"A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men
from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
(Thomas Jefferson)

Thursday, September 30, 2010

The Big Mac Attack on ObamaCare

This is only the beginning. We need to remember that Pelosi said the Healthcare Bill had to be passed to know what was in it. Now that we are learning exactly what is in the bill more and more people are waking up to the fact it is a bad bill. More and more people have joined the call to repeal the bill and start over.

McDonald's is a perfect example of the failure of the Obamacare bill as discussed in this IBD editorial -- how many other companies are going to do away with health benefits or is that what Obama wanted?

The Big Mac Attack On ObamaCare

Posted 06:53 PM ET, Sep 30, 2010

President Obama promised that workers could keep their health insurance, but McDonald's hourly employees may lose their "mini-med" plans unless the... View Enlarged Image
Health Care: A big employer mulls dropping health insurance coverage due to ObamaCare's mandates. The claim that if you like your plan you can keep it was a lie, and the effort to destroy private insurance is working.

The 30,000 or so hourly workers at McDonald's undoubtedly like the health care plan their employer provides and would like to keep it. For $14 a week, a worker gets a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000; $32 a week gets you coverage up to $10,000.

They get minimum coverage at a minimum price, but most younger workers are healthy and for that reason, they constitute a high percentage of the uninsured. What McDonald's Corp. offers is not a one-size-fits-all nanny-state special that forces young males to pay for mammograms.

President Obama promised that under ObamaCare these workers could keep these plans, but McDonald's has told federal regulators in a memo that it would be "economically prohibitive" for its insurance carrier to continue to cover its hourly workers unless it receives a waiver to the ObamaCare requirement that 80% of premiums for such "mini-med" plans be spent on medical care.

Other large employers who offer such plans could find themselves in the same dilemma — companies like Home Depot, CVS, Staples and Blockbuster. The net result for many would be going from minimal coverage that fits their current needs to no coverage at all — at least until 2014, when ObamaCare is in full swing.

Democrats wanted the requirement, called a medical loss ratio or MLR, to guarantee insurers wouldn't squander premiums on things like marketing while competing with other insurers.

McDonald's and others say the MLR is unrealistic because of high administrative costs due to high worker turnover.

This administration doesn't understand how businesses operate and really doesn't care. As for private insurers, the White House doesn't care if they're driven out of business due to higher costs. We now know health care premiums and costs will rise due to Obama-Care, another health care reform lie.

The Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that "premiums for millions of American families in 2016 will be 10% — 13% higher than they otherwise would be. This represents a $2,100 increase per family, compared with the status quo."

Such plans are examples of the innovative ways to provide both coverage and choice private insurers can provide, but such "niche" products are in danger. We recently commented on how major insurers have dropped or will drop "child-only" policies because of the ObamaCare requirement that children with pre-existing conditions be covered without question.

Excerpt: Read more at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=549026">IBD

Cong Mike Pence On the Record with Greta about House Adjournment before Voting on Tax Cuts

Pence Goes On the Record to Discuss the Need to Stop Democrat Tax Hikes

"Members of Congress are going to adjourn the Congress to go home so they can work to save their jobs with not having lifted a finger to protect the jobs of millions of Americans”

Washington, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, talked about the Democrats leaving town without offering a vote to stop tax hikes with Greta Van Susteren On the Record:


Rep. Pence: “It really is unconscionable, Greta. Congress is going to finish up in a couple hours. But earlier today they actually passed, Democrats passed, by one vote, an adjournment motion that's going to allow Members of Congress to head home to work on saving their jobs without doing a thing to protect the jobs of millions of Americans that are going to be facing higher taxes in January of next year. Republicans fought it. It’s amazing, 39 Democrats actually voted with Republicans against adjourning. And we have dozens of Democrats who have said they are willing to support extending all of the current tax relief, but that's not what they are doing. We are going to adjourn Congress so folks can go home to campaign with having done nothing to ensure that Americans won't face a tax increase in January.”


Rep. Pence: “Well, I don't know how it is our fault. Republicans have made it very, very clear that we believe that the last thing you want to do in the worst economy in the last 25 years is raise taxes on anybody. We've been calling for a full extension of all the current tax relief for every American. But look, the American people aren't very interested in the blame game and the finger-pointing between the House, the Senate Republicans and Democrats. What they would like to see is the bipartisan majority just down the hallway that wants to extend all the tax cuts to get an up or down vote. But when the gavel falls tonight, Members of Congress are going to adjourn the Congress to go home so they can work to save their jobs with not having lifted a finger to protect the jobs of millions of Americans from taxes and a tax increase in January.”


Rep. Pence: “I saw your show last night, that's where I learned about the New York Times editorial. And I don’t agree with the New York Times. I believe we should extend all the current tax relief. Make sure no American, no small business sees a tax hike in January of next year. But you have to give them credit for telling the Democrats, “Hey step up, man-up, take a vote.” If you think a tax increase in January is the way to go, then take the vote. What we've done here is seen the Democrat majority literally just punt. And they are putting politics ahead of prosperity. I think the American people are going to see through it. I think a lot of these members of Congress are going to get off the plane tomorrow and I think they are going to get an earful from their constituents. They are going to say, ‘What are you doing here when you have done nothing to prevent a tax increase in January from taking effect?’”

Government-controlled companies should not have PACs

That has to be the understatement of the day. Learning General Motors brought their PAC back to life for this election while being owned by the Federal Government is an outrage. Cannot believe the people at GM cannot see how much of an outrage this is, but then they have been deaf to consumer complaints for years.

This is wrong on so many levels and any Republicans who have money from the GM PAC in their campaign coffers need to return them. Would say return them ASAP, but after November 2nd would be fine so they cannot be distributed elsewhere. Actually would recommend sending them to the Federal Treasury as a tiny downpayment on the deficit and then send GM PAC a note.

We are not a huge fan of Campaign Finance Reform but we believe there should be ZERO PACs from any group or company that the Federal Government employs or owns. We have always been against Federal Unions or any organization that their members receive pay from the taxpayers having PACs. Now that the Government owns a few companies like GM, that company should not be having PACs as well.

Government-controlled companies should not have PACs
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
09/29/10 9:50 PM EDT

General Motors is controlled by the federal government, plus the governments of Canada and Ontario own minority shares. So the question becomes should such a corporation be allowed to operate a PAC and contribute to partisan candidates for federal office?

Over at Pajamas Media, Tom Blumer is making a persuasive case that the answer to that question is a decisive no:

"Despite taxpayers’ majority stake, GM has revived its PAC and has collected and distributed money from its employees to advance the company’s interests. Those interests, and the politicians and organizations which have benefited and will benefit, are, according to the company’s 'Political Contributions and Expenditures Policy,' determined 'by a Steering Committee and a separate Campaign Selection Committee appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of GM' — overseen by car czar and Mao admirer Ron Bloom ('We know that the free market is nonsense. &hellip We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun') and his clan.

"There’s nothing wrong with shareholder-owned and truly private companies doing this. Companies have a duty to ethically advance and protect their shareholders’ and owners’ interests, especially when government actions threaten their well-being. The Supreme Court ruled in January that companies, labor unions, and others are free to do this, and that Congress’s past efforts to limit their giving have been unconstitutional."

So, what's the problem? According to Blumer:

"Legalities aside, GM is self-evidently different. First, the policy statement cited earlier also permits 'corporate funds and facilities &hellip (to) be used to provide the administrative support for the operation of GM political action committees.' That gives a whole new meaning to 'your tax dollars at work,' doesn’t it?

"Far more critically, as long as two sovereign governments have combined majority or controlling stakes in the company, political contributions from GM’s PAC are substantively no different than if HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius started taking collections from her employees and then gave the money directly to congressmen, senators, Health Care for America Now, and anyone else who has either said good things about ObamaCare, voted for its creation, or pledged to assist in building its oncoming bureaucratic nightmare. If the president and his apparatchiks had even a passing acquaintance with ethics, they would not have allowed GM to resurrect its PAC."

To which, I can only say Amen! But there is more and Blumer has it here.

Source: Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

IL Senate: Family bank good for Giannoulias' taxes, bad for his campaign

The Democrat candidate and friend of Obama, Giannoulias, has already learned to lie in order not to pay taxes. Just think what he could do if elected to the Senate. We already know he approved loans to the mob and now we find out he scammed the IRS by claiming hours he worked at the bank while telling people on the campaign trail he no longer worked there.  Guess you could call this typical Chicago style politics.

We love this part:

Most recently, Kirk criticized Giannoulias for trying to claim he wasn't involved in the bank when Broadway approved a controversial loan for a project headed by Rezko, who was convicted in the federal corruption probe of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's administration. Giannoulias' answer has been that he wasn't involved in the bank when the loan was approved in February 2006.

