressman's position."
No more bilking! Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House. Elect More Democrats!
"Rogers brings prosperity to a few
"Rogers brings prosperity to a fewYou can give U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Somerset, this: He truly believes that charity begins at home.
"Home, for Rogers, doesn't just mean his congressional district, the second poorest in the nation, or even the state of Kentucky. It almost literally means home: his family, his closest allies and strongest supporters.
"Herald-Leader reporter John Cheves' stories about Rogers unconscionable funneling of money to pet projects that build up his political capital or enrich his financial backers and family members would always be distressing, but are now particularly so.
"Hal Rogers
Friday, when the first of Cheves' stories appeared, another headline on the front page read: "Jobless aid restored, but employment outlook dim."
"Inside the paper were pictures of mattresses placed end-to-end on the floor at the Hope Center's emergency center for homeless people. The facility, with 118 beds, regularly gives shelter to 200 people a night. Center officials believe the economy has increased both the number of residents and the length of their stays. In addition, they note, it's close to highways that bring in people from Central and Eastern Kentucky.
"Thank goodness the Hope Center is building additional capacity because, only the day before, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke had told Congress the economy is "unusually uncertain" and unemployment will likely remain high.
"Rogers and those who speak for him tell us it is absolutely coincidental that one of Rogers' major campaign donors, J.C. Egnew, is chairman of the board of the Somerset-based non-profit National Institute for Hometown Security, which has benefited from $52 million in federal earmarks orchestrated by Rogers. And as chance would have it, Egnew also owns a tent-making company that has gotten millions in federal orders. NIHS' commercialization director, Shannon Rickett, also just happens to be chairwoman of the Republican Party in Rogers' 5th Congressional District.
"Likewise, we're assured it's just happenstance that Rogers has gone ape over federal funding to protect cheetahs in Namibia while his daughter is grants administrator for the Cheetah Conservation Fund.
"Rogers knows we're poor in Kentucky; but does he have to add insult to injury by acting like we're dumb, too?
"These aren't coincidences unless politics and human nature have undergone some radical and isolated transformation in the 5th District.
"Although not quite so clear, it hardly seems a coincidence that, while Rogers heaps federal funds on a favored few, the many go wanting. The 2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau found that 27.6 percent of all Rogers' constituents, and 35.8 percent of the children, lived in poverty, by far the highest for any congressional district in Kentucky. Median household income was $26,824, a pittance compared to Rickett's $80,000 a year.
"It's instructive to note that Rogers was among the House Republicans who voted against extending benefits for the long-term unemployed despite the fact that his district includes counties with some of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
"Kentuckians are suffering, few more than his constituents, but Rogers continues unabated in viewing the federal treasury as a checkbook to benefit his closest allies.
"No one man, not even a powerful congressman in his 15th term in office, could change the economy of a region, much less a state or the country. But it's no coincidence that Rogers' district has remained mired in an economic nowhere land while a favored few have benefited from the congressman's position."
No more bilking! Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House. Elect More Democrats!
Hal Rogers votes to fund War.
"Jim Holbert is a progressive Democrat running for Congress in Kentucky's 5th congressional district. Unfortunately his opponent longtime warmonger Hal Rogers got to vote today instead. And Rogers voted for more war, more billions of much needed taxpayer dollars down the Central Asian sewer. Holbert's comment: "De-fund it, bring the troops home, and there's the end of it. This is going to happen sooner or later, the only questions are how many more lives will be lost and how much more debt we'll run up." Rogers voted against Kucinich's War Powers resolution in regard to Pakistan-- so did almost everyone else. It failed 38-372, 6 Republicans and 32 Democrats voting YES, with 4 abstentions. And then the supplemental a few minutes later. 102 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted against it. So it passed-- more unjustifiable war in our names-- 308-114."
Down With Tyranny Blogspot.
Elect Jim Holbert. Elect More Democrats KY-05.
Down With Tyranny Blogspot.
Elect Jim Holbert. Elect More Democrats KY-05.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Missing money in Iraq!
Missing money in Iraq!
.Audit: US can't account for $8.7B in Iraqi funds
By TAREK EL-TABLAWY and SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writers Tarek El-tablawy And Sinan Salaheddin, Associated Press Writers – Tue Jul 27, 9:42 am ET
BAGHDAD – The U.S. Defense Department is unable to properly account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraqi oil money tapped by the U.S. for rebuilding the war ravaged nation, according to an audit released Tuesday.
The report by the U.S. Special Investigator for Iraq Reconstruction offers a compelling look at continued laxness in how such funds are being spent in a country where people complain basic services like electricity and clean water are sharply lacking seven years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
The audit found that shoddy record keeping by the Defense Department left the Pentagon unable to fully account for $8.7 billion it withdrew between 2004 and 2007 from a special fund set up by the U.N. Security Council. Of that amount, Pentagon "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6 billion."
The funds are separate from the $53 billion allocated by Congress for rebuilding Iraq.
The report comes at a critical time for Iraq.
Despite security gains made since 2008, bombings remain near a daily occurrence that compound the frustrations and fears of Iraqis increasingly weary of the current political crisis — one many say reflects how the country's politicians are more interested in their own interests than those of the nation.
Politicians have hit an impasse since inconclusive parliamentary elections were held March 7, unable to form a new government as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, appears determined to stay in office when influential Shiite parties want to see him go.
Click image to see more photos of Iraq stories
AFP
The audit cited a number of factors that contributed to the inability to account for most of the money withdrawn by the Pentagon from the Development Fund for Iraq. It said most of the Defense Department organizations that received DFI money failed to set up Treasury Department accounts, as required.
In addition, it said no Defense Department organization was designated as the main body to oversee how the funds were accounted for or spent.
"The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss," the report said.
The audit found that the U.S. continues to hold about $34.3 million of the money even though it was required to return it to the Iraqi government.
The audit did not indicate that investigators believed there were any instances of fraud involved in the spending of these funds.
The DFI includes revenues from Iraq's oil and gas exports, as well as frozen Iraqi assets and surplus funds from the now-defunct, Saddam Hussein-era oil-for-food program. With the establishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq shortly after the start of the U.S. invasion in 2003 until mid-2004, about $20 billion was placed into the account.
The Iraqi government had agreed to allow the U.S. continued access to the funds after the CPA was dissolved in 2004, but it revoked that authority in December 2007."
Elect more Democrats! Elect Jim Holbert! End the War Now!
.Audit: US can't account for $8.7B in Iraqi funds
By TAREK EL-TABLAWY and SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writers Tarek El-tablawy And Sinan Salaheddin, Associated Press Writers – Tue Jul 27, 9:42 am ET
BAGHDAD – The U.S. Defense Department is unable to properly account for over 95 percent of $9.1 billion in Iraqi oil money tapped by the U.S. for rebuilding the war ravaged nation, according to an audit released Tuesday.
The report by the U.S. Special Investigator for Iraq Reconstruction offers a compelling look at continued laxness in how such funds are being spent in a country where people complain basic services like electricity and clean water are sharply lacking seven years after the U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
The audit found that shoddy record keeping by the Defense Department left the Pentagon unable to fully account for $8.7 billion it withdrew between 2004 and 2007 from a special fund set up by the U.N. Security Council. Of that amount, Pentagon "could not provide documentation to substantiate how it spent $2.6 billion."
The funds are separate from the $53 billion allocated by Congress for rebuilding Iraq.
The report comes at a critical time for Iraq.
Despite security gains made since 2008, bombings remain near a daily occurrence that compound the frustrations and fears of Iraqis increasingly weary of the current political crisis — one many say reflects how the country's politicians are more interested in their own interests than those of the nation.
Politicians have hit an impasse since inconclusive parliamentary elections were held March 7, unable to form a new government as Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, appears determined to stay in office when influential Shiite parties want to see him go.
