Sarah Palin To Step Down As Alaska’s Governor

Liberals are surely delighted, thinking they won and have forced her out of office, but they will surely be in for a surprise.

Palin Quits as Alaska Governor

After stunning the world and being subjected to a before unheard of vitriolic assault on her person and members of her family, Mrs. Palin announced today that she will step down as governor of Alaska at the end of July, handing the state over to Lt. Governor Sean Parnell.

Seeing how she energized the conservatives in the country, detractors set out on a course of mean-spirited vitriol to destroy the woman, politically if not personally.

In a telephone interview with Fox News, her brother stated that due to an excess of frivolous complaints against her and at great expense, she felt she could not devote the time necessary to properly govern Alaska.

15 ethics complaints have been dismissed, but enemies of Patriotic America will not cease their onslaught of a decent person.

This is the America you voted for, politics of personal destruction on steroids.

Liberals, don’t think for a minute you have won, you haven’t. You have only fired the first volley and we intend to fire back like you have never seen.

Mrs. Palin places her constituents above her goals and places her family’s interests first.

The phony you placed in the White House is ripping he country apart and faces scorn now too.

No more nice stuff!

Like General Yamamoto was credited with saying after the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, you are awakening a sleeping giant, decent hard working Americans who believe in fairness and America, not the socialist hand-outs.

Mrs. Palin may be setting up for a run for President in 2012 and believe you me, she will be a formidable candidate if that is her intent.

Regardless of what RINO’s say, many in America love this lady and even some not so mean hearted liberals see the underhanded destruction wrought against this woman and her family, for no legitimate reason other than the left’s fear of her.

Rejoice if you please, liberals, but don’t be surprised to find her sitting in the White House come January 20, 2013.

America won’t forget your vitriol and as often happens, what goes around, comes around.

Palin announces resignation

Lt. Gov. Response to Palin’s Announcement

Recession wipes out 9 years of job gains

Interesting article from the Seattle Times.

Interesting in that after hearing nothing but “doom and gloom” over the last 8 years, they now admit there actually were “job gains” under Bush?

But, what I find most intriguing is a sentence buried in the middle of the article.

“The nation now has the same number of jobs as in 2000 — but 12.5 million more workers.”

Isn’t that right about the estimated number of ILLEGAL immigrants in the country?

I’m sure more tax increases on the middle class with cure everything, right?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, it’s all getting better, the stimulus is working!

Democrats Applaud 26 Year High In Unemployment

Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats and the state owned media blasted President Bush for unemployment numbers during his entire time in office. A July 3, 2003 AP dispatch began with, “The nation’s unemployment rate shot up to 6.4 percent in June.”

Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J, then chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee said, “The verdict is in: The Republicans’ multi-trillion dollar failed economic policy is one the greatest disasters for working Americans in a decade.”

In spite of the cries of “failed this and failed that,” Tax receipts were reaching near record highs in 2005 as unemployment dropped as low as 4.8%. Regardless, Democrats began and continue down to this day the outright lie that the Bush Tax Cuts only benefited the wealthy.

In the final days of his administration, the Washington Post ran an article titled Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades.

Needless to say, every chance available, President Bush was lambasted over the economy and unemployment. Democrats built a façade to present to America outlining how bad off we all were.

One would think, then, that even higher numbers would cause them alarm and we would be told how bad off we still are, right?

If you think so, you don’t know Democrats very well.

The latest numbers are out and unemployment hit 9.5%, in spite of being told it would level off at 8% if we approved Obama’s massive “stimulus bill” earlier in the year.

Instead of more alarm, Speaker Pelosi released a statement saying in part, “Today’s unemployment numbers are another reminder of the years of failure to invest in making Americans the most highly educated and innovative workforce in the world—and years of delay on affordable health care and the clean energy jobs and industries that will sustain our economy for years to come.”

She continues by telling us how much worse it would be without the so called stimulus package, that they first said would prevent this from happening. Then she boasts about passage of the Crap and Tax energy bill that promises massive tax increases and utility increases on the middle class, who was supposed to get a tax break, remember?

We are at a 26-year high in unemployment and what do they want to do to us? Raise our taxes!!!!

Robert Gibbs, Obama’s Propaganda Minister said of the increase in unemployment, “There’s a sense that beginnings of stabilization are taking hold, and hopefully the worst job loss is behind us.” He continued with, “the stimulus plan is working.”

Recall, Democrats cried about a 4.8% unemployment rate and even called any economic recovery during the Bush administration “a jobless recovery.”

But now, 9.5% with a promise that it will keep increasing shows their “stimulus plan is working?”