In the recent interview, Giannoulias acknowledged that while he was still at Broadway when that loan was approved, he was only involved in closing out his existing accounts and knew nothing about any new loans.

"For loans like the one you're talking about (Rezko) where I had nothing to do with or my name was never on it, I don't think there's any inconsistencies," he said.
According to Giannoulias he had nothing to do with the Rezko loan and then added his name wasn't on the paperwork? Anyone want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge? Friend of Rezko, friend of Obama, and friend of Chicago Dems and he wants everyone to believe because his name was not on the loan, he didn't even know about it. If I remember right the VP of the bank who got us our mortgage didn't have his name on the paperwork either.

Last thing the US Senate needs is someone like Giannoulias who never knows anything about corruption that surrounds him.

Family bank good for Giannoulias' taxes, bad for his campaign
U.S. Senate hopeful tells voters he was gone from the ailing institution by late 2005 — but he told the IRS something else

By John Chase, Tribune reporter

12:04 a.m. CDT, September 29, 2010

U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias tells voters he was gone from his troubled family bank by late 2005, but that's not what he told the Internal Revenue Service.

Giannoulias was able to take a $2.7 million tax deduction last year because he reported working hundreds of hours at Broadway Bank in 2006.

Giannoulias says there's no contradiction, and in fact there is no suggestion the Democratic state treasurer took a tax break he didn't deserve. Rather, the issue highlights the fine line Giannoulias walks on the campaign trail in explaining exactly what he did at Broadway and when he did it.

The bank was at the top of his résumé when he was a 30-year-old first-time statewide candidate in 2006 with few professional highlights. But in his tight Senate race against Republican Mark Kirk, his tenure as a senior loan officer at Broadway is a bull's-eye for critics who hit him for the bank's loans to mob figures as well as troubled lending that contributed to Broadway's collapse earlier this year.

Saying he left in 2005 gives Giannoulias maximum distance from the bank's questionable lending practices, the April takeover by federal regulators and other controversies such as a loan by the bank to convicted influence peddler Antoin "Tony" Rezko in early 2006.

But by reporting that he worked at least 500 hours at Broadway in 2006, Giannoulias was able to get a break that helped him avoid paying federal income tax for 2009.

Giannoulias said he has been clear that he left the "day-to-day" operations of the bank in September 2005 to prepare his first run for public office, but was on paid leave until May 2006 when he left completely to campaign full time for treasurer.

That 2006 work consisted of roughly 30 hours a week closing out his responsibilities before quitting as a bank officer, and didn't involve making new loans, Giannoulias explained in a recent interview. It was more than enough to qualify him for the tax break, he said.

IRS regulations allow taxpayers to deduct business losses from certain types of corporations if they've logged significant hours there for five of the last 10 years. Giannoulias started at the bank in 2002, so working at least 500 hours in 2006 qualifies Giannoulias for the tax break.

Before leaving day-to-day operations in September 2005, "I was there, I think I worked seven days a week," Giannoulias said.

Asked what he was doing at the bank in early 2006, Giannoulias said, "I think the biggest difference is I wasn't taking on new customers. I was just finishing up what I needed to do, so I don't know how the hours worked out, but it wasn't a full-time job.

Excerpt: Read More at Chicago Tribune


We found this part of the report alarming:

Despite the President’s rhetoric, the economy is not turning around and
people are not getting back to work. When President Obama took office, the
unemployment rate was 7.6 percent; it’s now 9.6 percent.3 President Obama’s
central economic policy—namely, the $814 billion stimulus package passed in
2009—has manifestly failed to lower unemployment.4 "The Obama team has
blown it," said David Resler of Nomura Securities.

The Obama Administration’s Regulatory Uncertainty

Meanwhile, prospects for a robust economic recovery are bleak. There are
many reasons for this: one stems from the regulatory uncertainty created by the Obama Administration. Anti-business rules and regulations across federal agencies and departments have left employers wary of hiring or expanding. According to economist Mark Zandi,
businesses “are just nervous about a great deal of the policy uncertainty
coming out of Washington.”

In June, Ivan Seidenberg, the chairman of the Business Roundtable, an
organization representing more than 12 million employees, said the Obama
Administration is responsible for creating “an increasingly hostile
environment for investment and job creation.” He said further that policy
changes and regulatory actions “harm our ability…to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S.”
What do the new regulations mean to our oil refineries? Will the new regulations put some of the smaller refineries out of business that don't have the resources to upgrade while costing the big oil companies that own the huge refineries huge dollar mounts to comply? Is this what Obama and his EPA are up to -- putting refineries out of business so we have to rely on foreign oil.

At the same time, they are causing a hostile environment for other industries that will be more likely to move jobs overseas to produce their products.

EPA is an agency out of control and needs its wings clipped. In fact, EPA should no longer be their own agency but be brought back under one of the cabinet positions like Energy. They have done enough harm in the last 20 years with their ozone figures that keep decreasing the amount of particulates you can have in the air so that a farm in the middle of nowhere soon will not be in compliance.

Their reformulated gas regulations required in a lot of areas to protect the air quality is being determined to cause may cause pinging or premature burn in engines with excessive carbon deposits which could lead to needless wear and tear on the engines of vehicles that are forced to use it at 10 cents more a gallon. EPA found that the use of oxygenated fuels and RFG causes a small decrease (1-3%) in fuel economy. Now we learn that it takes more fuel to drive the same distance with reformulated gas so in addition to the 10 cents, it is also costing more for gas and causing wear and tear on the engines of newer vehicles. Doesn't seem to be a lot of common sense shown by the EPA especially when you learn they keep dropping the numbers for air quality to be in compliance.

This report released by Senator Inhofe is a real eye opener and needs widespread distribution. When you read the report of what the EPA is doing to manufacturing in America, it should make you livid and demand that the EPA be brought under control.  As we said before, we don't believe it should have ever been made a cabinet position as they have become uncontrollable especially under Democrat Administrations when they get a leftist in charge.

Once again Senator Inhofe and Republican members of the minority on this committee have come through for the American people. It is up to us to put pressure on the Administration and Democrats to make sure manufacturing is protected. How ironic that the Republicans who the unions work against in elections are the ones standing up for manufacturing jobs to stay in the United States while the Democrats with their regulations on manufacturing are ensuring jobs are sent overseas. You would think the unions would get a clue one of these days.

Jobs, Economic Growth, and Environmental Progress at Risk

Link to Press Release

FOX NEWS: Senate Report Warns of Obama Job-Killing Regulations:

EPW Report Shows New EPA Rules Will Cost More Than 800,000 jobs -- Listen to Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) interview interview with Ed Morrissey:

Washington, DC-Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, released today a new EPW Minority staff report titled, "EPA's Anti-Industrial Policy: Threatening Jobs and America's Manufacturing Base," which chronicles a series of EPA proposals that could destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, many in the industrial heartland, raise energy prices for consumers, and undermine the global competitiveness of America's manufacturers.

The report reviewed the following proposals:

- New standards for commercial and industrial boilers: up to 798,250 jobs at risk;

- New standards for Portland Cement plants: up to 18 cement plants at risk of shutting down, threatening nearly 1,800 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs;

- The Endangerment Finding/Tailoring Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: higher energy costs; jobs moving overseas; severe economic impacts on the poor, the elderly, minorities, and those on fixed incomes; 6.1 million sources subject to EPA control and regulation; and

- The revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone: severe restrictions on job creation and business expansion in hundreds of counties nationwide.

Sen. Inhofe:

"I have great personal respect for EPA Administrator Jackson, but we disagree fundamentally on EPA's policies and the economic and financial harm they pose for consumers, workers, and small businesses. The record as outlined in this Minority report, which includes EPA's own analysis, is very clear: EPA will make consumers pay more for electricity, shut down the local factory, and give Chinese firms a decisive advantage over America's manufacturers, which are struggling to meet the agency's bureaucratic mandates.

"The irony of EPA's agenda is that, along with higher costs, it will fail to provide the American people with meaningful environmental benefits. In some cases, it will actually impose environmental harm, as EPA's ever-increasing mandates shift production to China, where technology and standards don't measure up to our own.

"Our task ahead is to bring balance back to federal clean air policy, so that economic growth, job creation, and environmental progress can coexist, rather than be in conflict with each other."

U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.): "The regulatory obligations under the Obama administration's EPA are set to kick the legs out from an already limping economy. It will be almost impossible for Congress to compensate for the jobs that will be lost under the regulatory burden of an ambitious and ever-growing EPA bureaucratic scheme that is crushing every sector of American business."

U.S. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo): "When we ask 'Where are the jobs?' this report answers that by showing how the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is killing American jobs and sending them overseas."

