Send 'Em All Home

Stopping Career Politicians Isn't Partisan

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:04:00 +0000

I've been hearing lately from the news media (and even some people I know) an odd notion. They say the idea we (but mostly I) present on this blog - sending home career politicians by electing new leaders with new perspectives - is partisan. How can it be? These people say it's a move by extreme conservatives to trick the voting public into replacing all the senators and representatives with people from the far right side of the ideological universe. I think the main excuse claimed for this idea is that we currently have a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.

It turns out they're partly right. Given the composition of congress, most (but certainly not all) of the career politicians to send home today are Democrats. But I'm not for a sudden swing from left-wing to right-wing politics. I'm for a new, responsible, 112th Congress that's composed of real hardworking Americans, whose political stances that reflect the opinions and beliefs of the citizens who sent them.

If it were Republicans who were passing bill after bill against our national wishes, or a whole hoard of venerable independents fillibustering any legislation, for example, it would be our duty to fire them. Again, today, it happens to be mostly Democrats.

So please, get out and vote today. Take advantage of our distinct freedom. Remember that we have a responsibility to speak out when our leaders have failed to represent us.

I'm not going to tell you who to vote for, but I am going to ask you to do some research. If your officials up for re-election this year are incumbents, they deserve a lot of scrutiny. If they've been in congress for a long time, they deserve even more scrutiny, and their opponent likely deserves your vote.

A Quorum of Quotes

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:06:00 +0000

I got my fix of TV politics this morning while in the dentist's chair. (It doesn't take much.) As I flipped between major networks, a few interesting quotes were being discussed.

The first one was a quote by Rhode Island gubernatorial candidate Frank Caprio (D), who is locked into a very tight contest between himself, independent Lincoln Chafee (who leads in the polls), and Republican John Robitaille, who trails them both. Interestingly, Caprio is widely viewed as more conservative than Chafee, but apparently still liberal enough to seek an endorsement from President Obama. After failing to get the president's endorsement, Caprio is now distancing himself from Obama. Caprio said to a Rhode Island radio station -- and defended his remarks during last night's debate -- that Obama "can take his endorsement and really shove it as far as I'm concerned."

Furthermore, since Obama passed him up, Caprio is now touting an endorsement from Bill Clinton.

President Obama's latest partisan quote is sending quite the message. After being elected as a uniter and preaching incessant punchlines of "hope and change" from partisan politics, Obama is sounding much more divisive.

"We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back," President Obama said to crowd of staunch supporters of his policies. (Yahoo! News seems to be one of the few (if not the only) major network or objective news analysis of this quote, but it's burning up the blogosphere.)

Obama also recently said to his Chicago supporters: "we need you to tell them that they can't vote just once and then just hope for change to happen." While it was a plug for early voting in reference to people who plan to "sit this [election] out," it almost sounds like a promo for ACORN's tricks last election of casting multiple ballots per person.

I wonder how many more of these very, um, forward quotes will be spoken in the next six days.

2 Weeks Out: Grab Bag of Intriguing Political Stuff

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 04:48:00 +0000

The above is a parody dissection of typical campaign ads. Watch it if you haven't already.

It's now about two weeks until the midterm elections. Can you believe it? To keep your mind sharp on national political issues, check out the following few links (and whatever else you find at them).

I've had a busy few weeks, but wanted to keep the interesting content coming, even if it wasn't my own writing this time. Thanks to a few friends (you know who you are) for sharing a few of these items.

I'm going to refrain from making further comment. If you've got something to share, put it in the comments section!

The Wall Street Journal Op/Ed: Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement
Politico: Republicans put 99 Democrat-held House seats in danger
Der Spiegel: Karl Rove on Obama, the Republican Party; Tea Party "unsophisticated"
American Thinker: 'O,' He of Little Faith
Politics Spoken Here: Book Thrown at Obama During Rally

Reason Magazine article on John Dennis' unique blend of policies

One Month Until Midterm Elections!

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:44:00 +0000

They're coming, and they're coming fast.

The 2010 Midterm Elections are now exactly one month away. Time to get involved with local campaigns and work on completing your practice ballot. If your friends aren't registered to vote, help them out. The same applies if they can't get to their polling place without assistance.

A storm has been brewing, and the day we've been paying close attention to is nearly at hand. Congress has been acting, and we have been watching. Are we ready to Send 'Em All Home in 2010?

Watch for more frequent posts this month leading up to the elections.

Let's Not Forget 9/11

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 20:03:00 +0000

On this day nine years ago, America was attacked. Thousands of innocent lives were lost. New York's firefighters and police officers risked everything to save the lives of strangers. Everyday business travelers mounted a heroic airborne defensive to save our nation's capitol. The brave members of our military sprung into action, driving al-Qaeda from many of its strongholds in Afghanistan and removing Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime from power in Iraq.

