Sex Scandals Different For Republicans

Politicians from the two parties have different consequences for their actions as it involves sex scandals or marital infidelity. Arguments have been made that this is because the every day members of the two parties view these issues differently. However, one man on the news today said this was because Republicans talk about family values while they have a man in the white house who is living them. Uh, OK. And when the had Clinton in the white house and the Dems didn't care that he was a total horndog the reason was what?



I really do believe that the two parties look at infidelity differently. It has been said by some that they don't care who politicians are screwing as long as it's not the people. My problem with it is that if a person will break their oath, their vow, to their spouse, how can possibly trust them to keep their oath to us? If we can't trust them in one thing how can we trust them on anything?



So let's look at some of the big sex scandals of the past and how they've been handled.



Republicans

- Gov Sanford has affair in Venezuela possibly using government funds, run out of town on a rail
- Senator John Ensign - has affair with staffer, apologizes then shuts up about it, stays in office and plans to run for re-election in 2012.
- Sen David Vitter - shows up on phone records for prostitutes, apologizes then shuts up, stays in office and running for re-election.
- Sen Larry Craig - looking for sex in an airport men's room, apologizes but still too much press, run out of town on a rail.
- Rep Mark Foley - sends sexually explicit notes to a 16 year old page, no actual sex but notes are still bad enough, apologizes, run out of town on a rail.
- Candidate Gary Hart - announces affair, withdraws from campaign

So for the Republicans, 4 of 6 are pressured to resign.

Democrats
- Sen Ted Kennedy - has affair, gets woman killed, still in office.
- President Bill Clinton - has affair, commits purjery about it, stays in office because he only lied about sex. Also accused of affair like Gary Hart, does not withdraw, wins presidency.
- Sen Barney Frank - uses tax payer funds to hire male prostitute as "personal assistant"who ran prostitution ring form Frank's home, still in office.
- Sen Daniel Inouye - accused by numerous women of sexual harassment, ethics committee dropped investigation, stayed in office.
- Sen Brock Adams - accused of drugging and rape, stayed in office until more women came forward and he decided not to run for re-election
- Gov Jim McGreavy - announces affair with a man, resigns

Democrats, 2 of 6 pressured to resign.

Looking at this is does appear that there is a double standard when it comes to sex scandals. But what I found most interesting about this is how many of the badly behaved are in the senate.

So, is this really that Republicans talk family values while Democrats live them? Doesn't look so much like that to me.

California is Bankrupt - Again

Years and years of spending and spending on government programs has resulted in the State of California being bankrupt. Again. The Governator's inability to stand up to the liberal congress and fight for cuts has kept the California economy in turmoil.

So what is their answer to this crisis? Are they going to cut spending? Nope. Not a bit.

The old adage when it comes to debt reduction, which is an old adage because it is true, is that you have to spend less or make more. This works for most of us in that we have to spend less because making more isn't all that easy. But, when it comes to the government, their options are spend less or TAKE more.

The government does not make money. Neither the federal government nor that of the states. The government simply takes money that the citizens make. They're not working harder for that money, they simply pass a bill that increases taxes. The spend less or make more works for individuals because neither is really an easy option. I know, I had to face that decision once and my choice was to get a roommate (spend less) or a second job (make more). I opted for the second job because I really prefer to live alone. My past experiences with roommates haven't been great. That meant that I was working 65 - 70 hours a week, and sometimes 7 days a week. Making more was not as easy as a stroke of a pen for me. I'm actually thinking of doing the same thing again so I can have money for travel.

But does our government have to work harder in order to "make more"? Nope, it's the citizens the money is taken from who are impacted. It's an easy option for the government itself. Instead of making the hard decisions and cutting spending, much of which is probably wasteful, California is instead planning to increase sales taxes to take more money. If they do this, I fully expect California to, later in the year, be bankrupt yet again.

And if you're thinking, well this is California it doesn't impact me, remember another adage. Where goes California so goes the country. Think about all of the government spending that has happened in 2009 so far and what is yet to come. If they're spending more, they only have 2 options. Continue to borrow money, and our main lender is getting leery of buying any more of our debt, or take more. And they will take more.

Remember this, there is no such thing as government money. They are nothing more than a 3rd party vendor spending the money they've taken from you!

Meanwhile, Obama is using CA as the example of why cap and trade works. Talking about how they passed similar legislation earlier and did it without impacting their economy. Uh huh. Good idea, hold a broke state up as an example of how this won't financially impact us. Smart move.