Click image to see more photos of Iraq stories
AFP
The audit cited a number of factors that contributed to the inability to account for most of the money withdrawn by the Pentagon from the Development Fund for Iraq. It said most of the Defense Department organizations that received DFI money failed to set up Treasury Department accounts, as required.
In addition, it said no Defense Department organization was designated as the main body to oversee how the funds were accounted for or spent.
"The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss," the report said.
The audit found that the U.S. continues to hold about $34.3 million of the money even though it was required to return it to the Iraqi government.
The audit did not indicate that investigators believed there were any instances of fraud involved in the spending of these funds.
The DFI includes revenues from Iraq's oil and gas exports, as well as frozen Iraqi assets and surplus funds from the now-defunct, Saddam Hussein-era oil-for-food program. With the establishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which ran Iraq shortly after the start of the U.S. invasion in 2003 until mid-2004, about $20 billion was placed into the account.
The Iraqi government had agreed to allow the U.S. continued access to the funds after the CPA was dissolved in 2004, but it revoked that authority in December 2007."
Elect more Democrats! Elect Jim Holbert! End the War Now!
Monday, July 26, 2010
RDemocrat sez:
"Bill Clinton steadily reduced the debt increase while he was in office, thanks largely to the 1993 Debt Reduction Act* that was OPPOSED BY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS, led by Newt Gingrich! The Republicans claimed that the Debt Reduction Act would result in HIGHER deficits and also result in an economic recession during President Clinton's term. Obviously, with hindsight they were completely wrong. Republicans don't seem to be very good at math, or economics.
"Now, after 20 years of huge Republican deficits and Republican recessions, the National Debt has increased from $937 Billion -- LESS than $1 Trillion -- the day Ronald Reagan took office to ALMOST $10 TRILLION!!! The Debt has increased more than TEN TIMES what it was when Ronald Reagan promised to reduce the National Debt by 1983! We and our children and their children will be paying off the debt added by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush for the next 100 years and more! For what !?!? Services have been cut across America. Police and Fire Departments haven't grown nearly as fast as our population. Even the number of troops in the military has been cut while military spending has skyrocketed!
"Unfortunately that is the Republican strategy to win back Congress and finish destroying our country with debt thrown away to the wealthy and the Communists in China. They want to block any measure that will help America recover from the debt and crashed economy they themselves caused, all while blaming it on someone else. In other words America, Republicans are banking on the hope that you are stupid. Their whole existence depends on you forgetting their horrible stewardship of America while in power and on you not being armed with the facts about how our country got here because you do not want gays to be married or you are afraid someone is going to take your gun."
I'm a Rural Democrat, too. I live just outside Burning Springs, in Clay County. Elect More Democrats. Holbert for Congress. Rein in Federal spending!
"Now, after 20 years of huge Republican deficits and Republican recessions, the National Debt has increased from $937 Billion -- LESS than $1 Trillion -- the day Ronald Reagan took office to ALMOST $10 TRILLION!!! The Debt has increased more than TEN TIMES what it was when Ronald Reagan promised to reduce the National Debt by 1983! We and our children and their children will be paying off the debt added by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush for the next 100 years and more! For what !?!? Services have been cut across America. Police and Fire Departments haven't grown nearly as fast as our population. Even the number of troops in the military has been cut while military spending has skyrocketed!
"Unfortunately that is the Republican strategy to win back Congress and finish destroying our country with debt thrown away to the wealthy and the Communists in China. They want to block any measure that will help America recover from the debt and crashed economy they themselves caused, all while blaming it on someone else. In other words America, Republicans are banking on the hope that you are stupid. Their whole existence depends on you forgetting their horrible stewardship of America while in power and on you not being armed with the facts about how our country got here because you do not want gays to be married or you are afraid someone is going to take your gun."
I'm a Rural Democrat, too. I live just outside Burning Springs, in Clay County. Elect More Democrats. Holbert for Congress. Rein in Federal spending!
Your hard-earned taxpayers' money gone for Hal Rogers' Pork!
July 25, 2010 | Government Editor | Comments 15 Print This Post .Rogers wants taxpayer help for cheetahs
U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.
By John Cheves - jcheves@herald-leader.com
U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Somerset, is sponsoring a bill to give $5 million a year to conservation groups that work overseas on behalf of endangered “great cats and rare canids,” such as cheetahs, lions and Ethiopian wolves.
One group interested in applying, should Rogers’ bill become law, is the Namibia-based Cheetah Conservation Fund.
Its grants administrator, Allison Rogers, is the congressman’s daughter.
“Obviously, I’m waiting with bated breath,” said Allison Rogers, who lives in Versailles. “It would help us a lot because the Cheetah Conservation Fund does not have a very big budget.”
She and her father say there is no conflict of interest. The congressman from Southeast Kentucky long has been a champion of wildlife, she said.
“Dad is, I think, very involved in the environment, both in his district and on a global level,” Allison Rogers said. “Neither his or my involvement in this is cheating the public or taking advantage of my dad’s position.”
In a prepared statement, a spokeswoman for Hal Rogers listed more than two dozen conservation groups other than the Cheetah Conservation Fund that could ask for the money, including the Jane Goodall Institute, the Humane Society of the United States and the Sierra Club.
“A wealth of organizations would benefit from these grants, and all would be able to apply without any congressional influence over the selection process,” spokeswoman Stefani Zimmerman said.
“While the congressman’s daughter is equally passionate about conservation, her recent work on behalf of the Cheetah Conservation Fund would never be a factor in the allocation of this funding,” Zimmerman said. “To suggest otherwise is unfounded and completely false.”
But a conservative budget watchdog said Hal Rogers should be more prudent.
“Who’s against helping cheetahs? Nobody. But c’mon, this reeks of nepotism,” said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington. “This is the kind of thing that gets taxpayers so frustrated with Congress.”
This isn’t the first time Hal Rogers has steered money in the direction of his family.
In 2004, Senture, a call-services center in London, hired one of Rogers’ sons as a computer systems administrator just after the lawmaker helped it win a $4 million homeland security contract. Father and son said there was no connection between the contract and the job.
“There needs to be much more of a fire wall with things like this,” Williams said. “It isn’t difficult. You just don’t allocate money to projects where your children are employed. The problem with Congressman Rogers is, he thinks there’s nothing wrong with it.”
Great Cats
Rogers and two other congressmen initially sponsored “The Great Cats Conservation Act” in 2007 to establish a $5 million annual fund for overseas wildlife protection. That bill died in the Senate.
Rogers and his colleagues tried again in 2009. The House voted 290-to-119 to pass the bill, with Rogers breaking from his Republican caucus to support it; the bill now awaits action in the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.
Allison Rogers, who has a journalism degree from the University of Kentucky, joined the Cheetah Conservation Fund in 2007 as part of its U.S. fund-raising and educational operations.
The fund works to ensure the survival of the cheetahs in Africa, where an estimated 9,000 to 12,000 live. On its most recent nonprofit tax filing, in 2008, the fund reported $1.2 million in revenue, mostly from grants and contributions.
Allison Rogers said she met Laurie Marker, the fund’s co-founder and executive director, through her father.
Hal Rogers and his wife have joined at least two congressional trips to Africa since 2000, including one with Namibia on its itinerary. During that trip, the congressional delegation received a gift of 10 cheetahs from the Namibian government, several of which went to the Cincinnati Zoo.
Allison Rogers said she admired Marker’s work with cheetahs even before her dad, knowing Marker, introduced the two women. By then, Hal Rogers was a member of the congressional International Conservation Caucus, or ICC; a related nonprofit, the ICC Foundation, paid the $15,448 cost of Hal Rogers 2008 trip with his wife to a Kenyan wildlife conservancy.
“As luck would have it,” Allison Rogers said, her father’s introduction “turned into a full-time position for me.”
Vote Holbert for U.S. House. Money for People, not cats!
U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.