Remember too, when President Bush sent out stimulus checks, they went to us, the middle class, to spend as we saw fit and circulate in the economy.

Where did Democrats stimulus money go? To large corporations, those same large corporations they claim Republicans favor and they abhor.

When the Democrats seized control of both Houses of Congress in January 2007, unemployment was at 4.6% and remained somewhat steady throughout the year. They pushed through their minimum wage increase by May when President Bush signed it into law.

The next month, unemployment numbers began creeping up, reaching 6.8% when Obama won the election and cresting at 7.2% when he assumed control of the government.

And now that it has hit 9.5% and expected to rise above 10% through 2010, we hear how their policies are working and we should pay even more taxes?

Here in Clark County we were treated to what is supposed to be good news with Clark County’s unemployment rate falls slightly, telling us our unemployment has dropped from 13.9% to 13.2%.

The year before our unemployment rate was 5.8%.

Of course, our elected Democrat representatives, Senators Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell and Brian Baird all voted to slap us with the steep indebtedness we now face without even reading the bills.

With Democrats holding complete dictatorial power over the country now, they can no longer point fingers or blame Republicans. It’s all on them and in such a short time; they are failing to produce anything but more dependency and failure.

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting a little tired of the Democrats and their double speak while they push me out of a job and reach deeper into my wallet.

Tiny Honduras Stands Alone For Freedom and Democracy

To the shame of the entire Free World, the tiny country of Honduras, with less that eight million people stands alone and in defiance of those who should be strong supporters of freedom and democracy.

It is especially embarrassing that the United States of America, who claims to be the beacon of freedom for the world, has joined with other oppressive regimes in demanding that Hondurans submit to a Marxist takeover by ousted former president Manuel Zelaya.

Earlier, elements of the Honduran Military, acting under the authority and orders of the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress peacefully removed Zelaya from office.

Within days, Venezuela’s own Marxist leader Hugo Chavez and Nicaragua’s Marxist Daniel Ortega began saber rattling and threatening to invade the tiny Central American country to force the reinstatement of Zelaya to power, although the majority of Hondurans support his ouster.

It is completely shameful that neither our media nor our newly installed leaders in government stand with a free nation exercising their free democratic will in accord with their laws and instead align themselves with such anti-freedom and anti-democratic groups as the Communist Party USA.

I recall when President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was being inaugurated and his famous speech where he stated,

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

In his speech on the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy said,

“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”

Unlike President Kennedy, we have the impotent Barack Obama joining other Marxist’s calling on Honduras to ignore their own constitution and reinstate a leader who was systematically destroying that very constitution.

We hear the Organization of American States issuing an ultimatum to Honduras to reinstate the one who was usurping and destroying their constitution to return him to power within 72 hours or face suspension from the group.

We see Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contemplating whether aid to the tiny poverty ridden nation should be cut.

We see the World Bank “pausing all program lending” to Honduras.

We see the United Nations General Assembly unanimously condemn the Hondurans for standing for freedom within their own country and in accord with their laws and constitution.

Instead, we hear those who ignore the reason and legality of Honduras’s move quoting that Zelaya was “democratically elected.”

Isn’t his removal with approval of the Honduran Congress and Supreme Court also “democratic?”

The world forgets that even Adolf Hitler was initially “democratically elected.”

Does that give a president Carte Blanc to shred his countries constitution and take power to himself, with the aid of outside Marxists like Hugo Chavez?

I find it totally ironic that at the time of Iranians standing up and being cut down over their faulty election results, this same “world” felt that “meddling” was improper. Yet, they now see “meddling” as appropriate in condemning and directing what tiny Honduras must do, in spite of their laws.

It is a complete embarrassment to the entire “free world” that tiny Honduras stands along against all as the hub of freedom and liberty for its people and awaits invasion from outside agitators to reinstall a despot who the majority of the nation do not want.

So called freedom lovers around the globe must hang their heads in shame for not standing with Honduras in their sovereign and constitutional correction of their leaders “new direction” they do not desire.

President Kennedy also said at one time,

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

If you force the return of ousted Manuel Zelaya to power, surely you will see such a violent revolution as the Honduran people rebel against the communist rule imposed on them after they peacefully removed it first!

Either we stand with Honduras now or we all submit to the socialist rule of enslavement advocated by the likes of Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama.

“Hope and Change” are just hollow words with no meaning when freedom is denied as a result.

Obama: No Friend of Freedom; In Honduras or Iran

It is with utter disgust that I write this about the newly seated poseur in chief occupying the White House in what I supposed to be the leader of the free worlds seat. Barack Obama has shown his weakness and allegiance to tin horn dictators and oppressive leaders everywhere, even worse that that we saw in the late 1970’s under Jimmy Carter, unarguably the worst president ever in the history of the United States of America, until now.

