Friday, November 26, 2010

How Many Jobs Did Al Gore’s ‘Mistake’ Cost Us?

Most of us were astonished to hear former vice president and failed presidential candidate, and long time ‘green energy’ advocate Al Gore Jr. come out and admit that his early support of ethanol based fuels, made from a major food source, corn, was largely based on an effort to gain votes for his run for the presidency.

Gore, labeling his early support a “mistake” indicated he was
“more concerned with garnering votes from farmers in Tennessee and Iowa than with what was best for the environment.”

Al Gore: Votes, not science, led me to back corn ethanol

Gore went on to say,
“Corn ethanol is not a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. The process of converting corn into ethanol is highly energy intensive and also requires using a food crop for fuel.”

While we cannot forget the record food prices we saw in 2008 or the protests around the world over shrinking food supplies, I am particularly struck by the comment, “ethanol is not a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels.”

Fossil fuel is defined as, “any combustible organic material, as oil, coal, or natural gas, derived from the remains of former life,” the very fuels we have been barred from drilling, refining and using in our every day energy needs, increasing our dependence upon foreign sources that all too often hostile to us.

It has been shown that we have billions of barrels of petroleum sitting in the ground that the government continues to deny us access to as they promoted these “green energy” sources like ethanol as superior, more environmentally ‘friendly’ and at a cost of Billions of dollars each year in subsidies to corn growers.

Not being said in all of this, as we continue facing record unemployment in the country and a deeply struggling economy, is the hundreds of thousands of jobs not being filled that are also just languishing there and waiting to be filled in the Petroleum Industry.

What About Jobs Obama? Unblock The Jobs!

Missing The Boat On Job Creation

Of particular note too is Gore’s financial stake in the ethanol industry. He padded his own wealth while promoting higher unemployment amongst the American people!

And now, he simply says it was a “mistake?”

We now stand poised to have an even higher ethanol base forced upon us even before adequate studies on E-15 are completed, thanks in part to years of Al Gore’s “mistake.”

Many of our energy policies have been based upon Al Gore’s “mistake” and have cost us dearly over the years, while Gore lived a life of luxury, flying across the globe in a private jet promoting his “mistake.”

In 2007 he shared the Nobel Peace Prize for “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change” on the back of that “mistake,” while our unemployment numbers began rising.

Using petroleum and natural gas to fuel our economy and energy needs while viable alternative fuels are sought and being perfected is not a mistake, it is the responsible thing to do to continue our lifestyle and meet our responsibilities in the world community.

Al Gore might now come out and admit he made a “mistake,” but it is my opinion the real mistake was in anyone listening to a pampered charlatan who grew his wealth on our backs by the very energy needs he denies us.

One is left to ponder too, if this was a “mistake,” just what else is there he promotes that is based in large part on a similar “mistake?”

We need energy and we need jobs to recover from this economic nightmare we are mired in. The Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry are prepared to help with massive numbers of jobs in drilling and refining sources that will meet our energy needs and that will result in their payment of more taxes into our treasury to help close the deficit.

What we don’t need is any more “mistakes” by Al Gore or his devotees who think “green” is a cure all.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

2011 TSA Pin Up Calendar

Geriatric Terrorists Thwarted By Exam Gloves And Radiation

Submitted by Bruce R. McCain

Last weekend I visited my 82-year old dad and brother in San Diego, took in a couple of football games and experienced first-hand the latest efforts by the Obama administration to keep us safe in the skies. My journey began at Portland International Airport which does not yet have the new full body virtual nudity machines installed. I sailed though the metal detector without a hitch and without being pulled aside for the invasive pat down search.

I soon sat down with my coffee cup in the large waiting area in Concourse C, listening to beautiful live piano music as planes took off on runway 10R outside the window behind me. What I witnessed next was both sad and surreal, but left me seething nonetheless. To my left a frail elderly man in a wheelchair was pulled over for the invasive pat down search. It took two male TSA agents to lift this near invalid man onto his feet where they held him in place as a third TSA agent wearing blue gloves ran his hands all over the helpless old man’s body, including into his crotch from both sides. At the same time on my right, an equally elderly woman using a walker got the same treatment from female TSA agents. I don’t know if these two aged travelers were husband and wife or I was merely witnessing a bizarre coincidence.

Over the next hour and a half I saw dozens of persons pulled aside and groped by TSA agents who have been trained to law enforcement standards. In my 26 years with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office, I performed, witnessed and supervised enough pat down searches to appreciate the TSA technique. The TSA agents use a modified pat down search almost indistinguishable from what any arrested person would face on the hood of a patrol car or when booked into jail. In fact, I was struck by the haunting similarity between current TSA search procedures and jail booking:

Shoes, watch and belt removed? Check.

Pockets empty and all personal property on the counter? Check.

Spread legs and arms and do not move while searched? Check.

Gloved hands running over back, front, under arms, up and down inner thighs to groin? Check.

There are some differences in the TSA search, such as not searching the sole soles of the person’s feet or hair. The TSA agents also search the crotch from the front while kneeling, a position which would get one arrested on 82nd Ave. But that technique on the street or in jail exposes the searching officer to having his or her ears boxed or worse.

As I watched these government agents do their work, I also noticed that none of those Americans I saw searched remotely fit the profile of those who attacked us on 9/11 or have been terrorizing the world ever since. Sorry, did I say “Profile?” I apologize for mentioning the Alternative That Shall Not Be Named. The Obama administration apparently has no idea who was responsible for 9/11 or who present the single greatest threat to America and the West today. To the Obama TSA, an 85-year old Oregonian in a wheel chair traveling to visit his grandchildren presents exactly the same threat as does the 19-year old Yemini on a student visa taking flying lessons. The Obama TSA refuses to acknowledge or admit there is a different threat risk between the two. Therefore to avoid targeting those most likely to harm us, we are all treated as inmates in waiting.

Thankfully, my plane arrived safely in San Diego without being hijacked by a gang of octogenarians storming the cockpit yielding Polident brushes sharpened into knives.

While in San Diego I took in both a college football game and an NFL game, both played at Qualcomm Stadium. For the college game, we simply walked into the stadium without so much a head nod from the red jacketed Elite event staff. Two days later, the same Elite employees subjected every person entering Qualcomm to a half-hearted TSA type search.

I was pulled aside by a young man who told me to hold my arms straight out while he searched me. His search was so pitiful that when he thanked me I refused to put my arms down. Instead I told him his search wasn’t very good and asked him if he wanted me to show him how to do it correctly. He nervously smiled as I soon had four or five Elite red jackets moving in. I smiled back and told the young man had he bothered to check my left coat pocket he would have found the sandwich I pulled out. The Elite staff all nervously laughed and urged me to get moving because searching the 68,452 fans in attendance cannot wait for idle chatter. The sham of attempting to frisk that many people accomplishes nothing, especially since theoretically I could have smuggled anything into that same stadium two nights earlier under the nose of the same rent-a-TSA event staff.

My journey’s final leg brought me to the hallowed ground of American travelers – San Diego’s Lindbergh Field, home airport of John “Don’t Touch My Junk” Tyner. Unlike PDX, San Diego’s airport has the full body scan machines. Everyone must pass through the scanner, which requires you to hold your hands overhead and remain motionless for the six-second radiation bombardment. After passing through the scanner, you must remain stationary on a pair of yellow foot prints until the back-room peep show clears you to proceed.

Per TSA policy, if you refuse to go through the nudity scanner as did John Tyner, you will be subjected to the blue glove crotch grope. I opted for the scanner, as did every passenger I saw in my immediate group of travelers. I silently chuckled to myself as I thought of the TSA agent sitting in front of the virtual peep show looking not only at my current physique but at all of those ordinary people passing continuously through the electronic strip search. My momentary empathy for the back room TSA agent quickly evaporated as I recalled the recent incident that galvanized the nation and which occurred at the very spot I was standing in my stocking feet.

John Tyner’s now infamous “Don’t Touch My Junk” battle cry was actually part of a more serious and sobering exchange between Tyner and a TSA supervisor at the scene. Once Tyner threatened to have the TSA agent searching him arrested for sexual assault, events caught on Tyner’s cell phone video turned surreal.

A TSA supervisor re-explained the groin check process to Tyner then adds, "If you're not comfortable with that, we can escort you back out and you don't have to fly today."