Are We Now an Oligarchy?

Have we changed our basic political process from a Democratic Republic to an Oligarchy without bothering to amend the Constitution or even notifying the populace? It's starting to look that way.

If you're unfamiliar with what an Oligarchy is, think South Africa. An Oligarchy is where the country is run by the "elite" or by a specific class of people. These elite make the decisions that affect the rest of the nation. Is this sounding frighteningly familiar.

Our Congress, and many elitist political campaign contributors are making the decisions for the rest of us without regards to what we actually want. Cap and Trade is just the most recent example of this. So many calls were received on this issue that the switchboard actually crashed. Of the calls received 90% were against it. And yet the bill passed.

Illegal immigration is another example. The American public made it absolutely crystal clear that we do not want a path to citizenship for illegals and that we want the border secured and the current laws enforced before anything else is done. And yet this amnesty was supported by both of our Presidential candidates and is still being attempted to push through.

Next we have the health care debate. Although most Americans do support a plan that would cover the current uninsured, how to do it is still under debate. In a recent poll 77% of Americans said they are satisfied with their current coverage, and we are continually promised that we would be able to keep this coverage if the government created a program to "compete" with private insurers. But where is the competition when one player is making the rules and the other just has to follow them? And where is the competition when one player can operate at a loss while the other must make a profit. So even though those of us who are satisfied with our coverage would like to keep it, we won't have that option once the unfair, so called competition puts our insurer out of business. Support for this bill is losing support in the Congress as constituents speak up, so is the leadership re-looking at it? No, they are simply pushing harder to get through what THEY want to give us and not what we want to receive. Inflicting their will on the people instead of the having the will of the people inflicted on them.

The stimulus packages and bailouts were yet another example. The stimulus had less than 50% support with many concerns over how much money was being spent and on what. Yet this legislation was pushed through without being read against the wishes and the will of the people. Why? Because this is what the elite wanted so that's what we got. And when we voiced our objections, the elite mocked those who spoke out.

My final point is this, the current Congressional approval rating is at 29%. The last time it was above 50% was in October of 2001. The rating fluctuates going as low as 12% but usually hovering in the 20's and 30's. This means that, on average, 70% of the American public disapprove of what our leadership is doing. Our Congress sees themselves as above us, the average American. They have created an elite status for themselves, and in so doing, turned our once great system of government into an Oligarchy. No longer a government of the people, but now a government of a ruling class. They have made themselves an aristocracy and seek to bend us all to their will.

I have never been submissive. I have a very hard time bending my will even to compromise much less submit. This is probably the main reason that I am still single. And it is also the reason that I will continue to fight against having my voice, my vote and my say ignored by a bunch of elitist jackasses. I encourage you to do the same. Do not abdicate your role in the running of the country to this new ruling class. Reclaim our Democratic Republic from those who seek an Oligarchy.

Celebrities Drop Like Flies

June has been pretty hard on celebrities, and if they really do come in threes we still have one more to go.

The month started out with the loss of David Carradine through what first appeared to be suicide but has since been questioned. Carradine was found hanging in his apartment in Bancock but the fact that his hands were tied above his head has resulted in the question of foul play in his death. Carradine, of Kill Bill fame, was 62 years old.

Next was the loss of Ed McMahon at the age of 86. An American icon and a household name. McMahon had been hospitalized for multiple health issues and was in the hospital when he passed away. But were we even able to come to terms with that loss before the death of Farrah Fawcett was announced? Farrah, dead at 62, as was Carradine, was known to be dying and had even done a documentary on the progression of her illness and impending death. Though not a shock, it was still sad.

Since it is said that these deaths come in 3's, Farrah appeared to be the third. But no sooner could the idea be cemented that this was it, just hours after the announcement of Farrah's death, we learn that Michael Jackson has died as well. That's 2 in one day. And Michael was only 50 years old. Much has been covered on his death so I'm not going to go into this further.

Now, just a matter of days later, we have Billy Mays, product promoter extraordinaire, also dead at age 50. Mays was found in his home by his wife and his death appears to be of natural causes.

With all of this to deal with, the loss of 5 of our famous, is there still yet one more left to go? I certainly hope not.