You and I may not agree with the details of our government's handing of foreign policy and national security, the length of the occupation of the middle east, or the ways in which America has changed since then. The entire country will probably never agree on whether a mosque should be allowed to be built on a site that was damaged by falling debris from the World Trade Center when it could just as easily be built anywhere else.

Regardless of our stances, we need to pause and reflect on the loss, the heroism, the pain, and the patriotism which arose when clouds of smoke desecrated a clear-sky morning in New York and Washington.

We must never forget.

Guest Post: Declaration of Independence Reminds Us of Revolt

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:53:00 +0000

Today we're publishing a guest post by a friend of mine, Ben Pease.

The Declaration of Independence, one of the most important documents in the history of the United States of America. Why was this document written by Jefferson and the founding fathers? Why were they declaring themselves to be independent of their parent nation, England? The Declaration explains the reason for this. The colonists were tired of the British government imposing unwanted taxes on them, without their representation. They were also angered by the British government taking away their charters, giving them unfair trials for pretend offences, and for quartering large bodies of armed troops in their houses.

I believe that Jefferson and the other founding fathers decided that the American people didn’t need any more unfair and downright mean treatment from the British government. After much discussion they decided to take matters of government into their own hands, and to separate from their mother country. They believed that “…all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” and that under British rule, they did not have these rights.

Some phrases and ideas that jump out at me when I read the Declaration are as follows.

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2, Line 5-9)

This section sticks out to me the most, as it is giving the American people the right to alter or abolish the government if it becomes too powerful and takes away their rights.

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…” (Declaration of Independence, Paragraph 2, Line 1-4)

This passage is another one of my favorites because it talks about some of our basic rights, which the founding fathers held to be self-evident.

If I were given the task of writing the Declaration, I honestly wouldn’t know where to start. I would be sure to include something about why we were separating from Great Britain, and talk about similar things as is discussed in the Declaration that the founding fathers wrote, but I would not be able to write one of the same caliber.

Jim DeMint Takes Applaudable Midterm Risks

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:36:00 +0000

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), enjoying a lead in his re-election race against Alvin Greene, is focusing his attention on other Senate races nationally.

Turning against the Republican party's popular picks, DeMint has worked to get conservative stalwarts on the ballot in states where the Senate races are projected to be the hottest. His picks have been typically have voting records similar to his own -- a message of smaller government and fiscal frugality. National Public Radio has an expository article which details Sen. DeMint's strategic mission.

Senate races featuring longtime incumbents, such as Nevada's, where Sen. Harry Reid (D) is fighting to stay in the Senate after 23 years, may prove to be the most important this November. DeMint, along with his PAC, Senate Conservatives, have endorsed primary winner Sharon Angle (R) for that race.

The Wall Street Journal ran a good interview with Sen. DeMint in today's paper, and called him "the pre-eminent conservative in Congress."

I think Sen. DeMint is on to something -- and plenty of others must think so too. DeMint's PAC has received contributions from about 50,000 individuals. Even more importantly, I think he deserves the most credit for offering his own solutions and owning the risk. It beats going along with the party -- even on deciding other races, which is far from the charted waters of Senate campaigning.

The Importance of Primaries

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:33:00 +0000

Tomorrow is Minnesota (my home state)'s primary. It comes earlier than last year's, in what seems to be a trend nationally. Colorado's is also tomorrow, as is Connecticut's. Nevada's was in June after the legislature there decided it was too hard to get voters motivated in the August heat.

The importance of primaries cannot be underestimated: through this process so idiosyncratic to our great republic, each party's birthright is given to their candidate who can get the most supporters to show up.

In the process of stopping career politicians, it could be said that no step is more important -- after all, incumbents' and first-time candidates' names are printed the same size on the ballot. However, many people do not attend their primary, so your ballot may carry a greater effect that you might think.

Please attend your primary. To do so is to exercise a special right of citizenship.

3 Reasons Why Kagan Isn't Fit for the Court

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 21:55:00 +0000

Just hours ago, the Senate voted to confirm Ms. Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court (replacing John Paul Stevens). Her confirmation came almost exactly one year after Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed. Ms. Kagan has called the Supreme Court hearing process a "vapid and hollow charade."

Here are three reasons why I personally object to Kagan's appointment.

1. She doesn't really believe in natural rights. (The term natural rights is defined as what everyone has before any government intervention, sometimes referred to as "certain inalienable rights.") In other words, she only acknowledges rights granted by the government, which is to say that the government is the purveyor of all rights. During her confirmation hearings, Kagan said: "I don't have a view of what are natural rights independent of the Constitution." She went on to say that she believed there may be rights before the constitution and laws, but that it wouldn't be her job to consider those.