By John Cheves - jcheves@herald-leader.com
U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Somerset, is sponsoring a bill to give $5 million a year to conservation groups that work overseas on behalf of endangered “great cats and rare canids,” such as cheetahs, lions and Ethiopian wolves.
One group interested in applying, should Rogers’ bill become law, is the Namibia-based Cheetah Conservation Fund.
Its grants administrator, Allison Rogers, is the congressman’s daughter.
“Obviously, I’m waiting with bated breath,” said Allison Rogers, who lives in Versailles. “It would help us a lot because the Cheetah Conservation Fund does not have a very big budget.”
She and her father say there is no conflict of interest. The congressman from Southeast Kentucky long has been a champion of wildlife, she said.
“Dad is, I think, very involved in the environment, both in his district and on a global level,” Allison Rogers said. “Neither his or my involvement in this is cheating the public or taking advantage of my dad’s position.”
In a prepared statement, a spokeswoman for Hal Rogers listed more than two dozen conservation groups other than the Cheetah Conservation Fund that could ask for the money, including the Jane Goodall Institute, the Humane Society of the United States and the Sierra Club.
“A wealth of organizations would benefit from these grants, and all would be able to apply without any congressional influence over the selection process,” spokeswoman Stefani Zimmerman said.
“While the congressman’s daughter is equally passionate about conservation, her recent work on behalf of the Cheetah Conservation Fund would never be a factor in the allocation of this funding,” Zimmerman said. “To suggest otherwise is unfounded and completely false.”
But a conservative budget watchdog said Hal Rogers should be more prudent.
“Who’s against helping cheetahs? Nobody. But c’mon, this reeks of nepotism,” said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington. “This is the kind of thing that gets taxpayers so frustrated with Congress.”
This isn’t the first time Hal Rogers has steered money in the direction of his family.
In 2004, Senture, a call-services center in London, hired one of Rogers’ sons as a computer systems administrator just after the lawmaker helped it win a $4 million homeland security contract. Father and son said there was no connection between the contract and the job.
“There needs to be much more of a fire wall with things like this,” Williams said. “It isn’t difficult. You just don’t allocate money to projects where your children are employed. The problem with Congressman Rogers is, he thinks there’s nothing wrong with it.”
Great Cats
Rogers and two other congressmen initially sponsored “The Great Cats Conservation Act” in 2007 to establish a $5 million annual fund for overseas wildlife protection. That bill died in the Senate.
Rogers and his colleagues tried again in 2009. The House voted 290-to-119 to pass the bill, with Rogers breaking from his Republican caucus to support it; the bill now awaits action in the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.
Allison Rogers, who has a journalism degree from the University of Kentucky, joined the Cheetah Conservation Fund in 2007 as part of its U.S. fund-raising and educational operations.
The fund works to ensure the survival of the cheetahs in Africa, where an estimated 9,000 to 12,000 live. On its most recent nonprofit tax filing, in 2008, the fund reported $1.2 million in revenue, mostly from grants and contributions.
Allison Rogers said she met Laurie Marker, the fund’s co-founder and executive director, through her father.
Hal Rogers and his wife have joined at least two congressional trips to Africa since 2000, including one with Namibia on its itinerary. During that trip, the congressional delegation received a gift of 10 cheetahs from the Namibian government, several of which went to the Cincinnati Zoo.
Allison Rogers said she admired Marker’s work with cheetahs even before her dad, knowing Marker, introduced the two women. By then, Hal Rogers was a member of the congressional International Conservation Caucus, or ICC; a related nonprofit, the ICC Foundation, paid the $15,448 cost of Hal Rogers 2008 trip with his wife to a Kenyan wildlife conservancy.
“As luck would have it,” Allison Rogers said, her father’s introduction “turned into a full-time position for me.”
Vote Holbert for U.S. House. Money for People, not cats!
Friday, July 23, 2010
Holbrook in the Fifth!
What if Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party had followed the present strategy of today's national Democratic Party?
The Daily Kos reports:
"RACE FOR THE HOUSE: DCCC lays out the cash, targets seventeen seats
"Anyone interested about the districts the DCCC are most interested in defending might have gotten a clue from where the campaign wing of House Democrats plunked down the cash for advance media buys. In total, the DCCC has bought nearly eight million dollars of air time in markets reaching seventeen vulnerable districts. Here is the complete list of districts: CO-04 (Markey), FL-02 (Boyd), ID-01 (Minnick), IN-02 (Donnelly), IA-03 (Boswell), NM-01 (Heinrich), NM-02 (Teague), NY-23 (Owens), NY-24 (Arcuri), NC-08 (Kissell), PA-03 (Dahlkemper), PA-12 (Critz), SC-05 (Spratt), SD-AL (Herseth-Sandlin), TX-23 (Rodriguez), VA-02 (Nye), VA-05 (Perriello)."
That's $500,000 per district for the seventeen favored districts. What if, in 1860, the Abraham Lincoln Republican Party had put all their money in winning seventeen disricts? Why, they probably would not have had a majority in a house of Congress until 1906, and slavery probably wouldn't have been abolished until 1908. I ran for Congress. I saw how the DCCC operates. It's a wonder we Democrats do as well as we do, when you look at the strategies we follow. It seems the DCCC is up to their disastrous strategies in the Rogers v. Holbrook Congressional race here in the Fifth Congressional District. I'll vote for Holbrook, but it's too bad the Party does not seem to want to win in the Fifth. Kenneth Stepp.
The Daily Kos reports:
"RACE FOR THE HOUSE: DCCC lays out the cash, targets seventeen seats
"Anyone interested about the districts the DCCC are most interested in defending might have gotten a clue from where the campaign wing of House Democrats plunked down the cash for advance media buys. In total, the DCCC has bought nearly eight million dollars of air time in markets reaching seventeen vulnerable districts. Here is the complete list of districts: CO-04 (Markey), FL-02 (Boyd), ID-01 (Minnick), IN-02 (Donnelly), IA-03 (Boswell), NM-01 (Heinrich), NM-02 (Teague), NY-23 (Owens), NY-24 (Arcuri), NC-08 (Kissell), PA-03 (Dahlkemper), PA-12 (Critz), SC-05 (Spratt), SD-AL (Herseth-Sandlin), TX-23 (Rodriguez), VA-02 (Nye), VA-05 (Perriello)."
That's $500,000 per district for the seventeen favored districts. What if, in 1860, the Abraham Lincoln Republican Party had put all their money in winning seventeen disricts? Why, they probably would not have had a majority in a house of Congress until 1906, and slavery probably wouldn't have been abolished until 1908. I ran for Congress. I saw how the DCCC operates. It's a wonder we Democrats do as well as we do, when you look at the strategies we follow. It seems the DCCC is up to their disastrous strategies in the Rogers v. Holbrook Congressional race here in the Fifth Congressional District. I'll vote for Holbrook, but it's too bad the Party does not seem to want to win in the Fifth. Kenneth Stepp.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
kos on holbert!
KY-05: Progressive fighter Jim Holbert needs your support
by DudeInKY
Share this on Twitter - KY-05: Progressive fighter Jim Holbert needs your support Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 10:17:46 AM PDT
Jim Holbert is a Progressive Democrat running against deeply entrenched King of Pork, Congressman Hal Rogers. He's running a strong and viable campaign to defeat Hal Rogers and bring better representation for Southeast Kentucky and America to Washington.
DudeInKY's diary :: ::
As I have stressed in many previous diaries, Kentucky's 5th Congressional District is in serious need of new representation. After thirty years of Hal Rogers and billions in federal pork projects, the 5th District of Kentucky is still the second poorest district in the nation.
Southeastern Kentucky needs a new Congressman. We need your help to get him elected. Jim Holbert is running a strong, grassroots campaign with tons of volunteers on the ground. We need your financial support to reach out to the 60% of the voters in the district without internet.
We absolutely must raise at least $5,000 before the end of the month. We urgently need your help to make it happen. Please go to Jim Holbert's ActBlue page and make a contribution of as much as you can afford.
