Tag Archives: controversy

President Obvious

He doesn’t know anything about AG Coakley’s opponent (but we do, it’s State Sen. Scott Brown, R-MA) but that doesn’t stop him from rambling on.

And Democrats want him to keep helping their campaigns?

Sheesh. ll I can say is – keep on doing so.

If Only Indeed

Radley Balko displays an excellent quote right now, sportsfans of politics …

UPDATEx1: Scott Brown Files Complaint(s)

Well now.

This ought to be interesting.

UPDATEx1: A bit off topic, but good news. Apparently, Scott Brown has run out of signs … heh … a bit of a different complaint.

Voting Systems in MA

This is very serious. Particularly for this coming Tuesday

Speaking for myself, this is new information for me and I can’t say I am too pleased about it. I recommend that you read the entire article and especially watch the embedded video.

I leave it to you to determine your level of trust. Mine, unfortunately, is shaken to the core. And I am an electrical engineer (Bach. Sci.) and computer programmer/user (M.S.).

My questions are: How widespread, in how many sates, is this problem? And why is this allowed to continue?

Attempting Reconciliation

Way to go, Congress. Must be that looming election in Massachusetts that is bothering you, eh?

What? Parliamentary rules allows this? Wait, don’t those same rules require the presence of bill-type documents on the Floor while discussing them before voting on them?

So, if you lose a Senatorial seat in Massachusetts to a Republican (guess what, this is OUR hope and change), 60 votes is just too tough to acquire?

We Did Not You Did

Mr. President, come this Tuesday evening – you will know if this election is indeed about Obamacare.

Psst. It isn’t you know. It is about: not listening to us (the people), too many radicals in your appointments, cash for clunkers, increasing the deficit, the southward direction of the economy, rising unemployment, the transparency that isn’t, faux global warming, cap and trade, oh – and, you know what, it really is about Healthcare ALSO.

Another Executive Order

Some have asked me about this one. This very recent one.

I have to admit, I have more than one concern about it. Namely, how and why a Council of 10 Governors is needed at all. Considering that our union is 50 states strong, just how unbiased are these 10 going to be? And bipartisan? 5 of one party, 5 of another? Does anyone buy this in view of the current political climate? I most certainly do not.

Besides, the Posse Comitatus Act clearly points out the roles of the National Guard and how they are to be focused. The NG is deployed and under the supervision of States Governors at times of crisis. Not under federal supervision/jurisdiction. (And notice that legislation passed during the Bush administration was repealed, reverting wording back to that of the Insurrection Act.) This Executive Order clearly bypasses Congress to employ something new.

My question: How dangerous is this down the road? And before anyone tries to label me a far-right winger, I caution anyone who thinks a soft stick at this point – about this particular issue – has our best interests at heart. History shows otherwise.

This Executive Order is only two days old, it appears, and what else I want to know is – what does your (and my own) representatives know about this one? And what do they intend to do about it?


Attribution to Christopher Suleske, through a mutual friend.

UPDATEx1: Condoning Violence?

Apparently, Scott Brown’s opponent, the Attorney General of MA, saw what her supporter did.

Looks like assault to me. What do you think?

And some more detail now.

And a little more.

UPDATEx1: What? Excuse me? Mr. Meehan’s new job is where?

UPDATE: Turbocharged Motor Voter

What the Dems know that we don’t: Universal Voter Registration

Do you know anyone NOT registered to vote?
Are you registered to vote? No? Well you may soon will be, without your knowledge.

“In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overriden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: ‘take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver’s license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be…”

UPDATE: During a luncheon meeting with my campaign manager and treasurer, we discussed this tidbit of upcoming legislation. We have some legitimate concerns about this that I think others may need to know, in case you may not have come to the same points. First, if such wide classes of people are plugged into voter lists – what will be their party affiliation, since those people won’t know this is being done for them and without their knowledge? Second, how will these people find out about their voting eligibility status change? Some folks deliberately dropped off the voting rolls because they fear being called for jury duty, or simply because of no longer voting (in some/most/ all states, inactive voting can result in being purged from the rolls).

Or, is this simply the case that the party (!) interested in mandating this Universal Voter Registration (over the objection of states, I would presume) wants to have contact addresses (locations) to embellish their means to drive voting statistics?

Responsible people (and Candidates) want to know. Myself in particular, because I have my doubts about the honesty and integrity behind this push by (at least) Senators Schumer and Frank.

Nail in the AGW Coffin?

According to recent research mentioned in Science Daily, it could be.

UPDATE: Pssst, and there are well-qualified skeptics (on our side, that is).