Friday, April 30, 2010

Georgia GOP to Boyd... "No Oath, then no run"


Boyd said he objected to the loyalty oath, which says the signer pledges allegiance to the GOP, because the party is far from perfect and he wouldn't swear to always support the party's actions. He tried for a compromise by producing three variations of the oath, all of which elaborated on the original by declaring his independence from party dogma when appropriate.
As Boyd laid out his documents on a conference room table at the Capitol, party chairwoman Sue Everhart was standing over him. "No," was all Everhart said.

Statehood for Puerto Rico?


Puerto Ricans ought to hold a referendum on whether to keep their island a commonwealth or consider statehood, independence or some other status, the U.S. House voted after an impassioned debate today.The island became a U.S. territory in 1898 after the Spanish-American War. Puerto Ricans are American citizens but cannot vote in presidential elections and have only a nonvoting representative in Congress. Puerto Rico's lone delegate to Congress, Pedro Pierluisi, argued that Puerto Ricans should have the right to decide their own destiny.

"Patience is a virtue, but my people have been patient enough," Pierluisi said."The fundamental justice of our cause -- to enable a fair and meaningful self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico after more than 110 years of inaction -- is beyond question," said Pierluisi, who favors statehood. But Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., said the Puerto Rican people have not requested Congress to intervene. "Instead of dealing first with the very real concerns of how the people of Puerto Rico survive day by day, we are telling them our priority is to debate a status bill that will not become law," she said. "This is a disgrace."The bill, which has not yet been voted on in the Senate, sets up a two-step process. Puerto Ricans would first vote on whether to keep the status quo. If they voted for change, they would then choose among statehood, independence and becoming an independent nation in "free association" with the United States. Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, for instance, have free-association relationships with the U.S. that make them independent but have agreements in place for U.S. defense and economic aid. Critics charged that the bill was unfairly weighted toward statehood. In past votes in Puerto Rico, statehood and commonwealth ran neck and neck, with less support for independence options. But the first vote in the bill's two-step process would pit the current status against all other options combined."It's spelled the same in English as in Spanish: No, no," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., in voicing his opposition.Much of the controversy over what Puerto Rico should do focuses on how its options are defined. Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., said those who advocate keeping the island's commonwealth status overpromise that they will improve on the current situation by staying U.S. citizens, but picking and choosing among U.S. laws."I want that for the Bronx," he said. "That's a great deal."Lawmakers also voted on amendments dealing with who exactly gets to cast a ballot in the referendum and the issue of language on the island, where English and Spanish are official languages but Spanish is more widely spoken.The bill allows not only the 4 million residents of Puerto Rico to vote, but also people born on the island who live now on the mainland now -- something advocated by Gutierrez, who favors independence for Puerto Rico."The people of Puerto Rico are a nation," he said, adding, "They have a language and that language is Spanish."The bill doesn't bind Congress to accept Puerto Rico as a state. And it doesn't say how large a majority of Puerto Ricans are needed to choose a new political status. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Congress ought to require that two-thirds of residents approve before statehood is allowed."You don't want to get married to someone who is only 51 percent sure, for goodness sakes," Chaffetz said. A Puerto Rican state would get two senators and probably about six seats in Congress, according to the Congressional Research Service, forcing Congress to decide whether to increase the size of the House or take those seats from other states. In the latter case, New York and Missouri likely would each lose a seat and four other states -- Arizona, South Carolina, Texas and Washington -- would miss out on seats they would have otherwise gained under the next round of reapportionment.Serrano said Puerto Ricans are ready to vote on an option that removes them from being a U.S. territory."From the time you're 10 years old, all you debate in Puerto Rico is status and baseball. And status is bigger," Serrano said.

GOP to Crist.. "We want our money back!"


