How the U.S. House from Maryland voted:	voted
• Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-6)	N
• Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-7)	N
• Rep. Donna Edwards (D-4)	N
• Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-1)	Y
• Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5)	Y
• Rep. C.A. Ruppersberger (D-2)	Y
• Rep. John Sarbanes (D-3)	Y
• Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Jr. (D-8)	Y

Remember these votes on November 4th.

Mister Letterman needs to be reminded that Senators McCain and Obama have taken an oath of office as US Senators, and that their obligations under that oath supersede running for another, future office.

Someone at CBS needs to remind this smug SOB that he is, after all, just another damn TV "personality," not someone whose opinion genuinely matters. The monologue is being broadcast as I write this, and I would love to wipe that simpering smile off Letterman's face.

POST SCRIPT, September 25:

Quoting from this site:

By Guy Faulconbridge

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia must stake its claim to a slice of the Arctic's vast resources, the secretary of Russia's Security Council said on Friday at an unprecedented session of the council held on a desolate Arctic island.

Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, is in a race with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States for control of the oil, gas and precious metals that would become more accessible if global warming shrinks the Arctic ice cap.

Underlining Russia's claims to the region, Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev assembled the defence and interior ministers and the speakers of both houses of parliament for the meeting on the Arctic island, Russian news agencies reported.

Russia, the world's biggest country, says a whole swathe of the Arctic seabed should belong to it because the area is really an extension of the Siberian continental shelf.

"The Arctic must become Russia's main strategic resource base," Russian news agencies quoted Patrushev as saying. The Council usually meets only in Moscow.

Patrushev, formerly Russia's powerful domestic spy chief, said competition from other Arctic powers was increasing and that Russia must strengthen transport links across its Arctic regions to drive development.

Canada, Norway, Russia, the United States and Denmark -- which governs Greenland -- all have a shoreline within the Arctic Circle, and have a 200-mile (320-km) economic zone around the north of their coastlines.

Russian officials say they are entitled to a bigger share. They base the claim on the contention that the Lomonosov ridge, a vast underwater mountain range that runs underneath the Arctic, is an extension of the Siberian continental shelf.

Under the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty, any state with an Arctic coastline that wishes to stake a claim to a greater share of the Arctic must lodge its submission with the U.N.'s Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.

Russian geologists estimate the Arctic seabed has at least 9 billion to 10 billion tonnes of fuel equivalent, about the same as Russia's total oil reserves.

Last year a submersible with a senior Russian lawmaker on board planted a Russian flag on the Arctic seabed. The crew were greeted as heroes when they returned to Moscow.

Russian news agencies said the special Security Council session was held at the Nagurskaya base, Russia's most northerly border outpost. The base is on Alexandra's Land, part of the Russian-controlled Franz Josef archipelago.

NEW YORK (AP) - John McCain is mocked as an out-of-touch, out-of-date computer illiterate in a television commercial out Friday from Barack Obama as the Democrat begins his sharpest barrage yet on McCain's long Washington career. ...  "Our economy wouldn't survive without the Internet, and cyber-security continues to represent one our most serious national security threats," Pfeiffer said. "It's extraordinary that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail."

Senator Obama, let's ignore the fact that Senator McCain's war injuries limit his range of motion, making it impossible for him to use a computer keyboard.

How would it look if the President of the US was caught idly playing FreeCell in the Oval Office, when he should have been working?

Senator Obama, How would you deal with this situation using "diplomacy," as you have claimed must take precedence over military action or economic sanctions?

 CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez says the U.S. ambassador has 72 hours to leave Venezuela and he's recalling his ambassador from Washington.

Chavez said he's asking U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy to leave as a means of showing solidarity with Bolivian President Evo Morales, who expelled Washington's envoy in La Paz.

"They're trying to here what they were doing in Bolivia," Chavez said. "That's enough ... from you, Yankees," he said, using an expletive.

Chavez announced the decision during a televised speech, hours after saying his government had detained a group of alleged conspirators in a plot to overthrow him.

Chavez accused the group of current and former military officers of trying to assassinate him and topple the government with support from the United States. He didn't offer evidence.

U.S. officials have repeatedly denied Chavez's accusations that Washington has backed plots against him.

Reuters reports it thus:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will expel Venezuela's ambassador in Washington to retaliate for the oil-exporting Latin American nation's decision to oust the U.S. envoy in Caracas, a U.S. official said on Friday.

"The plan is to kick him out," said the U.S. official, who asked not to be identified.

In an escalating diplomatic battle between Washington and Latin America's left-wing leaders, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expelled the American ambassador on Thursday, a day after Bolivia asked the U.S. envoy in La Paz to leave.

Bolivia accused the U.S. ambassador of instigating violent protests in the poor Andean nation, a charge the U.S. State Department dismissed as baseless.

It was unclear whether the United States would succeed in expelling the Venezuelan ambassador. Chavez on Thursday said he was recalling the envoy, who could be pulled out before being formally notified that he was "persona non grata" by the U.S. State Department.