Tyner responded "OK, I don't understand how a sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying."

"This is not considered a sexual assault," replied the supervisor.

"It would be if you were not the government," said Tyner.

"By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights," countered the TSA supervisor.

"I think the government took them away after 9/11," said Tyner.

"OK," said the TSA supervisor.

This brief but telling exchange between John Tyner and the government agent lays out the policy framework for not only airport searches but the government’s rationale to expand these searches into every aspect of public life. When the TSA supervisor told Tyner that he “gave up a lot of rights” by purchasing a plane ticket, he was correct to a point. Persons who do not want to fly can be spared these invasive searches by taking alternative transportation. But there is nothing preventing the government from instituting these exact same procedures for domestic rail travel or on every local public transportation system.

Moreover, there is nothing preventing these same invasive procedures from being implemented at locations where less aggressive measures are already in place. Every court house in Oregon has a security plan designed to prevent the introduction of weapons into the facility. In Multnomah County, visitors entering the court house place their belongings on an airport-type X-ray machine while they walk through a metal detector. If metal is detected, a person may be subjected to a hand-held wand, but the person is not physically searched – at least not yet.

Bomb threats at court houses are nothing new. Therefore to prevent explosive devices as well as firearms and knives from entering our court houses, how long will it be before everyone entering the court house will be subject to either the full body scan or the full body hand search? From the government’s point of view, there is no distinction between an airport or court house, since the goal is to prevent firearms, sharp objects and explosive devices from entering both. City Hall could be next, using exactly the same rationale. In Portland’s case, Mayor Sam Adams would likely reassure citizens that the hand searches are not that invasive by volunteering to undergo as many as he can while personally demonstrating the technique on the first five 17-year old males entering the building.

Americans expect and demand reasonable and effective security measures to protect us from our enemies. Like many Americans, I know who attacked us on 9/11 and with whom we have been at war ever since. But in a bizarre fulfillment of a 1970’s quote from the cartoon strip Pogo, the Obama TSA’s policy is, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

When Americans recall John Tyner, they should not dwell on the bumper sticker catch phrase, but instead on the government agent’s declaration that Tyner “gave up a lot of rights” when he chose to travel by air within the boundaries of the United States. Under the Constitution, not every search by the government is prohibited, only those determined to be unreasonable.
Whether the TSA nudity scanners and hand searches of every person violates the 4th amendment will be tested in court, unless remedied by Congress or a new administration in 2012. Until then, Americans must ask themselves under what other circumstances are they willing to conditionally “give up a lot of rights” to a government that insists exam gloves and radiation are really for our own good – especially since we don’t know how many sleeper cell terrorists are already in place at a nursing home near you.

Bruce R. McCain is a former Sheriff's captain and attorney in private practice in Portland, Oregon. He is an outspoken politico looking at the inner workings of Portland, Multnomah County as well as Oregon state politics. He writes for The Northwest Connection and has appeared on local and national media and is an active participant at

Monday, November 22, 2010

What Changed, America?

President John F. Kennedy, speaking before the United Nations Sept. 25, 1961.

What changed, America? Why are our leaders afraid to show this strength and stand up to evil any longer?

What happened to such strength and the determination that we once had to fight for our freedom and retain our liberty?

The Democratic Party once stood strong and proud, ready to face foes head-on and defeat them. Now, so many leaders from that Party prefer appeasement, blaming our country and the opposing Party for Terrorist attacks.

Many Republicans too seem to have grown weary and prepared to walk away and hope for safety and security.

Our freedom and liberty has become little more than a political tool to use to win elections, at the cost of the lives of our Brave Young serving in the Military.

Warren Kozak, in his Wall Street Journal article where I discovered this obscure clip said,
“Those words spoken by our 35th president are not part of the usual JFK repertoire, like his inaugural address or his Oval Office speeches. But they may be more significant because of where we find ourselves today. His message serves as a beacon—because we hunger for this clear and bold direction since our present leaders seem to lack the will that Kennedy projects. So we lean on our past to find the courage we require today: A president standing alone, a man meeting his responsibilities.”

On September 20, 2001 just days after the horrific attacks on our nation by terrorists, President George W. Bush said in part,
“I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield, I will not rest, I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people. The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.”

He also said,
But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day and to whom it happened. We will remember the moment the news came, where we were and what we were doing.”

What happened, America? How did we let our resolve wane? How did we lose the desire to remain free?

When did we decide allowing groping of our children and elderly by TSA agents gave us security instead of targeting those who continually attack us?

A terrorist picked up on America’s lack of resolve and was expressed in 1996 by Osama bin Laden in citing the U.S. retreat from Somalia in 1993,
“You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Bin Laden underestimated the resolve of President Bush.

Did he correctly estimate the lack of resolve in the American people?

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Note to Incoming Republicans: Don’t Forget, Jobs, Jobs, Jobs!

The smoke has settled and the newly elected Representatives are assembled in Washington D.C. receiving their orientation and selecting office space. Come January and the House of Representatives switches back to a significant majority of Republicans while the Senate will remain in Democrat hand, but with a much smaller majority.

The new junior legislators ran on a variety of promises to be elected, from repealing Obamacare to restoring jobs in America. With the nation still locked deep in massive unemployment and unemployment benefits running out, many already exhausting the meager checks long ago, jobs must be the number one priority if we are to begin actually making any significant recovery.

Some of these new Representatives campaigned on promises they would create the jobs and bring them back to the districts they will soon represent. Voters will surely be disappointed when they realize the jobs created by Congress will just prolong the Great Recession and those who made such promises may end up not only facing some very angry constituents, but in 2 years will see their seats taken away from them.

If, on the other hand, they wise up and see that allowing the private sector to create those jobs and that many legislative, regulatory and policy decisions are blocking those jobs and join efforts in bringing regulations back into balance, they just may be seen as effective legislators worthy of keeping in office a bit longer.

While the restoration of jobs in America is tantamount to any significant recovery, it is equally important that we meet our nation’s energy needs, another area that has been hard hit for quite some time now. In fact, many of those lost jobs are either directly in the energy industry or indirectly related, many politicians and environmental activists pinning hopes on mass job creation in so called “Green Energy” sources that remain years away from being relevant, as many European nations have discovered.

Unfortunately, current regulations pending seem destined to continue the job destruction we have seen for too many years. As was discussed in August, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is moving forward with regulations that could cause more harm than good to our cars and ultimately to our job market as well. Our friends at Energy Tomorrow blog have created a short video showing some of the EPA’s potential damage to our economy with their over reach they are currently contemplating.

A post addressing the EPA's Regulatory Overreach shows that the EPA’s proposed regulations have nearly tripled from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. We also see the alarming statement that “a recent report by the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI estimates that the [EPA’s] proposed ozone standard alone could destroy 7.3 million U.S. jobs.

A previous post, “Is EPA Protecting Human Health?” leads us to a book recently published by the American Enterprise Institute, Air Quality in America: A Dose of Reality on Air Pollution Levels, Trends, and Health Risks that makes the astonishing revelation, “the current level of ozone isn't a significant health risk:”

* Large increases in asthma prevalence have coincided with large declines in air pollution indicating that “asthma incidence and air pollution are unrelated.”

* EPA’s proposal to lower the ozone standard is based on a flawed study of young, healthy adults who exercised for several hours in chambers. So-called ‘at risk’ populations were not studied.

* EPA tends to cherry-pick studies that back up their assertions on the number of emergency room visits that could be eliminated by reducing ground-level ozone. Schwartz and Hayward say the projections are “based on a selective reading of the health effects literature that ignores contrary evidence.”

What must be of extreme importance to our incoming new legislators is the revelation of “that reducing the ozone standard to 60 parts-per-billion could destroy 7.3 million U.S. jobs and reduce the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $687 billion in 2020” if over-regulation cannot be curtailed and brought back into balance.

For clarification purposes, it must be acknowledged that no one in the energy industry suggests all regulations be removed or that our environment is of no importance. On the contrary, the industry is just as concerned as any of us in keeping our planet healthy and being responsible in obtaining and refining our own natural resources. It is a pure canard spread by the fear-mongering activists that they do not care.