Now that Charlie Crist has left the Republican Party to mount an independent run for Senate, Texas Sen. John Cornyn wants a refund of all the money his political action committee donated to the Florida governor. Cornyn, who runs the GOP campaign operation for the Senate, expects a number of Republicans to demand money back from Crist because they don't want his independent bid to be financed with party funds.
"People have already asked for their money back and I expect that to continue," Cornyn said Thursday. "I certainly will request the money I donated to his campaign from my leadership PAC back."The conservative Club for Growth said it planned a campaign to get donors big and small to ask for refunds. The group led a similar effort in 2009 after Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter switched from Republican to Democrat. Cornyn also said he expects Crist will have a hard time raising money as an independent, especially now that Republicans are lining up behind his opponent, state House Speaker Marco Rubio. Cornyn, formerly an enthusiastic backer of Crist, is among the Republicans who have urged the governor to drop out of the Senate race completely, to avoid boosting the chances of Democrat Kendrick Meek. Crist, whose fortunes within the GOP have faded in recent months,officially announced in St. Petersburg that he was quitting the Republican Party.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Three qualify for State House District 110

As of today we have 3 candidates who have officially qualified to run for House Dist 110, the seat being vacated by Rep. John Lunsford who is making the transition to the State Senate. Ron Moon of Butts Count, Tom Nicholson of Henry County, and Lee Spahos of Henry County have all officially qualified as of today. Good luck guys, but I'm sure there will be more candidates to come.

Musical Chairs at the Gold Dome



It seems that some of our candidates can't make up their minds down in my neck of the woods. Earlier this week State Sen. John Douglas qualifyed for re-election to his seat, as did State Rep. John Lunsford. Then came news that PSC Bobby Baker was retiring, and the entire game plan changed for both these fine candidates. Now I don't fault them, nor do I call this opportunism, we just wish Commissioner Baker would have let his intentions be known before the week of qualifying, as there is now a scramble to fill the empty seat left by Rep. Lunsford who will now run for the Senate seat vacated by Sen. Douglas to run for the PSC.

Florida's GOP Governor to run as an Independent


Florida Gov. Charlie Crist said that he WILL be mounting an independent run for U.S. Senate, after the head of the GOP's re-election committee declared that the governor has "zero chance" to win as a Republican. He made the comments after Rob Jesmer of the National Republican Senatorial Committee wrote in an e-mail Monday that Crist should drop out of the race completely if he believes he can't win the primary. "We believe there is zero chance Governor Crist continues running in the Republican primary," Jesmer wrote in the memo to party officials and fund-raisers in Florida and Washington. Jesmer said the committee is prepared to support former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio if Crist runs as an independent. According to recent polls, Crist trails Tea Party favorite Rubio by an average of nearly 23 points.A three-way race would pit Crist and Rubio against Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek.

It's official.... Scott's In!


The news is apparently in. Georgia state Rep. Austin Scott is planning to drop his campaign for governor and launch a challenge to Democratic Rep. Jim Marshall in the state’s 8th Congressional District. Scott, who was first elected to the Georgia Legislature at 26 and has served there since 1997, has failed to gain traction in a gubernatorial primary that includes multiple statewide Republican officials, but he’s regarded as an up-and-comer in his party.
“He’s got a base in the district,” the Republican source said. “He brings to the table the financial resources to give Marshall a tough fight. And he’s hungry.” Marshall won reelection against retired Gen. Rick Goddard by over 14 points in 2008, but his district broke for Sen. John McCain on the presidential level by a double-digit margin. Expect Scott’s announcement soon: Georgia’s filing deadline is Friday.

Saturday, April 3, 2010

A drag queen in Congress?












Is it just me.... or does Cynthia McKinney look like Hank Johnson in drag? Take a look at they way the handle their job, and then you decide.

A real Democrat......




And just when we thought we had made an improvement over Cynthia McKinney, we find that her replacement is just as nutty, if not worse. Its bad enough for the voters of the district to have these two morons representing them in Washington, but it's downright embarrassing for the state of Georgia as a whole. I think our dear Mr. Johnson (I'm sorry but I can't seem to call him a Congressman), needs to take a basic course in geology. Now he thinks that Guam will capsize, I guess he'll next be afraid that Denver, the Mile-High city, will float away.... It's the perfect explanation of why the Democrat mascot is a jackass.

Healthcare Deform


Greetings comrades! Are you readers rejoicing, as I, the fact that we are now citizens of a new socialist republic? No longer must we labor and concern ourselves with providing for our own security, health, or welfare. We may now eat our fill of Big Mac's and pizzas, and the filthy rich will foot the bill to solve all our medical ills. May our great Comrade Obama have a memorial placed in Washington where we grateful masses may reflect on his triumphant reversal of over 230 years of American personal liberties. Do you agree?