We need your support. I'm asking for your help. Please, if you can, contribute to the campaign. If you can't contribute, forward this to someone who can.
Be sure to 'like' Jim's page on Facebook and follow Jim on Twitter.
by DudeInKY
Share this on Twitter - KY-05: Progressive fighter Jim Holbert needs your support Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 10:17:46 AM PDT
Jim Holbert is a Progressive Democrat running against deeply entrenched King of Pork, Congressman Hal Rogers. He's running a strong and viable campaign to defeat Hal Rogers and bring better representation for Southeast Kentucky and America to Washington.
DudeInKY's diary :: ::
As I have stressed in many previous diaries, Kentucky's 5th Congressional District is in serious need of new representation. After thirty years of Hal Rogers and billions in federal pork projects, the 5th District of Kentucky is still the second poorest district in the nation.
Southeastern Kentucky needs a new Congressman. We need your help to get him elected. Jim Holbert is running a strong, grassroots campaign with tons of volunteers on the ground. We need your financial support to reach out to the 60% of the voters in the district without internet.
We absolutely must raise at least $5,000 before the end of the month. We urgently need your help to make it happen. Please go to Jim Holbert's ActBlue page and make a contribution of as much as you can afford.
We need your support. I'm asking for your help. Please, if you can, contribute to the campaign. If you can't contribute, forward this to someone who can.
Be sure to 'like' Jim's page on Facebook and follow Jim on Twitter.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
PULL THE PLUG ON THE IMF!
"Dean Baker.Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research
Posted: July 12, 2010 04:49 PM
"The Attack of the Real Black Helicopter Gang: The IMF Is Coming for Your Social Security
'A few years back, there was a fear in some parts about black UN helicopters that were supposedly taking part in the planning of an invasion of the United States. While there was no foundation for this fear, there is basis for concern about the attack of another international organization, the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
"Last week, the IMF told the United States that it needs to start getting its budget deficit down. It put cutting Social Security at the top of the steps that the country should take to achieve deficit reduction. This one is more than a bit outrageous for two reasons.
"First, the IMF deserves a substantial share of the blame for the economic crisis that gave us big deficits in the first place. The IMF is supposed to oversee the operations of the international financial system. According to standard economic theory, capital is supposed to flow from rich countries like the United States to poor countries to finance their development. In other words, the United States should be having a trade surplus, which would correspond to the money that we are investing in poor countries to finance their development.
"However, the IMF messed up its management of financial crises so badly in the last 15 years that poor countries decided that they had to accumulate huge amounts of currency reserves in order to avoid ever being forced to deal with the IMF. This meant that capital was flowing in huge amounts in the wrong direction. One result of this reverse flow was that the United States ran a huge trade deficit instead of a trade surplus.
"The trade deficit in the United States was a big part of the story of the housing bubble. The trade deficit cost millions of workers their jobs. This was one of the main reasons that economy was so weak coming out of the 2001 recession. This weakness led the Fed to keep interest rates at 50-year lows, until the growth of the housing bubble eventually began to generate jobs in the fall of 2003.
"The IMF both bears much of the blame for the imbalances in the world economy and then for failing to clearly sound the alarms about the dangers of the bubble. While the IMF has no problem warning about retired workers getting too much in Social Security benefits, it apparently could not find its voice when the issue was the junk securities from Goldman Sachs or Citigroup that helped to fuel the housing bubble.
"The collapse of this bubble has not only sank the world economy, it also destroyed most of the savings of the near retirees for whom the IMF wants to cut Social Security. The vast majority of middle-income retirees have most of their wealth in their home equity. This home equity largely disappeared when the bubble burst. Maybe the IMF doesn't have access to house price series and data on wealth, because if they did, it's hard to believe that they would advocate further harm to some of the main victims of their policy failure.
"The other reason that the IMF's call for cutting Social Security benefits is infuriating is the incredible hypocrisy involved. The average Social Security benefit is just under $1,200 a month. No one can collect benefits until they reach the age of 62. By contrast, many IMF economists first qualify for benefits in their early 50s. They can begin drawing pensions at age 51 or 52 of more than $100,000 a year.
"This means that we have IMF economists, who failed disastrously at their jobs, who can draw six-figure pensions at age 52, telling ordinary workers that they have to take a cut in their $14,000 a year Social Security benefits that they can't start getting until age 62. Now that is real black helicopter material."
The IMF is just another overseas tax dollar eating up your hard earned savings and tax money. Cut off the funding for the IMF. If they don't like our budget, they shouldn't get paid by it. No more U.S. Funding for the IMF. Elect Holbert. He won't vote for programs he doesn't understand. Elect More Democrats! Out with Rogers, KY-05!
Posted: July 12, 2010 04:49 PM
"The Attack of the Real Black Helicopter Gang: The IMF Is Coming for Your Social Security
'A few years back, there was a fear in some parts about black UN helicopters that were supposedly taking part in the planning of an invasion of the United States. While there was no foundation for this fear, there is basis for concern about the attack of another international organization, the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
"Last week, the IMF told the United States that it needs to start getting its budget deficit down. It put cutting Social Security at the top of the steps that the country should take to achieve deficit reduction. This one is more than a bit outrageous for two reasons.
"First, the IMF deserves a substantial share of the blame for the economic crisis that gave us big deficits in the first place. The IMF is supposed to oversee the operations of the international financial system. According to standard economic theory, capital is supposed to flow from rich countries like the United States to poor countries to finance their development. In other words, the United States should be having a trade surplus, which would correspond to the money that we are investing in poor countries to finance their development.
"However, the IMF messed up its management of financial crises so badly in the last 15 years that poor countries decided that they had to accumulate huge amounts of currency reserves in order to avoid ever being forced to deal with the IMF. This meant that capital was flowing in huge amounts in the wrong direction. One result of this reverse flow was that the United States ran a huge trade deficit instead of a trade surplus.
"The trade deficit in the United States was a big part of the story of the housing bubble. The trade deficit cost millions of workers their jobs. This was one of the main reasons that economy was so weak coming out of the 2001 recession. This weakness led the Fed to keep interest rates at 50-year lows, until the growth of the housing bubble eventually began to generate jobs in the fall of 2003.
"The IMF both bears much of the blame for the imbalances in the world economy and then for failing to clearly sound the alarms about the dangers of the bubble. While the IMF has no problem warning about retired workers getting too much in Social Security benefits, it apparently could not find its voice when the issue was the junk securities from Goldman Sachs or Citigroup that helped to fuel the housing bubble.
"The collapse of this bubble has not only sank the world economy, it also destroyed most of the savings of the near retirees for whom the IMF wants to cut Social Security. The vast majority of middle-income retirees have most of their wealth in their home equity. This home equity largely disappeared when the bubble burst. Maybe the IMF doesn't have access to house price series and data on wealth, because if they did, it's hard to believe that they would advocate further harm to some of the main victims of their policy failure.
"The other reason that the IMF's call for cutting Social Security benefits is infuriating is the incredible hypocrisy involved. The average Social Security benefit is just under $1,200 a month. No one can collect benefits until they reach the age of 62. By contrast, many IMF economists first qualify for benefits in their early 50s. They can begin drawing pensions at age 51 or 52 of more than $100,000 a year.
"This means that we have IMF economists, who failed disastrously at their jobs, who can draw six-figure pensions at age 52, telling ordinary workers that they have to take a cut in their $14,000 a year Social Security benefits that they can't start getting until age 62. Now that is real black helicopter material."
The IMF is just another overseas tax dollar eating up your hard earned savings and tax money. Cut off the funding for the IMF. If they don't like our budget, they shouldn't get paid by it. No more U.S. Funding for the IMF. Elect Holbert. He won't vote for programs he doesn't understand. Elect More Democrats! Out with Rogers, KY-05!
You're invited to be in the Peace Movement!
"You're invited!