For those of us in the Pacific Northwest, a recent report, The Economic Contribution of Washington State's Petroleum Refining Industry In 2009 we see
“In 2009 refiners paid $330 million for contract workers, an average of $108,321 per worker. Although this varies from year to year, about 51 percent of contract labor in 2009 (1,542) was engaged in capital repair and replacement. This cyclical work conforms to a planned schedule that is known well in advance. In 2004, Washington's five refiners reported that they anticipated spending more than $1.3 billion on these types of activities over the five years from 2004 to 2008. Of this total, about 29 percent, or $393 million, would be spent on maintaining the current plant facilities. Another 26 percent—about $349 million—would be invested in staying competitive within their industry. And 45 percent—about $592 million—would be spent retrofitting the plants to produce cleaner burning fuels and to conform with new environmental and safety regulations.”

This from a Washington State based industry that
“directly provided 2,040 full-time jobs, paying an annual average wage of $102,100. In addition, the refiners employed, at high wages, 3,044 contract workers on an average day, doing maintenance, capital repair and capital replacement. The refiners indirectly created additional Washington state jobs in industries from which they purchased goods and services, including transportation, construction, utilities and business services.”

The loss of these jobs due to the overreaching of the EPA can only further plunge our nation and state towards the Depression we still see looming in front of us. We must reign in such regulatory agencies that feel they may write legislation and impose upon us without a care for who stands to be hurt, we voting taxpayers.

As I earlier stated, our newly elected Representatives, Democrat or Republican, must be made aware that millions of jobs are on the line. We do not need them to create jobs but to ensure a balance is achieved in regulations and legislation's that protects the environment sensibly and encourages private sector job growth.

Promises are easy to make and all too often fall by the wayside once a candidate is elected.

Our newly elected Representatives must be held to a different standard and act to restore our great nation.

What Has Been Sorely Lacking in the American Government?

Lt. Col. (ret) Allen West, conservative congressman elect for Florida's 22nd Congressional District shows exactly what has been absent from Washington D.C. for a very long time. We need more representatives like him and I hope come 2012 we may find one for Washington States 3rd Congressional District.

Cronyism as we saw during the 2010 campaign season in Washington State will never gives us this type of strong representation.

Friday, November 19, 2010


UPDATE: For those arguing it is improper for Obama to Salute, here are two links to video of him saluting as he enters Marine One.


A moment of national pride took place recently in the White House when an American soldier, Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta, received the Medal of Honor for bravery above and beyond the call of duty in combat in Afghanistan.

Sgt. Giunta became the first living American soldier to receive the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War. He is now one of only eighty-eight (88) living holders of the Medal of Honor.

As modest and self-effacing as he is brave, Sgt. Giunta brought further honor to himself by his humility in receiving the nation’s highest medal of valor. While he made no comment in the ceremony, Giunta said before the ceremony that he was “not at peace” with being “singled out” for the honor as so many other soldiers did so much. And after the ceremony, he said he would trade the honor in a moment if he could bring back those whose lives he attempted to save under enemy fire but was unable to save. He definitely showed that he was an American in whom America could be proud.

In contrast, there was another “first” at the ceremony involving the Commander-in-Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama, in whose conduct the nation cannot and should not take pride: As far as is known, Obama became the first President, the first Commander-in-Chief , not to salute the living recipient of the Medal of Honor after presenting the medal.

It is a tradition in the military for all military personnel, no matter how high their rank, including the Commander-in-Chief, to salute a holder of the Medal of Honor no matter how lowly his or her rank. If General David Petraeus was to encounter Sgt. Giunta, it would be the General who would salute the enlisted man, as a sign of respect for that soldier’s extraordinary bravery, but also to show respect to all those who have received the Medal of Honor.

At all gatherings of veterans of the American Legion, or VFW, or other veterans organizations, if a Medal of Honor recipient enters the room, even a National Convention involving thousands, the proceedings stop to render military honor to that holder of the Medal of Honor. All veterans rise, come to attention, and salute. It is a matter of pride, of respect, of tradition.

And, as far as is known, it is tradition that every President who has had the honor to present the Medal of Honor to a living recipient, has shown humility, respect, and national pride in that recipient by stepping back and rendering a salute.

It was missing in action in the Obama presentation. He is apparently above all that; “like a God,” as an editor of Newsweek once wrote.

Instead of rendering the traditional salute, after fumbling as if all-thumbs in trying to affix the blue-ribboned Medal of Honor, Obama, equally awkwardly, tried to “hug” the Sergeant. Yes, a “hug” for the soldier who remained at attention with eyes front in military bearing.

But a “hug” is not a “salute,” even in the Age of Obama. While there may be some comedic value in Obama’s pathetic display, it was more emetic than comedic. I didn’t write about it at the time, so as not to distract from Sgt. Giunta’s receipt of the Medal of Honor. But days have passed, and it needs to be said.

Why? Is it naught but petty carping of poor President Obama? I think not. He is the “Commander-in-Chief” who has in his power the lives of those who serve in defense of the country, which he himself did not deign to do. It is pointing out this man, this professional politician, repeatedly evidences contempt for America, for America’s traditions, and for Americans who respect those traditions.

It is as if he loathes the nation he was so desperate to lead, and be loved by, Messiah-like. It is of a piece with his constant misquoting of the Declaration of Independence by leaving out the words “endowed by their Creator” when speaking of “unalienable rights.”

Perhaps more aptly: It is of a pathetic piece with Obama’s penchant for declining to abide by the U.S. Flag Code when the Flag passes to place his hand over his heart. Instead, he drapes his arms down and enfolds his hands at his crotch Michael Jackson-style. It is now mocked as Obama’s “crotch salute.” But it isn’t funny. It is contempt by Obama for the Flag, for America.

Perhaps it is unfair to criticize this President of the United States for displaying such contempt for American traditions. Perhaps it is too much to expect an American President to salute a recipient of the military Medal of Honor when that president never served in the uniform of his country; has said that the Rules For Radicals of the America-hating socialist revolutionist Saul Alinsky are “seared into my [his] brain;” who launched his political career in Chicago from the living room of the revolutionist Weather Underground rich-brat-bombers Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn; and who sat for twenty years in a pew of the church of Rev. “God D...n America” Wright, being marinated in hate-filled, grievance-filled, self-defined “anti-white” and “revolutionary” Black Liberation Theology .

Then again, perhaps it is not too much to expect anyone who would be America’s president to at least respect American traditions, including honoring the Flag, and saluting those who receive the Medal of Honor.

(Rees Lloyd, longtime civil rights attorney and American Legionnaire, is the director of the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project of the American Legion Department of California and the Alliance Defense Fund.)
Curiously, towards the end of the full length video supplied by the White House HERE and during the Chaplains closing prayer, Barack Obama is briefly seen raising his eyes with his head partially bowed as if looking at a clock to see if the ceremony is over yet.

Liberty Milestones: Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

Authored and submitted by attorney Rees Lloyd

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln, amidst the ongoing internecine carnage of the Civil War, delivered his most famed speech, the now revered Gettysburg Address, at the dedication of the Soldier’s National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

The Battle of Gettysburg had raged July 1 through 3, 1863. It involved more than 170,000 Americans. Troops of the Union Army of the Potomac and of the Confederate Northern Army of Virginia fought one another there. More than 7,500 Americans died there. More Americans would die in the Civil War, some 650,000, than in any war in our history.

The Union victory at Gettysburg, after so many defeats, was seen as a turning point in the war. But both the war and Lincoln’s future were in grave doubt. Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. He had instituted the Draft, leading to “Draft Riots” in New York and other northern cities. Anti-war Democrats, called “Copperheads,” were calling for appeasement of the secessionist states, and for Lincoln’s defeat in the 1864 elections. Lincoln himself expressed his belief he would not remain in office long enough to preserve the American union.

Lincoln, although President, was not the keynote speaker at Gettysburg. In fact, he was belatedly invited, almost as an afterthought, to “speak a few words” at the dedication following the keynote speech by one of America’s most famous orators Edward Everett, former Secretary of State and former Governor, Congressman, and U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.

Everett spoke for two hours. Lincoln spoke for two minutes. But it is the “few words” that Lincoln spoke which have lived in American hearts through the ages, and which to this day touch what Lincoln called “the mystic chords of memory.”