In what a blind person could see was a rigged election, Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was retained in power over that theologically oppressed nation. Supporters of challenger Hossein Mousavi took to the streets in Tehran in protest, only to be met by thugs who beat and killed them by the scores.

Although they begged for help and support in over a week of protests, the beatings and killing persisted, eliciting a weak voice of “displeasure” from Obama, issued after days of silence and calling for everyone to just accept the election.

North Korea’s Kim Jung Il thumbs his nose at America and starves his own people while amassing weapons and building nuclear weapons in violation of nuclear treaties. He threatens even to annihilate America and Obama imposes more financial sanctions upon the starving military nation.

But, what takes the cake is his demand that Honduras reinstate their deposed president, in spite of him being removed under the authority of their constitution and by court and congressional order.

Aligning himself with Marxist dictators, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, Obama calls on Hondurans to reinstall ousted president Manuel Zelaya, calling his constitutionally sanctioned removal an illegal coup.
Zelaya was removed from the presidency by members of the Honduran Military, ordered by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress after he illegally attempted to rewrite the Honduran constitution on his own, which the Supreme Court there ruled illegal.

Not to be thwarted, Zelaya called upon Marxist buddy, Hugo Chavez to send him the ballots he wanted voted on and ordered the Military to disperse those ballots. When that order was refused, Zelaya fired the Commanding General, who refused due to orders from the Supreme Court, who also ordered the general be reinstated. Zelaya refused and led a group to break into the warehouse where the ballots were stored to disperse them and force a vote on his referendum, even though the Congress and Supreme Court ruled it illegal.

For this, Zelaya was arrested and placed on an airplane to Costa Rica. The Military turned the country over to the Congress who swore in a new president, Roberto Micheletti to finish Zelaya’s term, with a promise of free elections at that time to choose a new president.

You can read the full story at Honduras Defends Its Democracy.

Clearly, Honduras acted within their constitution and with full sanction of their law and political leaders. Past Military Coups in Central America were known for bloodshed and deposed leaders being killed.

That did not happen here and all went peaceful and in accord with law and order. For Obama to now state, “It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections,” is ludicrous.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chimed in with, “We do think that this has evolved into a coup.”

No, Mrs. Clinton, it is the evolution of a free people following their constitution to retain their freedom.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs says, “the [Obama] administration had worked in recent days to try to prevent the coup from happening, and our goal now is on restoring democratic order in Honduras.”

Remember that Obama refuses to meddle in Iran where Iranians stood up for a free voice and free elections, but he now sees no problem in meddling in Honduras where a free people took constitutionally mandated steps to remain a free people?

Recall too that all communist nations refer to their oppressive regimes as “democratic order.”

Perhaps Obama fears the American people may wake up to his own putsch toward Marxist socialism and he will be removed from office as per what is left of our own constitution?

Hondurans acted within their constitution in a legal and peaceful way to retain their freedom and keep their constitution and laws intact. They must be applauded and supported, not condemned. Only a small minority of Zelaya supporters has tried to create unrest while upwards of 95% of Hondurans support this move.

Obama is off base and out of order in his demands upon Honduras, as is the rest of the world who cries foul for the Honduran people acting within their constitution.

Democracy and law and order prevail in Honduras. Honduran people, not outside forces and not by bloodshed, have removed a power mad wannabe dictator peacefully. The small country retains its dignity and democracy.

Perhaps American citizens could learn much by looking to Honduras.

A Farewell To Chrysler

It was with mixed emotions that I read and hear Chrysler Corporation announcing reopening plants in Canada and the U.S. While I am sure many are elated that the plants will reopen and Union workers will be returning to work, for at least a short time, to assemble Chrysler Vehicles, many others are not.

I am one of those “many others.”

I have been a loyal owner of Chrysler products for the past 43 years and have worked at various Chrysler and Dodge dealerships over the past 32 years, being at the last one for 19 1/2 years.

We were one of the 789 carefully chosen by White House officials to lose their franchise.

I obtained my first Chrysler vehicle shortly after graduating High School, a 1956 Plymouth Belvedere. Although 11 years old at the time I obtained it, it was stout and dependable. Unlike others cars in Southeast Florida, it was not rusted out by the salt air we had at the time.

That was the beginning of my loyalty to Chrysler Corporation that I held until June 16, 2009, as I was told my technician experience and skills learned at many Chrysler factory technical schools were no longer needed, after the dealer I had been at for so long lost their franchise.