"Hundreds of people will be gathering in Albany, N.Y., July 23-25 to decide how best to strengthen the movement to end the carnage and destruction resulting from wars and occupations. You can learn more and register to take part at http://www.nationalpeaceconference.org.
"Please join me at the conference!
"National Conference to Bring the Troops Home Now!
"July 23 to 25, 2010
"Crowne Plaza Hotel, Albany, New York
" In these troubled times, Washington's wars and occupations rage, resulting in an ever increasing number of dead and wounded and the destruction of countries posing no threat to the United States. Trillions of dollars are spent on seemingly endless co nflicts in pursuit of profits and global domination, while trillions more are lost by working people through loss of jobs, homes, pensions, health care, and cuts to social programs and public services. The U.S. goes to war to plunder the world's fossil fuel resources, the unrestrained use of which threatens the future of our planet.
"We must demand the immediate and total withdrawal of U.S. military forces, mercenaries and contractors from Afghanistan and Iraq, and the end to drone attacks on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other countries, and call for self-determination for the people of all countries. Moreover, we recognize that the Middle East cauldron today also encompasses Iran, Yemen, Palestine, and Israel, while countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa are targeted for intervention by a militarized U.S. foreign policy.
"The urgency of the current world situation DEMANDS UNITY OF ACTION and purpose to generate the broad social movement we must create to not only end wars and occupations, but to fundamentally change the aggressive policies that inevitably lead our country to militarism, racism, and war. Our cry must be "Money for Human Needs; Not for Wars, Occupations, and Bail-Outs."
"Come to a conference where peace, social justice and environmental activists will come together to discuss the major concerns we face and to hammer out an ambitious program of action. The time is long overdue for such a gathering.
"SCHEDULE
"Friday evening, July 23: Panel discussion on "Strategies & Tactics in the Struggle to End the Empire's Wars and Occupations"; Presentation of Action Proposal
"Saturday, July 24: Keynote Speakers; Workshops; Lunch panel on Government Repression, Defense of Political Prisoners, and Guantanamo Detainees; Plenary Discussion of Action Proposal, Amendments & Resolutions
"Saturday evening, July 24: Public Gathering with speakers & cultural performances
"Sunday, July 25: Plenary Discussion and Vote on Action Proposal; Workshops".
I don't know about the word "empire". The Romans benefitted a lot from plundering the adjoining lands during the time of the Roman Empire. The British Empire seemed to benefit itself and the Empress of India (i.e. Queen Victoria) from militarily occupying one fifth of the populated world in the sixteenth through the twentieth centuries. What are we fighting for? What are we dying for? I don't see the people in the Kentucky Fifth District getting any benefit from the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. I don't see the people in the Kentucky Fifth District getting any benefit from the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan. The soldiers aren't bringing back plunder, they are bringing back a massive debt that our grandchildren won't be able to pay off. The current American policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan is bad for America, bad for Iraq, and bad for Afghanistan. Join the Peace Movement. Bring the troops home! Elect Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05!
"Hundreds of people will be gathering in Albany, N.Y., July 23-25 to decide how best to strengthen the movement to end the carnage and destruction resulting from wars and occupations. You can learn more and register to take part at http://www.nationalpeaceconference.org.
"Please join me at the conference!
"National Conference to Bring the Troops Home Now!
"July 23 to 25, 2010
"Crowne Plaza Hotel, Albany, New York
" In these troubled times, Washington's wars and occupations rage, resulting in an ever increasing number of dead and wounded and the destruction of countries posing no threat to the United States. Trillions of dollars are spent on seemingly endless co nflicts in pursuit of profits and global domination, while trillions more are lost by working people through loss of jobs, homes, pensions, health care, and cuts to social programs and public services. The U.S. goes to war to plunder the world's fossil fuel resources, the unrestrained use of which threatens the future of our planet.
"We must demand the immediate and total withdrawal of U.S. military forces, mercenaries and contractors from Afghanistan and Iraq, and the end to drone attacks on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other countries, and call for self-determination for the people of all countries. Moreover, we recognize that the Middle East cauldron today also encompasses Iran, Yemen, Palestine, and Israel, while countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa are targeted for intervention by a militarized U.S. foreign policy.
"The urgency of the current world situation DEMANDS UNITY OF ACTION and purpose to generate the broad social movement we must create to not only end wars and occupations, but to fundamentally change the aggressive policies that inevitably lead our country to militarism, racism, and war. Our cry must be "Money for Human Needs; Not for Wars, Occupations, and Bail-Outs."
"Come to a conference where peace, social justice and environmental activists will come together to discuss the major concerns we face and to hammer out an ambitious program of action. The time is long overdue for such a gathering.
"SCHEDULE
"Friday evening, July 23: Panel discussion on "Strategies & Tactics in the Struggle to End the Empire's Wars and Occupations"; Presentation of Action Proposal
"Saturday, July 24: Keynote Speakers; Workshops; Lunch panel on Government Repression, Defense of Political Prisoners, and Guantanamo Detainees; Plenary Discussion of Action Proposal, Amendments & Resolutions
"Saturday evening, July 24: Public Gathering with speakers & cultural performances
"Sunday, July 25: Plenary Discussion and Vote on Action Proposal; Workshops".
I don't know about the word "empire". The Romans benefitted a lot from plundering the adjoining lands during the time of the Roman Empire. The British Empire seemed to benefit itself and the Empress of India (i.e. Queen Victoria) from militarily occupying one fifth of the populated world in the sixteenth through the twentieth centuries. What are we fighting for? What are we dying for? I don't see the people in the Kentucky Fifth District getting any benefit from the U.S. military occupation of Iraq. I don't see the people in the Kentucky Fifth District getting any benefit from the U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan. The soldiers aren't bringing back plunder, they are bringing back a massive debt that our grandchildren won't be able to pay off. The current American policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan is bad for America, bad for Iraq, and bad for Afghanistan. Join the Peace Movement. Bring the troops home! Elect Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05!
Friday, July 09, 2010
"Mitch" McConnell's Popularity Tanks in Kentucky!
"TPMDC
Poll: McConnell's Popularity Tanks In KY
Evan McMorris-Santoro | July 7, 2010, 2:26PM77
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell backed the wrong horse in the Senate primary back home in Kentucky and now he's paying the price with state Republicans. A new PPP (D) poll out today shows McConnell's approval rating has fallen to a record low 34% in his home state.
Even worse for McConnell is that only 38% of voters surveyed said that they want McConnell to remain the head of his party's caucus in the Senate. Almost half -- 49% -- said they don't think McConnell should keep his job as Republican leader.
The slide in approval for McConnell was almost entirely the result of voters he upset when he backed state Attorney General Trey Grayson over the eventual nominee (and tea party favorite) Rand Paul in the Republican Senate primary. McConnell's support among Democrats and even moderate Republicans has stayed level for the past three months. But it's seen a precipitous decline among conservatives.
PPP reports on the internals of the McConnell support numbers:
His 23% approval rating with moderates is unchanged from two months ago and his 15% standing with liberals is actually slightly improved from 12% in the May poll. But with conservatives, who comprise the largest voting bloc in Kentucky, he's fallen from 47% all the way down to 27%."
Remember, Hal Rogers also endorsed Ron Paul's Republican opponent in the Primary. Jim Holbert, the Democratic candidate against Hal Rogers accepts Tea Party votes, and Tea Party contributions. Vote for the Anti-War candidate Jim Holbert!
Poll: McConnell's Popularity Tanks In KY
Evan McMorris-Santoro | July 7, 2010, 2:26PM77
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell backed the wrong horse in the Senate primary back home in Kentucky and now he's paying the price with state Republicans. A new PPP (D) poll out today shows McConnell's approval rating has fallen to a record low 34% in his home state.
Even worse for McConnell is that only 38% of voters surveyed said that they want McConnell to remain the head of his party's caucus in the Senate. Almost half -- 49% -- said they don't think McConnell should keep his job as Republican leader.