2. She has zero judicial experience or record. The highest court in the land is no place for on-the-job training. (Sotomayor did at least had a record to be evaluated on.) It seems a theme of the Obama administration so far has been to put people in power who have little to no experience in their new field. The newly elected Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), who has proven to be a political moderate, summed up the situation well: "The best umpires, to use the popular analogy, must not only call balls and strikes, but also have spent enough time on the playing field to know the strike zone."

3. She has a history of promoting executive power. As the dean of Harvard's law school, she upheld an old Harvard policy stating that no military recruiters would be allowed on campus; however, this time it was due to the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy on gay service. After the military was allowed back following a unanimous 2006 Supreme Court decision on the matter, she rallied students to protest against the military's policy. Executive power is not the answer for everything - particularly when you, the executive in power, are proven wrong by a unanimous supreme court (which you end up later being appointed to).

On an unrelated note, Kagan served a branch of the failed and bailout-ridden Goldman Sachs as part of a global materials committee from 2005-2008.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel (R-KY) said: "Whether it’s small claims court or the Supreme Court, Americans expect politics to end at the courtroom door. Nothing in Elena Kagan’s record suggests that her politics will stop there."

More quotes from Senators who voted today can be found here.

Cast Bio Extended Edition + Ways & Means Corruption

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 05:00:00 +0000

This post is going to be a bit of a diversion from my usual subject matter, because this week is Oliver! the Musical production week for the Words Players, a theater group I'm proud to call myself a part of. While this has made me extra-busy (and unfortunately too busy to post until now), it's also made me stop to think. (A lot.)

Oliver! is a play based on Charles Dickens' book Oliver Twist. The story deals with many weighty issues, and a central theme of the story is corruption. At the end of the story, one of the main characters, Nancy, saves the protagonist, Oliver Twist, from an abusive criminal who happens to be her lover.

My unedited cast biography follows. I guess it could be called "expanded" since it wasn't published in its original - and longer - form.

Landon Brands is no stranger to theatre, especially Words Players, having worked lights and crew since 2006. But there’s a first time for everything, and Oliver! is his first time on stage in a WP show. Outside of theatre, he’s into music, technology, and all things creative; he also runs a print magazine and blog. He says: “Oliver! has a complex - and dark - story, but I think we can take a lot away from it. Look at the bribes, confusion, and criminal activity that holds up (and steers) the plot. While it may be easy for us to criticize historical happenings of another continent, we really should ask: in 150-odd years, will people read history books (and maybe even see plays, which are maybe even now being written) claiming that the very era you and I are living in was characterized by corruption? Would authors be right to say so? Are we willing to, like Nancy, awaken to this realization and fight, suffer, and maybe even die for what is right?”

It could be said that corruption dominates the news cycles, at least concerning the way our nation is governed. Just this week, Rep. Rangel (D-NY) of the giant House Ways & Means Committee, along with his lawyers, said he would try to make a deal to avoid facing ethics charges.

So is corruption worth fixing? Is it worth the hard work of electing - and then holding accountable - honest leaders? You decide. The history books are being written.

What Government Can Do

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:42:00 +0000

Or: Interdependent Bureaucracies

I'm still on vacation -- took these last night. (A coast guard boat is towing in a sheriff boat.) Too funny!

Net Neutrality Needs To Be Stopped; Supreme Court Upholds 2nd Amendment

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:14:00 +0000

Even though I'm supposed to be on vacation, there was just too pressing a need for a post this week. That need is Net Neutrality, and it's important because if we don't act, the government could soon have the power to censor this very article - and countless others like it - especially since it disagrees with government proceedings.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has proposed a new bill to give the President - and the federal government, via a brand-new bureaucracy - power to indefinitely shut off or regulate any part of the internet during an "emergency" situation. The bill is called the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010. However, the bill (PDF here) makes little effort to clarify exactly what an "emergency" is, meaning the bill could give the government power to censor content - a blatant contradiction of the 1st Amendment. The only thing the bill explicitly disallows is warrantless wiretapping. It surprised me that Sen. Lieberman would be the sponsor of this bill; last fall, sens. Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-ME) authored a similar bill, and Lieberman's record on technological matters has been pretty much common sense, if somewhat regulation-friendly. This (somewhat old) article on CNET explains in greater detail, from a technology standpoint, what the bill is all about. (Read the equally intriguing comments while you're at it.) After paging through the nearly 200-page bill, I definitely concur that the bill is way too vague - and, as we learned with the healthcare bill, vague bills are the worst kind.