Once, in American schools, including in my grandfather’s generation and my father’s, and mine, American school children were taught Lincoln’s inspiring Gettysburg Address, and even memorized it. But not in my children’s’ generation. Not today. No. America’s schools have made so much progress by following liberal “progressive” educational policies that on November 19, 2010, the anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and its call for a “new birth of freedom” and re-dedication to preservation of a free America “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” is hardly mentioned, if at all.

“Show me what American children of one generation are taught in the schools, and I will show you what kind of government the next generation of Americans will have,” Lincoln once observed. He was right. Look today at the White House in which Abraham Lincoln once lived.

Here, then, for our heritage-deprived American children in “progressive” public schools, for all Americans, Lincoln’s inspiring words in tribute to veterans whose service and sacrifice hallowed Gettysburg, and his call for a “new birth of freedom” and preservation of the real American dream – not a big house and big car and big healthcare and other big welfare handouts from a big government, but the dream of a free nation, under God, in which all are equally free, through a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

President Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address of November 19, 1863, a true milestone of liberty:

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing
whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-
field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of
that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate…we cannot 
consecrate…we cannot hallow…this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the
 great task remaining before us…that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here
highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

REES LLOYD is a longtime civil rights attorney and veterans activist whose work has been honored by, among others, the California Senate and Assembly, and numerous civil rights, workers rights, and veterans rights organizations. He has testified as a constitutional expert at hearings before the U.S. House and Senate representing The American Legion.
He has been profiled, and his work featured, by such varied print media as the Los Angeles Times and American Legion Magazine, and such broadcast media as ABC's Nightline and 20/20, Fox News In The Morning, and, among others, by Hannity. His writings have appeared in a variety of national, regional, and local newspaper, magazine, and other publications. He is a frequent radio commentator, and a sought after speaker.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

David W. Hedrick’s ‘the Liberal Clause’ Destined for New York Times Best Seller? Giggle, snort, snicker

In spite of my earlier reservations on the existence of failed congressional candidate David W. Hedrick’s book, the Liberal Clause, HERE and HERE, originally advertised as being shipped July 15, the book does in fact exist and even though months late, is finally being shipped to those who pre-ordered the book.

One of several people that contacted me with their reservations and worries about the book was gracious enough to scan the 43 pages and emailed them to me, with the comment, “What a waste of $20.00. It should not have been sold for more than $4.00.

After struggling to get through the short 43 pages it was easy to see why ‘Bob’ felt it worth only $4.00. The works of a literary midget, the pages are filled with spelling and grammatical errors. Hedrick would have served himself well by having someone review the pages before sending it to whoever he paid to print it.

I see absolutely no imagination in the rambling story that has more unrelated insertions into the story than is worth counting and would be incomprehensible to a child. Come on David, “stoically,” in a children’s story?

Elf Peloosi? Ox News? Studge Report? Elf Liden? Sneed? Christmastution? Hineese?

And, a drawing of yourself placed in the pages with the caption “Camas man's rant goes viral?”

Ignoring my own personal disdain for the young man, I find initial endorsements for the book highly questionable, such as one from Robert, Washington saying, “This book has New York Times best seller written all over it!

I seriously doubt it would even make any sellers list at the Daily ‘Couve or even the Vancouver Voice.

Particularly vexing is seeing on that same page out of context words lifted and quoted from two sites as if they are favorably endorsing the book. A simple review of what was written and comments left by readers shows that not only are they ridiculing Hedrick’s lack of literary ability, they are tying the book to the entire Tea Party movement to paint all of us as radical racists and illiterate buffoons.

For example, Hedrick’s page quotes, “too good not to be illustrated and published for all children to enjoy.” -Dave Bow, “The Portland Mercury”

Looking at Dave Bows post we read,

“I think I was the only person to buy a copy of The Liberal Clause last night because Hedrick came over personally to shake my hand, talking excitedly about what he’d created (the book costs $20 so I’m not surprised a lot of people passed). The story, he told me, came naturally one night as he was making up a bedtime story for his children (the book is dedicated to them with the warning ‘Never forget that free goodies from liberal elves often come at a price’). The satire where Obama steals Christmas that Hedrick came up with on that fateful night was too good not to be illustrated and published for all children to enjoy.”
Hedrick is quoting his own thought related to Dave Bows as if the words are Bows endorsement of the book!

Hedrick also supplies, “powerful political satire,” by Adrian Chen at

Again, actually looking at the post written by Chen we find mid way down the post in describing a page from the book,
“The Liberal Clause hangs out with Chairman Mao and the evil ‘Rev. Blight.’ (Hedrick skillfully uses the literary device of ‘changing a few letters of real people's names’ to produce his powerful political satire.)”
Yes, you see that right. Chen is being sarcastic about Hedrick’s lack of imagination.

Hedrick has done neither himself nor the Tea Party movement any favors with this book. He might brag on facebook about media sources “picking up his book,” but anyone with half an ounce of brains can clearly see it is an object of ridicule being used to taint the Tea Party and conservatism in general as knuckle dragging, backwards, uneducated buffoons.

A search through, Barnes & Noble and Borders Books came up with a big fat ‘zero’ by title, author or ISBN. Apparently the only way to obtain a copy, unless you have a friend like ‘Bob’ is to order it through Hedrick’s own site or buy one directly should you catch him out and about at any political gatherings.

It is doubtful he will run out of books any time soon.

Jaime Herrera Goes Back Home to DC, Hedrick Just Goes Back to Court

Three years after parachuting in to Clark County specifically to take the legislative seat vacated by Richard Curtis and Jaime Herrera, newly elected Republican to the House of Representatives hopped onto a red eye back home to Washington D.C. where she will undoubtedly continue following the instructions of fellow Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington State 5th Congressional District.

That Herrera accomplished absolutely nothing during her brief grooming period in Olympia no longer matters as the establishment GOP pulled out all of the dirty tricks and underhanded tactics to ensure no other Republican would take the nomination away from her.

Several times I have expressed my dismay and extreme disappointment with many sitting on the Board of the Clark County Republican Party, seeing that in spite of their claims of being ‘Christian,’ they are little more than just another group of corrupt political bosses.

Hook or crook though, they ensured the one they wanted long ago made it, qualities and abilities be damned, she once lived in Clark County, the deciding factor expressed to me personally by many sitting on the Clark GOP Board.

Back home in D.C. this week and going through whatever a freshmen “orientation” is, Herrera’s main concern expressed to the Columbian seemed to be the location and size of the office she will draw saying, “I’m hoping the people of Southwest Washington who come to see me, can find me,” showing yet again that there is not an ounce of humility in her soul.

Oh, she goes on to try to act as if she were honored when she says, “To be part of this body is an amazing thing. It puts me in the mind, I’m not going to squander that trust and belief in me to do this.”

Would that “not squandering the trust” be similar to her siding with the Democrats in pro-SEIU legislation and helping Democrats strip the last funds out of our rainy day fund? Would that be carrying on lying to the public about her actions over the pro-SEIU legislation? That sort of trust, Jaime?

Or, would it be the trust of selecting, as she was most likely ordered to do I’m sure, all party insiders or inept party backers for her transition team? Will they ensure the big money donors receive their rewards?

One such who it is highly doubtful will see much in the way of a reward is former attack dog, David W. Hed,,,, oops, almost forgot, Marine Corporal David W. Hedrick, who did not even complete his full enlistment, bailing out of the Marine Corps not long after Republican George W. Bush assumed office in 2001.

Hedrick is facing his own little problem after being arrested in early October and charged with one count of fourth-degree assault domestic violence after an alleged altercation with his 25 year-old wife.

Hedrick, a self declared “icon” of the Tea Party movement according to the author’s page in the pathetic attempt at a children’s book he threw together, might gain some reprieve from charges of domestic violence, though as his wife is now recanting her initial claims of spousal abuse saying to the judge, “The police report doesn’t reflect what actually happened. My husband is not dangerous.

A statement released to the Columbian by Meagan Hedrick stated,
Over the past several weeks I’ve witnessed my husband being brutalized in the media and on blogs all over the nation. His reputation is being unfairly dismantled by political opponents and opportunists that wish to do him harm. I wrote a complete statement of what really happened two days after the allegations were made, but under advice of council I did not release that statement. However, my conscious compels me to do something to right this wrong. My husband did not do what he has been accused of and I know he is saying nothing to protect my reputation. It’s time to begin setting record straight.