The slide in approval for McConnell was almost entirely the result of voters he upset when he backed state Attorney General Trey Grayson over the eventual nominee (and tea party favorite) Rand Paul in the Republican Senate primary. McConnell's support among Democrats and even moderate Republicans has stayed level for the past three months. But it's seen a precipitous decline among conservatives.
PPP reports on the internals of the McConnell support numbers:
His 23% approval rating with moderates is unchanged from two months ago and his 15% standing with liberals is actually slightly improved from 12% in the May poll. But with conservatives, who comprise the largest voting bloc in Kentucky, he's fallen from 47% all the way down to 27%."
Remember, Hal Rogers also endorsed Ron Paul's Republican opponent in the Primary. Jim Holbert, the Democratic candidate against Hal Rogers accepts Tea Party votes, and Tea Party contributions. Vote for the Anti-War candidate Jim Holbert!
Thursday, July 08, 2010
House voted by five votes to appropropriate $33 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!
"July 8, 2010 05:13 PM
Funding the War: There Ought to Be a Rule Against This Kind of Rule
Rep. Alan Grayson
Last week, for three hours, the House debated whether to appropriate $33 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were passionate arguments on both sides, with thunderous words from those who seek withdrawal from Afghanistan, and forceful warnings from the other side against undercutting the Commander-in-Chief.
I can say with certainty that the passion that was expended, the loud urging to vote "no" or "yes," actually did not influence anyone's vote. They couldn't influence anyone's vote.
Because the vote to fund the war actually had taken place three hours earlier.
It had been snuck into a very common -- and rarely substantive -- procedural vote known as a 'Rule'. A 'Rule' is a simple set of instructions on what bills and amendments the full House will vote on. It almost always passes on a routine, party-line vote.
This time, though, there was something different about the Rule. It contained arcane and baroque terms essentially saying -- without saying -- that upon passage of the Rule, the House agreed with the Senate to fund $33 billion more for the war.
This kind of rule is known as a 'self-executing rule.' It's a Rule that's more than just a Rule. In and of itself, this is not a problem.
But when we voted on this Rule, on the Floor of the House, I was told many times that I should vote for the Rule. I won't vote for more money for the war, I replied. To which I was told, this isn't war money, it's just a Rule.
Nope, it was war money. So I voted no.
And many of us seem to have caught on -- the Rule almost went down, passing by a very narrow 215-210.
But it didn't go down. And so we will sprinkle another $33 billion on the sands of Mesopotamia and the mountains of Bactria. I wonder how many of my colleagues knew that they were voting on war money when they voted on the Rule. I wonder how many might have voted differently, if they had known.
All it would have taken was three. Just three.
This is what it has come to. We fund the war by telling people that a vote for war money is not a vote for war money.
If these wars can only be funded through this kind of sleight of hand, they maybe shouldn't be funded at all.
Follow Rep. Alan Grayson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alangrayson"
If Jim Holbert would have been there, the war appropriation would have passed by one less vote. Maybe it would not have passed at all. Maybe that would have been the dawn of peace. Maybe the U.S. Mint could start minting Peace Dollars again like they did in 1921. Give us a return to normalcy. Elect more Democrats. Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House, KY-05!
Funding the War: There Ought to Be a Rule Against This Kind of Rule
Rep. Alan Grayson
Last week, for three hours, the House debated whether to appropriate $33 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were passionate arguments on both sides, with thunderous words from those who seek withdrawal from Afghanistan, and forceful warnings from the other side against undercutting the Commander-in-Chief.
I can say with certainty that the passion that was expended, the loud urging to vote "no" or "yes," actually did not influence anyone's vote. They couldn't influence anyone's vote.
Because the vote to fund the war actually had taken place three hours earlier.
It had been snuck into a very common -- and rarely substantive -- procedural vote known as a 'Rule'. A 'Rule' is a simple set of instructions on what bills and amendments the full House will vote on. It almost always passes on a routine, party-line vote.
This time, though, there was something different about the Rule. It contained arcane and baroque terms essentially saying -- without saying -- that upon passage of the Rule, the House agreed with the Senate to fund $33 billion more for the war.
This kind of rule is known as a 'self-executing rule.' It's a Rule that's more than just a Rule. In and of itself, this is not a problem.
But when we voted on this Rule, on the Floor of the House, I was told many times that I should vote for the Rule. I won't vote for more money for the war, I replied. To which I was told, this isn't war money, it's just a Rule.
Nope, it was war money. So I voted no.
And many of us seem to have caught on -- the Rule almost went down, passing by a very narrow 215-210.
But it didn't go down. And so we will sprinkle another $33 billion on the sands of Mesopotamia and the mountains of Bactria. I wonder how many of my colleagues knew that they were voting on war money when they voted on the Rule. I wonder how many might have voted differently, if they had known.
All it would have taken was three. Just three.
This is what it has come to. We fund the war by telling people that a vote for war money is not a vote for war money.
If these wars can only be funded through this kind of sleight of hand, they maybe shouldn't be funded at all.
Follow Rep. Alan Grayson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alangrayson"
If Jim Holbert would have been there, the war appropriation would have passed by one less vote. Maybe it would not have passed at all. Maybe that would have been the dawn of peace. Maybe the U.S. Mint could start minting Peace Dollars again like they did in 1921. Give us a return to normalcy. Elect more Democrats. Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House, KY-05!
Hal Rogers--Which Side is he ON?
"Mitch McConnell - Which Side is he On?
by: Mountain Man
Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 13:50:20 PM EDT
(Go get em Mountain Man - promoted by Hillbilly)
We have just celebrated the fourth of July signifying the independence of the United States from Britain. We are NOT independent, however. Elaine Chao , wife of United States Senator Red China Mitch McConnell vowed to cement ties with Red Communist China and the United States. In November of 2008 there were enough stupid people in Kentucky to allow this to happen.
Mountain Man :: Mitch McConnell - Which Side is he On?
NEW YORK -- U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao said recently that she would continue to work to cement the United States' ties with Taiwan and China after she retires from her post early next year.
The China Post, Monday December 1, 2008 9:45 am TWN.
In an article entitled "The Real Elaine Chao" by Timothy Gallaher of World Net Daily, July 16, 2001, Elaine Chao is reported to have said:
"China isn't an enemy and the best way to associate is a partnership. The U.S. and China ought to establish a constructive strategic partnership."
"Unfortunately, the Republican Party also has criticizers of China who are Christians and religious believers. They also talk about human rights and think China is an enemy, but compared to the Democrat side, they are apt to be well organized."
Now let's see we isolate Communist Cuba, but not Communist China.
When the Asian economy tanked in the late 1990s it had little effect on the then sovereign United States of America. Mitch McConnell who married into a family with solid ties to Communist Mainland China changed all this when, in 2000, he voted for Most Favored Nations trading status for China and then voted to normalize relations with the Communist government in Vietnam in 2001. The Communists in China do not make short range plans. They make future plans for generations to come. Hell, if you want to overtake the United States why mess with trivial things like war? Just marry off one of your staunch supporters to a United States Senator, make that family rich, and sit back and wait, especially if the people are stupid enough to keep electing the man to the Senate, year after year. Mitch, will you and your in-laws ever have enough morality to leave Communists alone? You get what you vote for. "
Enough is enough! Elect More Democrats.
Ann Coulter sez:
Ann Coulter sez:
"Bill Kristol must resign
Posted: July 07, 2010
5:56 pm Eastern
© 2010
"Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well.
"It has been idiotically claimed that Steele's statement about Afghanistan being Obama's war is "inaccurate" – as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. (No one can forget that . . .).
"Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.
"Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.
"Having some vague concept of America's national interest . . . the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by "warlords" was not a primo target for "nation-building."
* * *
"The obsession with Afghanistan was pure rhetoric. . . .
* * *
"(By the way, Democrats: WHERE'S OSAMA?)