Congress is on a mission to quickly (and carelessly, many would add) establish big government before the midterm elections in November. The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010 is a sales pitch for more of the same. Stopping this bill should be a no-brainer regardless of your political affiliation. It interferes with personal liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of information (even though the last is not explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, it still contributes to informed debate over important issues, such as the bill being discussed.) It also creates more government when we should really be cutting back. The added spending could raise the total federal budget, which would impact everyone's taxes. Is that something you really want? (It sounds like a step towards totalitarianism to me.) Think about it. If you're reading this article right now, you're an internet user. If the government disrupted your internet service, I'm sure your reaction wouldn't exactly be gleeful.

Please take a minute to contact your Senators and tell them to preserve your freedoms by standing against the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010.

***

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago has no right to ban handguns, upholding the 2nd Amendment; read more here. Today was Justice John Paul Stevens' last day on the bench of the high court.

All Quiet on the Arizonan Front

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 23:56:00 +0000

When Arizona passed a law in April allowing law enforcement agents to stop anyone they thought suspicious and ask them for legal documentation, much of the US went crazy. It seemed like the Midwest and the coasts (where illegal immigration is not nearly as much of an issue) went the craziest, in an ironic, if somewhat hypocritical, turn of events.

Arizona has since modified the law, making law enforcement only ask for papers upon reasonable suspicion the person was actually involved in a crime. Criticism has largely subsided (though it's far from nonexistent).

I have to admit I was more than a little taken aback by Arizona's proceedings myself; for one thing, it's not exactly constitutional to ask for papers on demand. (Sounds kind of communistic if you think about it.) For another, there's obviously no federal law or constitution clause requiring residents to actually carry any kind of identification. And it doesn't take much thought to figure out that police would most likely target people who appear Hispanic, given the root cause for this whole debacle. Would innocents be checked? Count on it. Would law enforcement be expanded, adding to what some already call a police state? Likely, if modifications aren't made and limits put in place.

But on the flip side, how can we expect to keep our country secure without some kind of security measure? Obviously securing our southern border is the best approach; however, not only would it take months or years of work, but also a willing administration and a large amount of government spending.

Fiscally, the hole is worth plugging, and would likely pay for itself over a short amount of time. Billions of dollars are lost each year because of illegal aliens; they do not pay income tax, but still find their way into school systems. It's not unheard of for them to be on social welfare programs. And, perhaps worst of all, they can get free medical care without health insurance by visiting the nearest emergency room; the recently passed healthcare bill didn't do a single thing to fix this major issue. (The hospital usually winds up footing the bill, in a phenomenon unique to the American health care system. Think about it - in what other business does the client receive a tangible service and then receive a free pass?)

The solution to the immigration problem is going to have to be much more than a single piece of controversial legislation. Arizona did what the people wanted -- an overwhelming majority of Arizona residents support the law, as do a smaller majority of the national population -- The options should include making it easier to come legally by increasing the number of legal points of entry, thus eliminating (or at least downsizing) queues that stretch for miles on roads south of the border. Fiscally, instituting the FairTax (in which a high national sales tax would affect every purchaser) would level the field, making sure everyone - residents, tourists, immigrants, and illegal residents alike - pay their fair share. (Forget the confusing income tax code.) Cracking down on illegal employment is a no-brainer, as is fixing the catch-and-release system of at-the-border detaining of illegal immigrants. Another thing the government could do would be to ask randomly selected successful legal immigrants what they think could be improved about the process, and what they thought was the most inefficient.

***

In other news today, Jack Abramoff, a fraudulent lobbyist, begun work at a pizzaria upon loosening of his house arrest. His job is to include face-to-face marketing to scare up more business. Also, a federal judge blocked President Obama's indefinite ban on oil drilling in the Gulf Coast. LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) called Obama's ban "arbitrary and capricious".

Primary Results Roundup

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:36:00 +0000

Wednesday night was a big one for California's Republicans. John Dennis of California's 8th District won his primary, and will be running against Nancy Pelosi. Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay, won the state's Republican nomination for Governor, having spent over $70 million of her own money so far. (Again, we're only in the primary season!)

Down in Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln won once again, narrowly beating Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. On a side note, as The Fix is quick to point out, organized labor lost out big in that election.

In Nevada, Sharron Angle won the Republican Senate primary. She seeks to unseat Harry Reid; a U.S. News and World Report poll shows her winning among respondents.

Oil Spill a Slippery Situation; Pelosi Feigns Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 05:18:00 +0000

As you are likely well aware, BP is currently trying to plug an oil well about a mile below the surface, which is gushing up to 100,000 barrels of crude per day. The government has named BP responsible for the incident. BP has accepted responsibility, but is quick to point the finger at the workers, who were contracted but not employed by BP; the workers told the Washington Post there was a confused chain of command.