U.S. Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio): "During my tenure on the Senate EPW Committee, I have worked hard to enact common sense environment and energy policies that protect our environment while enhancing our economic competitiveness. Time after time, these efforts have been met by firm resistance from environmental zealots and an out-of-touch federal bureaucracy.

"Now, when America families are struggling under the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, EPA has launched an aggressive campaign of regulations, red tape and backdoor energy taxes that will undercut our efforts to create jobs and further erode America's global competitiveness. We should be doing everything we can to create jobs and grow our economy - that includes stopping unelected bureaucrats from raising energy costs and using regulatory red tape to stifle our economy. We must put our nation's environment and energy policy back into Congress' hands."

Source:  Email and EPW Blog

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet

We understand the need of law enforcement to be able to follow what criminals or terrorists are are doing but is this new law the Obama Administration wants to pass the way to go?

Several privacy and technology advocates argued that requiring interception capabilities would create holes that would inevitably be exploited by hackers.

Steven M. Bellovin, a Columbia University computer science professor, pointed to an episode in Greece: In 2005, it was discovered that hackers had taken advantage of a legally mandated wiretap function to spy on top officials’ phones, including the prime minister’s.

“I think it’s a disaster waiting to happen,” he said. “If they start building in all these back doors, they will be exploited.”

Would Obama and his Administration have ordered a tap on Republican Leader Boehner the way Obama has attacked him and now sent out the attack dogs to make up rumors? That is one thing that bothers us with the amount of thugs this Administration uses to do the bidding through organizations like SEIU or Nation of Islam that was sent to parts of the Country during the election of 2008. Now we wonder if those Nation of Islam were tied to the New Black Panthers and working together during the primary against Hillary and then in the general election in some places.

This is one of those subjects that it is not clear cut. We will have to see the bill that is submitted before drawing a conclusion. It is important to keep an eye on what happens when they send this bill to Congress. Will there be enough safeguards? Only time will tell.

U.S. Tries to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet
Published: September 27, 2010

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

Excerpt: Read More at New York Times

Monday, September 27, 2010

CNN’s Kiran Chetry Interviews Rick Scott (Video and Transcript)

One thing that jumped out at us in this interview was CNN's Chetry bringing up the Mason-Dixon poll showing Alex Sink ahead.  That's the same polling organization that showed Scott losing by nine points two days before the primary. We questioned their primary poll because the feel on the ground and the poll numbers were not matching in the primary.   That current poll is so different from Rasmussen who has Scott up six points that we have to wonder once again about what Mason-Dixon uses to get their numbers.  Leave it to CNN to choose the poll that shows Scott down. 

We also don't believe Mason-Dixon now with showing so many Republicans voting for the liberal Alex Sink. We don't see that happening no matter how much of a fit Bill McCollum, the primary loser, throws.   There is something really strange about McCollum's reaction after losing to Scott in the Republican primary. 

McCollum bringing up that he might support Sink who is liberal while McCollum declares himself a conservative Republican didn't add up then and doesn't now unless something else is at play.

Could the real reason McCollum might support Sink as Governor is to protect himself from any investigation concerning the State Board of Administration the St. Petersberg Times Editorial took to task last week.  This Board as highlighted in the St. Pete Times editorial is run by Crist, McCollum, and Sink.  The three managed to  run Florida's finances into the ground with bad investments, but claim it is Wall Street's fault.  Surprised the three didn't blame Bush.  Lack of taking responsibility is evident with Sink, Crist, and McCollum which brings into question why voters would want any of the three in office.

If there was an investigation launched with Sink as Governor, would it be out of the realm to expect her to kill any investigation to protect herself, Crist, and McCollum.  The three know Scott is all about cleaning up Tallahassee so in the future boards like the State Board of Administration cannot act against the best interests of Florida residents.  Is McCollum afraid that Scott and the Republican legislature will launch an investigation that will ensnare him that he would support the liberal Sink?  Are the three working together to beat Scott?   Some enterprising reporter in Florida should be asking those questions.
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL - Rick Scott talked about his 7-7-7 Jobs Plan with CNN's Kiran Chetry


CHETRY: 40 minutes past the hour right now. Welcome back to the Most Politics in the Morning. Well, he shocked the GOP establishment in Florida on primary night. Now Rick Scott is the Republican's nominee for governor. His father was a truck driver, his mother was a sales clerk at JC Penny. He's a self-made millionaire and Scott's also a political rookie who only jumped into the race in April. But because of the Tea Party support he had and $50 million of his own fortune behind him, he was able to come from behind and win.

So today we meet the candidate Rick Scott. He's here with us this morning.

Thanks so much for joining us.


CHETRY: You do have a unique story when it comes to how you got into politics in the first place. In a time like this, when it's so contentious, and when there are so many huge problems, why would you want the job of CEO of Florida?

SCOTT: Well, I believe in the American Dream. I started out in public housing. My parents, my father was a truck driver. Back then, truck drivers got laid off a lot. I know what it's like to be unemployed, have parents unemployed. And I've lived the American Dream. I want that same dream for my daughters, my son-in-laws, my grandkids, and everybody in Florida. We have got to change this country.

I'm running because I believe that we've got to go back and build private sector jobs. My whole plan is seven steps to 700,000 jobs. I'm going to turn the state around.

CHETRY: And those are certainly good goals to have. Florida's been suffering, as well. But there's a recent Mason/Dixon poll out that takes a look at the political realities. It has you seven points behind Alex Sink, who is your Democratic competitor. She's with 47; you're with 40. When you look at the Republicans, they're only behind you 75 percent. I know it was a bit of an ugly primary there. And so 11 percent of them are going for Alex Sink.

How do you get your own base behind you in higher numbers and then move on to the Independents?

SCOTT: Well, as you know, Mason/Dixon had me down nine points two days before the primary, too, and I won that. This race is about jobs. In the primary I won because people believed I could build private sector jobs because that's all I've done. November 2 will be the same thing.

The latest Rasmussen Poll shows me up six points. But polls are not what's important. It's who is going to build jobs in this country? In our state, you know, we've had out migration for the first time in 40 years. And we need to build are private sector jobs. So my plan, seven steps to 700,000 jobs is a plan people believe in. Republicans, Democrats, Independents, all of us believe in this.

CHETRY: You can't get your primary opponent, though, to endorse you.

How much do you need Bill McCollum to say, the past is in the past, I'm getting behind Rick Scott?

SCOTT: It'd be nice if Bill McCollum endorsed me. It's hard for him, he's been in politics for 30 years. But my focus is on -- just like I did in that primary -- go right out and talk to voters. Talk to Independents, Republicans, and Democrats, and talk about what we need. We need jobs, jobs, jobs. And I'm going to be the jobs governor. We're going to control government spending, we're going to reduce regulation, we're going to phase out business tax, we're going to reduce property tax. And I'm going to be the chief economic development officer for the state and I'm going to build jobs in the state. We're going to be the number one job creator.

CHETRY: How do you create jobs at the same time having to balance of budget that may require some paring down, which means job losses?

SCOTT: The private sector builds jobs not government. As more money goes back to the private sector, goes back to your family, goes back to business people, they'll build their companies.

Look, we are the perfect state for growth. No income tax, right to work state, beautiful beaches, beautiful weather. Look at our location, the growth in Central/South America, the expansion of the Panama Canal. We will be the job creator.

CHETRY: I want to ask you about some of the criticisms. You have this Medicare fraud case against your former company, when you were at Columbia Healthcare. A little bit of baggage because the company had to pay a $1.7 billion fine.

Does it make it hard for voters to trust you if they say, wait a minute, when you were chief executive -- when you were heading up this former company, you guys cheated the federal government?

SCOTT: Well, you know what I tell people is, if you're the CEO of the company, you have to take responsibility for everything that happens. So, that company made mistakes, I take responsibility. We have could've hired more, should have hired more auditors. But that's a difference between a business person and a politician. A business person takes responsibility. When things go poorly, you know you have to show up and fix things. Politicians don't.

Look at where we are. In Florida, we have the highest unemployment on record. We have 44 percent of our homeowners underwater on their mortgages. Who's taking responsibility? We're walking into a budget deficit. What they know is I believe in responsibility. I will fix problems. Hopefully nothing will go wrong when I'm governor, but what they'll know is I'll take responsibility. But this election is about jobs. Jobs, jobs, jobs. And I've got the plan to do that.

CHETRY: I want to take a look at the campaign ad Republicans have out against your competitor Alex Sink.

Let's take a look.


CHETRY: So, PolitiFact, which is the web site that fact checks the accuracy of statements by elected officials gave this ad a "barely true," because they said it really wasn't just Alex Sink making the decisions here. So you just said a CEO of a company, you have to admit you were wrong.