I first hired on at a Chrysler dealer in 1977 shortly after my US Army enlistment ended. We weren’t permitted to own private vehicles in Viet Nam, but after finishing my tours there and being transferred to Germany and having sold my 1965 Plymouth Belvedere II prior to Viet Nam, I took a portion of my Army Reenlistment bonus and bought my first ever brand new car through the PX, a 1971 Plymouth 340 Duster, later swapping it for a 1970 Plymouth Road Runner.

Leaving the Army in 1977 and going to work for a Chrysler dealer, I fell in love with the Chrysler LeBaron and ended up buying one brand new in 1978 as the 1979 models were coming out.

Two years later I obtained a brand new Dodge Van which I tricked out, as was popular at the time.

During this time period Chrysler suffered their first difficulty financially. As the workmanship of the late 1970’s cars declined and concession’s were made to remain in business, the dealer I had been working at ended up laying off several of us, eventually being sold to another owner.

I went through a 8 year absence of working for Chrysler dealers, but retained my loyalty as an owner, losing the LeBaron in a divorce, but gaining a 1979 Plymouth Volare a few years later while keeping the Dodge van.

By 1987 I hired on at another Chrysler dealership, staying there until returning to the Pacific Northwest in 1988, where I hired at another dealership and remained until January 1990, when I moved to the current one that just lost their franchise.

Along the way I obtained a 1986 Chrysler New Yorker, a 1995 Plymouth Voyager and my current ride, a 1998 Dodge Dakota.

As you can see, I have been a loyal owner and liked the vehicles enough to hire on at Dealerships to repair others vehicles, gaining much knowledge, both from hands-on and attendance at more factory sponsored tech schools than I care to recall at this moment.

Technicians’ remaining at one dealership for nearly 20 years is almost unheard of in the Automotive Mechanics trade, but many others and I did just that. A change in Service Manager led others to leave last year, leaving me as the oldest employee in the shop and the Dodge technician with seniority. Being non-union, that part is meaningless, naturally.

It is well known that I do not support the current administration, but I never expected that even Obama would direct sending so many people to the unemployment line or a company like Chrysler complying with such a directive.

As expected, the administration denies such action, but evidence suggest differently. I also do not expect anything to come of it, either.

So here I sit, approaching 61 years of age, highly trained in Chrysler vehicle repairs and unemployed as younger less experienced techs fill what few positions may become open, as there is now a glut of factory trained Chrysler Technicians in the jobs market and not enough dealerships for all of us.

Owners in many markets now must travel a much farther distance to receive service or warranty repairs, discouraging many from buying or keeping their Chrysler vehicles. To a man, every one that I worked with agrees that they have purchased their last Chrysler vehicle. Many others across the country join us in deciding to take our few remaining dollars to spend elsewhere, most likely foreign, as a socialist government and unions now own the American Automakers.

While I’m sure others will continue to buy Chrysler, once they see the shoddy workmanship directed by the UAW and Fiat, don’t be surprised to see Chrysler still struggling in the near future.

You dug your own hole, Chrysler.

I bid you a not so fond farewell.

Eight Republicans

Friday, June 26, 2009, a disastrous piece of legislation narrowly was approved in the House of Representatives. HR 2454, also known as the Waxman Markey Bill, or more commonly known as Cap and Trade, was approved by a vote of 219 to 212.

Clark County Conservative outlined Representative Brain Baird’s YES vote on the bill here. However, much anger and dismay is being expressed towards 8 Republican Representatives from across America that crossed over to vote YES, giving the Democrats the needed votes to approve the measure.

Brent Boger, Vancouver, Washington Senior City Attorney and Republican State Committeeman for Clark County submitted the following analysis as to why the 8 may have voted as they did,

When I looked over the list of the 8 Republicans who voted for the cap and trade, cap and tax bill, my impression was that most of them had tough districts that could easily flip Democrat and they voted for their political survival. Spending a couple of hours researching this, my impression appears largely true.

We should not take issue with the eight just because they failed to vote the same as the 168 Republicans who voted against the bill. The calls should address why their reasons for voting for the bill are wrong. Their votes were not in the interest of: (1) sound public policy; (2) their political future; or (3) their constituents.

Most important of these reasons is the evident collapse in the global warming so-called scientific consensus. The overall vote was driven by dogma and a desire to raise revenue to support Obama’s reckless spending. See Friday’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal that discusses the signs of collapse in the international scientific consensus:

“The collapse of the ‘consensus’ has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html.

I am not a scientist. Nor are any of the eight congressmen scientists–and Al Gore’s journalism degree does not give him much in the way of credentials on this issue either. My own training has been in economics and the law. Perhaps my economics training is what makes me particularly note that absent from the discussion on climate change is any serious discussion of cost and benefits. Even if global warming is man-made, might it not be more cost-effective and might we all live better if we deal with its effects rather than pass legislation like King Canute decreed (who was thought to be so great he could command the tides).

