Verbosities

If President Bush said something this dumb, the media would be all over him. But if the untouchable says it, it gets looked over.



He is already a train wreck when it comes to taxes and the economy, foolish on foreign policy- enough he needs to make up history, and now he doesn't know how many states are in the union. And this guy wants to be President? They will put a bill in front of him to sign and he will write "present" on it.

Forget the questions about Monica Lewinsky. I want university students to ask Chelsea Clinton this simple question: Will your father reimburse the American taxpayer the $8 million in benefits that he has received and parlayed into $110 million in personal income, or at the very least, begin to waive these perks in the future?

Politico>Taxpyaer fund Bill Clinton spending:

The price tag for Clinton’s federal retirement allowance from 2001 through
the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for George H.
W. Bush’s and $4 million for Jimmy Carter’s during the same period.

Since 2001,
Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents
— from his pension to his staff’s salaries and benefits to supplies. His
$420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the
totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents
Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a group, they spent $484,000 on
telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in the same span.

Granted he is entitled to these benefits by law but let's get real here. He has used his presidency to his advantage to boost his net worth and can easily get by without raping taxpayers for more money. This is simple greed and any decent man would at the very least waive some of these perks for the benefit of the taxpayer.

The Wisconsin Attorney General wants the proposed merger between Sirius Satellite and XMFM to be blocked on fear that a monopoly would occur and prices would go up as services go down. Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl boldly states the only result is a monopoly.

Well, actually there is another result. Both companies go bankrupt.

Both Sirius and XMFM had bled money like stuck pigs. Between the two of them they have lost $8 billion. Eight billion dollars lost trying to serve approximately 17 million customers. In a land of 300 million, that is roughly 5%. The companies believe they are on the cusp of making a profit. That is yet to be seen. Even an operation profit does not guarantee they will be able to survive. Unless they merge and share the overhead.

Wisconsin AG Van Holland- a Republican- fears that rural Wisconsin satellite radio users will feel the pinch. Really? Please tell me how many of the 17 million live in the hills of Wisconsin.

Shouldn't the service actually become better? XM has Major League Baseball, the PGA, and the National Hockey League. Sirius has the NFL, NBA, and NASCAR. Suddenly you have them all instead of some.

The argument of a monopoly is flat out ridiculous. For satellite radio to survice, they need to get into your home. They realize that providing service mainly to cars is not the road to profitability. Thus the boomboxes that have been developed. They need to compete with your source of music in your house. But think of all the sources of music available. The internet, your ipod, cable TV, your CDs, cassettes, and albums. There are many others places for one to listen to music and sporting events. I don't know about Senator Kohl or AG Van Hollen but I call that competition. In your home satellite radio is not the only alternative here. With the way technology changes there could be a new method of delivery next year. Besides, who says one of the cable companies may not jump into the fray with there own service?

Or you can do what I do. Listen to the radio in my car. That is still FREE! I choose not to pay for radio. Others have chosen to pay for the service. Shouldn't they be the ones that decide this matter?

Left in the hands of those in the government, we could find ourselves having no satellite radio in the future.

They have too much invested in it:

Members of the U.S.Congress have as much as $196 million (€126.2 million) collectively invested in companies doing business with the Defense Department, earning millions since the start of the Iraq war, according to a new study by a nonpartisan research group.

The review of lawmakers' 2006 financial disclosure statements, by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, suggests that members' holdings could pose a conflict of interest as they decide the fate of Iraq war spending. Several members who earned the most from defense contractors have plum committee or leadership assignments, including Democratic Sen. John Kerry, independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

In case it's not clear already, both Democrats and Republicans are involved:

The study found that more Republicans than Democrats hold stock in defense companies, but that the Democrats who are invested had significantly more money at stake. In 2006, for example, Democrats held at least $3.7 million (€2.3 million) in military-related investments, compared to Republican investments of $577,500 (€372,000).

Overall, 151 members hold investments worth $78.7 million (€50.6 million) to $195.5 million (€125.9 million) in companies that receive defense contracts that are worth at least $5 million (€3.2 million). These investments earned them anywhere between $15.8 million (€10.1 million) and $62 million (€39.9 million) between 2004 and 2006, the center concludes.

If you're not angry yet, wait till you read this statement:

A spokesman for Blunt, a senior member of House Republican leadership who held at least $15,000 (€9,660) in Lockheed Martin stock in 2006, said the insinuation that lawmakers' votes might be affected by their portfolios is "offensive."

"I don't pretend to speak for other offices, but I am fairly certain that no member would consider their personal finances when voting on issues as important as sending our men and women in uniform into harm's way," said Blunt spokesman Nick Simpson.

Translation: "Members of Congress are always objective."

Somehow, I don't think so. Make sure you click through to the entire article and check out the facts that are discussed about certain members of Congress. For example, the person who's earned the most money is anti-war advocate John Kerry.

The mind boggles.

This is HUGE news for States and States Rights Advocates:

County sheriffs in Wyoming have scored a big one for the 10th Amendment and states rights. The sheriffs slapped a federal intrusion upside the head and are insisting that all federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies must clear all their activity in a Wyoming County with the Sheriff’s Office. Deja vu for those who remember big Richard Mack in Arizona.

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......

"If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave, or retain them in custody."

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Things are going to get VERY interesting in law enforcement in the near future. Why?

But it gets even better. Since the judge stated that the sheriff "has law enforcement powers EXCEEDING that of any other state OR federal official," the Wyoming sheriffs are flexing their muscles. They are demanding access to all BATF files. Why? So as to verify that the agency is not violating provisions of Wyoming law that prohibits the registration of firearms or the keeping of a registry of firearm owners. This would be wrong.

The sheriffs are also demanding that federal agencies immediately cease the seizure of private property and the impoundment of private bank accounts without regard to due process in Wyoming state courts.

Wow. Just....WOW. Solid proof that local elections really matter. I'll end this post with the money quote:

Sheriff Mattis said, "I am reacting in response to the actions of federal employees who have attempted to deprive citizens of my county of their privacy, their liberty, and their property without regard to constitutional safeguards. I hope that more sheriffs all across America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating outside the confines of constitutional law. Employees of the IRS and the EPA are no longer welcome in Bighorn County unless they intend to operate in conformance to constitutional law."

New York Time>Clinton Praises Petraeus

CHARLESTON, W.V. – As critical as she is about the Bush administration’s conduct
of the Iraq war, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton gave a relatively rare shout-out
to the military’s top man in Baghdad, General David Petraeus, calling him “an
extraordinary leader and a wonderful advocate for our military.”

Exactly how does one insult a man of honor and then praise him on the campaign trail? I get whiplash just reading this.