Are you unfairly saying she was in charge of this decision.

SCOTT: For the last few years, she's been a chief financial officer of the state. She should make sure these things don't happen. She was told by auditors multiple times that their investments were way too risky. That should never have happened. She's the chief financial officer of the state. She's responsible for this. And they lost $24 billion of pension money for Floridians. That's a big problem.

CHETRY: How influential is the Tea Party for you? I talked to people who have joked around that you're a Tea Cosy, not necessarily a real Tea Party candidate.

But, how do you plan to draw on their support to hopefully win in Florida?

SCOTT: Most of the leaders in the Tea Party movement in Florida have endorsed me because I believe in what they believe in. I believe in limited government, I believe in fiscal responsibility. I believe in watching how we spend our dollars. And so they've supported me. I'm the Republican candidate. I welcome their support no different than I welcome, you know, all Republicans, all the Independents, all Democrats. Because this is an election again, this is about jobs and that's why people are supporting me. They know that's all I've done my whole life. I started out in public housing. I've started companies and I've built jobs forever.

CHETRY: Well it's great to talk to you this morning. Rick Scott, Florida's gubernatorial candidate, thanks so much for joining us.

SCOTT: Thank you very much.

Source: CNN

Liberal S.F. Chronicle refuses to endorse Barbara Boxer

When we first heard this, we had to go see for ourselves as the idea of the SF Chronicle not endorsing Boxer never entered our mind. They might as well have gone all in and endorsed her opponent Carley Fiorina with this editorial. The Chronicle editorial writers said exactly what we have always thought of Boxer -- what has she really done? She couldn't even handle the climate change bill as everything she touches becomes polarizing and John Kerry had to step into the fight which they are still losing. Boxer won't even ride in the same elevator with Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe.

Since people like Boxer were elected to the Senate, the days of Senators fighting like cats and dogs on the floor and having dinner together have gone out the door. The David Boren's and Sam Nunn's have been replaced by arrogance in the form of Senators like Boxer and Hillary when she was still in the Senate which has been bad for America.

If someone needs a good reason to vote for Fiorina, this editorial is it. If I was advising the Fiorina campaign, I would tell them to use this editorial for a great TV ad. When the Chronicle won't endorse Boxer, then the voters should defeat her for the very same reasons.

California needs to send a Senator like Carley Fiorina to DC who will represent California not her own special interest like Boxer. Arrogance personifies Boxer like the video shows:

We were appalled the day she told the General to call her Senator not ma'am and are still appalled at the arrogance of Boxer that day. That seemed to be the most important part of her questioning that she be called Senator and said a lot about Boxer as a person -- spoiled! Boxer may vote liberal but she does not represent the best interests of California or America.

Liberal S.F. Chronicle refuses to endorse Barbara Boxer
By: David Freddoso
Online Opinion Editor
09/27/10 10:40 AM EDT

You’re not alone if you didn’t see this one coming. From their editorial, posted yesterday:

It is extremely rare that this editorial page would offer no recommendation on any race, particularly one of this importance. This is one necessary exception.

Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone’s list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. Although she is chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is telling that leadership on the most pressing issue before it – climate change – was shifted to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., because the bill had become so polarized under her wing.

For some Californians, Boxer’s reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve more than a usually correct vote on issues they care about. They deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.

Read more at the Washington Examiner from David Freddoso

Air Force Flyovers at NFL Games -- Must See Ending!

This was sent to me by a very good friend -- Enjoy!

Having just witnessed the flyovers at the OU/Air Force game here in Norman on 18 September, enjoyed seeing how they put the flyovers together but the best was the ending! A reminder to all of us how we need to support our military by voting on November 2nd!

Saturday, September 25, 2010

More on Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case from Politico: Prosecutor alleges DOJ bias ...

This article from Josh Gerstein, Politico, is one of the best reports we have seen by anyone on the testimony by the former DOJ Prosecutor Christopher Coates on Friday concerning the dropping of the Black Panther Voter Intimidation case by the Obama DOJ leadership.  The first whistle blower, J. Christian Adams, the DOJ attacked as being partisan after his allegations and testimony but the same cannot be said for Christopher Coates who testified on Friday:
Coates’ highly-charged testimony before the Civil Rights Commission echoed those allegations, as well as the testimony of J. Christian Adams, one of Coates’ colleagues in the voting rights section. However, Coates’s charges may carry greater weight because he worked decades ago as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, has won awards from civil rights groups and lacks the partisan GOP resume of the department’s harshest opponents.
We now have a US Prosecutor Coates who is leveling the same charges and more against the DOJ for dropping these charges.  In fact the head of the Civil Rights Commission thanked Prosecutor Coates for the risk he was taking to testify when he defied his superiors.  The DOJ ordered him not to testify but he declared himself a whistle blower and testified on Friday.  Is Holder and and other Obama political appointees in DOJ using intimidation themselves to try to shut down the truth?

A Justice Department prosecutor says it discourages
 equal civil rights enforcement.  Reuters
Prosecutor alleges Department of Justice bias..

By JOSH GERSTEIN | 9/24/10 10:52 AM EDT Updated: 9/25/10 9:01 AM EDT

A Justice Department prosecutor defied his superiors by testifying at a U.S. Civil Rights Commission hearing Friday, where he leveled an explosive allegation: top officials in the department gutted a voter intimidation case against a fringe African American militant group because the suspects were black and their alleged victims were white.

The prosecutor, Christopher Coates, also said the downgrading of the case against the New Black Panther Party was evidence of a Justice Department culture which discouraged “race neutral” enforcement of civil rights laws, frowned on prosecuting minority perpetrators and folded under pressure from black and Latino rights groups. After President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder took office, the culture intensified, Coates told the panel, ultimately leading to his departure as chief of the voting rights section early this year.

“They have not pursued the goal of equal protection of the law for all people,” he said.

Justice department officials, however, have vigorously defended their management of the Panthers’ case, in which two members of the small group allegedly attempted to intimidate voters at a Philadelphia polling place during the 2008 general election. Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler in a statement Friday derided the Civil Rights Commission for its “so-called investigation” that is “thin on facts and evidence and thick on rhetoric.”

"The Department makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved,” Schmaler said. “We are committed to comprehensive and vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that prohibit voter intimidation.”

But activists on the right have complained that Holder and the White House did not vigorously pursue the case because the victims were white – a claim that has now become a widespread talking point among Obama’s conservative critics. The right cried foul last year when Justice officials dropped the case against the NBPP and two defendants for lack of evidence and sought a watered-down injunction against the bearer of a nightstick who allegedly carried it to threaten whites.

Coates’ highly-charged testimony before the Civil Rights Commission echoed those allegations, as well as the testimony of J. Christian Adams, one of Coates’ colleagues in the voting rights section. However, Coates’s charges may carry greater weight because he worked decades ago as an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, has won awards from civil rights groups and lacks the partisan GOP resume of the department’s harshest opponents.

In July, Adams told the commission that the pattern of prosecuting white suspects while ignoring minority ones was part of a “lawless” atmosphere, and the handling of the New Black Panther Party case led him to resign in 2009. Since leaving the department, Adams has been an outspoken critic on the right, appearing on Fox News and writing withering articles for conservative publications.

Commission Chairman Gerald Reynolds said Coates “appears here at great personal risk to himself. I’d like to thank Mr. Coates for his courage in appearing today.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42676.html#ixzz10Yk5QPBy

This was clear cut case of voter intimidation from the video but because they are black some pundits seem to think that it was okay to drop the case.  After all, blacks suffered through years of voter intimidation in the south according to some pundits.  Even if true in the past, it doesn't give them the right to intimidate any voter today.   Wonder how pundits would react if they went to vote and had these two guys standing in front of the polling place?  Might be singing a different tune of voter intimidation.

This wasn't the only case of voter intimidation in 2008 -- the intimidation against voters supporting Hillary has been documented in "We Will Not be Silenced" documentary by Gigi Gaston. Fox News has an interview with Gaston about the documentary that depicts the voter intimidation and fraud by the Obama Administration in the primary especially at the caucus level.  Video and stories have been sent in by Democrats from all over the Country detailing the intimidation and fraud.

On their website,We Will Not Be Silenced is a longer preview cut of this documentary.

Is voter intimidation what lies ahead in 2010 since it has been sanctioned by the DOJ in 2008 or are they waiting for Obama to run again in 2012? Cannot fathom showing up to vote and seeing some guy holding a night stick dressed all in black -- not sure I would want to go into that polling place to vote. If that is not voter intimidation nothing is.