There are other reasons besides the merits of the bill that might have driven the votes of the eight. My approach to political analysis is to understand political behavior. I mostly focus on the electorate’s behavior, but I also try to understand why elected officials vote as they do. I think I can explain their votes based on three factors.

1. They think the vote was better for them politically.

Obama carried seven of the eight districts and Kerry three of the eight over Bush. None of the districts are safe Republican seats. One district is represented by Obama’s nominee for Secretary of the Army. At least seven of the eight members of Congress could have reasonably concluded that their vote was to their political benefit.

No one likes a politician who abandons principle and cravenly votes solely on their political interests but certainly it is something that should be considered. Yet 27 Republican members of Congress who voted against the bill also represent districts Obama won. Most of these 27 members, however, represent districts that only barely went for Obama and can be expected to flip back our way in the next election. A Republican Congressman representing a district Obama won by 2% would be expected to look at their prospects for survival differently than one who represents a district Obama won by 14%, like Reichert. Three of the five represent districts Obama won by more than 10% (including Reichert). Three represent one of the six districts in the country won by John Kerry in 2004 currently represented by a Republican in the House: Reichert, Mike Castle of Delaware and Mark Kirk of Illinois. Castle and Kirk could take the Senate seats abandoned by our current President and Vice President next year.

If the Republican members voted based on political calculation, they should note the collapsing scientific and understand that what looks popular now may look foolish in the future.

There is another, less cynical way to look at their votes but related to political self-interest discussed next.

2. They are representing their districts, or they think they are.

Seven of the eight wayward Republicans represent suburban districts and seven of the eight had to run ahead of our national ticket to win. Generally suburban districts still favor Republicans and conservative positions on many issues. One general area suburban voters depart from general Republican views is on environmental issues (or perhaps better expressed as environmental dogma). Unfortunately, many suburban voters come to these positions not from any serious analysis but simply reacting to the relentless global-warming drumbeat emanating from the mainstream media and pseudo-scientists. As noted above, the dogma is starting to collapse, but word of that has not reached enough of their constituents yet.

The eight should have considered that what they think their constituents like now will change when prices go up to pay for the hidden tax, small business fail because of the legislation, and we get a couple of cold winters. (It is interesting to note that only Bono-Mack’s Palm Springs district has a more pleasant winter climate than Dave Reichert’s wintertime cold and rainy Washington district).

3. They really believed the bill was good public policy.

Five of the eight members had fairly high ratings from the League of Conservation Voters (a somewhat dogmatic, though not always, environmental political organization). Thus, their votes on this bill are not out-of-line with the positions they had had taken in the past. This could be because they really believe in these environmental issues or for the two reasons listed above. In particular, I would like to point out Chris Smith of New Jersey who initially was elected to Congress on a very pro-life platform but has otherwise taken pretty moderate positions. Some in the evangelical Christian community have also taken general positions justifiably protective of the environment but I am not sure they are embracing global warming dogma. Though I sharply disagree with Smith on his vote, I still have a great deal of respect for him as a politician who stands on principle.

I wonder whether the members understand that the scientific consensus is less of a consensus now than it was. Have they noted the trouble the Labour Party government has had in getting a global warming bill through the Australian Senate? Do they know many in Europe are growing skeptical about the validity of the science behind climate change-theory? Have they considered a cost-benefit analysis and that should be expected of all members of Congress, especially Republicans?

What about the high number of Democrats who voted against the bill? Lost in our focus on the eight Republicans are the 44 Democrats who voted against the bill. 28 of these Democrats represent districts won by John McCain and 36 represent 2004 Bush districts. Not surprisingly, we find among the remaining 8 Democrats those who voted against the bill because it didn’t go far enough like Dennis Kucinich (OH), Peter DeFazio (OR), and Fortney Stark (CA). The remaining Democrat “no” votes come from Democrat industrial along with a couple heavily-minority agricultural districts especially impacted by the bill. Do these Democrats see something coming that the eight Republicans do not?

We should also not get carried away in our criticism of the eight. Remember that the eight Republicans have been with us on important issues. For example all 8 voted against the Obama stimulus package. So unless we are willing to say that Dennis Kucinich is better than Dave Reichert because Kucinich voted right on this bill and Reichert did not, we probably ought to cut them some slack. I am pleased that Reichert is still in Congress and not the angry left’s Darcy Burner. From what I know of the Democrat challengers to the other seven districts, I would expect we are better off that the Republicans are there as well.