Chavez on Thursday repeated a threat he has often made to cut off Venezuela's oil supply to the United States, its biggest customer. Venezuela has some of the largest reserves outside the Middle East and, despite Chavez's clashes with the Bush administration, is a major supplier to the United States.

Assuming that you are elected, and that you perform the duties of your office without regard to race, how do you plan to placate these tens of thousands (if not more) of people who will find themselves disappointed, and see themselves as having been betrayed?

It's a complicated argument, and I'm not sure I agree with it. But it is newsworthy if only because of the identity of the plaintiff. Here is the story as reported in World Net Daily, and not disseminated widely by the mainstream media:

A prominent Pennsylvania Democrat has sued Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission, claiming that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and, therefore, is not eligible to be President of the United States. 

Philip J. Berg, a former member of Pennsylvania's Democratic State Committee and former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, filed the lawsuit this week in U.S District Court,  asking the court to declare Obama ineligible for the presidency and to prevent him from running for the position.

However, a WND investigation has found that at least part of Berg's lawsuit relies on discredited claims.

A separate motion was also filed seeking a temporary restraining order on Obama's presidential campaign until Obama's eligibility can be verified.

The lawsuit claims Barack Obama's eligibility is questionable on several grounds, including the allegation that he was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship, that his Hawaii birth certificate is a forgery – a now discredited claim – that he was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship.

In short, the suit claims Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child (Editor's note: This point is not supported by U.S. citizenship law); may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.

Why would a Democrat do this to his party's own candidate? And why right before the National Convention?

"Eighteen million Democratic Primary voters donated money, volunteered their time and energy, worked very hard and then not only supported Senator Clinton, but voted for her," Berg stated in a press release about the suit. "All the efforts of supporters of legitimate citizens were for nothing because (Obama) lied and cheated his way into a fraudulent candidacy and cheated legitimately eligible natural born citizens from competing in a fair process."

Berg explained in a radio interview with Roger Hedgecock of KOGO in San Diego that Internet reports had been persistent over the last several months that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen. After doing his own careful research, Berg explained, he came to the conclusion the reports were more fact than rumor and that he needed to act quickly, before the election process proceeded.

"I filed this action at this time," said Berg in a press release, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated."

However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama's actual birth certificate and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.

A separate WND investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

The Berg lawsuit contends there is enough truth in the various reports to conclude, "Unfortunately, Obama is not a 'natural born' citizen."

The suit alleges that while records exist of a "registry of birth" for Obama in Hawaii (filed four days after his claimed birthday), no records exist of his mother's stay in any Hawaii hospital, suggesting she may have given birth elsewhere and filed the registration shortly thereafter on American soil.

"Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states. "Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."

The claim could not be verified by WND inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public.

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.

However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Ann Dunham expatriated. Also, consulting citizenship experts contend that if Obama indeed obtained Indonesian citizenship, it simply would not have been recognized by the U.S., but the presidential candidate would retain his American citizenship.

Even after her divorce and return to the U.S., the suit says, "Obama's mother failed to take the oath in order to regain her U.S. Citizenship. Therefore, Obama would not have been able to regain his U.S. Citizenship until he turned 18 years (and) after he took the oath of allegiance."

"Since the oath of allegiance would have been entered in the records of the appropriate embassy, legation, consulate, court or the Attorney General, if Plaintiff is incorrect, then Obama should be able to produce in Court a certified copy of the proceedings, including a copy of the oath administered," the suit states.

The lawsuit then claims an investigation has shown that in 1981, "Obama traveled to Pakistan using his Indonesian passport. At the time of travels to Indonesia, Obama was 20 years old. He was well aware he maintained his Indonesia citizenship, and failed to regain his United States citizenship. … Even if Obama maintained his United States Citizenship, which he failed to do, he also carries citizenships in Kenya and Indonesia. Obama has divided loyalties with foreign countries. Thus, Obama carries multiple citizenships and is ineligible to run for President of the United States."

A WND investigation could not find any proof Obama used an Indonesian passport to travel to Pakistan. However, WND noted that Pakistan in 1981 was under military rule and that it was difficult for U.S. citizens to travel to the country without assistance – meaning, it would have been easier to enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport.

Berg claims his lawsuit is necessary, not only to protect the Constitution, but also to protect the integrity of the Democratic Party.

"If the DNC officers and/or leaders had performed one ounce of due diligence, we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship," said Berg in his press release. "The injunctive relief must be granted because failing to do so, (the DNC's) inaction defrauds everyone who voted in the Democratic Primary."

Has it never occurred to you that the largest source of the hard economic times you harp on in your constitutent newsletter is the government itself?

Take the so-called foreclosure crisis as the first example. It was the federal government, through encouraging lenders to make risky loans under the guise of encouraging people to realize the "American dream" that got so many people in over their heads on mortgages? Thirty-five years ago when I bought my current residence, the maximum allowable ratio of mortgage debt (P.I.T.I.) to gross income was 46 percent. We bought our house at a far lower cost, knowing that 46 percent was an unacceptable risk. Nowadays, I understand that lenders--with the complicity of Fannie Mae and other federal agencies--have increased that ratio to 64 percent or higher. Moreover, lenders were allowed to offer loans that no sensible person would make--zero down payments; loans with negative amortization; adjustable rate mortgages without caps; teaser rates that were completely unpredictable on expiration of a three- or five-year period.