The bottom line of Obama and this Administration seems to be if it is voter intimidation against whites that is okay because it is payback.  With that mentality it looks like whites do not have the same equal voting rights now as blacks according to Obama and the Holder DOJ.  Blacks are permitted to do whatever they want to keep whites from voting is how we view their action.  Will the Obama thugs be out in full force in 2012 to silence any potential candidate like they did to Hillary in 2008?

Every voter needs to be aware of their surroundings when they vote on November 2nd.  If there any hint of intimidation they need to contact the authorities and document what happened.  This voter intimidation in 2008 by the Black Panthers in the general election and the Obama thugs in the Democrat primary cannot be tolerated.  Do we need foreign poll watchers now to make sure our elections are honest.  After ACORN, SEIU, and the Black Panthers, it sure sounds like it. 

St. Petersburg Times Editorial: Full Accounting Needed At State Board Of Administration (SBA)

The last paragraph of this editorial says it all:

National embarrassment may succeed where old-fashioned accountability hasn't. Just this week, Congress' Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission sought documents aimed at understanding the forces at play when the SBA bought the tainted securities. That should force Crist, McCollum and Sink to provide a full public explanation of what happened inside the SBA in 2007 rather than place all of the blame on Wall Street. Such accounting is long overdue to the people of Florida.
Every resident of the state of Florida needs to read this editorial before voting. To sum it up, the voters dodged a bullet by Republicans electing Rick Scott instead of Bill McCollum as their candidate for Governor, and choosing Marco Rubio early over Charlie Crist which made Crist run as the 'NO PARTY' candidate. That leaves voters with the choice of Alex Sink as the Democrat nominee for Governor which is easily rectified by voting for Rick Scott for Florida Governor and turning out the three -- Crist, McCollum, and Sink who with their risky investments basically have tanked the State of Florida while blaming Wall Street.

The latest revelations cast a far different light on the official version of events offered by the SBA after the securities were given junk status in late 2007, prompting local governments to make a run on the SBA's Local Government Investment Pool. It suggests that SBA trustees — Gov. Charlie Crist, Attorney General Bill McCollum and Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink — either are clueless regarding the facts or are shamefully willing to misrepresent them. Once again the agency, which invests about $140 billion in government assets, has broken faith with Floridians.
Seems every ad that Alex Sink runs sinks herself when she touts her experience as the best answer for Florida especially this time when she uses her role at the SBA as a reason to vote for her. Her role at the SBA is one of the best reasons to vote against her.

Does she have a plan like Rick Scott? Not that we have seen -- her plan seems to be I am honest so you can trust me. With the way she has handled the investments for the State of Florida, would say that trusting Alex Sink to be Governor is like inviting the wolf into the hen house.

St. Petersburg Times Editorial: Full Accounting Needed At State Board Of Administration

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL – The morning after Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink released a campaign advertisement touting her role at the SBA, the St. Petersburg Times published a scathing editorial that raises serious questions about her competence and accountability.

Full Accounting Needed At State Board Of Administration
St. Petersburg Times Editorial


It's possible the Florida State Board of Administration wasn't fully informed by Wall Street brokers three years ago when it cavalierly bought exotic mortgage-related securities just weeks before the credit markets crashed. But newly disclosed e-mails and internal documents show SBA staff members were just as eager to buy the securities as Wall Street was to sell. It was a reckless pursuit of higher returns that disregarded federal regulations, and those SBA staffers involved should have been fired.


St. Petersburg Times' Sydney Freedberg reported this week that SBA money managers sought for years to circumvent decades-old federal regulation specifically aimed at protecting less-sophisticated investors, such as local municipalities or school boards, from dabbling in risky, unregistered securities. In 2007, the principal manager of the LGIP, Mike Lombardi, raised the issue again. He repeatedly sought to have the LGIP declared a "qualified institutional buyer" so he could invest its money in mortgage-related securities as he did for the state's pension account.

SBA managers never succeeded in changing the LGIP's classification. Yet Lombardi still invested hundreds of millions of dollars of the LGIP's assets, then $31 billion, in unregistered securities. By November 2007, many of the investments tied to the mortgage industry had been downgraded to junk status, prompting local governments to withdraw $13 billion before the trustees froze the fund.

When an outside consultant months later noted that such buys had violated federal rules as well as the agency's guidelines, the SBA claimed that they were legal under another federal code that would allow the LGIP to purchase the securities as long as they were buying from a "primary issuer." At best, that is exploiting a loophole — and some purchases didn't even qualify under that scenario.

There have been changes at the SBA since this debacle. Executive director Coleman Stipanovich quit under fire. New executive director Ash Williams insists internal controls have been tightened. The Local Government Investment Pool, now called Florida Prime, has moved to an outside money manger, tightened investment guidelines and secured a top rating from Standard & Poor's.

Trustees Crist, McCollum and Sink now meet four times a year solely to discuss the SBA and its operations in public. But that is inadequate for an agency that manages investments totaling nearly twice the state's annual budget. Crist and McCollum have summarily rejected Sink's prudent proposal to expand the SBA board of trustees to include individuals with financial backgrounds who would have more time than busy, statewide elected officials to run herd on the agency.

Besides Stipanovich, no one at SBA has been held to account. Lombardi and his two superiors forfeited annual bonuses but remain in their well-paying posts in Tallahassee. They should have been fired.

Excerpt: Read the editorial online at TampaBay.com

Friday, September 24, 2010

Pledge to America Preamble with Update from Republican Leader Boehner

UPDATE: 09/25/10 from Republican Leader Boehner's Bulletin to the already posted video:

Video: "A Pledge to America" Preamble
Posted by Press Office on September 23, 2010

This morning, Republicans unveiled “A Pledge to America,” a new governing agenda built by listening to the American people and focused on creating jobs, cutting spending, and changing the way Congress works. The Pledge begins with a preamble that speaks to the principles we stand for, the priorities of our nation, and the people’s right to alter the agenda of the government when it defies their will. The document, including the preamble, can be found at Pledge.gop.gov.

House Republicans have released a video version of the preamble:

'A Pledge to America' offers a new way forward that hasn’t been tried in Washington: an approach focused on cutting spending instead of accelerating spending, and eliminating uncertainty for the private-sector innovators and entrepreneurs who create jobs. These are the solutions the American people are demanding, and Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid should act on them before Congress adjourns for the fall.

After checking out this brief video version of the preamble, I hope you'll consider downloading a copy of 'A Pledge to America' to read in its entirety at http://pledge.gop.gov/. You can let me know what you think of the Pledge by clicking here, or visiting ‘A Pledge to America’s’ official Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/PledgeToAmerica.


John Boehner

Jari Askins, Democrat Candidate for Oklahoma Governor, Trying to Buy Yet Another Election?

Askins Trying to Buy Yet Another Election
Sep 23, 2010

(OKLAHOMA CITY) - OKGOP Chairman Matt Pinnell released the following statement today in regard to Jari Askin's campaign loans:

"According to local news reports, Jari Askins is yet again trying to buy the election for Governor of Oklahoma by placing $1 million of her own money in the race. She bought the election to beat Drew Edmondson and she's now trying do the same against Mary. Oklahomans don't want to fund the campaign of a politician who supports amnesty for illegal immigrants, voted against gun rights and won't stand up and fight Obamacare.

Mary Fallin, on the other hand, enjoys significant support from more than 5,000 donors across all 77 counties of the state. Jari Askins is hoping her personal fortune will seal the deal for her come November 2, but every Oklahoman has a stake in this fight, and only one candidate has proven she's up for the challenge- and that's Mary Fallin."

This press release says it all -- race between Mary Fallin who has over 5,000 donors from all 77 counties versus the millionaire Askins who is going to self finance her campaign once again. One candidate Mary Fallin knows what it is like to meet a household and campaign budget while the other candidate Askins just uses her personal fortune to finance her campaign.   Askins doesn't have to worry about fundraising as she runs for office as she just self finances her own campaign and saves the Democrats from having to spend their resources on her.

No wonder Askins supports the giant Obama giveaway as she has no idea what it is like to be on a budget. Askins doesn't seem to care it is taxpayer dollars including tax dollars spent for illegals.  If you never had to work hard to get what you have, you probably don't appreciate what people are going through today to make ends meet along with the resentment a lot of us have at the misuse of our tax dollars by Obama and the Democrats.

If Askins loaned her campaign $1M we would expect her campaign ads to turn nasty with some of the people she has on her staff. Why else loan her campaign $1M? Did she ever get paid back for what she spent in her Lt Governor race or the primary for Governor?

We didn't look back to when Jari Askins ran for the Oklahoma House but we know she used her own money to run for Lt Governor. Why won't Democrats donate to her? She barely beat Drew Edmondson in the primary -- we were shocked there wasn't a recount as the vote was so close. What did Askins promise Edmondson to make him concede so fast? It was so close and he didn't even wait for all the absentee ballots to come in to be counted before he conceded. Does Askins money talk when it comes to Democrat candidates? Sure looks like it to us.