President Abraham Lincoln once stated that if this country ever came undone, it would not be from without, but would be from within. My friends, that is what transpired in Congress over these past few weeks, our beloved country has been undone. Three generations have now fought and died to preserve our freedoms, and the freedoms of others, from socialism and communism. We won the Cold War abroad, only to sold out by aging hippies, bra burners, and new age liberals here at home. Yes, these are our current leaders in Washington who, like the old Merle Haggard song, "love our milk and honey, but preach about some better way of living". Now look, we can all agree that something had to be done to curb rising healthcare and insurance costs. But we screamed, I repeat, SCREAMED at the top of our lungs that this is NOT what we wanted. But yet, once again, the American majority went unheard and utterly ignored. We asked for limits on the malpractice suits that increase our insurance costs, the liberal courts struck them down. We asked for fewer government regulations and interference in healthcare, we received a new government bureaucracy. We asked to let competition between private insurance, healthcare providers, and drug companies drive down costs. Instead we get a government option that will put private companies out of business, drive up costs, and deliver poor services and results. We have enjoyed freedom of choice in planning our healthcare options as families and small-business, and now we'll be penalized and fined if we don't buy into a government run option. I know this plays like a broken record, but name one thing the federal government runs efficiently today.

The experts, if you can call them that, say Obamacare will only cost a mere $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Yeah right, since when has our federal government been good at budget predictions? As the screws tighten on families and small businesses, and as our government taxes the heck out of private insurers who compete with them, the number of uninsured will rise and be forced into the government plan. 30 million uninsured Americans will balloon to 60,70,80 million or more, and the costs will skyrocket to $500 billion a year. My generation suddenly has the prospect of not only having an insolvent Social Security program when we retire, but also a healthcare program that will tax us to death and be run like a VA. Retiring in the Caribbean is suddenly looking so much better for my family.

But perhaps the liberal plan is to let this pay for itself through attrition. How can it do that? It's simple adding and subtracting. Americans who work and pay income and social security taxes are between the ages of 18-65, right? You "add" more money from this group through new taxes on just about everything from their personal income, their employers income, heck even the hot dogs at a Braves game may have a new "fat" tax added. But after the age of 65 two things happen. First is the obvious fact that these Americans tend to retire and draw Social Security benefits, and the second is that their health tends to fail at a much quicker rate than younger age groups. It's the age where Americans cease to be "contributors" to the federal government and quickly become "users" of federal benefits. Therefore you "subtract" from this group by limiting the health care and services these seniors receive. Older Americans will be denied operations and treatments that would keep them with us, the life expectancy for this group falls, and the government stays in the black. Fewer people live long enough to draw social security and medical benefits they paid a lifetime for. Nice plan for all, except our senior citizens.

Then there are the comparisons between ourselves and Europe, "If they can do it, why can't we?" Here is why. The nations of Europe can afford socialism solely because we have protected their butts for 60 years with our armed forces. They've been creating a costly cradle to grave society because they spend but a tiny fraction of their budgets on defense, and we even help pay for what little they do spend. They know that you can't have both guns and butter, and so they chose the butter and let Uncle Sam provide the guns. You would think that we learned this little lesson in the 60's when President Johnson launched Medicare and other sweeping welfare programs, while trying to fight a war in Vietnam. The economy tanked, our budget ballooned, and only by dipping into Social Security was it able to balance out. Now we're fighting two wars, throwing money away on "stimulus" programs, and now this?

Now for the sweet secret to this madness. Most of these changes won't take effect until 2014, with the first major tax increases to be delivered only in 2013. Why do you suppose that is? It's to keep the most drastic portions of this legislation, those regarding YOUR care and how to fund this abomination from taking effect until our President, and his politburo, are safely re-elected in 2012. You will see little change until after these elections, and then WHAM! As the hangover from another inauguration wears off, your employer, your insurance, and your wallet are going to be hit by federal pickpockets, on a scale never seen before. They are hoping that your world will go on as it is now, and you will skip happily to the polls thinking that conservatives had healthcare reform pegged all wrong. Don't be played for a fool people. Hold fast against this so-called reform, and let your government officials know where YOU stand on the issue.