I conclude with the political situation each of the 8 Republicans find themselves in. While I understand their votes and would probably still support them, I am disappointed.

Reichert, WA.8

David Reichert represents a traditionally Republican suburban district that has trended noticeably to the Democrats over the last 10-15 years with both Obama and Kerry winning the district–Obama by 14%. The district is composed of eastern King and Pierce counties. Republicans have been largely wiped-out in legislative seats in the King County portion of the district–holding only the 5th, and two seats in the 31st. The district has an environmentalist tilt. According to the National Journal, Reichert has had a moderate voting record that is only a bit more conservative than average. He does have fairly high ratings from the League of Conservation voters.

2008: Reichert (R) 53%, Burner (D) 47%; Obama (D) 56%, McCain (R) 42%
2006: Reichert (R) 51%, Burner (D) 49%
2004: Reichert (R) 52%, Ross (D) 47%; Kerry (D) 51%, Bush (R) 48%

Bono-Mack, CA.45

Bono-Mack is Sonny Bono’s widow and was the only Republican to vote for cap and trade in committee. She represents a district that includes Palm Springs and fast-growing LA suburban areas in Riverside County’s Moreno Valley. I personally experienced the district’s environmentalist tilt during my time on the staff of California Governor George Deukmejian. The district voted strongly for Bush in 2004 but went to Obama in 2008. Bono-Mack has a moderate voting record but is clearly more right than left. Her ratings from the League of Conservation voters have not been high.

2008: Bono-Mack (R) 58%, Bornstein (D) 42%; Obama (D) 52%, McCain (R) 47%
2006: Bono (R) 61%, Roth (D) 39%
2004: Bono (R) 67%, Meyer (D) 33%; Bush (R) 56%, Kerry (D) 43%

Castle, DE-AL

Mike Castle is Delaware’s lone Congressman. Prior to being elected to Congress in 1992, he served as the state’s governor for eight years. He is being mentioned as a potential candidate for the US Senate against Joe Biden’s son, Beau, next year. Castle has been ahead in the polling. Delaware is a state dominated by New Castle County, which is effectively part of suburban Philadelphia. The state recently has been reliably Democratic giving comfortable margins to the Democrats for president since 1992. Castle’s record has been moderate and perhaps slightly more left than right. The League of Conservation voters gives Castle high ratings.

2008: Castle (R) 61%, Nagel (D) 38%; Obama 62%, McCain 37%
2006: Castle (R) 57%, Spivack (D) 39%
2004: Castle (R) 69%, Donnelly (D) 30%; Bush 46%, Kerry 53%

Kirk, IL.10

Mark Kirk represents a suburban Chicago district along the north shore of Lake Michigan. Kirk is likely to run for the US Senate next year and runs well in the polls in Obama’s home state. The north shore suburbs have been trending against the GOP since the 1990’s and both Kerry and Obama won Illinois 10–Obama in a home state blowout. The Chicago suburbs are not the same place they were in 1964 when the suburban “collar” counties stuck with Goldwater in the Johnson landslide–including local resident at the time and “Goldwater Girl” Hillary Rodham. According to the National Journal, Kirk’s voting record is middle-of-the-road: slightly right on economic issues and slightly left on social issues. He has high ratings from the League of Conservation voters.

2008: Kirk (R) 53%, Seals (D) 47%; Obama 61%, McCain 38%
2006: Kirk (R) 53%, Seals (D) 47%
2004: Kirk (R) 64%, Goodman (D) 36%; Kerry 53%, Bush 47%

McHugh, NY 23

Obama nominated New York Congressman John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army and he is awaiting Senate confirmation. McHugh has had a clearly right-of-center voting record but is generally considered a moderate. He has high ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. McHugh has had no problem at the polls even as his district was going for Obama. In a more normal political year, the district can be expected to go Republican at the presidential level. McHugh is the only congressman of the 8 defecting Republicans whose district is not suburban–it is rural and small city in the far north of upstate New York.

2008: McHugh (R) 65%, Oot (D) 35%; Obama (D-WF) 52%, McCain (R-C) 47%
2006: McHugh (R-Ind-C) 63%, Johnson (D-WF) 37%
2004: McHugh (R-Ind-C) 71%, Johnson (D) 29%; Bush (R-C) 51%, Kerry (D-WF) 47%

Lance, NJ.7

Leonard Lance was elected to Congress in 2008. He represents a suburban New Jersey district that runs across northern New Jersey from almost the Newark Airport on the east to just across the Delaware River from the Leigh Valley area of Pennsylvania on the west. The district was designed to be Republican, which explains its contorted boundaries. Even with these boundaries, former Congressman Mike Ferguson only barely held on to the district in 2006 and the district went narrowly for Obama in 2008. Against Ferguson’s 2006 opponent, Lance had an easier time, running well ahead of McCain. As a newly elected member of Congress, Lance has not yet established a record.

