endlesschatter

Tea party event welcomes Palin – STLtoday.com

Tea party event welcomes Palin
By Kathleen Hennessey
TRIBUNE WASHINGTON BUREAU
02/05/2010

As anti-tax and small government enthusiasts began pouring into Nashville Thursday for the National Tea Party Convention, leaders hoped the event would be an important step toward shedding the movement’s chaotic image and establishing it as a national electoral force.

“I know it’s very hard to define the tea party with one message,” said Rebecca Wales, spokeswoman for SmartGirlPolitics.org, an online network popular with tea party activists and a convention sponsor. “But we’re unified in the fact that we do get out. We mobilize quickly and it’s powerful when we do.”

The group also appears united in its support for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the convention’s keynote speaker. Some will pay more than $300 just to hear Palin speak Saturday night.

Grass-roots activism — the door knocking, phone banking and online networking that was the hallmark of President Barack Obama’s campaign — will be the focus of the weekend convention. Such activity helped elect new Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., and tea party leaders increasingly see it as the cornerstone of their power.

The question is, will the Tea Party… become its own party? If this movement, and that is all it is right now, a movement much like a group of bra burning women… if this movement actually forms a political party, it may be something of interest. On the other hand if it, the Tea Party, just stays on as a way for Shawn Hannity to get more face time for his whinny, the sky is falling voice, then it will just be something that will turn more people off of their rights as citizens.

Workshops will be run by the Leadership Institute, a conservative training group recently in the news for funding a magazine founded by James O’Keefe, the activist accused of tampering with phones in the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. Wales’ group will teach attendees how to conduct voter registration drives.

Born last spring as a response to the Wall Street bailouts, the nation’s various tea party groups had until recently been better known for large-scale protests than organization.

True to its early reputation, this weekend’s meeting has been rife with contention. The convention is organized by a for-profit social networking site and charges up to $560 for tickets. Some grass-roots activists criticized the costs as exorbitant and against the spirit of people-powered revolution the movement espouses.

A few sponsors dropped out. The only elected officials signed on to speak — Reps. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. — backed out over ethics concerns.

Kind of scary that the representatives of people are afraid of ethics violations… oh, I forgot, how the curren political structure is, is, if your a Democrat or a Republican, you can’t endorse or encourage any other party or group without sanctions being placed against them. This is a failsafe for political parties to stop it’s members from being honest with the people that wanted them to be honest. I mean lets face it, if a Bill was to go up that helped people but that Bill didn’t help your Political party, your party would make you vote a specific way, either that or you risk sanctions from the party. Americans are really hoodwinked when they think they are voting for someone to speak for them in DC. IF the Tea Party could break this lie of a political party being for the people… but really not, it would be great.

But the big draw, Palin, remains committed. She has promised to donate her more than $100,000 speaker’s fee to “the cause,” though she has not been more specific.

“I thought long and hard about my participation in this weekend’s event,” she wrote this week in an op-ed published by USA Today. “At the end of the day, my decision came down to this: It’s important to keep faith with people who put a little bit of their faith in you. Everyone attending this event is a soldier in the cause.”

Local tea party leaders and their boosters in Washington increasingly are trying to define that cause. Many activists are trying to narrowly define the tea party movement as a push for limited government and fiscal conservatism.

Under that banner, they have united against the health care bill in Congress, and railed against bailouts for banks and the auto industry. Criticism of the deficit and debt is a growing rallying cry.

“There’s a clear economic message that’s evolving out of this movement,” said Republican strategist David Winston. “Which direction, in terms of the political activism, does this go? I think we’ll get a sense of that from this convention.”

February 5th, 2010 | Tags: Government and Politics, liars club, politics | Category: Government and Politics, Open | Leave a comment

Too bad that they were dressed in nice clothing and spoke english.

December 8th, 2009 | Tags: Government and Politics, idiots, liars club, politics | Category: Government and Politics, Open | Leave a comment

Can you really believe that we pay these people…?

Maxine Waters – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maxine Waters (born Maxine Moore Carr on August 15, 1938) is a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives since 1991, representing California’s 35th congressional district (map). She resides in the Hancock Park area of Los Angeles, which is approximately six miles west of downtown. She is the most senior of the twelve African American women currently serving in the United States Congress.

As a Democratic representative in Congress, Waters was a superdelegate to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. She endorsed Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton for the party’s nomination in late January 2008, granting the New York Senator nationally-recognized support that some suggested would “make big waves.” Subsequently, however, Waters switched her endorsement to Sen. Barack Obama, by then insurmountably ahead in the pledged delegate count, on the final day of primary voting.

