Elections Have Consequences

Republicans have always been loud in our support for Israel, a small outpost of Democracy surrounded by dictators intent on its total destruction. That is in contrast to President Obama, who appears intent on isolating Israel and enabling its enemies. In his speech to the UN yesterday, he “put Israel on the chopping block”, according to former UN Ambassador John Bolton. The inclination for Republicans is to stand with our trusted ally and fight with every means possible for their right to exist, letting them know that the current Administration does not speak for the majority of Americans. This is what we will do for Poland, this is what we will do for Honduras – the US has momentarily lost its moral bearings, but we will fix it. Just hold on.

The question is, though, does Israel want our support? The US Jewish electorate voted OVERWHELMINGLY for Barak Obama in the previous election: 78% Obama/22% McCain. Obama’s anti-Israel inclinations were well known. Should Republicans argue against the current US policy towards Israel if that policy is what American Jewish voters want? If US Jewish voters put Israel on a path to destruction, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, should Republicans care? Well, of course we should care. And of course we will continuously and LOUDLY argue on behalf of our ally. But it would be a lot easier to make our case for, and offer protection to, Israel if that 78% of American Jewish voters joined us.

Author: Mark

MA Delegation Supports ACORN

The House vote on Sept 17 to deny further federal funding to ACORN was pretty overwhelming, as one would hope after videos that showed ACORN staff, in multiple ACORN offices, counseling a couple claiming to be a prostitute and her pimp how to get a mortgage, buy a house as a brothel, and then launder their earnings (and those of a dozen or so underage Salvadorean girls they intended to import to work in the brothel). The vote was 345-75 to deny funding, with two 'present' and 11 not voting.

WHO were those 75 who thought that ACORN should still get federal (i.e., taxpayer) funds?

Well, are the names familiar? They are Massachusetts Congressmen (8 of 10): all pathetic amoral excuses of gutlessness. The only Massachusetts Congressman to vote morally was John Tierney. Even Barney Frank had the courage (?) to be 'not voting': his nose, at least, appears to retain a few receptor cells to alert him to the stench of ACORN.

By the way, Moran of Virginia, with his Natick origins, and morally challenged as his career has been, also voted like a typical Massachusetts rep: let's hope it's not something in the water. (Actually, it probably isn't the water: Markey hasn't spent enough time in Massachusetts in the last 30 years to drink any water, except perhaps the occasional bottle of Perrier at Alan Solomont's Weston estate during fund raising events.)

Ed Markey's offices (contact ALL of them, if you are angered by his vote)
5 High Street, Suite 101
Medford, MA 02155
781-396-2900

188 Concord Street, Suite 102
Framingham, MA 01702
508-875-2900

2108 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-2836

Author: Mike

Sorry Poland! Good Luck!

It’s a busy world out there for our Commander-in-Chief: steamroll healthcare, help Hugo Chavez crush Honduran democracy, levy energy surtaxes on everybody, negotiate with the Iranians, nationalize the financial and auto industries. But fortunately our President found time to squeeze one more achievement into his portfolio: sell out the Poles and the Czechs. No nuclear shield for eastern Europe, as that would upset the Russians. This will go right up there in the annals of diplomacy with Neville Chamberlain's brilliant political moves to prevent Germany from invading Cheklosovkia, otherwise knows as the Munich Agreement. The more times change, the more they stay the same. Poland and the Czechs again, 70 years later.

It is very sad to see the US on the retreat throughout the world. Hopefully Poland and the Czechs can hang on three more years until a change of administrations re-establishes the US standing as a trusted ally. If I were Russia, or Iran, I would certainly make sure the nuclear threats achieved territorial gains before that window closes. Israel will likely make a move to stop Iran sometime in that window, but I fear they will fight alone.





Author: Mark

Tally ho! The game is a-foot!

The starter gun has gone off, and the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat is under way! The special election to fill the seat will be held January 19^th. Governor Patrick may or may not get the Massachusetts State Legislature to change the rules (again) and let him appoint an interim replacement until that election. For those of us who do not want the health care industry to run like the post office, it would be better to leave the seat vacant for a few months.