2008: Lance (R) 50%, Stender 42%; Obama (D) 50%, McCain (R) 49%
2006: Ferguson (R) 49%, Stender (D) 48%
2004: Ferguson (R) 57%, Brozak (D) 42%; Bush (R) 53%, Kerry (D) 47%

LoBiondo, NJ.2

Frank LoBiondo represents a south Jersey district that includes Atlantic City, exurban areas near Philadelphia, some small industrial cities and agricultural areas. The district went for Gore and Obama by about the same nearly 10% margin but Bush managed to eek out a win over Kerry in 2004. LoBiondo has had little trouble holding this marginal district. According to the National Journal, LoBiondo has had a generally moderate voting record more conservative on social issues than on economic issues. LoBiondo has high ratings from the League of Conservation voters.

2008: LoBiondo 59%, Kurkowski (D) 39%; Obama (D) 54%, McCain (R) 45%
2006: LoBiondo (R) 62%, Thomas-Hughes (D) 36%
2004: LoBiondo (R) 65%, Robb 33%; Bush (R) 50%, Kerry (D) 49%

Smith, NJ.4

Chris Smith is the only one of the eight who represents a district that John McCain won. Smith was elected to Congress in 1980 with prior experience as the Executive Director of New Jersey Right to Life. His record is generally moderate but more conservative on social issues. Smith has long had high ratings from the League of Conservation Voters. The district straddles the invisible line between north Jersey (which watches New York television) and south Jersey (which watches Philadelphia television). It is getting more distant suburban growth (exurban) from both Philadelphia and New York, which probably explains why it is, rare for the northeast, trending Republican.

2008: Smith (R) 66%, Zeitz (D) 33%, McCain (R) 52%, Obama (D) 47%
2006: Smith (R) 66%, Gay (D) 33%
2004: Smith (R) 67%, Vasquez (D) 32%, Bush (R) 56%, Kerry (D) 44%

(The information above comes from Congressional Quarterly and the Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics)

Brent Boger
Washougal, WA

I would like to add to Brent’s analysis that European countries that jumped headlong into such “Green” legislation years before we in the Unites States have are seeing the folly of their ways. An April 9, 2007 Washington Post article, Europe’s Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases outlines the negative affect such plans had on European Country’s.

A brochure has been assembled outlining the negative impact on Jobs such moves has had in Europe and is available in a pdf file HERE.

Our Representatives should have been aware of such economic affects before they voted for such a piece of legislation. I will be curious to see how, if at all, each justifies their YES vote on such a monstrous bill.

Baird Sells Out Constituents….. Again

Brian Baird, six term Representative from Washington States Third Congressional District and author of the infamous “72-Hour Rule” has once again cast a YES vote for a massive bill, without even reading it fully or studying it.

Baird says, “Our votes have consequences. My congressional colleagues and I owe it to both our constituents and to this institution to know what it is we are voting for.”

With his YES vote on the massive “Stimulus Bill” earlier and now voting YES on the Cap & Trade Bill, which received a 300 page amendment in the final hours, raising the number of pages in it to over 1200, why does he continue to vote against his own words?

By his own claims, if he has not had adequate time to study such a bill that will have dire consequences on America and his Washington State constituents, why in the hell does he continue to vote YES!

In selling us out, he explains it away as he gained concessions on use of dead and diseased trees to be used for energy in what is known as “bio-mass.”

Baird then says, “It’s not my way of approaching this problem if I was given the choice.”

What does he mean by “if I was given the choice?” Isn’t voting NO a choice and one that should be used?

He goes on to say, “With the Earth heating up and oceans becoming more acidic, ‘Inaction is not a starter.’”

With all due respect, Representative, BULLSHIT!

Why does he continue to tout this canard when there is ample evidence coming out every day that the earth is not warming up and is actually in a cooling stage?

We know we can no longer count on the state owned media to publish factual matters when it comes to Democrats selling America down the drain, so we often have to turn to publications such as the Wall Street Journal and foreign media to get some truth. The Wall Street Journal has been doing an excellent job covering such matters as The Climate Change Climate Change where Kimberly Strassel let’s us know, “The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.”

We also have the Investors Business Daily in what they refer to now as Carbongate informing us of the Environmental Protection Agency actually suppressing a report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute that shows how this heavy taxation on American Citizens will cause much damage and how the earths temperature has actually been cooling for the last decade.

Going back to the March 9, 2009 Wall Street Journal, we find an article Who Pays for Cap and Trade?