Isn't this eerily similar to the roundabout redistribution of responsibility that we saw in the financial meltdown of late 2008? Bob Herbert may have had it right in his strident New York Times editorial: "If a bank is too big to fail, it’s way too big to exist. If an oil well is too far beneath the sea to be plugged when something goes wrong, it’s too deep to be drilled in the first place."

***

In other news, Nancy Pelosi has made yet another rather confusing statement (which, of course, has flown under the radar of the mainstream media). Speaking to an audience of Catholic sisters, she said, in reference to the Bible: "The Word. Isn't it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.... fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: 'The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.' And that's the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we're prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up." Pelosi went on to say that she attempts to make public policy in accordance with this.

Hold on a minute. First off, you don't -- you can't -- just "fill in" the Bible - or anything else, but especially not the most important publication in history - with "anything you want." Second, such a relativist translation really signals a lack of biblical knowledge. Finally, how can you profess to believe in the Bible when you are one of the most pro-abortion representatives currently on the floor?

The New York Daily News isn't exactly a religious publication (like Christianity Today), but I think they've hit the nail on the head on this issue; take a minute and read this article.

Classic RT Article: Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Wed, 26 May 2010 03:16:00 +0000

While one of the 2008 Presidential Debates was raging on, I wrote out the following satire with my brother. As I was looking through my post archive today, I realized I'd never posted it. I figured better late than never, so here it is, starring the various 2008 presidential candidates!

Why did the chicken cross the road?
A political spoof by Landon and Christian Brands

Barack Obama: Well I think that the chicken did not fully understand the dangers involved in crossing a road outside of a crosswalk. I also think that this is a public safety issue that cannot be ignored. I plan to meet with the chicken my first day in office.

John McCain: My friends, my opponent does not understand the situation. Chickens are birds that are prone to wandering. We do not need a massive pork-barrel project to stop isolated incidents like this.

Joe Biden: [Smiley face] My running mate Barack Obama is totally right on this issue!! Every chicken is a valuable resource. [Suddenly shouting] John McCain, who is my friend, doesn’t get that. He is completely out of touch with the middle-class chicken farmer. In fact, he supported de-regulation on the poultry industry!

Sarah Palin: Doggone it, I don’t think we have to waste our time debating an old, worn-out joke. After all, I’m a maverick! I’m not sure if this incident was caused by genetics or a loss of direction, but I’m not going to judge them on that. This chicken was a maverick like me and was brave enough to cross the road.

Obama adds: My tax plan would lower taxes by 95% on chickens and their farmers. I would propose new legislation to protect military chickens headed to mess halls in Iraq from rocket-propelled grenades.

McCain: How can we trust you to solve this “massive” problem if you never wrote a meaningful piece of legislation in the Senate?

Obama: I think we need to refresh Sen. McCain’s history. I voted to buy up foreclosed houses and give them to chickens and their farmers who weren’t going out to dinner enough.

Palin: We need to stop this poultry-barrel spending.

Biden adds: I would agree with Senator McCain, my friend, on this. And I’m not plagiarizing this speech, either!

Obama: [Clears throat nosily] You know, I wrote a letter to this chicken telling him to reverse his decision, but he refused. He got this idea from President Bush, and it was supported by John McCain!

Palin: How about opening a season on chickens to manage all the loose ones that are crossing the road?

Obama: That would cause a spike in crimes. We don’t need a bunch of hunters with “assault rifles” roaming the countryside.

Palin: What an unfortunate misunderstanding. What about Sen. Biden’s son--

Biden: I don’t care about my son!--

Palin: --Biden’s son lobbying against all this poultry-barrel spending?

Biden: [muttering] --my son being a lobbyist.

Obama: It is absolutely critical that we realize that this is not only a challenge, but an opportunity. I have a plan in which 1,000,000 jobs could be created for chickens who were laid off their previous jobs - they would paint crosswalks for their fellow feathered creatures, including urban pigeons in my home state of Illinois.
McCain: To quote Sen. Obama, that would be fundamentally wrong.

Biden: I’m still confused. Did the chicken cross Main Street or Wall Street?

Palin: At the end of the day, a chicken’s still a chicken. Let’s fight the good-old-bird network and move on to bigger things.

After the debate, an outpouring of opinions from afar…

Bob Barr: I’ve never been a politician, so this bickering is far below my level. I don’t really care what comes out of all this. I’m running for President, too, I’ll have you know. After all, “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between John McCain and Barack Obama! You’ve probably never heard of me (until now), but all the same, I’m asking for your vote. Check out my fancy website for more!