Askins barely won the Lt Governor race and what has she done since becoming Lt Governor? After two pages of searching what she has done for Oklahoma as Lt Governor, the very last article on the 2nd page says she makes one trip to the Oklahoma State Fair each year to listen to voters. One trip? That's her claim to fame plus she attended five locations for the Lt Governor's turkey shoot which was started by Mary Fallin when she was Lt Governor. Reminder that Askins is for hunting but against concealed or open carry. Two entirely different issues that her campaign cannot seem to understand.

We think that Oklahoma voters are onto Askins especially when they ask themselves 'What has Askins done new for Oklahoma as Lt Governor?' All we find is that she follows what Mary Fallin started when she was Lt Governor. Mary Fallin has always been a leader in selling Oklahoma as a great place to do business and live while Askins seems to be a follower not a leader.  Askins still has not said where she stands on fighting Obamacare.  Is she afraid to get Obama upset with her?

There is only one choice in Oklahoma and that is Mary Fallin who has the most experience we have ever seen in a candidate running for the first time for Governor and is not afraid to stand up for Oklahomans against the Federal Government mandates.

Mary Fallin on her whistle stop tour through
Western Oklahoma

Democrat Governor's candidates Alex Sink and Jari Askins Avoiding Obama? Why?

Like so many Democrats who are running for Governor, two Democrat women candidates don't want to be seen with Obama. Alex Sink from Florida ran away from her own fundraiser with Obama before he took the stage. Guess she didn't want a picture with Obama like Charlie Crist. In Oklahoma, the Democrat, Jari Askins, told Obama to stay out of the state.   Are they afraid to be seen with Obama and remind voters how they both supported him and his agenda completely?

Jari Askins had the nerve to do a commercial that she was a 'conservative' which was laughable as she has a liberal voting record from her time in the Legislature even voting to keep partial birth abortion in Oklahoma but considers herself a conservative?  That one had people laughing around the state that she would think Oklahoma voters are that stupid.  We are not stupid as we only gave Obama 34% of the vote in 2008 and every county went for McCain which shows 2/3's of Oklahoma had Obama pegged although must admit he worse than we predicted.

In Sink's case, she was a member of Emily's List which is a very liberal organization but now wants voters to think she is more conservative than she is.  If she cannot admit she supported Obama and his liberal agenda, what makes anyone in Florida think she is telling the truth about what she would do as Governor.  Is Alex Sink another of the Democrat bait and switch candidates?  You can bet on that one!   This ad from the Scott campaign nails the Liberal Alex Sink as she speaks about Obama in her own words:

How many other Democrats running for Governor are pretending to be more conservative than they are?  After all, that was the Rahm Emanuel strategy to win seats in the House in 2006 and 2008 -- run candidates declaring they were conservative Democrats and then vote once they were elected as liberals. It worked in 2006 and 2008 -- it will not work on November 2nd. Americans have caught on to the Democrat bait and switch tactics of saying one thing and doing the opposite.

Chrysler Autoworkers Caught on Camera Drinking Beer, Smoking Pot During Break

If the first paragraph of this article doesn't make you see red as an American taxpayer, nothing will:

While taxpayers are footing the bill to keep America's auto industry off life support, an undercover investigation shows illegal activities by Chrysler employees who have enjoyed nearly $15 billion in government money
Take a minute to comprehend that the taxpayers of America, you and me, have given Chrysler nearly $15 billion in our money thanks to Obama and the Democrats in Congress to take over Chrysler. That doesn't include the money Obama gave to to take over General Motors making them Government Motors.

This is what the taxpayer get for our money -- employees on breaks drinking beer and smoking pot? Way to go Obama -- more wasted tax dollars on an auto company which should have been allowed to fail if they couldn't compete. Actually, they should have been allowed to fail the first time instead of President Jimmy Carter bailing them out in the early 1970's. What is with Democrat Presidents wanting to take over private industry? If a company cannot be successful on its own, then it should fail.

We had first hand knowledge of how bad the General Motors plants were in Dayton, Ohio, having grown up in the area and watching people clamoring for layoffs to go hunting every year. Their breaks stretched way past the norm all to turn out inferior products. We would bet similar activities go on at the General Motors plants from stories we have heard. Taking a six-pack of beer to work is kind of telling which my neighbor in Fairborn used to do.

Toyota in the last few years bought a computer system for one of their cars from GM's Delphi plant in Dayton, Ohio, which has led to a recall of Toyota Matrix and Corolla. When the cars hit a certain mileage, the part fails. General Motors another company that was bailed out by Obama who, in turn, shut down Republican car dealers throughout America.

Union workers drove General Motors plants to close in Dayton and other places with their unrealistic demands and shoddy workmanship. We had a 1977 Buick Estate wagon with all the bells and whistles on the car, but there was one slight problem. The radiator was too small for the car and led to numerous other problems. The designers didn't leave room to put a larger radiator in the car. Ford wasn't much better as we had brakes go out on a Taurus at 31,000 miles, but the absolute worst cars we ever owned belonged to Chrysler -- talk about shoddy workmanship. Now we find out what some the union workers at their plants in Detroit do on break -- drink beer and smoke pot.

Our tax dollars at work and Obama goes around praising the Chrysler Auto workers:

Obama spoke July 30 at the plant, where he lauded the American worker, saying, "It's workers like you that built this country into the greatest economic power the world has ever known."

"I want all of you to know, I will bet on the American worker any day of the week." he told the crowd.

"I wish they could see what I'm seeing in this plant and talk to the workers who are here, taking pride in building a world-class vehicle," Obama said, referring to opponents of the multibillion-dollar government auto bailout. "I don't think they'd be willing to look you in the eye and say that you were a bad investment."
UAW workers for the most part have never been known as the most energetic, but are paid much more than they deserve for the work they perform. The workers of the auto industry who do the best jobs are the ones who are not union members and work at plants in Right to Work states. Who does GM shut down of their divisions -- Saturn, their non-union automobile manufacturing.  The productivity is much higher in Right to Work states but they will never be praised by Obama as they are not union workers. Instead Obama praises the Chrysler union workers and the truth comes out. Where is Chrysler management that didn't see this -- pretty hard not to notice what your employees are doing during breaks. Their management can say all they want now how the people will be dealt with, but they were obviously not paying attention.

Chrysler Autoworkers Caught on Camera Drinking Beer, Smoking Pot During Break

Published September 23, 2010
| FoxNews.com

While taxpayers are footing the bill to keep America's auto industry off life support, an undercover investigation shows illegal activities by Chrysler employees who have enjoyed nearly $15 billion in government money.

Dozens of autoworkers in Detroit were caught on camera drinking beer and smoking marijuana before heading to work at the Chrysler plant that President Obama praised in a speech just two months ago.

An exclusive investigation by MyFoxDetroit showed workers at Chrysler's Jefferson North Assembly Plant in Detroit, Mich., drinking beer and smoking joints while on a half-hour lunch break at a nearby park.

The investigation -- conducted over several weeks and based on tips from workers at the plant -- outraged the auto giant's top executives who reportedly called the behavior "totally unacceptable."

View video at Fox News


Chrysler took $14.3 billion in government bailout money, which includes pre-bankruptcy loans. The company has repaid $3.7 billion.

The plant -- taking up more than 3 million square feet of factory -- employs 2,833 union auto workers. The station's report did not say how many workers were involved in the incident.

Scott Garberding, senior vice president of manufacturing, told MyFoxDetroit that he was "very disturbed" by what he saw in the video.

"I want to make it clear that we at Chrysler take this very seriously," he said in an interview with the station. "For us, this behavior is totally unacceptable and will be dealt with swiftly."

Click here to read more on this story from MyFoxDetroit.com

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Cong Mike Pence (R-IN) Discusses "A Pledge to America" on Fox News

House Republicans Issue "A Pledge to America"

Today's Republican House Leadership led by Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH), Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Republican Caucus Chair Mike Pence (R-IN) along with other members of the House Republican Leadership have been listening to the concerns of Americans and put together this "A Pledge to America" to tell the American people how they plan to govern when given the gavel of the House. Many of the ideas have come from the American people via Town Halls, emails, phone calls and their website America Speaking Out where you get a chance to submit ideas.

House Republicans have a plan to govern while the House Democrats under Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team only know how to tax and spend along with growing government.  There is one clear choice for America on November 2nd -- pass the gavel to the Republican leadership who have a plan to govern and are willing to make this Pledge to every American citizen!