On the night in question I acted in anger and my husband tried to calm me. Eventually, he was forced to restrain me to protect both of us. He used the absolute minimum force possible and to tell the truth, I did not give him a choice. Despite what has been reported at no time did he ever strike me in any way nor has he ever done so in the past. My husband would never do this. I have never seen Dave act violently towards anyone.

I was out of control. My husband, God bless him, was the same David you all know. Completely calm, confident and composed under fire. At the time, this made me even angrier.

The allegations against Dave are false and I am asking everyone to be calm, patient and understanding in this difficult time. With the exception of Dave himself, the rest of the family has stayed off the stage as much as possible. This was intentional. Dave may be a public person with a set of unique gifts, but we always wanted to insulate our family from the spotlight and create a healthy environment for our children. While I may be the wife of a Patriot, I am also a twenty five year old, young mother and I do not want to live every intimate detail of my life in the paper. I am not perfect, no one is, and I don’t think it’s appropriate for an imperfect world to publicly scrutinize my every imperfection. Please respect my family’s privacy as we move forward.

Just which story is actually truth will have to be decided on by Judge John Hagensen.

For Meagan’s sake, I hope her latter statement is truthful.

Herrera stands to spend at least the next 2 years back home in Washington D.C. while Hedrick will do what he can to continue trying to stretch his 15 minutes further and further, obviously not realizing they were up a year ago.

And, who knows. Maybe his next literary venture will be a coloring book on his days running interference for Jaime Herrera and ensuring no conservative was able to gain the nomination for the 3rd congressional district seat.

Come the 2012 election, I deeply hope that a conservative party and a conservative candidate will rise and make a strong run against the establishment political machines in Clark County that both care more for party than the people or the country.

God help us if all we have is Jaime Herrera and the political machine that ignores good quality candidates for state office to ensure their crony selection holds a seat.

Obama, “The God of all Things?”

The next cover of Newsweek magazine, November 22, 2010

The pose might look familiar to some as it was copied from the Hindu God Shiva the Destroyer in the "Dance of Death."

Who is Shiva? The third god of the Hindu trinity who is entrusted with the task of destruction, thereby enabling regeneration.

Monday, November 15, 2010

Beware the “Hounds of Whinerville”

John Laird, Columbian Editorial Page Editor known for his vitriolic tirades against most anybody to the right of Karl Marx has again decided it is time to denigrate taxpaying citizens who wish to exercise their freedom to speak out against wasteful programs that stand to bankrupt the citizens of Clark County.

Laird’s latest screed, Balance arrives at public podiums labels those who speak out at public meetings against the notion of an overly expensive and unproven design for a replacement bridge across the Columbia River as,

the Hounds of Whinerville are a leashless confederation of contrarians who could also be described as NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) and my personal favorite: BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). Make no mistake, their disdain for progress is as vigorous as their contempt for a three-minute timer.”

The “balance” Laird claims we taxpayers who still believe in citizen rights are up against? Some “members of the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce” supposedly “fed up with all the anti-bridge rhetoric from a small but loud group of grumblers” and under the leadership of a Ms. Kelly Parker, the former Kelly Love who, until recently, was a District Director and Senior Congressional Staffer to retiring Democrat Congressman Brian Baird of Washington State 3rd Congressional District, also a supporter of replacing the aging bridge across the Columbia River that for some unexplained reason, MUST be tolled and include extending the light rail line from Portland, Oregon into Clark County.

In the rhetoric we have all come to know from Laird, this new “balance” is contrasted to Us “Hounds of Whinerville” as,
… are actually for something, well-dressed and mannerly folks who actually smile when they address local governments. These speakers don’t have their hair on fire. Their meticulously prepared remarks fall well within three minutes, and their blood pressure throbs far below the danger zone.”

Laird neglects to mention one main “Hound” is also successful business owner David Madore, a soft spoken man who speaks from his heart also with meticulously prepared remarks and whose hair I have yet to see on fire.

Laird boasts of the GVCC representing some 1,100 businesses in Clark County as if all support this monstrosity of an 8-story bridge extending well into Clark County before coming back down to ground level. However, he lists only 7, “Jeff Woodside (Nutter Corp. construction), Don Russo (Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt legal firm), Tim Schauer (MacKay & Sposito engineers), Jonathan Avery (Legacy Salmon Creek Medical Center), Daniel Kirkwood (Big Al’s bowling and entertainment center), Eric Olmsted (On Line Support computers and technology) and Rhona Sen Hoss (community partnerships manager at The Columbian)” as representative and who, it would appear, just might stand to make a tidy bit of profit off of the project that has already wasted over $100,000,000.00 just in “studies.”

Laird and managing editor Lou Brancaccio have been overseeing this paper as it emerges from bankruptcy and struggles to recover from the overly ambitious construction of a new building and a decreasing circulation as subscribers continue to walk away. Brancaccio continues to pen his own claims of the paper not being biased, pointing out the token endorsements of Republican candidates the last few years, but this latest tirade by Laird should leave no doubt that the Columbian continues to be out of touch with the public they hope to purchase it.

Laird, in his haste to further assault those who see massive problem on the horizon with this costly proposal, has no problem actually misstating and misrepresenting what citizens of Clark County really want. More bridges to alleviate the traffic problem, not just one multi-Billion dollar fiasco that won’t solve anything, except fatten the wallets of a few wealthy people off of the backs of an already struggling middle class.

Light rail coming over from Portland has been defeated whenever it has been put to a vote, hence no voting by taxpayers any longer as the voice of the middle class is now shut down with the full support of the ilk of lapdog John Laird.

He might not realize it, but the “Hounds of Whinerville” are not a new phenomena, history has spawned up several times in the past. Whenever tyrannical leaders have gotten overbearing on the populace, it is those “Hounds of Whinerville” that stood up and brought down a concrete wall separating a city.

It was the “Hounds of Whinerville” that stood up to tyrannical colonial rule and formed a Superpower out of the wilderness in less than 200 years.

It was the “Hounds of Whinerville” that were awoken by a sneak attack and pushed back and defeated powers that oppressed freedom just a couple generations ago.

It is the “Hounds of Whinerville” that are taking a stand against those who highjack and fly loaded airplanes into buildings to being a country into subjection to a tyrannical view.

Those “Hounds of Whinerville” have a long history of taking a stand for freedom, even if late in coming at times, but come they do and to date, freedom reigns.

A bit of advice for John Laird.

Be careful in standing in the way of those “Hounds of Whinerville.” They have a habit of rolling right over top of little pissants who think we will abandon our freedom and liberty so easily.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

How Nice, Pelosi “Receptive to Republican Ideas”

In an op-ed piece written for USA Today, disastrous outgoing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D Ca), after boasting of all they accomplished under her tutelage in 111th Congress, such as massive ongoing unemployment, the two largest deficits in history destroying any semblance of “fiscal discipline,” cramming unwritten legislation down the throats of the American people, denying the opposition party any independent voice and alienating even her own party members, now declares, “As we go forward, we welcome Republican ideas…”

“As we go forward,” Mrs. Pelosi?

Remember what retiring fellow Democrat Brian Baird said about Mrs. Pelosi in his book, revealed in the Wall Street Journal op-ed, Requiem for the Pelosi Democrats

“It’s been an authoritarian, closed leadership.”

And, that fiscal responsibility she boasts about? “Now we’re authorizing programs for three years instead of five in an attempt to pretend we’re saving money.”

And, that healthcare reform she’s so proud of? “What the hell were we doing voting on this?”

Most telling, I believe, is when Baird said, “Democrats will also have to recognize why they lost touch with voters.”

Not only that, maybe he and the other Democrats left can help the old crone Pelosi “recognize she has lost touch with reality.”

Mrs. Pelosi is in no position to state, “As we go forward, we welcome Republican ideas,” since with the 112th Congress, she will no longer be the Speaker of the House and if many Democrats have it their way, her “authoritarian, closed leadership” will ensure she does not have any position of leadership in her party.

Perhaps she didn’t receive the memo sent out by voters across America November 2, 2010.

Mrs. Pelosi, you lost!