Who pays? How about the 95% that were promised a tax cut during the 2008 campaign by the current resident of the White House?

Supporters of this disastrous bill brag about how it will create jobs. But, where, China?

A report out of Spain, who jumped heavily into the “Green Jobs” canard years ago, tells us that 9 jobs are lost for every 4 created.

The report may be seen HERE.

House Republicans tried in vain to amend this largest tax increase in our history to suspend it should it prove as harmful as we know it will be, all denied by the Socialist Democrat Cabal in control of the House.

Previously, another House Democrat, Representative John Dingell of Michigan admitted to the nation, “Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.”

Is Brian Baird unaware of that too?

At a time that unemployment is reaching its highest in several decades and Baird’s constituents are hurting all over the Third Congressional District, and the rest of America, shouldn’t we have a Representative who actually places us first, over special interest deals made in smoke-filled back rooms?

Baird has proven himself to be no friend to Washingtonians once again.

We now have two really good candidates filing to unseat Baird, Jon Russell and David Castillo.

I fully expect to see more in the weeks and months ahead, but only time will tell.

What I do know is it is time for Baird to go. He has gotten too comfortable off of our backs and now that he has once again sold us out for special interests, we need a Representative that will actually represent us in Washington D.C.

A note to Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. We are watching and should you rubber stamp this massive tax increase, your seats in the Senate will become very precarious as well.

In closing, I’d like to bid goodbye to Washington State Representative for the Eighth District, Dave Reichert, who crossed the aisle and joined in with the Socialist Democrat cabal in rubber stamping this monstrosity of a tax increase.

I hope you enjoyed your time in the House.

Washington residents, it has come time to take the country back.

Numbers Of Climate Change Skeptics Swelling!

As Obama and his Democrat cabal work to Rahm through the heavily flawed Cap & Trade Bill, aka Waxman Malarkey, other countries that were pushing for similar legislation have backed away from similar laws.

Today’s Wall Street Journal Online has an article, The Climate Change Climate Change detailing others growing skepticism over the claims of man-made Climate Change.

From the article we see,

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

What is driving this “collapse of consensus?”

Reality!

Meet Charlie Stemper

NOTE: The following is not an endorsement of Mr. Stemper at this time. I post this to let readers know he is running for Mayor of Vancouver and how they may contact him to find out more about him.

Meet Charlie Stemper

Who is Charlie Stemper? First and Foremost, I am not a Power Hungry Career Politician. I am like you a Concerned Citizen who would like to return to you, the people of Vancouver, a voice in how our city is run. I also want all citizens to have a voice in how and why taxes levied and how and why they are spent.

I grew up in Chicago, Illinois. Although the draft had ended, I did, upon graduating from high school join the United States Army because I felt obligated to serve my country. After completing my tour of duty where I specialized in financing, I was employed by United Airlines where I began a 35-year career in United’s Customer Services Department. In the late ‘60’s United Air Lines transferred me to San Francisco. While in the San Francisco area and employed by United Airlines, I decided to further my education. In my off duty hours I attended San Mateo Community College and San Jose State. Rising through the Ranks of United Airlines Customer Service Department, I was in 1989 transferred to United’s Hub in Portland, Oregon where I served as Customer Service Director. I retired from United Airlines 1997.

Upon arriving in the beautiful Pacific Northwest my wife, Donna and I settled in Vancouver where I became active a community member. Currently I am the president of the Marion Neighborhood Association, President of the United Airlines Retirees (Portland/Vancouver Chapter) and an active member and officer of the Knights of Columbus of the Holy Redeemer Parish in Vancouver. I have served on the Mill Plain Safety Corridor Steering Committee, helped host Neighborhood Associations’ Light Rail Forums, and frequently testify at the Library Board of Trustees, Park and Recreation Committee and Vancouver City Council Meetings.

Why am I running for Mayor? I am concerned that many of Vancouver’s Citizens are, at the expense of Downtown Redevelopment being taxed out of their homes. To correct this injustice I will when elected work hard to:

· End the expensive current City Council “Portland Envy Syndrome”,
· Eliminate negotiated contracting and return to the open bid process,
· Put a stop to Smoke Filled Backroom deals that “gives away”, to developers, publicly owned property.
· Use some of your hard earned tax dollars to maintain and develop neglecting areas of the city that are outside the “Down Town” area.
· Reduce taxes
· Prioritize Spending and Balance the Budget.

“To achieve our goals and objectives I will need your vote and financial support”

· Please Contact me with your questions, issues and concerns
· I am available to speak to you, your group or organization
Contact me at

360 823 9202 or cstemper@nuvoice.com