Ron Paul: Since I’d abolish the IRS, all this Obama stuff about taxing chickens or not and what have you is pretty foreign to me. To think that one of these two guys will get elected scares the liver outta me! I’ll tell you why the chicken crossed the road: to get to my campaign office [laughs noisily at his own joke]!

Primaries and Retirements Signal a Coming Clamor

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Thu, 20 May 2010 14:17:00 +0000

The news broke yesterday that Sen. Arlen Specter, the famous Republicrat, has been defeated in Pennsylvania's primary after practically every major Democrat endorsed his competitor. (The Democrats must be trying to change their image.) Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son) garnered over 60% of the vote in the Kentucky primary last night. This article by left-leaning NPR goes as far as calling Specter a "windbag chameleon" and admits we need more people like Rand Paul in the Senate, classifying him as a "principled libertarian."

Lots of well-known incumbents are preemptively running for the hills; among them are 5 Senators: Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Roland Burris (D-IL), who was placed in the Senate after Blago's seat-selling scandal, and has only served one term! (Sen. Ted Kaufman[D-DL], who is also retiring, only served part of a term, filling in for Joe Biden - apparently a tough act to follow.) 17 House Democrats are also retiring, the most notable being Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI1), who blocked the healthcare bill for weeks and caved in to vote for it upon a lame executive order compromise on abortion, which some analysts say wasn't "worth the paper it's printed on." Some have begun calling him "Stupid Stupak" because of it.

It's not just Democrats who are running scared - Republicans are deserting in equal (actually slightly larger) numbers. Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) only served one term, and will not run again. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) scraped out a seat by 2% of the vote in the 2006 midterms, and has decided not to try again. Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), former Governor of Ohio, has announced his retirement. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), who voted for the raw and hasty stimulus bill, was going to run for a third term, and was (tastefully?) eliminated in the Utah Republican nominating convention. 20 House Republicans are retiring, including Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ3), Rep. John Linder (R-GA7), and Pete Hoekstra (R-MI2), who has been a productive and reasonably bipartisan member and is now running for Governor of Michigan.

Of all the Senators leaving, Sam Brownback (R-KS) is probably the most notable. He was one of the hardest-working conservative senators in recent years, and is now retiring because of self-imposed term limits! Talk about setting a standard on your way out!

So far, a total of 37 members of the House and 11 members of the Senate -- over 10% of each's total population -- have announced retirement. More will likely come soon. Only one thing is certain with all of this: a storm is coming through Washington, and it's nothing small.

Maine GOP: New Platform, New Agenda

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Sat, 15 May 2010 17:30:00 +0000

When a political party agrees to make fundamental changes at the state level, progress usually ensues. But something as sweeping as this puts a party in uncharted waters.

The Republican Party of Maine has adopted a brand-new party platform. Many of the ideas referenced in the document come straight from the Tea Party movement (election reform; congress inability to vote itself pay raises; healthcare as a service rather than a right;), and others come straight from the words of Ron Paul (10th Amendment state sovereignty). Others are just plain good ideas which have been in circulation for a long time (such as the ability to buy health insurance across state lines).

Most its content relates to preserving the Constitution and maximizing personal liberty, but some parts of it reference underrated political concepts, such as standing up against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (which has been known to do more harm than good; watch for a post about it soon.)

The Maine GOP is evidently trying to raise itself out of the water, as Maine has been known for its liberal leanings over the past few election cycles.

The platform has been ratified by delegates at the Maine State Republican Convention, but it certainly has its critics. One former staffer of the Maine GOP called it "nutcase stuff," while Chris Potholm, proffessor on Government at Bowdoin College said “If you’re not a moderate, you don’t get elected in Maine."

Potholm's claim is a legitimate talking point, but with Congress' approval rating at an all-time low, the next election cycle is likely to be far from normal.

Fun Post: An Emoticon for Every Anchor

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Sun, 09 May 2010 02:54:00 +0000

Here's a post to make you laugh. Here's the deal: an emoticon below represents (pretty much) every cable news anchor. If you've watched any cable news lately, you'll know what we're talking about. Hopefully this doesn't permanently turn your head 90 degrees. :-D

Fox News:

Geraldo: :-{)

Hannity: ;-]]

Greta Van Sustren: :-V

Shepard Smith: :^)

Glenn Beck: 8-D

Bill O'Reilly: ~!-P

CNN:

Larry King: B-|

Wolf Blitzer: ~:-|

Anderson Cooper: :-\

MSNBC:

Chris Matthews: >:-@

Keith Olbermann: #:-[

Rachel Maddow: \:O

Time for Tax Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:28:00 +0000

April 15th came and went this year with more fanfare than usual. The Tea Party movement had gatherings across the nation. (I had the privilege of attending one.)