So lets take a look at how the field is shaping up:

Definitely running for the Democrats:

Attorney General Martha Coakley

Maybe running for the Democrats:

Congressman Michael Capuano, Congressman Stephen Lynch

Not running for the Democrats:

Joe Kennedy (being best buds with Hugo Chavez works against him), Congressman Ed Markey

Definitely running for the Republicans:

State Senator Scott Brown

Maybe running for the Republicans:

Curt Shilling, Christy Mihos

Not running for the Republicans:

Mitt Romney, Andy Card, Kerry Healey

On the Democrat side, the biggest disappointment is clearly the decision by Ed Markey not to run. We in the seventh Congressional district appear to be stuck with him until the November 2010 elections, when his votes on the cap-and-trade energy surtax, the stimulus pork-a-thon bill, and the nationalization of healthcare should be enough to move him to early retirement (IF the Republicans recruit a viable candidate to challenge).

On the Republican side, Curt Shilling is the wild card. He has the money and name recognition to become an instant contender. Yet State Representative Scott Brown has the experience as a legislator as well as the grass-roots political organization to make a strong run at the seat.

Here’s my prediction: Stephen Lynch for the Democrats against Scott Brown for the Republicans. Lynch will take greater Boston out to 128, Brown will take everything west of 495, and both will fight it out in the trenches of the suburbs between 128 and 495. That battle works to Brown’s advantage, in my opinion. Scott Brown will get my vote, and my support.

One further consideration: when the 2010 census results are in, it is likely that Massachusetts will lose yet another congressional district, as the population shifts to other parts of the country. All 10 of Massachusetts congressional districts are represented by Democrats (which might not be unrelated to the fact that people keep leaving Massachusetts). So those 10 Democrats might be thinking about the possibility that their district might be re-districted out of existence, which might in turn be a factor in who runs for the Senate seat.

Author: Mark

ACORN exposed, again

A young women posing as a prostitute/sex trafficker, and an independent videographer posing as her law student boyfriend, sought ACORN's advice in how to go into business: buy a house, set up a brothel, and bring in 13 or so 11-14 year old girls to work for them. They asked, and receive advice from not one, but TWO ACORN offices: both Baltimore and Washington, D.C.

People complained to the Maryland State's Attorney for Baltimore City about the Baltimore ACORN behavior, so the state office has apparently threatened to take the couple (not ACORN) to court for breaking state law. (Huh?)

But then this is the same state that indicted Linda Tripp for taping Monica Lewinsky's phone calls.

But when tax cheats are put in charge of numerous Federal offices, including the Treasury, and at least one 'czar' wanted "Bush/Cheney ties to the 9/11 attacks" investigated, what should we expect?

Link.

Author: Mike

Whole Foods Founder on Health Care Reform

A lot of attacks have been aimed at John Mackey, co-founder of Whole Foods, for his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on Health Care Reform. But few, if any, of the attacks dispute any of his points.

Why? Because they are clear, logical, and would be effective. But they gore too many 'progressive' oxen: personal responsibility, discretion, limits on lawyers, etc.

Check out his points here, and make up your own mind.

Author: Mike

Pull the plug? I say yes for PBS!

There’s an article in the Boston Globe today pointing out the difficult financial times WGBH, the flagship of the PBS network, is encountering. Now, remind me again why the taxpayers are on the hook funding a media outlet for the government? I get that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting supports big government because big government supports CPB. I just don’t understand why the federal government does that. For the good press public broadcasting gives to big government? CPB and all it’s affiliated alphabet soup of organizations it funds from NPR to PBS had (maybe) an argument to exist in 1969 when there were three alternatives, but now CPB is just a sad anachronism.

How much does the federal government spend of your tax dollars to support its mouthpiece? The federal government subsidizes the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which pay the money to affiliates in the Public Broadcasting Systems such as WGBH) $430 million per year . Plus another $67 millions for infrastructure upgrades. So lets call it an even $500 million. For one year. Now, in today’s era of money-grows-on-trees free-spending thinking, where trillions are added to the deficit almost daily, this would appear chump change. But to put that number in perspective, it is about five times what the new Natick High School and Senior Center will cost, combined. It could fund the entire town budget of Natick - for four years.

It’s your tax dollars funding a broadcast network. How ludicrous is that? We need to start a campaign to lobby our representatives to pull the plug on the subsidies, and get the government out of the broadcast business.

We can call it the “Please Ban Subsidies” campaign: Just Say Yes to PBS!

Author: Mark