Congress Taxes Air

Well they've finally done it. Congress has finally found a way to tax air. By taxing "carbon emissions" in the Waxman-Markey (cap and trade) bill they are taxing how much carbon dioxide is put into the air. Guess what you exhale when you breathe? Carbon dioxide.

Our leadership has made no secret that is just the first step in their plans to regulate everything we do it and call it climate change legislation. This is simply another example of Congress using punishment through taxation in order to modify the behavior of the American people. Where is our individual freedom when the government thinks they should have control over everything we do? Why don't they just come right out and make it illegal? After all, to most of them burning coal is on the same par with murder.

So why is the bill called cap and trade you ask? It's quite simple really. The government is going to put a cap on how much carbon can be emitted, and if you don't use all of your allotment you can trade it for something else. Well, actually you can sell it to somebody else. The Washington Post described it this way; "The government would set a cap on the amount of carbon dioxide that could be emitted and would issue allowances to polluting sectors that could buy and sell those rights." So if you are in an industry that necessarily emits carbon, you're going to have to pay off the government in order to stay in business.

People have been duped into believing that this is a bill to create jobs, it's just the opposite. By levying huge taxes on companies who emit carbon, those companies will risk closing their doors because they can't bear the cost of the new taxes. Not only that, but the companies in other areas of the world, making the same product, will be able to sell it cheaper because they won't be subject to the same legislation. And those other companies are probably already emitting more carbon that the companies here. So what are we actually going to end up doing? Increasing a demand and therefore productivity for the companies that are less clean by punishing our cleaner companies here.

This is nothing more than one giant pay to play bill. A bill that so many people opposed initially that most of the 1,500 page legislation is a pay off to get votes. The Washington Post said this as well; "The result is a 1,201-page measure filled with political compromises, directives, subsidies and selections of winners and losers that most members won't be able to analyze before the vote and that leaves us wondering how effective it will be. " And this was before the last minute 300 page amendment. Winners and losers have already been selected by our Government. How does that work in a free market system? It doesn't. This will be giving the government control over every product produced, how it's produced, and what options we as consumers have. This is step one in the process of the government eliminating our right to choose and the consumer's control of the market. Their plan is to have the government control the market. Does that sound like the USA that you know?

I am all for being environmentally responsible. And if this bill were actually an attempt to find alternative fuel sources and /or to make those already discovered more cost effective and financially competitive, I'd be all for it. But it's not. It's a behavior modification tax. The government is going with their simple logic that if they don't want us to do something make it so expensive we can't afford to do it. According to them we use too much energy so they are slapping a huge energy tax on us. And this is a tax. A tax on ALL Americans. And weren't we promised that 95% of Americans would not have a tax increase? That only those making over $250K would be impacted by a tax increase? Well this is a tax that is expected to cause your energy bill to increase by at least 40%. So for those already struggling, already living paycheck to paycheck, one of your bills is going to increase dramatically. My senator, in a response to an e-mail I sent her, has already acknowledged that this is going to drive costs up and put our businesses at a disadvantage, so if you don't believe me, just ask your Congressmen.

This bill passed the house by a narrow margin because 8 Republicans voted for it. Had they stood by the principles of the Republican party this would not have happened. If you want to know who the "Republican 8" as we now refer to them are, you can find out about them by clicking on the link to the left for Left Coast Rebel. He has written a blog with a list of who they are and where they are from.

Please contact your Senator and urge them to vote no on this legislation. We cannot have this bill which taxes air and encourages corruption become law.

And all of this is to address an issue that scientists are still debating. The climate is changing, as it always has and always will, but man's impact on the climate is still contested by many scientists, and yet we're levying a huge tax under the guise of mitigating a problem we're not even sure exists.

Obama Says Bush Was Right

President Obama, realizing that you actually have to have a plan and not just a nebulous idea, has drafted legislation to allow himself to detain terror suspects indefinitely. Gee, imagine that.

Here we see the difference between the campaign and the actual problems of leadership. So after hammering away at President Bush throughout the entire campaign (even though Bush wasn't running) Obama now finds out that things ain't quite as easy as they seem.

Face it Mr President, you're not Dumbledore. You can't just wave your magic wand and have issues resolve themselves. And the truth is that Dumbledore would give you lines for even thinking that you could.

Here we see the main problem with President Obama. He is a great orator. He can charm a crowd and make you want to snuggle up under a warm blanket with your worst enemy. He has ideas that sound better than a hot toddy on a cold winter's night. Problem is that he has absolutely no idea how to implement them.