The fact that nearly half of Americans paid no income tax also created a significant amount of commotion. It's up to the rest of Americans (what many are calling "the new middle class" and what Democrats call "the rich") to pay their share of the load. But, in a nation built on the concept of equality, how did this ever come to be?

Part of it has to do with the way spending, and the deficit, have gotten out of control under the watch of our two most recent administrations. Instead of justifying the extra spending, lawmakers would rather stretch the tax burden in every direction (a capital gains tax increase is up next in what has become a hit parade on Americans' finances.

Even worse is the mere thought of a Value Added Tax, which would be a sour cherry on top of our country's melting tax code. Such a tax would be slapped on the American taxpayer in addition to income tax, without a single extra benefit from the government! From a recent Washington Post article:

A VAT is a tax on the transfer of goods and services that ultimately is borne by the consumer. Highly visible, it would increase the cost of just about everything, from a carton of eggs to a visit with a lawyer. It is also hugely regressive, falling heavily on the poor.

Why don't they call it a value-subtracted tax? George Will has some good thoughts on the matter.

The FairTax is probably the best (and most popular) of many proposed alternatives to implement just that - a taxation package that's fair to all. This would be achieved by abolishing the income tax, along with the IRS, and levying a high national sales tax instead. In turn, these steps would help level the tax bracket field - and stop forests from being leveled for income tax paperwork - while gathering new revenue from presently untapped sources such as illegal immigrants, who benefit from public services but currently pay very little tax. The basic principle of this makes a lot of sense: the more you spend, the more tax you pay. It could also be argued that this may encourage saving rather than spending. (Wouldn't it be a wonder if government picked up on that, too?)

If you haven't heard much about the FairTax, take a look at it and prepare to be intrigued. The time has come to clear our calculators and set in motion a better, simpler tax system.

Tax Day: Attend A Tea Party Today!

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 20:09:00 +0000

As you are probably well aware, today is tax day. (If you haven't filed yet, be advised that some post offices aren't staying open late this year!) Some Americans are wielding pens against a pile paper, while some (46% of the population) are no doubt jumping around with excitement at the fact that they didn't have to pay a dime this year. For them, it's Christmas in April, and it's not a fooling matter. For the rest of us (barely half the country), an era of wasteful spending (that many of us didn't want) is ours to own!

If there's a Tea Party in your area, I highly recommend attending. Thousands of people are expected at hundreds of rallies across the nation. Local lawmakers will be attending many of the rallies. You can find your state's Tea Party here; check with local news or friends for locations of Tea Parties in your city.

Justice Stevens to Retire: Obama's Last Chance

noreply@blogger.com (Christian Brands) — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 01:22:00 +0000

The speculation has been confirmed: the oldest Supreme Court justice is retiring. And he's going to do it soon. "I will surely do it while [Obama] is still president," Justice John Paul Stevens said. Stevens, the court's senior liberal, was appointed by President Ford way back in 1975. By retiring during the Obama presidency, Stevens will ensure that his replacement shares the President's liberal leanings. No one knows as of yet when the actual retirement will come, nor who the replacement will be, but the White House is already taking action. Doubts also exist about the future plans of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer last year.

Amid all the hype, President Obama has an important choice to make, not only for the future of America, but for the future of his presidency. His approval ratings are at record lows, including a weak 41% in the crucial state of Ohio. Frustrated Americans across the nation have attended conventions, town halls and tea parties in an effort to make themselves heard, but as evidenced by the sneaky passage of a subpar healthcare bill last month, the Obama administration is not listening. If the President is at all interested in a second term, he ought to be running scared. Not only are Americans angry, but Republican candidates are gaining money and ammunition by the minute. Now he has a chance to prove that he really is ready to reach across the aisle. With the nomination of a conservative or even moderate justice, Obama could turn his poll numbers around and win back valuable votes. Thus, the magnitude of the President's second appointment is apparent. Listen to the people, Mr. President, and you will have a chance. Ignore us once again, and your 2012 campaign is dead in the water. The world waits.

Washington is Broken; Send Pelosi Home

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:07:00 +0000

Washington is broken. How many times have we heard that in the past few months?

The healthcare bill was signed this morning by President Obama, after being passed late Sunday night. Congress did not want to listen to the fact that only a minority of Americans actually wanted the changes. Joe Biden marked the occasion by cussing about it to President Obama. It is also a minority of Americans who approve of President Obama and Congress. (Obama's rating is at a record low.) According to a Gallup poll dated March 18, 80% of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is doing business.