"Obama hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan based on a careful calculation of America's strategic objectives. He did it because he was trapped by his own rhetorical game of bashing the Iraq war while pretending to be a hawk on Afghanistan.
"At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.
"In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.
"Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there.
"As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its a-- handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.
"Based on Obama's rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we're apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.
"There's even talk of giving soldiers medals for NOT shooting people, which I gather will be awarded posthumously. Naomi Campbell is rougher with her assistants than our troops are allowed to be with Taliban fighters.
"But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.
"What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?
"Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is . . . .
"Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)
"I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.
"Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican . . . . Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president – and look how great that turned out!
"Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately."
Well, at least Ann Coulter is not one of those annoying neocons like John McCain and Hal Rogers who would keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years. Neocons Out! Holbert in! Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05!
"Bill Kristol must resign
Posted: July 07, 2010
5:56 pm Eastern
© 2010
"Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well.
"It has been idiotically claimed that Steele's statement about Afghanistan being Obama's war is "inaccurate" – as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. (No one can forget that . . .).
"Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.
"Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.
"Having some vague concept of America's national interest . . . the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by "warlords" was not a primo target for "nation-building."
* * *
"The obsession with Afghanistan was pure rhetoric. . . .
* * *
"(By the way, Democrats: WHERE'S OSAMA?)
"Obama hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan based on a careful calculation of America's strategic objectives. He did it because he was trapped by his own rhetorical game of bashing the Iraq war while pretending to be a hawk on Afghanistan.
"At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.
"In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.
"Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there.
"As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its a-- handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.
"Based on Obama's rules of engagement for our troops in Afghanistan, we're apparently not even fighting a war. The greatest fighting force in the world is building vocational schools and distributing cheese crackers to children.
"There's even talk of giving soldiers medals for NOT shooting people, which I gather will be awarded posthumously. Naomi Campbell is rougher with her assistants than our troops are allowed to be with Taliban fighters.
"But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.
"What if Obama decides to invade England because he's still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops?
"Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they're not the ones setting military policy. The president is . . . .
"Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)
"I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.
"Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican . . . . Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president – and look how great that turned out!
"Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately."
Well, at least Ann Coulter is not one of those annoying neocons like John McCain and Hal Rogers who would keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years. Neocons Out! Holbert in! Elect Jim Holbert to the U.S. House KY-05!
PROPER USE OF THE U.S. MILITARY
PROPER USE OF THE U.S. MILITARY
by George B. Wallace
from The New American, July 5, 2010
" * * *
"Congress must fund our military to provide adequate forces for our defense; this is the primary duty of the federal government. Congress must determine the proper international deployment of our Armed Forces during peacetime to defend our national interests. They must stop the use of war as an instrument of national policy, as it has destroyed all nations that followed such a policy.
"How do we get the Congress to change its way, which is to do the bidding of the CFR and multi-national corporations? How do we stop Congress from converting us to socialism and leading us into world government? We replace incumbents who are advocates of interventionism and internationalism with constitutionalists who will restore this nation. A simple majority of 218 members would be a good start. Two hundred and ninety-one would guarantee a presidential veto override. A properly functioning Congress will not embroil us in needless wars, will not fund any socialist programs, and will defund existing programs that are bankrupting our nation and spreading our military forces to all points of the globe. It can stop the use of mercenaries that are augmenting our armed forces.
"This next election may be our greatest opportunity to elect such a Congress and save this great nation.
"Lt. Col. George B. Wallace, USAF (retired), served in the U.S. Air Force 1952-1978, including a combat tour in Vietnam as an F-105 fighter pilot. . . ."
Hal Rogers had voted to "stay the course" in keeping American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghsnistan, whenever his vote was needed for funding those two U.S. military actions. Now, you can vote to replace Hal Rogers with Jim Holbert who announces his plans to vote against keeping U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your vote counts. Vote for Holbert. Vote for the anti-war candidates. Let's bring the troops home.
by George B. Wallace
from The New American, July 5, 2010
" * * *
"Congress must fund our military to provide adequate forces for our defense; this is the primary duty of the federal government. Congress must determine the proper international deployment of our Armed Forces during peacetime to defend our national interests. They must stop the use of war as an instrument of national policy, as it has destroyed all nations that followed such a policy.
"How do we get the Congress to change its way, which is to do the bidding of the CFR and multi-national corporations? How do we stop Congress from converting us to socialism and leading us into world government? We replace incumbents who are advocates of interventionism and internationalism with constitutionalists who will restore this nation. A simple majority of 218 members would be a good start. Two hundred and ninety-one would guarantee a presidential veto override. A properly functioning Congress will not embroil us in needless wars, will not fund any socialist programs, and will defund existing programs that are bankrupting our nation and spreading our military forces to all points of the globe. It can stop the use of mercenaries that are augmenting our armed forces.
"This next election may be our greatest opportunity to elect such a Congress and save this great nation.
"Lt. Col. George B. Wallace, USAF (retired), served in the U.S. Air Force 1952-1978, including a combat tour in Vietnam as an F-105 fighter pilot. . . ."
Hal Rogers had voted to "stay the course" in keeping American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghsnistan, whenever his vote was needed for funding those two U.S. military actions. Now, you can vote to replace Hal Rogers with Jim Holbert who announces his plans to vote against keeping U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your vote counts. Vote for Holbert. Vote for the anti-war candidates. Let's bring the troops home.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Mitch McConnell - Which Side is he On?
"Mitch McConnell - Which Side is he On?
by: Mountain Man
Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 13:50:20 PM EDT
(Go get em Mountain Man - promoted by Hillbilly)
We have just celebrated the fourth of July signifying the independence of the United States from Britain. We are NOT independent, however. Elaine Chao , wife of United States Senator Red China Mitch McConnell vowed to cement ties with Red Communist China and the United States. In November of 2008 there were enough stupid people in Kentucky to allow this to happen.
Mountain Man :: Mitch McConnell - Which Side is he On?
NEW YORK -- U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao said recently that she would continue to work to cement the United States' ties with Taiwan and China after she retires from her post early next year.
The China Post, Monday December 1, 2008 9:45 am TWN.
In an article entitled "The Real Elaine Chao" by Timothy Gallaher of World Net Daily, July 16, 2001, Elaine Chao is reported to have said:
"China isn't an enemy and the best way to associate is a partnership. The U.S. and China ought to establish a constructive strategic partnership."
"Unfortunately, the Republican Party also has criticizers of China who are Christians and religious believers. They also talk about human rights and think China is an enemy, but compared to the Democrat side, they are apt to be well organized."
Now let's see we isolate Communist Cuba, but not Communist China.
When the Asian economy tanked in the late 1990s it had little effect on the then sovereign United States of America. Mitch McConnell who married into a family with solid ties to Communist Mainland China changed all this when, in 2000, he voted for Most Favored Nations trading status for China and then voted to normalize relations with the Communist government in Vietnam in 2001. The Communists in China do not make short range plans. They make future plans for generations to come. Hell, if you want to overtake the United States why mess with trivial things like war? Just marry off one of your staunch supporters to a United States Senator, make that family rich, and sit back and wait, especially if the people are stupid enough to keep electing the man to the Senate, year after year. Mitch, will you and your in-laws ever have enough morality to leave Communists alone? You get what you vote for. "
Enough is enough! Elect More Democrats.
by: Mountain Man
Tue Jul 06, 2010 at 13:50:20 PM EDT
(Go get em Mountain Man - promoted by Hillbilly)
We have just celebrated the fourth of July signifying the independence of the United States from Britain. We are NOT independent, however. Elaine Chao , wife of United States Senator Red China Mitch McConnell vowed to cement ties with Red Communist China and the United States. In November of 2008 there were enough stupid people in Kentucky to allow this to happen.
Mountain Man :: Mitch McConnell - Which Side is he On?
NEW YORK -- U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao said recently that she would continue to work to cement the United States' ties with Taiwan and China after she retires from her post early next year.