Now you are expecting those of us who have spent their lives being financially prudent to bail out not only the citizens foolish enough to make such loans, but the financial institutions greedy enough to have offered them. Last I checked, there were very few mortgage lenders or brokers being held responsible for practices that can only be called usurious.

As to fuel prices, you have steadfastly supported laws that drive up the cost of owning and maintaining an automobile, refused to consider drilling in the tiny section of ANWR that would produce oil, and even proposed gasoline tax increases in the hope of deterring consumption.

Months ago, I inquired what happened to the moneys earmarked for renovating the auditorium at Woodlawn High School, which has yet to occur. (Not to mention that the school itself has no performing arts programs requiring an auditorium.) Neither you nor Mr. Weglein (the school principal) have given me the courtesy of a reply.

Last but not least, your current newsletter crows about the $28,642,207 in "earmarks" and pork-barrel grants in your district.

You have come up with six million dollars for JHU, which has recently been the beneficiary of more than 100 million from Michael Bloomberg alone, not to mention other private sources. Trust me, those people at Hopkins are swimming in money, and they certainly do not need or deserve involuntary contributions from the public.

Three million six to WEB DuBois High School, which has only 738 students. That's nearly a thousand a year per student for the next four years. For what, if I might ask specifics?

Two million three to Baltimore County to assist low-income home buyers. Aren't these the same people who have generally ended up in foreclosure, creating the "crisis" you are so worried over?

Nine million for Head Start programs in Baltimore City. Can anyone show evidence that these programs have helped since their inception? The number of city children dropping out of school, getting involved in drugs and other crime, becoming pregnant out of wedlock, and being murdered has done nothing but increase over the life of Head Start. It is long past time to pull the plug on this program, not continue funding it.

I could go on, but I suspect I have already lost your attention.

Presumably buying votes has worked for you in the past, since you continue to do so.

I am committed to exposing this sort of fraud, waste and rent-seeking, and removing from office the people who are responsible for it.

So my message to you, Mr. Cummings, is shape up or be prepared to ship out after November 4th.

Stan Modjesky

McCain talks to auto workers hit hard by economy


Jul 18, 10:15 AM (ET)

WARREN, Mich. (AP) - Republican presidential candidate John McCain is seeking to bolster his appeal to voters on economic issues by speaking to some of those hardest hit in the recent downturn: auto workers.

McCain is visiting a General Motors Corp. site in Michigan [which is]  developing a long-range electric car called the Volt.

After getting a briefing from GM CEO Rick Wagoner and other company officials, McCain is speaking at a town-hall event with workers at the GM Technology Center.

Earlier this week, GM announced $15 billion in cuts as it tries to weather a huge dropoff in sales of trucks and large cars on top of more long-term costs.

McCain has proposed giving a $5,000 tax credit to those who buy a no-emissions car.

GM will continue to be in pain (as will Ford and Chrysler), until they can (1) rid themselves of UAW contract provisions that pay laid-off workers at almost their full working wage, and (2) cut the absurd stock options, bonuses and base pay that the executives receive.

Let's say half a million people take advantage of this proposed tax credit. How is the $2.5 billion cost going to be reimbursed? Taxes on everyone.

Furthermore, where would those half-million vehicles replaced by "no-emissions" ones be junked?

You would expect this loose talk from Obama. Hearing it from McCain simply proves they are two slightly different flavors of the same stuff.

In an ideal world, we would go back to the beginning of the primary campaign and start all over, with an entirely news set of candidates. Now that we are approaching what appears to be Hobson's Choice, I had to answer Sherry in these words:

Cute aside: In one neighborhood where I had a small business, there was a neighborhood business association. The president was a man we will call "Freddie," and his wife/business partner a woman named "Marcy." Without fail, at every meeting Freddie would make an impassioned (and occasionally sensible) statement about some problem or another in the neighborhood. This would be followed, almost as if by parliamentary procedure, by Marcy seeking the floor and starting her own speech with the words, "Freddie didn't exactly say what he meant. What Freddie meant to say was..." (at which point she would thoroughly discredit every word of his little speech. Now, at the neighborhood level, it's funny--in a kind of cruel way--to watch a man being regularly emasculated by his wife in public. God knows, the two of them deserved each other, being a couple of pretentious jerks. But in national and international politics, we cannot afford this sort of entertainment.

The June 2008 issue of America's First Freedom carries an interview of McCain conducted by Chris Cox (Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action) and the redoubtable Wayne LaPierre (Executive Vice-President of NRA). If you are unfamiliar with this pair, they are the two most highly paid officials of the NRA who are not elected by the membership, and presumably cannot be fired.