House Republicans Issue "A Pledge to America"

New Governing Agenda, Built by Listening, Focuses on Creating Jobs, Cutting Spending, and Reforming Congress; GOP Presses for Action Before Congress Adjourns

Sep 23, 2010

Washington- House Republicans today put forth “A Pledge to America,” a new governing agenda built by listening to the American people and focused on addressing their top priorities – including creating jobs, cutting spending, and changing the way Congress works. This new governing agenda was unveiled during a press event at Tart Lumber Company, a family-owned small business located in Sterling, VA. Republicans stressed that this governing agenda could be implemented right now if President Obama and Democratic Leaders would allow it, and called for action before Congress adjourns.

“Across America, the people see a government in Washington that isn’t listening, doesn’t get it, and doesn’t care. Today, that begins to change,” Congressman John Boehner (R-West Chester) said. “This new governing agenda, built by listening to the people, offers plans to create jobs, cut spending, and put power where it belongs: in the hands of the people. 'A Pledge to America' offers a new way forward that hasn’t been tried in Washington: an approach focused on cutting spending instead of accelerating spending, and eliminating uncertainty for the private-sector innovators and entrepreneurs who create jobs. These are the solutions the American people are demanding, and Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid should act on them before Congress adjourns for the fall.”

“A Pledge to America” – which can be downloaded in PDF format at http://pledge.gop.gov – is the byproduct of the America Speaking Out initiative, which Republicans launched in May to listen and engage the American people in the creation of a new governing agenda.

As opposed to a broad policy platform or long-term agenda, “A Pledge to America” is based on the need for urgent action to address the American people’s priorities – priorities that continue to be ignored and even openly mocked by Washington Democrats.

Prior to today’s unveiling, House Republicans held a roundtable with local small business owners to talk about the challenges they are facing in today’s tough economic climate.

NOTE: The preamble to “A Pledge to America” reaffirms Republicans’ commitment to principles of smaller, more accountable government; economic freedom; lower taxes; fiscal responsibility; protecting life, American values, and the Constitution; and providing for a strong national defense. This new governing agenda is comprised of five specific policy plans that could be implemented right now if President Obama and Democratic Leaders would allow it:

•Creating Jobs. “A Pledge to America” reflects Americans’ demand for immediate action on policies that will end uncertainty for small businesses and help our economy get back to creating jobs. This new governing agenda contains a plan to create jobs, end economic uncertainty, and make America competitive – including stopping all tax hikes, reining in red tape, and repealing ObamaCare’s ‘1099 mandate.’

•Cutting Spending. “A Pledge to America” embodies Americans’ rejection of the now-thoroughly discredited notion that we can simply tax, spend, and borrow our way to prosperity. This new governing agenda contains a plan to cut spending and reduce the size of government – including cutting government spending to pre-‘stimulus’, pre-bailout levels, imposing a hard cap on future discretionary spending, and ending TARP once and for all.

•Reforming Congress. “A Pledge to America” acknowledges that we cannot get our arms around the issues of the day when we have a government that refuses to listen to the people and ignores their priorities. This new governing agenda contains a plan to reform Congress and restore trust – including implementing ‘read the bill’ reform, allowing for more open and fair debate, and requiring that every bill contain a citation of Constitutional authority.

•Repealing and Replacing The Job-Killing Health Care Law. “A Pledge to America” recognizes that the American people continue to squarely oppose the government takeover of health care, with its higher costs, higher taxes, job-killing mandates, and Medicare cuts to pay for a massive new entitlement. This new governing agenda contains a plan to repeal and replace the job-killing health care law with common-sense reforms focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.

•A Strong National Defense. “A Pledge to America” reinforces Congress’s responsibility to help provide for a strong national defense and fashion a coherent strategy to confront and defeat the terrorist threat. This new governing agenda contains a plan to keep our nation secure at home and abroad – including passing clean troop funding bills, keeping terrorists off American soil, and fully funding missile defense.

Click on this link to read the full version of the "A Pledge to America" from House Republicans


The opening statements from "A Pledge to America:"
America is more than a country.

America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their families, and the common good.

America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to determine their own destiny.

Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.

These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of Americans.

In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.

An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.

An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.

Excerpt: Read More at "A Pledge to America"

Vote for Common Sense Conservative
Republican candidates on
November 2nd, 2010

Contrasting Ads

Today the ad has been released, "Mourning in America," which is a take-off of the Ronald Reagan ad in 1984, "Morning in America." When President Reagan defeated Carter in 1980 he took over a Country that was on its back with mortgage rates over 16% and high inflation. He brought with him into office an optimism that spread throughout the Country along with a plan to put America back on its feet and fix the economy through tax cuts and cutting waste.

In 2008, Obama ran on Hope and Change except he didn't explain what his Hope and Change was going to entail. Voters didn't realize that he wanted to fundamentally change America by centralizing everything in the Federal Government. Anyone who dared challenge Obama was called a 'racist' because he was part black. Now that the Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire on January 1st,  he wants them to expire on the wealthy who are the people who create the jobs and keep America moving. Even his advisers are telling him that the Bush Tax Cuts need to stay in place. Will he listen?

In less than two short years Obama and the Dem leadership in Congress have managed to totally tank the economy, takeover business by the Federal Government, bailout banks, pass a stimulus that has wasted billions, pass a Healthcare bill that is going to cost the American taxpayers billions if not trillions before it is said and done and raise the deficit to over $13T. This is the Change without Hope Obama as President has given millions of Americans along with his lapdogs in Congress.

The title of his ad, "Mourning in America,"says it all:

Contrast the above ad to this one from the 1984 campaign after President Reagan had been in office for four years. Mortgage rates were down, inflation cut in half, people were back to work, and tax cuts were spurring the economy. The American people were once again in charge of their own lives.

Time to pass the gavel in the House to Conservataive Republicans and take it away from the progressive liberal Pelosi and her supporters who want to take the Country socialist. When voters put Pelosi and the progressives in power, bet most of the voters didn't realize how many of them belong to the Socialist Party of America -- for some reason they don't like to broadcast that fact. The Progressive Caucus should be called Anti-American as they want to fundamentally change America and take away freedoms that we have had for over 200 years. Anytime you have a group calling you names for disagreeing with an agenda, you have control freaks in charge. That is not America!

Republicans have a plan to govern while Democrats have a plan to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire and continue to grow Government.

Vote on November 2nd  to hand the gavel back to
'Common Sense' Conservative Republicans
There is a choice on November 2nd -- vote for Conservative Republicans who believe in free enterprise, lower taxes, smaller government, along with a strong defense and homeland security.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Cong Pence Hillsdale College Speech on the Presidency

Dear Friend,

Below are the remarks I made on Monday evening at Hillsdale College. I thought they may be of interest to you.

You can also read a review of the speech by American Spectator's Quin Hillyer here.

Thank you for your support,
Mike Pence
Chair, House Republican Conference

The Presidency And The Constitution

President and Mrs. Arnn, Mr. John Cervini, Mr. David Bobb, Elliot Gaiser, College Republicans and each and every one of the faculty and students of Hillsdale College here today.… As I am sure you know, honor is what allows us to do what is right despite the cost. Even greater honor is required to do what is right in the face of superior power. And the greatest honor is to stand strong even if it means standing alone.

The long fight of Hillsdale College, standing alone -- then and now for the proposition that all men are created equal, then with Frederick Douglass, now with Clarence Thomas; then and now in the conviction that, as Americans are not horses, we were not born to have saddles placed on our backs, by anyone, at any time, and for any reason…. This long fight, you have fought for love of ideas that did not come in dreams, or as Reagan said, did not "spring full bloom" from your brow, but "came from the heart of a great nation," rose in a time of unprecedented stress and genius, and since the founding kept this country whole, prosperous, safe, just, free and good.

It is therefore a high honor for me to stand before you in this place so closely associated with the founding of the Republican Party in opposition to the unforgivable sin of slavery; this place where statesmanship is taught as an art, and where right conduct is seen as its own reward. I thank you, and may God bless you for your bravery and courage.

I rise to pay a debt of honor and a debt to history. My subject today is the presidency, and my hope is that you see that institution in a new light and never despair of the republic.

The presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the American government. More often than not, for good or for ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and spurs the expectations of the people. Its powers are vast and consequential, its requirements -- from the outset and by definition -- impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to its purpose as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

Isn't it amazing, given the great and momentous nature of the office, that those who seek it seldom pause to consider what they are seeking? Rather, unconstrained by principle or reflection, there is a mad rush toward something that, once its powers are seized, the new president can wield as an instrument with which to transform the nation and the people according to his highest aspirations

But, other than in a crisis of the house divided, the presidency is neither fit nor intended to be such an instrument. When it is made that, the country sustains a wound, and cries out justly and indignantly. And what the nation says -- the theme of this address... What it says, informed by its long history, impelled by the laws of nature and nature's God... What it says quite naturally and rightly, if not always gracefully, is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. It says that the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution and impassioned by the Declaration of Independence.