Waters voted against the Iraq War Resolution, the 2002 resolution that funded and granted Congressional approval to possible military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein. She has remained a consistent critic of the subsequent war. Waters asserted in 2007 that President George W. Bush was trying to “set [Congress] up” by continually requesting funds for an “occupation” that is “draining” the country of capital, soldier’s lives, and other resources. In particular, she argued that the very economic resources being “wasted” in Iraq were those that might provide universal health care or fully fund President Bush’s own “No Child Left Behind” education bill. Additionally, Waters, representing a congressional district whose median income falls far below the national average, argued that patriotism alone had not been the sole driving force for those U.S. service personnel serving in Iraq. Rather, “many of them needed jobs, they needed resources, they needed money, so they’re there.” In a subsequent floor speech, Waters told her colleagues that Congress, lacking the votes to override the “inevitable Bush veto on any Iraq-related legislation,” needed to “better [challenge] the administration’s false rhetoric about the Iraq war” and “educate our constituents [about] the connection between the problems in Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran with the problems we have created in Iraq.” A few months prior to these speeches Waters became a cosponsor of the House resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney for making allegedly “false statements” about the war.

In May 2008, Waters told Shell Oil President John Hofmeister at the House Judiciary Committee’s Task Force on Competition Policy and Antitrust law, that if he did not guarantee reduced gasoline prices in exchange for Congress allowing the oil industry to drill where it wished, she would favor nationalizing American petroleum companies. In a widely reported exchange, she stated: “Guess what this liberal will be all about, this liberal will be all about socializing… taking over and the government running all of your companies.”

Waters was included by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (”CREW”) among its 2005 list of the thirteen “Most Corrupt Members of Congress” list and on the 2006 list for “her exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son.” She was not included on subsequent lists.

During the Los Angeles riots of 1992, Waters appeared on television as a commentator. Waters said “If you call it a riot it sounds like it was just a bunch of crazy people who went out and did bad things for no reason. I maintain it was somewhat understandable, if not acceptable. So I call it a rebellion.”
 Stock ownership of OneUnited Bank

Waters arranged meetings with U.S. Treasury Department officials (in September, 2008) for OneUnited Bank to plead for federal cash. It had been heavily invested in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and its capital was “all but wiped out” after the U.S. government took them over. Her husband is a stockholder (more than $250,000 as of May 2008) and former director of the bank. The bank’s executives were major contributors to her campaigns. Rep. Barney Frank counseled her against participating in the matter. The bank has its headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts, and offices in Los Angeles and Miami. It did secure $12 million in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money28. The matter is currently being investigated by the House Ethics Committee.

On June 25, 2009, Waters got into a fight on the House floor with fellow Democratic Congressman and Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey of Wisconsin. After the House floor had largely cleared following a series of votes, Waters and Obey split apart from a heated conversation about an earmark requested by Waters for a public school employment training center in Los Angeles that was named after herself. Obey rejected the earmark as violating policies against so-called “monuments to me.” Waters revised her request to go to the school district’s whole adult employment training program, so the district could decide whether the money would go to the school named after herself. Nonetheless, Obey let it be known that the earmark would be denied. She approached him and complained, shouting, “You’re out of line!” while walking down toward the well in the House chambers. Obey shouted back, “You’re out of line!” before turning and walking away, but stopped, turned back toward Waters, and shouted, “I’m not going to approve that earmark!” He again turned away while Waters huddled with members of the Congressional Black Caucus and was overheard saying, “He touched me first.” before being escorted into the cloakroom. Obey went to talk with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer when Waters briefly returned again, telling her colleagues, “He touched me.” before returning to the cloakroom. An aide to Waters said that Obey had pushed her while Obey’s spokesperson, Ellis Brachman, placed the blame on Waters for escalating the situation.

Citizens Against Government Waste named her the June 2009 Porker of the Month due to her intention to obtain an earmark for the Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center.

September 20th, 2009 | Tags: Government and Politics, idiots, liars club, politics | Category: Government and Politics | Leave a comment

Palin Paints Picture of ‘Obama Death Panel’ Giving Thumbs Down to Trig – Political Punch

When we last heard from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin she was — not without some justification — beseeching some members of the media to “quit making things up.”

But in a post on her Facebook Page today, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee seemed to take some liberties of her own.

In a column titled “Statement on the Current Health Care Debate,” Palin wrote that as “Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!”

She questions Democratic promises that the health care reform plans will reduce the cost of health care, invoking economist Thomas Sowell, saying the only way to cut costs is to refuse treatment.

“And who will suffer the most when they ration care?” Palin asks. “The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

One can question whether there will by necessity be any rationing decisions that will need to come as a part of health care reform (and, in fact, we have) but pictures of government bureaucrats forcing euthanasia upon seniors — and, now, children with Down syndrome — because they’re not productive members of society are not part of any reasonable debate on the facts of the matter. (And frankly, I agreed with Palin previously, when she was asking members of the media to keep her children out of any public debate.)

Asked specifically what the former governor was referring to when painting a picture of an Obama “death panel” giving her parents or son Trig a thumbs up or down based on their productivity, Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton responded in an email: “From HR3200 p. 425 see ‘Advance Care Planning Consultation’.”

That’s a curious reading of page 425 of the House Democrats’ bill, which refers to “advance care planning consultation,” defined as a senior and a medical practitioner discussing “advance care planning, if…the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.”

This includes an “explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to,” an “explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses,” and an “explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.”

It directs the medical provider to give the patients “a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning,” and an explanation “of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title,” as well as “an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders.”