The China Post, Monday December 1, 2008 9:45 am TWN.
In an article entitled "The Real Elaine Chao" by Timothy Gallaher of World Net Daily, July 16, 2001, Elaine Chao is reported to have said:
"China isn't an enemy and the best way to associate is a partnership. The U.S. and China ought to establish a constructive strategic partnership."
"Unfortunately, the Republican Party also has criticizers of China who are Christians and religious believers. They also talk about human rights and think China is an enemy, but compared to the Democrat side, they are apt to be well organized."
Now let's see we isolate Communist Cuba, but not Communist China.
When the Asian economy tanked in the late 1990s it had little effect on the then sovereign United States of America. Mitch McConnell who married into a family with solid ties to Communist Mainland China changed all this when, in 2000, he voted for Most Favored Nations trading status for China and then voted to normalize relations with the Communist government in Vietnam in 2001. The Communists in China do not make short range plans. They make future plans for generations to come. Hell, if you want to overtake the United States why mess with trivial things like war? Just marry off one of your staunch supporters to a United States Senator, make that family rich, and sit back and wait, especially if the people are stupid enough to keep electing the man to the Senate, year after year. Mitch, will you and your in-laws ever have enough morality to leave Communists alone? You get what you vote for. "
Enough is enough! Elect More Democrats.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Empire has never been more than naked self-interest masquerading as virtue!
"The notion that imperial rule is for the benefit of its subjects 'was and always will be a cynical and hypocritical canard. . . . Empire has never been more than naked self-interest masquerading as virtue.'" Charles S. Maier, review essay, "Empire Without End", quoting "The Rule of Empires: Those Who Built Them, Those Who Endured Them, and Why They Always Fall", by Timothy Parsons, Oxford University Press, 2010.
Out with Imperialism. Out with Hal Rogers. Holbert for House.
Out with Imperialism. Out with Hal Rogers. Holbert for House.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Bring the Troops Home!
House Supplemental Vote Signals Unrest Over War In Afghanistan
First Posted: 07- 2-10 05:19 PM | Updated: 07- 2-10 05:19 PM
Barbara Lee,, War "Comments As House Democratic leadership pushed through an $80 billion package on Thursday night to finance President Barack Obama's troop surge, one vote stood out: A full 60 percent of House Democrats voted for the McGovern-Obey-Jones Amendment, which would require the president to provide a plan and timetable for drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, an indication of crumbling support for the war.
"This vote should send a signal to the Administration," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a statement after the vote.
"When McGovern put forward an amendment requiring an exit strategy from Afghanistan in June of 2009, it failed, 138-278. The tougher amendment McGovern put forward on Thursday garnered more support, including nine votes from Republicans, failing only 162-260.
"An effort to withdraw troops immediately didn't do quite as well.
"Bay Area Rep. Barbara Lee's amendment to the war funding bill, which would begin to end the war by limiting military funds, did not pass last night but it did garner the support of 100 lawmakers.
"Lee was the only lawmaker in either chamber of Congress to vote against the 2001 resolution authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan, but she's no longer alone in her opposition. In appearances this week on "Meet The Press" and "Hardball With Chris Matthews", Lee made her case to a national audience. And last Friday she authored a letter to Obama asking for "a clear commitment and plan to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan" before the vote on the war funding bill."
Elect Jim Holbert and elect more Democrats. Jim Holbert and more Democrats will bring us out of Afghanistan!
"I think, withwhat happened with McChrystal, now is the perfect time to do this," Lee told HuffPost, as she stepped off the House floor Thursday night. "Nine years ago when I voted against the initial authorization of this war, we didn't have a debate and we gave President Bush and any subsequent president a blank check to wage war, and it's really an endless war. What I did was introduce an amendment to this supplemental, saying this has got to stop. No more funding for the war in Afghanistan. No more funding for their military operations. The only thing we can use this money for is to bring our troops home safely."
Story continues belowThe war in Afghanistan through the end of 2010 will have cost Americans roughly $33 billion a year, according to the Congressional Research Service, an estimate that was made before Obama called for $80 billion to finance a surge in troops.
"This is already the longest war in our nation's history, longer than Vietnam and World War II. And there is no end in sight," said Lee. "There is no military solution to Afghanistan and in fact, the occupation of Afghanistan is making us less safe and creating greater security threats from terrorism."
Elect Jim Holbert. Elect more Democrats. They'll bring home the troops from Afghanistan!
First Posted: 07- 2-10 05:19 PM | Updated: 07- 2-10 05:19 PM
Barbara Lee,, War "Comments As House Democratic leadership pushed through an $80 billion package on Thursday night to finance President Barack Obama's troop surge, one vote stood out: A full 60 percent of House Democrats voted for the McGovern-Obey-Jones Amendment, which would require the president to provide a plan and timetable for drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, an indication of crumbling support for the war.
"This vote should send a signal to the Administration," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a statement after the vote.
"When McGovern put forward an amendment requiring an exit strategy from Afghanistan in June of 2009, it failed, 138-278. The tougher amendment McGovern put forward on Thursday garnered more support, including nine votes from Republicans, failing only 162-260.
"An effort to withdraw troops immediately didn't do quite as well.
"Bay Area Rep. Barbara Lee's amendment to the war funding bill, which would begin to end the war by limiting military funds, did not pass last night but it did garner the support of 100 lawmakers.
"Lee was the only lawmaker in either chamber of Congress to vote against the 2001 resolution authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan, but she's no longer alone in her opposition. In appearances this week on "Meet The Press" and "Hardball With Chris Matthews", Lee made her case to a national audience. And last Friday she authored a letter to Obama asking for "a clear commitment and plan to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan" before the vote on the war funding bill."
Elect Jim Holbert and elect more Democrats. Jim Holbert and more Democrats will bring us out of Afghanistan!
"I think, withwhat happened with McChrystal, now is the perfect time to do this," Lee told HuffPost, as she stepped off the House floor Thursday night. "Nine years ago when I voted against the initial authorization of this war, we didn't have a debate and we gave President Bush and any subsequent president a blank check to wage war, and it's really an endless war. What I did was introduce an amendment to this supplemental, saying this has got to stop. No more funding for the war in Afghanistan. No more funding for their military operations. The only thing we can use this money for is to bring our troops home safely."
Story continues belowThe war in Afghanistan through the end of 2010 will have cost Americans roughly $33 billion a year, according to the Congressional Research Service, an estimate that was made before Obama called for $80 billion to finance a surge in troops.
"This is already the longest war in our nation's history, longer than Vietnam and World War II. And there is no end in sight," said Lee. "There is no military solution to Afghanistan and in fact, the occupation of Afghanistan is making us less safe and creating greater security threats from terrorism."
Elect Jim Holbert. Elect more Democrats. They'll bring home the troops from Afghanistan!
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Call Hal Rogers Today!
Last week Gen. Stanley McChrystal was fired as Commander of U.S. and NATO Coalition forces in Afghanistan. TODAY it’s time to tell Congress we need to “fire the war,” and change our policy in Afghanistan.
The House of Representatives is expected to vote tonight on an additional $34 billion for the wars. Call Harold 'Hal' D. Rogers (202) 225-4601 TODAY and tell him or her to vote NO on the war funding and send a clear signal that we want this war to end.
Rep. Jim McGovern, David Obey and Barbara Lee have proposed amendments to the supplemental funding bill that would help lead us toward a change in policy even if the supplemental bill is approved.
• McGovern-Obey amendment: requires the President to submit an exit strategy from Afghanistan, increases oversight of private contractors, and mandates a vote about war funding in July 2011 if the President does not meet his own deadline to start withdrawing troops.
• Barbara Lee amendment: removes funding for fighting, providing only what's needed to ensure the safe withdrawal of troops.
Wage peace
Vote for Jim Holbert! Jim Holbert will help to bring the troops home. Support our Troops: Bring them Home!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