1998 Tobacco Settlement Unconstitutional?

The entire country knows that in 1998, the four largest US tobacco companies and the Attorneys General of 46 states entered into what is now known as the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement where “the companies agreed to curtail or cease certain tobacco marketing practices, as well as to pay, in perpetuity, various annual payments to the states to compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses.”

I don’t know of anybody, smoker, ex-smoker or never smoked that will argue the ill effects of prolonged tobacco use, so please don’t misconstrue what follows as arguing the effects. What will follow is what attorneys with the Competitive Enterprise Institute see as a “violation of the constitutional provision against multi-state agreements that have not been approved by Congress” and “a major power grab by state AGs at the expense of citizens.”

The attorney’s at CEI have been litigating this matter for 5 years now with a federal appeals court ruling against the challenge this past August.

Hans Bader, CEI Senior Counsel said at that time,

“The court missed an opportunity to restore an important check on state government power set forth by the Founding Fathers. The Constitution’s Compact Clause expressly requires that, when states combine to impose a national regulatory scheme, it must first be approved by Congress. In this case, 46 states acted jointly to engineer and end-run around the Constitution. We will appeal this to the Supreme Court.”

Yesterday, November 8, 2010, CEI filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court for a review of this case.

The issue, explained by Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel,
“The tobacco settlement was hatched in a smoke-free backroom between tobacco companies and state attorneys general. The state AGs imposed a massive national sales tax on cigarettes, without a single elected legislator at any level of government voting for it. This was a major power grab by state AGs at the expense of citizens.”

Although the monies dedicated to the states from the tobacco companies were agreed upon to “compensate them for some of the medical costs of caring for persons with smoking-related illnesses,” we can see that state government, comfortable with receiving the extra funds, have used those funds for other matter, such as Illinois is currently trying to do by selling $1.5 Billion in bonds to “pay bills and balance its budget” backed by funds scheduled to be received from the Tobacco Settlement.

Not being considered in this that ever declining number of tobacco users that would pay the exorbitant taxes on the product means less funds coming in. And, we also see now that Anti-Smoking Programs Are Slashed by states across the country.

But, as troublesome as such matters might be, the crux of CEI’s lawsuit is the constitutionality of the original settlement under Article 1 Section 10 of our constitution, particularly, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress …enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power ….”

A November 9, 2010 Press Release from CEI asserts,
“The Compact Clause was specifically aimed at preventing states from collectively encroaching on federal power or from ganging up on the citizens of other states. The tobacco settlement, a multi-state compact, plainly violates that provision. The settlement set a dangerous precedent in disregarding constitutional protections against government power. The deal also violates federal antitrust laws, setting up a national tobacco cartel that allows Big Tobacco to raise prices while severely restricting its competitors.

According to the terms of the deal, major tobacco companies would make annual payments to the states in perpetuity, with an estimated cost of over $200 billion over 25 years. Even small tobacco companies that were never part of the state lawsuits or subsequent settlements are required to make major escrow payments to the states.

“The MSA is an economic, political, and legal abomination backed by powerful vested interests and upheld by inadequate and destructive legal reasoning,” the cert petition alleges.”

The Washington Examiner sees the settlement it as “a pinnacle of corporate-government collusion” where basically, “lawyers were enriched beyond anyone’s dreams, Big Tobacco Companies were protected from competition and States were to receive a steady flow of funds.”

As we recently saw in my own state, Washington, Tobacco has become the big cash cow for cash strapped states as massive tax increases have been placed upon individual packs while it is becoming increasingly difficult for someone who uses tobacco to frequent any place where use is allowed. With the latest smoking bans, even private homes are restricted under certain circumstances and some states are even looking into bans inside of privately owned vehicles, further eroding any funds to be collected off of the product.

The demonization of the evil weed, Tobacco comes from all aspects of our society today. Liberals, Conservatives, all have their advocates of this ‘backdoor prohibition’ with little or no regard to the constitutionality of how this settlement was reached. That it was reached and others must now ‘toe the line’ is what matters to them.

What remains to be seen now is if the Supreme Court will hear this case for review and if so, will the current justices “strike this abuse of power that the tobacco settlement falsely legitimized?”

Monday, November 08, 2010

Governor Gregoire Disappointed Voters Didn’t “Help Us Out”

The arrogance of this woman seems boundless. As the video below shows, at a time of deep economic recession with unemployment remaining excessively high and people unable to afford many basic necessities, she whines to KING 5 TV, “I wish voters had helped us out.”

What disappoints her is that we in Washington State once again stood up and said “enough! Stop the tax increases.” We rejected the recent taxes placed on candy and soda, reinstated the voter mandated 2/3 majority vote in the legislature for tax increases, that the Democrats led legislature so easily did away with this past year and we rejected their ‘foot in the door’ income tax on high wage earners, knowing full well that eventually it will be passed down to all of us while sales taxes, property taxes and other taxes will remain high or even raised as time goes by.

California’s several efforts at balancing their budget on the backs of taxpayers, while handing out lucrative entitlements has that state on the brink of bankruptcy, with businesses and taxpayers leaving every day. As seen in a November 4, 2010 Investor’s Business Daily article, The 'Golden State' Still Doesn't Get It,
“From 2001 to 2010, factory jobs plummeted from 1.87 million to 1.23 million — a loss of 34% of the state's industrial base.”

“With just 12% of the U.S. population, California has almost a third of the nation's welfare recipients.”

“The state's sales tax is the nation's highest, and its income tax the third-highest, the Web site recently noted.”

And on and on it goes. California gives Washington State example after example of how not to do it and Governor Gregoire and the Democrat led legislature continues to ignore the plight of our southern neighbor as they attempt to copy them.

We have been told every year since the recession began, shortly after Democrats seized total control of congress in 2007 that we are seeing “all-cuts’ budgets, yet spending has increased every year since she moved into the governor’s mansion. A reduction in expected increases in spending is how Democrats define “cuts.”

Facing multi-Billion dollar budget deficits, Democrats set-up Washington State for approving an income tax based solely on class envy. They did this by proposing only the top wage earners would have to pay and after jacking up sales taxes last year, included a promise of lowering them a slight amount.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected the injection of even more class envy in the state. As a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed put it, Washingtonians Get It.

Senator Don Benton, 17th legislative district said in March,
“There was no real reform enacted last year or in 2010. Because of this, we will have to deal with an $8 billion bow wave of costs in the 2011-13 biennium. Even when revenue growth returns to normal, the state budget will not be able to fund anywhere near the promises made by the majority Democrats in 2009-10.”

Governor Gregoire now calls for “bi-partisan solutions” to the ever increasing budget deficit, not acknowledging once that the Republican minority have proposed 55 Solutions that were all ignored or rejected by both governor Gregoire and the Democrat majority.

An October 25, 2010 op-ed appearing in the Snohomish Times, What An Income Tax Did to Connecticut apparently caught voting taxpayers attention, but must have been missed by our governor as she now says of the failed income tax measure, “if not that, then what?” She adds, “I don't have a path forward to be honest with you.”

How about actual cuts in spending, governor Gregoire, not more of your reductions in proposed spending increases? How about looking at that “70% of the budget” that you say is “protected?”

Almost half of that 70% goes to public education. How much of it goes to bloated salaries for unneeded administrative positions, public union contracts and benefits and other spending that doesn’t actually reach the kids? What concessions do state union employees make to share in the downturn?

We cannot forget that in 2008 we saw our State schools lose a $13.2 million math and science grant over union laws. And yet, they continue to turn to taxpayers demanding more every year?

And now the governor has the audacity to stand up and say, “I wish the voters had helped us out?” Little wonder the Libertarian CATO Institute rated governor Gregoire as “an ‘F’ because she is one of the worst governors in the country when it comes to tax and spending increases,” according to a post by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

When governor Gregoire assumed power in 2004 Washington State was running surpluses in the Billions of dollars. In her first 4 years state spending increased some $8 Billion and now, governor Gregoire can stand before us and say, “I don't have a path forward.”

Yes, governor Gregoire, the “path forward” would be for you and your tax and spend Democrat cronies to resign and allow us to select replacements that know how to run a state, not just continue handing out what we don’t have and expecting more.