I skimmed the article until I found a reference to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, more familiarly known as the McCain-Feingold Act. Yes, that McCain. Here's their question and the Senator's feckless answer, as published:

Senator, you were the chief sponsor of “campaign finance reform” legislation—legislation that, when passed, included a provision that restricts the NRA’s ability to run broadcast ads lobbying on legislative issues in the 60 days before a federal election. Many gun owners believe that this provision severely restricts their ability to participate in the legislative process, and in fact, many believe it to be unconstitutional. Would you explain your motivation behind campaign finance reform, and why the broadcast restriction was included in the final bill?
 
   I fought for campaign finance reform because I strongly believed that prior to the enactment of this legislation, our system of financing campaigns was seriously broken and in need of repair. I genuinely worried that legislative provisions were being passed or defeated based on the size of “soft money “ contributions made by affected interests. I can assure you that my motivation in this effort was directed at these out-of-control amounts of “soft money” that seeped into federal campaigns—not a desire to restrict the ability of gun owners or any other group of citizens from making their voices heard in the legislative process. I am fully committed to defending the constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. 
 

Interestingly, the cutline under the photo heading this article claims that Cox and LaPierre asked McCain some "direct questions," while the table of contents even says they are "tough questions." Damn shame they did not bother with a follow-up.

Compare this against NRA's strong statements over the last few years:

NRA FAX Alert March 22, 2002

On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate joined the House in assaulting free speech when it passed H.R. 2356—the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance "Reform" bill—on a vote of 60-40. Congressional opponents to this attack on the First Amendment have vowed to challenge it in the courts, and U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), one of the most vocal opponents of this bill, has already assembled a team of attorneys, including former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, to mount a legal challenge. NRA also remains committed to protecting its ability to exercise free speech and ensuring the privacy of its members, and your Association will fight this assault on the First Amendment all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, if necessary. (emphasis added)

 NRA First to File Constitutional Challenge (Press release Dated March 27, 2002)

JOINT STATEMENT BY WAYNE LAPIERRE , EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA and JAMES JAY BAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NRA`S INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

(Washington, D.C.) --"Early this morning, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA"). When the federal courthouse opened for business today, NRA was there – we have filed suit to invalidate this unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment rights of the NRA and our four million members nationwide.

We are proud to be the first plaintiff to formally ask the federal court to invalidate these new limits on the political speech of ordinary citizens because we believe that this law cannot be allowed to stand – not even for a moment.

Sen. Paul Wellstone said on the floor of the United States Senate during the campaign finance debate that it was his intention to silence the NRA. As a direct and intentional target of this law, NRA has no choice but to protect our right to be heard.

NRA has been mentioned by name – but the authors of this law have delivered a clear and straightforward message not only to NRA but to all American citizens. That message is this: ‘Keep your mouths shut.` ‘Stay out of our political debates.` ‘Be quiet.`

Our response is this: the First Amendment protects us from such directives from the government. The First Amendment does not allow Congress to make laws which deny us the right to speak out on issues, the right of our members to associate together on public policy issues and the right to petition our government for redress of grievances. That is what this lawsuit is about.

Through this law Congress has essentially granted speech licenses to giant corporate conglomerates such as Viacom, Disney Corporation and General Electric Company by allowing those corporations unlimited rights to spend money talking about issues and candidates, while silencing the voices of ordinary citizens and citizens groups such as NRA.

Why should corporations such as these media conglomerates, all of which own multiple non-news business enterprises and spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress—why should those corporations be allowed to spend whatever they wish, whenever they wish, saying whatever they wish regarding any issue or candidate – when a non-profit citizens organization such as ours is prohibited from even responding via the broadcast media?

The law imposes severe civil and criminal penalties on citizens who have the audacity to speak out on issues of concern – and we do not believe that the Constitution of the United States of America and the U.S. Supreme Court can possibly allow such a result."

The above, reprinted in part in "Grassroots Alert" volume 9, number 13, March 29, 2002

...under the headline "NRA Files Suit Against Sham Campaign Finance 'Reform' "

Quiet Time Campaign Muzzle (April 1, 2002)

"John McCain is an enemy of the First Amendment." 

Soft Money, Hard Feelings (May 16, 2002)

Links to a George Will column, quoting it thus:

"The document`s title is bland: 'Reply of Senator John McCain, Senator Russell Feingold, Representative Christopher Shays, Representative Martin Meehan, Senator Olympia Snowe, and Senator James Jeffords in support of their motion to intervene as defendants supporting the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.' But the document`s message is fascinating. "File the document under: 'Give them enough rope,' "

Foreign to the First Amendment (July 2, 2002)

Later this year the Supreme Court will be asked to consider the most recent attack on editorial issue advertisements that deal with the conduct of elected officials. The proponents of this new assault are elected officials--namely, Congress. The issue advertising ban in question is contained in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002--frequently referred to as McCain-Feingold, for its legislative sponsors in the Senate. Because this newly minted restriction is inconsistent with the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and a free press, the court should reject it.

Free Speech in the Twilight Zone ( November 2, 2002)

A few excerpts:

Americans are facing an Orwellian nightmare--a bottomless pit of regulation and rules, all designed to cut off collective free speech....