Isn't a key requirement for a President the ability to take something from theory into practical application. But our current President has no ideation process for figuring out how to get from point A to point B. Although I hear he has contacted J K Rowlings to find out what happened to Ollivander's wand shop.

An idea alone won't solve anything. There must be a way to put the idea into action and actually make it work. At a REASONABLE cost to the taxpayer. This is a recurring theme with our current leader. He can create those castles in the sky, but unfortunately he has to build them here on earth. And there are all those pesky zoning issues to contend with.

All I can say, and I can't believe I'm saying it, Kudos Obama for keeping them there instead of bringing them here.

Please leave comments. I live alone and work at home. I spend way too much time talking to myself already.

Claire McCaskill and Climate Change

As you may have guessed, I am against the cap and trade climate change legislation. In an effort to prevent this useless, excessive tax increase which benefits nobody but GE and Al Gore, I wrote to my Senator. I advised her that should she vote for the Waxman- Markey bill (cap and trade) I would work tirelessly to ensure her defeat in her next bid for re-election. This is the response I received from Ms McCaskill. I have translated Ms McCaskill's words into their actual meaning. The real meaning is listed in red.


Thank you for contacting me regarding climate change legislation and "green jobs" in the 111th Congress. I appreciate your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond. (But don't think I actually give a shit what you think)

I believe global climate change threatens our health, environment, and national security. Congress needs to implement meaningful reform that addresses this issue as soon as possible. (We're just arrogant enough to believe we can control the weather). Drafting a responsible (responsible, from our congress? Now there's a laugh)measure that makes both significant reductions in carbon emissions and maintains a strong U.S. economy will be difficult, but it is a task my colleagues and I are committed to. (Regardless of your piss ant little opinion on the matter)

Regarding carbon emissions and potential “cap-and-trade” legislation, I agree that something must be done to protect and preserve our environment for future generations. However, as an elected representative for all Missourians, I will always seek to protect my constituents from undue hardship and ensure that the federal government will spend their hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely. (of course that's wisely according to Congress and not wisely according to our constituency. We know better than you do.) That is why, as we continue the debate on climate change legislation, I will be working hard to include safeguards that minimize costs, keep government accountable and prevent harm to the U.S. economy. (But don't think for a minute that I won't be pushing this damaging bill through)

Working families will be significantly affected by climate change legislation, (as your electric bills goes through the roof and you risk freezing to death in your homes) so any bill addressing this issue should provide financial protection to avoid passing all costs on to consumers. (Forgetting for a moment that we're the ones slapping that cost on you.) There must be a cushion to offset rising energy costs and provisions that protect American jobs from international competitors that do not face the same environmental constraints. (We acknowledge that we are putting our own companies at a global disadvantage in the middle of an economic crisis by slapping this huge tax on them. So we'll work to mitigate the damage we insist on inflicting.) Strong climate change legislation must also spread the burden of rising energy costs evenly throughout the country, rather than disproportionately affecting one region over another. (But don't think for a minute that the costs won't rise for you) Additionally, the green jobs created by such legislation must be ones that are available to the already skilled workers of Missouri. (So as long as Missouri benefits then screw the rest of the country)

My colleagues and I have already taken a good first step on the way to curbing carbon emissions by passing comprehensive energy legislation into law in December 2007. This bill is expected to remove 500 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from the air through improved energy efficiency standards. (though it's been in effect for over a year and we're still talking about what's expected because it hasn't actually changed anything) However, we need to do more. (Because we aren't satisfied until we've meddled enough to completely destroy that which we set out to save.)Further investment in clean energy sources along with responsible climate change legislation will drastically reduce carbon emissions and start our country down a cleaner, economically stronger(and I'm so pleased I can say that with a straight face) path, including the path to green jobs for Missouri residents. (We'll just ignore the fact that in Spain, where this has already been tried, we lose 2.1 regular jobs for every green job created. I don't like that stat so I'll just ignore it. After all, just because it's already failed everywhere else it's been tried doesn't mean that I can't make it work)

My colleagues and I will continue to pursue legislation that will achieve real emissions reductions and still protect our nation's economy and Missouri jobs. Thank you again for contacting me about this very important issue and please do not hesitate to let me know if I can address any other issues that might be important to you. (And I will continue to totally disregard your opinions and concerns as I have every other time you have contacted me.)

All best,Senator Claire McCaskill