***

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA8) has not been living up to what is expected from her, either. Between helping to secretly craft the healthcare bill, citing false figures left and right, being one third of Washington's stiffly partisan power-trio (consisting of herself, President Obana, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid), she has earned a bad reputation.

Ruling the House chamber with the iron hand of partisanship is not the way to make progress. Neither is keeping the healthcare debate out of public view until it passes, when you profess to be leading the most transparent congress ever.

Perhaps the most visible issue is Pelosi's seeming inability to correctly state basic societal facts: the number of people losing their jobs was never 500 million a month, as she said in a press conference! (Never mind that America's entire population is somewhere around 350 million.) As then-minority leader during the Bush administration, she said: "I don't approve of Congress because we haven't done anything..."

This year, a strong opponent is running against Pelosi. His name is John Dennis, and he has already raised nearly $300,000. In fact, to celebrate Pelosi's birthday (which is tomorrow), he will be running a "money bomb" to further equip his campaign.

California's 8th District House race will be one to watch, for our sanity's sake if nothing else. If you live in California, consider volunteering for Dennis' campaign.

Healthcare Vote Looms; Rep. Stupak Fooled; Best of the Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:27:00 +0000

The moment we've all been waiting for is at at hand. Some of us have waited with interest, and others are just wishing the bill would be voted up or down at long last, after such a scene has been made.

After working on holidays and weekends and at all hours of the day and night, mostly from behind closed doors and far from the cameras of C-SPAN.

Arguably, the biggest issue of the entire debate was that of abortion coverage, specifically publicly-funded abortion coverage, which was included in the bill.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) decided a short time ago that he would vote yes. Up until today, he has been adamant in his opposition to the current healthcare reform. It is suspected that most, if not all, of the "blue dog" democrats will vote yes with him.

The reason Stupak switched was that President Obama announced he would issue an executive order to preserve the current U.S. ban on taxpayer-funded abortions (the Hyde Amendment). Most serious pro-lifers believe this "deal" is not sufficient. The National Right To Life Committee has released a statement confirming this. The effects of executive orders can be abolished by any administration, current or future, making this seem more like the cheap vote grab that it is.

The main strength of the bill, according to Democrats, is that 32 million more Americans (nearly 10% of the population) will have healthcare insurance. "They don't now," stated Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), in another ~~timeless~~, er, time-limit-dishonoring, oration.

The problem with the above approach is that "Obamacare" would make it easier, if anything, for illegal aliens to receive free healthcare. They can already go to the emergency room for free, but they would no doubt find ways to sneak into the new system, which also expands Medicaid. This is a major, but inconvenient and therefore mostly ignored, fiscal issue.

It has been mostly Republicans who have criticized the fuzzy math and shady accounting of all the paperwork presented, including the House and Senate bills. The most paradoxical argument, they say, is that Democrats claim the deficit will be reduced by over $100 billion over the next decade. However, the benefits from this healthcare bill, if it passes, would only begin in 2013! So the Democrats are counting over a period of 10 years but the spending for only 6.

One of my biggest problems with the bill is that it is 2,700 pages long (not to mention it hasn't been entirely read), and that many Democrats think this is only a foundation. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) said, "today, we are laying a foundation." Is this a sublimal commercial for a socialistic Single Payer (that's the government) system? Sen. Barney Frank sure thinks so.

Spread S.E.A.H. Week!

noreply@blogger.com (Landon Brands) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:11:00 +0000

Hi Everyone,

As you can see, this isn't the typical Send 'Em All Home post.

That's because today is the start of Spread S.E.A.H. Week. This week, I'd like to ask each of our readers to share Send 'Em All Home with friends. Going social will help get our message out to lots of new people!

So, you ask, this sounds good, but what can I do to help? Start by doing something on the following list:

1. Invite lots of friends to the Send 'Em All Home Facebook Page. If you're not already a fan, and you're reading this, go become one!

If you don't use Facebook, don't feel bad. Share our link on whatever network you use. (Suggestion: Newly-launched Google Buzz, where your contacts are probably already following you. Access from your Gmail inbox.)

2. Link to us in your IM status. For instance: Check out this blog: http://www.sendemallhome.com Note: we also have IM icons promoting Send 'Em All Home that are just the right size - tiny.

3. If you use Twitter, tweet about us! Be sure to include a link.

4. Subscribe to our RSS Feed yourself. You'll never miss another post. Plus, with some feed readers, you can share posts with friends!

5. Digg our stories.

6. Tell friends about Send 'Em All Home when the topic of politics comes up in a discussion.

7. Find other creative ways to spread the word! Share your ideas in the Comments.

(Editor's Note: Don't worry. Our next post will be about happenings in Washington!)