This is a ban on a major aspect of grassroots lobbying and has nothing to do with purely political activity. It has nothing to do with directly exhorting the public to vote for or against a candidate....

there is a major exception to the contributor disclosure, granted under two FEC Advisory Opinions in 1996 that "allowed the Socialist Workers Party to withhold the identities of its contributors and persons to whom it had disbursed funds because of a reasonable probability that the compelled disclosure of the party`s contributors` names would subject them to threats, harassment or reprisals from either government officials or private parties."

So the NRA-PVF has to cough up the names and addresses of contributors who give it more than $200, while the Socialist Workers Party`s funding sources are sealed.

Additionally, the commission boldly took powers never even intended by Congress--powers to regulate what state and local candidates are permitted to say in their paid political advertising....

In his "declaration" filed with the court, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre made the case succinctly.

"The Second Amendment and the NRA are at the center of a culture war LaPierre said. "The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act effectively cedes the entire battlefield in this cultural war to the broadcast media corporations and politicians. It allows federal candidates and the big media conglomerates to say whatever they want about the NRA in the months before an election and shields them from any effective response by prohibiting the NRA from tittering the name of its attackers . . ."

The First Amendment on Trial (December 2, 2002)

...At issue is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, alias McCain-Feingold), by which the just-adjourned 107th Congress followed in the footsteps of the 5th Congress, which enacted the Sedition Act of 1798.

An Appearance of Corruption (5/23/2003)

The Weekly Standard`s David Tell closely examines "the bogus research" undergirding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

A Sad Day for the Constitution (December 12, 2003)

...So noted NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre when, on December 10, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision to uphold the major provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act...

Wayne LaPierre said, "You`re going to have to put an asterisk by the First Amendment, and a footnote, because for many months of the year it`s no longer in effect."  Wayne went on to say, in no uncertain terms, that NRA still has many ways to make its position known in federal elections.  "They didn`t say we couldn`t mention the U.S. Congress, or the Senate. And we will run advertising directing the American public to information sources as to where they can find the truth, and the facts, and who`s for them and who`s against them.  This is a sad day for the Constitution, but the 4 million members of the NRA will continue to be heard.  That I can promise."

In addition to expanding NRA-PVF`s fundraising activities, this, no doubt, will also mean an even greater reliance on the grassroots efforts of our nation`s 65 million gun owners who have answered the call time and again.  One clear advantage NRA has over virtually every other group in America is a large, passionate, and active base of grassroots support that is willing to not only vote on Election Day, but actively work on the campaigns of pro-freedom candidates.  The engine that drives the NRA machine is our grassroots, and you can rest assured in the months ahead, we will refine, improve, and expand our grassroots operations to meet the challenges that now lay before us.  Please keep an eye out on future Grassroots Alerts to find out how you can take on an even more active role in our grassroots activities in this new day and age of campaign restrictions.

Summed up in five words: "Wayne says, 'send more money.' "

Amending an Amendment (Dec. 22, 2003)

Introducing a Rich Tucker commentary at TownHall.com:

...political parties hardly matter anymore, because of another provision of McCain-Feingold. The law also bars them, and unions, interest groups and corporations from running TV ads that mention a specific candidate in the 60 days before a federal election. But if they’re not allowed to engage in politics during the two months before election day (when people might actually be paying attention), why should any of these groups bother engaging in politics at all? Or, maybe, that’s what the incumbent politicians want.

Democrats' Magic Number: 527 (March 10, 2004)

Introducing a MSNBC story:

With the unlimited “soft money” contributions to national political parties ostensibly banned by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as the McCain-Feingold law), Democrats are counting on their 527 groups, organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, and bankrolled by billionaire currency speculator George Soros, Real Networks CEO Robert Glaser, labor unions, and others.

Standing Guard: A Win for free speech (September 7, 2007)

When Congress enacted this oppressive law, the National Rifle Association, as a grassroots corporation, was singled out for censorship. Our highly acclaimed infomercials were labeled "sham ads" and were targeted for broadcast speech bans.

Without this new ruling, NRA's running an educational broadcast alluding to any candidate for federal office anywhere in the nation during the pre-election blackouts could amount to a federal crime. A broadcast expressing NRA's staunch opposition to a gun ban could be seen by FEC enforcers as indirectly urging Americans to vote against a candidate favoring a firearm ban--say, Hillary Clinton.

So, Wayne & Chris, if I might be so familiar--and as a Life Member of NRA I think it's my right--what's the source of this sudden failure of courage on your part?  If I recall correctly, right after the BCRA was signed into law--and before NRANews.com was created, in the hope it would be considered a legitimate media outlet and therefore unaffected by BCRA--Wayne LaPierre wrote an impassioned letter published in all the NRA monthlies, saying that by God, he'd anchor a ship with a TV transmitter in international waters and broadcast the Truth, if that's what it took.

So why all the kowtowing to McCain in this interview? Unless there is some secret deal being cut, McCain has more to lose by being criticized by NRA than NRA has to lose by not endorsing McCain, or any Presidential candidate in November.