The presidency must adhere to its definition as expressed in the Constitution, and to conduct defined over time and by tradition. While the powers of the office have enlarged, along with those of the legislature and the judiciary, the framework of the government was intended to restrict abuses common to classical empires and to the regal states of the 18th century.

Without proper adherence to the role contemplated in the Constitution for the presidency, the checks and balances in the constitutional plan become weakened. This has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. Under either party, presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the Congress at times, and that the Congress is independent of their desires. And thus fused in unholy unity, the political class has raged forward in a drunken expansion of powers and prerogatives, mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good.

Even the simplest among us knows that this is not so. Power is an instrument of fatal consequence. It is confined no more readily than quicksilver, and escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. Therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. A republic -- if you can keep it -- is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect.

The tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind, and some, perhaps many, may die. Because of this, a true statesman lives continuously with what Churchill called "stress of soul." He may give to Paul, but only because he robs Peter. And that is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and evens accounts at the end.

It is a tragedy indeed that new generations taking office attribute failures in governance to insufficient power, and seek more of it. In the judiciary this has seldom been better expressed than by Justice Thurgood Marshall's dictum that, "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up." In the Congress, it presents itself in massive legislation, acts and codes thousands of pages long and so monstrously over-complicated that no human being can read through them in a lifetime -- much less understand them, much less apply them justly to a people that increasingly feel like they are no longer being asked, they are being told. Our nation finds itself in the position of a dog whose duty it is not to ask why, because the "why" is too elevated for his nature, but simply to obey.

America is not a dog, and does not require a "because-I-said-so" jurisprudence to which it is then commanded to catch up, or legislators who knit laws of such insulting complexity that they are heavier than chains; or a president who acts like, speaks like, and is received as a king. The presidency has run off the rails. It begs a new clarity, a new discipline, and a new president.

The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us, we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.

Is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? I defer to the judgment of the people, which they will make with their own eyes, and ears. Listen to the exact words of the leader of President Obama's transition team and perhaps his next chief-of-staff: "It's important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one." Or, more recently, from the words of the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the Senate, the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wrote last Friday, "President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again."

"Take power… Rule... Leveling." Though it is now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president. No one can say this too strongly and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects, we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and -- if I may remind you -- we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States?

The powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great, and great presidents treat them sparingly. For example, it is not the president's job to manipulate the nation's youth for the sake of his agenda or his party. They are a potent political force when massed by the social network to which they are permanently attached. But if the president has their true interests at heart he will neither flatter them nor let them adore him, for in flattery is condescension and in adoration is direction, and youth is neither seasoned nor tested enough to direct a nation. Nor should it be the president's business to presume to direct them. It is difficult enough to do right by one's own children. No one can be the father of a whole continent's youth.

Is the president, therefore, expected to turn away from this and other easy advantage? Yes. Like Harry Truman who went to bed before the result on election night -- he must know when to withdraw, to hold back, and to forgo attention, publicity, or advantage.

No finer, more moving, or profound an understanding of the nature of the presidency and the command of humility placed upon it has ever been expressed than by President Coolidge. He, like Lincoln, lost a child while he was president, a son of sixteen. "The day I became president," Coolidge wrote, "he had just started to work in a tobacco field. When one of his fellow laborers said to him, 'If my father was president I would not work in a tobacco field,' Calvin replied, 'If my father were your father you would.' "
While in the White House, President Coolidge's son contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the South Lawn. Coolidge wrote, "What might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if I had not been president.…" And then he continues, "In his suffering he was asking me to make him well. I could not.

"When he went, the power and glory of the Presidency went with him."

A sensibility such as this, and not power, is the source of presidential dignity, and must be restored. It depends entirely upon character, self-discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic but life itself. It communicates that the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself; that his eye is not upon his own prospects but on the storm of history through which it is his responsibility to navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed upon them not merely by man in his design but by God in His.

The modern presidency has drifted far from the great strength and illumination of its source: the Constitution as given life by the luminous and passionate Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document ever written. The Constitution, terse, sober, and specific, does not, except by implication, address the president's demeanor, but this we can read in the best qualities of the founding generation, which we would do well to imitate. In the Capitol Rotunda are heroic paintings of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the victory at Saratoga, the victory at Yorktown, and, something seldom seen in history: a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. Upon hearing from Benjamin West that George Washington, having won the war and been urged by some to use the army to make himself king, would instead return to his farm, George III said, "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world." He did, and he was.

To aspire to such virtue and self-restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense it should be easy -- difficult because it would be demanding and ideal, and easy because it is the right thing to do and the rewards are immediately self-evident.

A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him. The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of morality, decency, and existence, such as the Civil War, if he should want to hurry along the Constitution to fit his own notions or designs, he should do so by amendment rather than adjustment, for if he joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions the purpose of which is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind? Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it. Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except -- as planned -- by careful amendment. There is no instruction to the president to override the law and, like Justice Marshall, let it catch up to his superior conception. Why is this good? It is good because the sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president's conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation.

Would it be such a great surprise that a good part of the political strife of our times is because one president after another, rather than keeping faith to it, argues with the document he is supposed to live by? This discontent will only be calmed by returning the presidency to the great first principles. The president should regard the Constitution and the Declaration like an obsessed lover. They should be on his mind all the time, the prism through which the light of all questions of governance passes. Though we have -- sometimes gradually, sometimes radically -- moved away from this, we can move back to it. And who better than the president to restore this wholesome devotion?

And as the president returns to the consistent application of the principles in the Constitution, he will also ensure fiscal responsibility and prosperity. Who is better suited, with his executive and veto powers, to carry over the duty of self restraint and discipline to the idea of fiscal solvency? When the president restrains government spending, leaving room for the American people to enjoy the fruits of their labor, growth is inevitable. As Senator Robert Taft wrote, "Liberty has been the key to our progress in the past and is the key to our progress in the future.… If we can preserve liberty in all its essentials, there is no limit to the future of the American people."

Whereas, at home, the president must be cautious, dutiful, and deferential, abroad, his character must change. Were he to ask for a primer on how to act in relation to other states, which no holder of the office has needed to this point, and were that primer to be written by the American people, whether of 1776 or 2010, you can be confident that it would contain the following instructions:

"The President of the United States of America bows to no man. You do not bow to kings. When in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. You do not argue the case against the United States, but, rather, the case for it. You do not apologize to the enemies of the United States. Should you be confused, a country, people, or region that harbors, shelters, supports, encourages, or cheers attacks upon our country, the slaughter of our children, our mothers, our fathers, our sisters, and brothers… are enemies of the United States. And, to repeat, you do not apologize to them."

Closely related to this, and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president's complex responsibilities, is his duty as Commander-in-Chief of the military. In this regard there is a very simple rule, unknown to some presidents regardless of party:

If… and it is perhaps the biggest "if" any president can face, for it will follow not just him but hundreds of thousands or millions of others, not just for the rest of their lives but, in cost of blood and souls, beyond life itself.

If… and it is an "if" that requires long and deep thought, tremendously hard labor at determining the truth of things, a lifetime of education, the knowledge of a general, the wisdom of a statesman, and the heart of an infantryman….

If… after careful determination, intense stress of soul, and the deepest prayer….

If, then, you go to war, then, having gone to war, by God, you go to war to win.

You do not cast away American lives, or those of the innocent noncombatant enemy, upon a theory, a gambit, or a notion. And if the politics of your own election or of your party intrude upon your decisions for even an instant -- there are no words for this.

More commonplace, but hardly less important, are other expectations of the president in this regard. He must not stint on the equipment and provisioning of the Armed Forces, and if he errs it must be not on the side of scarcity but of surplus. And he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single life.

The American soldier is as precious as the closest of your kin -- because he is your kin, and for his sake the president must, in effect, say to the Congress and to the people: "I am the Commander-in-Chief, it is my sacred duty to defend the United States, give our soldiers what they need to complete the mission and come home safe, whatever the cost." Of all the hard choices that Congress may have to make to ensure this, which one of these things alone or in combination is more terrible than the sacrifice of our children or the defeat of our nation?

If, in fulfilling this duty, the president wavers, he will have betrayed his office, for this is not a policy, it is probity. And it is not an expedient artifact of my imagination, it is written on the blood-soaked ground of Saratoga, Yorktown, Antietam, Cold Harbor, The Marne, Guadalcanal, the Pointe du Hoc, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a thousand other places in our history, in lessons repeated over and over again.

Excerpt: Speech as Prepared for Delivery at Pence Campaign