Sunday, November 07, 2010

Obama Commemorates Mumbai Terrorist Attacks, Forgets Fort Hood

Barack Obama, beginning his trip to India and Pakistan, stopped off at Mumbai, India to commemorate the terrorist attacks of November 26, 2008 that killed 173 people.

ABC News

Obama spoke in from the Taj, the hotel where much of the attack was carried out saying, “I know there’s been a great deal of commentary on our decision to begin our visit here, in this dynamic city, at this historic hotel. And to those who have asked whether this is intended to send a message, my answer is simple absolutely.”

He continued, “We’ll never forget the awful imagines of 26/11 including the flames from this hotel that lit up the night sky. We’ll never forget how the world, including the American people watched and grieved with all of India. But the resolve and the resilience of the Indian people during those attacks stood in stark contrast with the savagery of the terrorists.”

I applaud Obama on his message to the Indian people, but wouldn’t it have been nice if he or his staff had remembered the events of November 5, 2009 as well and told the American people he is charged with leading that he will never forget the heinous attack and murder of 12 unarmed soldiers by a radical Jihadist US Army Major at Ft. Hood, Texas that was charged with helping US Soldiers returning from war?

Instead, Obama was traveling to India to tell them we will never forget the attack on their soil on the very day 12 of our soldiers we gunned down in cold blood last year.

Shouldn’t an attack from within on our own soil be as important to the man elected to be president? Wouldn’t it be great to once again have a president who showed as much concern for America as he does others?

Friday, November 05, 2010

Really Governor Gregoire?

Yes, governor, we do wish to dismantle what you have done these past 6 years. We want spending brought under control. We want reasonable taxes and we want business to be able to create jobs for all of us.

You're wrong, governor, there is a path forward. All you need do is resign and we will find someone able to do the job.


By Bruce R. McCain LLC

At first glance, the Republican tidal wave that swept across America last Tuesday failed to affect Oregon. Heading into Tuesday’s general election, Oregon, Washington and California comprised the Left Coast’s self-described “firewall” against Tea Party intrusion. So how blue does Oregon look after Tuesday’s general election?

Seen from Capitol Hill, Oregon looks as blue as John Kitzhaber’s jeans after every incumbent congressional member won re-election. Senator Ron Wyden earned another six years of commuting between Washington DC and his Oregon mailing address by thumping Jim Huffman, whose 40% showing was underwhelming this election year. Democrat Peter DeFazio won a surprisingly tough 54%-45% victory over Art Robinson in Southern Oregon’s CD-4. In the other two closely watched congressional races, Democrat incumbents Kurt Schrader (CD-5) and David Wu (CD-1) held off challenges by Scott Bruun and Rob Cornilles, respectively. Both of those congressional districts have been held by Democrats since 1975 and Oregonians failed to reverse that trend. In Portland’s 3rd congressional district, Democrat incumbent Earl Blumenauer predictably flattened out-of-district Delia Lopez. The southern Oregon resident’s Tea Party platform may have sounded great to Victoria Taft listeners, but her ads fell on deaf ears as Lopez struggled to a 25% showing in a district with more non-affiliated voters than registered Republicans.

So Oregon’s congressional delegation remains the same with two Democratic senators and four of five Democratic representatives. But the biggest winner in the bunch turned out to be the lone Republican, Rep. Greg Walden. When Blumenauer, Schrader, DeFazio and Wu return to the Capitol, they will be met by Walden, who was tapped as leader of the Republican transition team. Oregon’s four Democrats will take their seats as members of the minority party.

In state-wide races, Democrat Ted Wheeler beat Republican Chris Telfer to become the fifth consecutive Democratic state treasurer. And of course, John Kitzhaber became the governor of Multnomah County after losing in 29 of 36 counties in the closest gubernatorial race in a generation. Kitzhaber’s return to Mahonia Hall extends Democratic occupancy to 28 years, while continuing Democrats’ dominance in state-wide races due to the Multnomah Effect.

Though the Left Coast firewall successfully absorbed the brunt of the conservative wave, the residual red tide had to go somewhere. As it turns out, it followed its natural course and flowed and seeped to the local legislative races where it produced an astounding result. One week ago Democrats enjoyed legislative supermajorities in both chambers. They awoke Wednesday to discover Oregonians had dumped a mass of Red tea into their Blue pot, leaving a Purple legislature comprised of a 30-30 split in the house and a narrow16-14 Democratic senate.

Presiding over the Democrats’ collapse was Dave Hunt (D-Gladstone), who has little chance of returning as house speaker in January. In a clumsy and desperate stunt, Hunt’s caucus smear machine known as FuturePac falsely accused three Republican candidates – Matt Wand, Patrick Sheehan and Shawn Lindsay – of supporting a 30% sales tax. FuturePac’s outrageous lies were described by the Oregonian as the political “Cheap Shot of the Year” and proved disastrously ineffective. All three Republicans won their races, ending the Democratic majority and Hunt’s tenure as speaker.

Of all the Republican legislative victories, none is more significant than Wand’s in HD-49. The battle-ground district, which lies just east of Portland in Multnomah County, was held through 2006 by former house speaker Karen Minnis, who did not seek reelection in 2008. Powered by Obama-mania, Democrats pushed Republicans completely out of Multnomah County in 2008. Part of that sweep was Democrat Nick Kahl’s open seat win over John Nelson (R) in HD-49. With more than 12,000 registered Democrats and less than 8,000 registered Republicans, the incumbent Kahl had a huge built-in advantage over Wand in 2010. Yet Wand firmly re-planted the Republican flag in Multnomah County after only 24 months of exile with a decisive 53%-46% win over his one-term Democrat opponent.

With Wand’s victory in HD-49, Patrick Sheehan’s win in HD-51 (Clackamas) and Mark Johnson’s huge win in HD-52 (Hood River), Republicans created a Red firewall of their own around and below Multnomah County. The visual and literal significance of those three Republican pick-ups cannot be overstated, boosted by Republican Chuck Thomsen’s stunning defeat of Democratic incumbent senator and rising star Brent Barton in SD-26, which consists of Sheehan’s and Johnson’s adjacent house districts.

For Oregonians to finally break free of decades of one-party Democratic rule, they must first understand the effect Multnomah County has on Oregon elections and how independents and conservatives can counter that effect. The 2010 general election laid out the template and the strategy. Portland’s Democratic machine will never be defeated. But it can be surrounded and politically quarantined, thereby reducing its influence over the rest of Oregon. Next: Making Portland See Red…

Bruce R. McCain is a former Sheriff's captain and attorney in private practice in Portland, Oregon. He is an outspoken politico looking at the inner workings of Portland, Multnomah County as well as Oregon state politics. He writes for The Northwest Connection and has appeared on local and national media and is an active participant at

Liberty Milestones: November 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan Elected

Authored and submitted by Rees Lloyd

Ronald Reagan, inspiring the American people with the message that “we have a rendezvous with destiny,” was elected President of the United States on November 4, 1980. It is well to remember Reagan on the 30th anniversary of his historic election, as it was truly a milestone of liberty.

Exuding patriotism, belief in American exceptionalism, and optimism for America’s future, Reagan, the “Great Communicator,” as he became known, changed the spirit of the nation, the country, and the world.

Following in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers, and championing the values enshrined by them in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Reagan called on Americans to revive the country by living the conservative principles by which the Founders created and preserved American liberty: Limited government; individual freedom by protection of natural rights endowed by the Creator and guaranteed by the Constitution; free enterprise with both personal and governmental fiscal and moral responsibility; and a strong national defense securing national and individual freedom.

In doing so, Reagan was vilified before his election and during his entire presidency by elitist liberal “progressives” of the Democrat Party, democratic socialists, communists and other totalitarians of every stripe, the liberal American media and academia. He was attacked, denounced, and ridiculed as a “dangerous rightwing conservative,” “a war monger,” an “amiable dunce” who lacked the political sophistication and intellectual capacity necessary in a modern president -- qualities which, of course, his progressive detractors possessed.

Standing athwart the “progressive” Democrats decades long “Big Government” policies, and their elitist view that they were “on the right side of history” in expanding government socialistically while retracting free enterprise individually, Reagan boldly and firmly proclaimed: “Government is not the solution, government is the problem.”