Yet in this presidential primary, I think we have reached a new low in political speechifying: changing the message to suit the audience, without regard to consistency. Say what you will about The Great Commoner (that's W.J. Bryan, for those of you who are college-educated), at least his message on the gold standard was consistent. What happened to him at the Scopes trial, God only knows. He seemed to have slipped his moorings altogether, and seeing that he died only a few days later, perhaps there was some underlying medical condition. A brain hemorrhage, perhaps.

This year, we have Hillary Clinton, who speaks in tongues. Depending what audience she is addressing, she adapts her style to the vernacular. This is especially demeaning when she speaks to a primarily black audience and attempts to affect ebonics. Forty years ago, she would have been booed off the stage for this, but not today.

Still a better example is Barack Obama. A few nights ago in Grand Rapids, John Edwards came out as an Obama supporter. He gave an impassioned introduction during which he pleaded so convincingly for the plight of poor and "working class" people that you'd almost forget how much money he has made by driving people into poverty with legal judgments.

This was followed by the O-man himself, who with the crowd already warmed up, delivered a genuine stem-winder. He kept hitting all the liberal statist talking points with no supporting information, and even without regard for whether what he'd said in one sentence would be incompatible with what he'd said in
the sentence before that. The crowd was eating it up.

Meanwhile, the press largely ignored the speech that Senator McCain delivered the very next day, in which he outlined some specifics of what his first term in office would be like. Too boring; not "sexy"enough.

Unsatisfied by Wednesday's spectacle, Senator Obama has now decided that President Bush's speech in front of the Knesset about the dangers of appeasement was directed at him and him alone.

This demonstrates as nothing else has the political callowness of Obama. If he over-reacts this way to some generalities uttered by the President, how can we expect him to react when Hugo Chavez calls him--by name--"Satan" or "Hitler"? One of the greatest things about Ronald Reagan was his ability to shrug off this kind of stuff. But Obama, who has been raised to believe that everything he disagrees with is a personal slight, it's a different story.

If the shoe fits, Senator Obama.

In 2002, near the end of his five years as president of the NRA, Heston disclosed he had symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease.

The disclosure was soon followed by an unflattering appearance in Moore's 2003 best documentary winner "Bowling for Columbine," which took America to task for its gun laws.

Moore used a clip of Heston holding aloft a rifle at an NRA rally and proclaiming "from my cold, dead hands." The director flustered the actor in an interview later in the film by pressing him on his gun-control stance. Heston eventually walked out on Moore.

Moore's Web site, http://www.michaelmoore.com, on Sunday featured a photo of Heston, the date of his birth and death and a note from the actor's family requesting that donations be made to the Motion Picture and Television Fund in lieu of flowers.

There was no other reaction on the site from Moore about Heston's death.

Saturday's news of Heston's death was accompanied by some footage of an interview he gave--I forget to whom--in which he was asked whether he had any fear over the Alzheimer's diagnosis. The gist of his reaction was no, it's just another part of this big adventure called life.

It struck me as I watched that bit of footage, with the actor in his late seventies, that if ever there were an actor suited to portray Ronald Reagan during his Presidential years, it would have been Chuck Heston.

Among this morning's email was a transcript of a speech that Heston gave at Harvard Law School a few years ago, before his illness. The speech contained a few bon mots that bear repeating here:

I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you . . . the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is. ...

As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue.

No, it's much, much bigger than that.

I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.

For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist.

I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.

I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite.

Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country.

But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh.

From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind like that? You are using language not authorized for public consumption!"

But I am not afraid. If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown.

In his book, The End of Sanity, Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction.

Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the country, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it." ...

If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist.

If you see distinctions between the genders, it does not make you sexist.

If you think critically about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion.

If you accept but don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe.

Don't let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant epidemic of new McCarthyism.

But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social subjugation? The answer's been here all along.

I learned it 36 years ago, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., standing with Dr. Martin Luther King and two hundred thousand people.

You simply ... disobey.

Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course. Nonviolently, absolutely.

But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't. We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom. ...

In that same spirit, I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue authority, social directives and onerous laws that weaken personal freedom.

But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies.

You must be willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma.

You must be willing to experience discomfort. ...

So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built this country.

Powerful words. Words that I suspect will be omitted from the eulogizing that all the neocons will indulge themselves in, thinking they know something of this man.

But having said that, I am simply boggled by the inaction of so many NO residents on their own behalf. There seem to be "poor folk" there who cannot even be bothered to clear some of the rubble from their own front yards.

By comparison, back in February of 1904, most of the downtown of Baltimore was destroyed by fire. By 1907, the city had been redesigned and almost completely rebuilt. No federal funds or outside help was used, and this occurred in an era where telephones were not yet universal, there was no practical means of motive power other than steam (i.e., no gasoline or diesel engines; no hydraulics; most work was done by the muscles of men and horses), no computer-aided design.

And as far as Katrina is concerned, the Gulf coast suffered damage all the way over to Pensacola. If you visit Mobile, you wouldn't know there'd been a Katrina. The Mississippi coastal towns are being rebuilt without nearly the fuss and influx of government (OUR) money, because the casinos operating there are re-investing to build anew.