Liberal “progressives” howled with outrage as they saw decades of expanding government, ruled by themselves as anointed elite, threatened by this “reactionary” conservative president who lacked the intellect to perceive their superiority.

But the American people were inspired. Reagan brought the American people real hope that America could change from the “malaise” which had come to dominate the national spirit during the tenure of the liberal Democrat president Reagan defeated, Jimmy Carter, who was himself the author of the term “malaise” as the fitting description of the American mood and spirit after his four-years in the White House.

While Reagan changed the spirit of the nation, proclaiming “it is morning in America,” so he changed the nature of the government, the country, and the world.

As to the government, in an era in which liberal Democrat policies in the administration of Jimmy Carter had led to soaring interest rates reaching 18 per cent, a national “malaise,” and a series of bumbling international relations and military embarrassments, Reagan defied the liberal progressives.

First, noting that “a rising tide raises all boats,” Reagan adopted “supply side economics,” slashed taxes on Americans, and attempted to decrease rather than increase government in order to free up Americans to be creators of wealth by their own enterprise rather than consumers of wealth by government dependency and redistribution. The progressive pundits predicted doom, branded his economics as “selfish,” mean, creating the “Me First” generation.

Reagan was right and the elitist “progressives,” who overwhelmingly do not actually produce or create wealth, but are of the chattering classes producing opinions rather than wealth, or worse, lawyers, were wrong.

As to the world, Reagan changed it profoundly by evidencing that he said what he meant and meant what he said.

For but one example, on the very day of Reagan’s inauguration, the terrorist Islamic Republic of Iran under the ayatollahs released all the American hostages which they had held during the administration of Carter, whose pleadings for the release of the American hostages on humanitarian grounds the Islamic theocracy of Iran had defied, and mocked.

Reagan also ended the “Cold War” with Soviet Communism which had begun at the end of WWII and ended only with Reagan, despite all the efforts of progressives to convince Reagan to kowtow to Communism rather than combat it.

When Reagan called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, then the other world power, an “Evil Empire,” American progressives were beside themselves, declaring Reagan to be “mad” (as in insane), a “war monger” who would so upset the Soviet Communist Great Bear that there would be a world-ending nuclear war.

Reagan did not retreat, but instead really had the progressives twisting their knickers in a knot by announcing he would pursue “Star Wars,” a U.S. nuclear missile defense system in space. Progressives attacked hysterically, denounced it as unworkable, a useless provocation, a waste of money, destructive of peace in the world, and pronounced Reagan “really mad” (as in really insane).

On top of that, when Reagan met with Soviet Premier Gorbachev in Iceland for a summit which Gorbachev sought and which “progressives” hailed as setting the stage for peaceful accommodation to Soviet International Socialism, Reagan refused to retreat from “Star Wars.” Progressives were ablaze with denunciatory indignation.

In Berlin, Reagan would utter words heard round the world: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” And the wall ultimately came tumbling down.

In all of these things, Reagan was denounced by liberal progressives in government, in the media, in academia, in the leadership of the Democrat Party.

In all of these things, Reagan was right, and they were wrong: Reagan’s presidency ended in 1989, and so did the Soviet Union end in that year. The Berlin Wall collapsed. The Soviet Union Collapsed. Former Premier Gorbachev, a dedicated communist to the end, admitted that it was Reagan’s refusal to retreat from “Star Wars” that had brought down the Soviet Union, which could no longer afford to compete financially with the U.S. to build such a defense system.

These were and are great milestones in liberty. They were achieved by a man of great integrity, courage, commonsense, and simple faith in his God and his country. A man who achieved great things, but always exuded a sense of humility, not hubris; a president who did not project himself as above his fellow Americans, but one of them.

Ronald Reagan was that that rarity: A man not only great, but good.

There is a story about his later years that perhaps most fittingly and touchingly describes how he thought of himself, and how he thought of us. He had begun his life in the Midwest, where as a young man, he had quite proudly served as a lifeguard. In his last years, he suffered from an affliction affecting so many of his fellow Americans, Alzheimer’s. He did not hide it. He publicly announced it before it was far advanced, knowing that it would advance. In those last years, he like others, was lost in an Alzheimer’s daze, cared for by his loving wife Nancy. She related that Reagan no longer spoke of memories of days as president, as the most powerful man in the world. What Ronald Reagan proudly remembered, Nancy said, was that he was a lifeguard back in the Midwest, saving lives.

Ronald Reagan was that: a lifesaver, and a nation saver.

I knew that Reagan was bringing about a profound change in America long before his great deeds as president, by startling evidence close to home: The impact he had on my own father. Like many of his generation, my father was a WWII vet who left home in the Midwest as a young teen (eighth grade) in the Depression to help support his family by working in the forests of Oregon in the Civilian Conservation Corps. As soon as he turned 18, he was shipped from the CCC Camps into the Army. Not long thereafter, WWII broke out. He served for the duration, from the Declaration of War to the Declaration of Victory in 1945.

Having spent his teenage years serving in CCC Camps and the years of his young manhood in military service, he returned home to find a job, start and provide for his family. He was a steel worker and later a refinery worker, active in his union, and both the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars. Although he was never active in politics, he was an FDR Democrat who had voted the Democrat ticket his whole life, thinking of Republicans as wealthy “fat cats” who didn’t know or care about the hardships or concerns of ordinary American people working onerous jobs. He was a tough, skilled, self-reliant, honest, humble, hardworking and proud American, who asked for nothing from government except to be left alone.

And then I found out that he, of all people, voted for Ronald Reagan. I was shocked. I knew then, by that evidence alone, that America was being profoundly changed. So was I.

Ronald Reagan is gone, and leading up to the elections held on November 2, 2010, thirty years after his own election, we were told by the progressive pundits that “Reaganism is dead,” the Republicans are wrong to try to revive “Reaganism.” The progressives are wrong, again.

The spirit that Ronald Reagan created in America, the love of freedom and the spirit of honest patriotism and belief in America and its traditional values , that willingness to serve and sacrifice for God and country, which Ronald Reagan embodied and expressed, that which is now called “Reaganism” and which changed my industrial working class father into a Reagan Democrat, is not dead.

It is in fact Reaganism, expressed by and in the hearts of Tea Party Patriots, which led to the great change in America on Nov. 2, 2010, when the nation rejected overwhelmingly the Big Government progressivism of President Barack Hussein Obama which is perceived as leading the country from the free constitutional republic the Founding Fathers created to a version of European-style democratic socialism.

Progressive pundits notwithstanding, I see the evidence that Reaganism is alive and well today in the words and deeds of the Tea Party Patriots, with whom I have had the privilege to gather without the slightest manifestation of hatred or racism or violence or other dangerousness that has been so falsely attributed to them by progressives from President Obama (who in contrast has stated that those of us who oppose his policies are “enemies”), to “progressive” Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, to uncountable “progressives” in the media, academia, the internet, cable, and blogs, etc., et al.

Ironically, it is the Tea Party Patriots who, despite all the contumely laid upon them by elitist progressives, have actually brought about that “participatory democracy” that “progressives” once proclaimed in the Civil Rights Era as one of their cherished goals, “the people” actively participating in the democratic process. Notwithstanding, Tea Party Patriots participating in the democratic process are hypocritically vilified by the same “progressives” today.

It is the Tea Party Patriots, still inspired by Ronald Reagan, who have risen up with common sense and simple faith, in God and their country, to participate in our democratic process, in order to restrain a progressively expanding government and to reclaim the free constitutional republic the Founders created and bequeathed us, and who are doing so peacefully, by walking in the footsteps of the Founding Fathers…and Ronald Reagan, the Lifesaver, whose election on November 4, 1980, was the true historic election of the modern era, a true milestone of liberty.

REES LLOYD is a longtime civil rights attorney and veterans activist whose work has been honored by, among others, the California Senate and Assembly, and numerous civil rights, workers rights, and veterans rights organizations. He has testified as a constitutional expert at hearings before the U.S. House and Senate representing The American Legion.
He has been profiled, and his work featured, by such varied print media as the Los Angeles Times and American Legion Magazine, and such broadcast media as ABC's Nightline and 20/20, Fox News In The Morning, and, among others, by Hannity. His writings have appeared in a variety of national, regional, and local newspaper, magazine, and other publications. He is a frequent radio commentator, and a sought after speaker.