There is but one real negative in coastal Mississippi, and it's the result of federal interference. Ocean Springs is struggling in an attempt to remain a small town, not dominated by casinos. The mayor of that city commissioned an architect to design sturdy, but inexpensive replacement houses. Known as "Katrina cottages," these can be purchased in the form of blueprints-and-kit from Lowes. The problem is that FEMA will not permit its money to be spent on permanent housing, only temporary shelter. As a result, there is a financial pressure being brought to bear by casino operators, who would love to move into this virgin territory.

In Alabama, the outrage is that FEMA money seems to have been used to rebuild large, overly elaborate and expensive vacation houses on Dauphin Island, an area far more risky than even New Orleans. You can stand on the main street of Dauphin Island and see the Gulf to your south, and Mobile Bay to your north, with nary a sand dune in place, but peppered with 2-1/2 storey colonial houses built on stilts! As with all barrier islands, Dauphin is a temporary piece of land, and ought not be developed. Yet there is pressure to build even more overpriced houses to the east of the current enclave, on "land" that stands an even worse chance of destruction by the next hurricane that comes along. It's the same empty-headed thinking as what gave us all those expensive houses on risky locations along the Pacific coast. Ironically, at the opposite end of Dauphin, a federally-funded science exhibit (The Estuarium) presents all the reasons why the building should not be occurring just two miles away.

I promise that if I receive a phone call from your campaign, whether it's a live person or one of those robot callers, you can count on my casting a vote for someone other than you.

If election day rolls around and all of you have pissed me off, I intend to write in myself in lieu of voting for one of you SOBs.

vershteht?

If you were not around back in the sixties and seventies you might not recognize Bremer's name. He is the man who shot Alabama Governor George Wallace during the 1972 presidential campaign. Wallace survived the shooting, but was paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair for the remaining 26 years of his life.

Bremer's five gunshots effectively ended the national political career of this untrustworthy politician, who by 1972 expected the American public to be foolhardy enough to believe he had undergone a change of heart about segregation. After his swearing-in as Alabama's governor in 1962, Wallace gave a stemwinder of a speech that included the infamous words: "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

The following year he  made his infamous "stand in the schoolhouse door," a personal attempt to thwart the desegregation of the University of Alabama. That spring he said, regarding desegregation demonstrations, "The President (Kennedy) wants us to surrender this state to Martin Luther King and his group of pro-Communists who have instituted these demonstrations."

Wallace attempted to make himself Governor-for-Life, repealing the one-term limit of the Alabama constitution. And he nearly succeeded. The constitutional change did not pay off in time for him to stand for re-election in 1966, so he did the next best thing: put up his wife Lurleen as a surrogate. Damn if she didn't win, too. Lurleen died before her term expired and was replaced by her Lieutenant Governor, but sure as the sun rises in the east, old George ran for and won the office in 1970. He held the office for two consecutive terms, and after a four-year hiatus, won the seat again, serving a total of four terms (not even counting the Lurleen years), until 1987.

Of course, being Alabama's governor and head segregationist did not thwart Wallace's ambition to become President. He ran in the primaries in 1964, 1968, 1972 and 1976, changing party affiliations as necessary to suit his purposes.

We are expected to be so gullible as to believe that Wallace actually had a change of heart around the time his Presidential aspirations appeared to be sputtering, but it would be more likely to say that he knew a good expedient when he saw one. After all Wallace, endorsed by the NAACP, had lost the gubernatorial election to John Patterson, who had been endorsed by the Ku Kluxers. It was at that juncture that Wallace observed, "I was outniggered by John Patterson. And I'll tell you here and now, I will never be outniggered again."

"Never" and "forever" are pretty powerful words, and it is tempting to think that it was the 1958 NAACP endorsement that was the anomaly in Wallace's life, not the subsequent two decades of race-baiting. All told, it appears that, like LBJ, George Wallace was willing to go to any length to win an election.

According to WBAL radio:

Under the conditions of his release, Bremer must stay away from any local, state, federal or foreign elected officials and any current candidates. He would have to undergo a mental health evaluation and treatment if the state deemed that necessary.

Bremer also can't leave Maryland without written permission from the state Parole Commission. The conditions also said Bremer must submit to electronic monitoring, but Vernarelli said he did not know if such monitoring was in place.

... [But] Bremer's diary, found in a landfill in 1980, made it clear he was motivated to attempt to kill Wallace by a desire for attention, not a political agenda. He had also stalked President Nixon.

A pity, that last part. Political assassination attempts are powerful statements, when made by idealogues. John Wilkes Booth and Leon Czolgosz have their place in history as men who took a stand for their principles. On the other hand, Charles Guiteau, John Hinckley and Arthur Bremer--whose deeds were motivated by personal reasons--seem merely pathetic.

SPARTANBURG, South Carolina (CNN) – At a campaign event Saturday, Sen. Barack Obama called his distant cousin, Vice President Dick Cheney, "a crazy uncle in the attic."

Obama was referencing the recent revelation by the Vice President's wife, Lynne Cheney, that he and the Vice President are distantly related.

"For the first time in a long time, the name George Bush will not appear on the ballot," he told the crowd of about 500 people at Converse College in Spartanburg.

If cousin Dick is the "crazy uncle," what does that make Obama? Now I'm really confused. Next thing you know, Obama is going to announce that he's his own Grandpa.

"The name Dick Cheney, my cousin, will not appear on the ballot," Obama said. "We had been trying to hide that cousin thing for a long time. Everybody's got a black sheep in the family. A crazy uncle in the attic."

Mr. Cummings' latest newsletter to us constituents arrived here on September 28, contained the following statement (redacted here):

Fighting the Fallout of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

We are in the midst of a serious national crisis in the housing market—particularly where subprime mortgages, geared toward borrowers with low credit scores, are concerned. Subprime loans are not inherently dangerous, but in the wake of an explosion of the subprime market, predatory practices within the industry have turned the American Dream of home ownership into more of a nightmare. The effects of this crisis are not just forcing millions of Americans into homelessness;...

This problem does not just hurt the families who are losing their homes, though. When a home goes into foreclosure, it drops the property value of the surrounding homes in the neighborhood-- sometimes reducing values to levels below what homeowners paid for them. Foreclosures have cost the City of Baltimore alone roughly $1.8 billion in reduced property values in the past five years. 

Last week, I joined my colleagues in passing H.R. 1852, a bill to revitalize the Federal Housing Administration, allowing it to offer more services to borrowers—including those who are forced to take out subprime loans. This is a good start in fixing the crisis, but it is not nearly enough.

After hearing testimony last week before the Joint Economic Committee, on which I sit, I decided to find a short-term solution to help ease the havoc being wreaked by the subprime market. I am in the process of developing two pieces of legislation. The first will make one simple change to the bankruptcy code...

The second will require a one-page, user-friendly document to be provided to buyers during the closing of a home sale. This document will provide essential information outlining the terms of the buyer’s mortgage to help prevent users with adjustable rate mortgages from being blindsided by unexpected ballooning payments.

 

Mr. Cummings,

As much as I might admire your compassion for people who have gotten themselves into a financial bind, the federal government has no cause to stick its nose farther into the subprime mortgage mess.

Having been a real estate salesman for six years, about a decade ago, I understand the degree to which lenders coerced people to overextend themselves financially with the loans they've made under the rubric "subprime." However, I also know that lenders have long been under pressure from the Equal Housing Opportunity crowd to approve mortgage loans to minority applicants, even when they are marginally qualified. When I was selling houses, there was a subtle, but palpable pressure to make certain that any minority prospect got qualified for a loan on the house he or she chose, if the numbers were even remotely close. The result of this reverse-discrimination practice is that the proportion of foreclosures among minority home buyers have always been higher.

How this led to the sub-prime mess, I am not quite certain. But I do know several things that may not have occurred to you, in your rush to "do something."

Lenders invariably lose more money on foreclosures than on "work outs," where the terms of a loan are renegotiated. One one commercial property I owned, the cash flow from rents was at least $15,000 a year less than my expenses, because of chronic vacancy problems, bad debts from deadbeat tenants, and maintenance that the former owner had neglected to perform. Rather than reach for bankruptcy, I sought out the one tenant whose business was growing the most and negotiated a sale of the property to him, at a price just high enough to keep me from paying money at the settlement table. Knowing the sale was in the works, I was able to persuade the mortgage lender to accept reduced payments for several months, in anticipation of the payoff of the loan. Everyone walked away happy. Me, less than some other parties, but nevertheless I was able to close that chapter of my life on my own terms.

THUS, lenders who have portfolios of sub-prime loans ought to be encouraged to renegotiate these loans, rather than foreclose. I have heard it said by knowledgeable people that the entire problem could be rectified by renegotiating these loans, extending the term of the loan to 40 or 50 years. With the cost of housing increasing faster than the average income, this is bound to happen in the marketplace anyway.

On the other hand, to use government funds (MY money) to help out either a buyer who was foolish enough to get too deeply in debt, or a lender who was greedy or foolish enough to lend to a marginally qualified prospect, is grossly unfair to me, and others like me who have lived a financially conservative life. I've been in the same house for 32 years, and it is paid off. The newest of our two automobiles is a 1999 model, and we have bought the last three vehicles we've owned cash. We keep a motor vehicle an average of eleven years or more.

To increase taxes in any way, in sympathy with these befuddled lenders and buyers would be to punish people like me for having lived prudently all our lives. It is a redistribution of wealth, which in my opinion is NOT within the scope of government, nor is it desirable.

I DO wish you would disabuse yourself of the notion that every time a person stumbles, someone from the government ought to be there to help them. Because those who stumble and are saved by something other than their own effort and sacrifice do not learn what they need to know to avoid stumbling again. Thus, by your good intentions, the government stifles people's growth.

As always,

Stan M-------

 

I managed to avoid using the phrase "redistributionist bullshit," but just barely.

And today I received a commentary from the Center for Individual Freedom, entitled "Why A Subprime Bailout would be Unfair and Unwise." I think this piece makes an even better case for government non-action than my letter.

The CFIF commentary is worth your time to read, and there is no comment I can add that would improve upon it. Have a look.