Factcheck.org disputes this interpretation, saying “accepted definition of end-of-life planning means thinking ahead about the care you would like to receive at the end of your life — which may include the choice to reject extraordinary measures of life support, or the choice to embrace them….the bill would not make these sessions mandatory.”

August 10th, 2009 | Tags: Government and Politics, idiots, liars club, politics | Category: Government and Politics | Leave a comment

Is it a wonder that the government is up in arms when the people that it’s suppose to talk for are running their own mouths? Here in Springfield we are pretty used to having our wishes trampled upon by the people in charge… the vote goes on a ballot… we all vote on it… it doesn’t pass… and the city decides that it will go and do what it wants anyway.

I heard everything from the protesters were wearing too nice of clothing to really be a protester to things like this article that the protesters just (basically) need not to be heard and there opinions will be magically known to their representatives.

White House Warns Rush: Nazi Talk Puts You On “Thin Ice”

The White House struck back hard on Friday against conservative pundits and town hall protesters who have compared the President to Hitler and his policies to Nazism, saying that the critics are “on thin ice” and should “take that temperature down a bit.”

Asked about the breakout of boisterous and occasionally violent protests at Democratic town hall events throughout the country, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs declared that the demonstrators were showing less civility and manners than his six-year-old child.

“Behave yourselves like your mom would probably tell you to do,” Gibbs said when asked what piece of advice he would give to the demonstrators.

But it wasn’t all fun and games for the Obama spokesman. Pressed on the analogies between Obama and Hitler that conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh made during Thursday’s program, Gibbs’ voice turned stern.

“I know the president feels strongly that we can discuss these issues without personally maligning… that we are doing so in a way that respects the dignity of each individual,” he said. “I think anytime you make references to what happened in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s, I think you are talking about an event that has no equivalent. And I think anytime anyone ventures to compare anything to that, they are on thin ice, and it is best not employed.”

“But I think what the most important thing is, is that we can have a discussion in our democracy about where we want to go,” he added. “The president strongly believes we can do so without yelling at each other, pushing at each other or degrading each other. We have seen some stuff, I mentioned it a week ago, we have all seen imagery that just shocks and surprises us and I think the best thing to do is just take that temperature down a bit.”

August 8th, 2009 | Tags: Government and Politics, idiots, liars club, politics | Category: Featured, Government and Politics, Open | Leave a comment

I like how the people here are trying to change what the word “nightly” means.

Branson considers outlawing nightly rentals in neighborhoods | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader

Branson considers outlawing nightly rentals in neighborhoods

Concern voiced by Branson residents that their neighborhoods are home to short-term rental housing for vacationers has prompted the Branson Board of Aldermen to consider prohibiting the practice.

A bill outlawing short-term rentals in residential districts received its first reading at the board’s meeting Tuesday.

The bill defines a nightly rental as a building with sleeping areas in four or fewer rooms that provides accommodations for fewer than 28 days, according to a news release.

I think this is most likely a thinly veiled attempt by the hotel industry in the area to try and get people to pay their outrageous rates and poor service instead of a group of people getting together and renting a house for a week or two and enjoying their vacation.
I wonder if this proposal will include timeshares… hmmmm

July 31st, 2009 | Tags: idiots, liars club, politics | Category: Entertainment, Open | Leave a comment

How insane, Nixon decides it would cost too much if he lifted the requirement… cost too much to whom you rock!!?!!
Insurance companies? When did it become the duty of the Governor to be the door stop for the Insurance system? How about the insurance companies come out and say that if you don’t/didn’t wear a helmet and was in an accident your insurance would cost more…? Because motorcyclists would drop that insurance companies coverage and go to a company that wasn’t conniving.
How about all these 49cc minibikes that are all over the road? Kids are driving these things without helmets, without a license, without any requirements at all… but a motorcycle driving right next to one of these kids has to go through additional driving tests, additional written tests, quite often a safety course, additional insurance, and after all these extras a helmet to boot.
Get your hand out of the insurance companies pocket and stop playing God.  

Nixon vetoes bill to let motorcyclists ride without helmets – STLtoday.com

Nixon vetoes bill to let motorcyclists ride without helmets
By Tony Messenger
POST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU
07/02/2009

JEFFERSON CITY – Safety advocates cheered Gov. Jay Nixon on Thursday for vetoing a bill that would have repealed Missouri’s helmet law for motorcyclists.

For the second time since 1993, motorcycle enthusiasts were successful this year in passing such a repeal through the Legislature, only to be stymied by the veto of a Democratic governor.

“In terms of lives and of dollars, the cost of repealing Missouri’s helmet law simply would have been too high,” Nixon said in a news release announcing his veto. “By keeping Missouri’s helmet law intact, we will save numerous lives, while also saving Missouri taxpayers millions of dollars in increased health care costs.”

In 1993, then-Gov. Mel Carnahan vetoed a similar bill.

Pete Rahn, Missouri’s director of the department of transportation, had been lobbying Nixon hard to veto the bill. In a news conference last month, Rahn pointed to a survey that said Missourians overwhelmingly want motorcyclists to wear helmets. Rahn said repealing the law will lead to deaths, based on highway statistics that show riders without helmets are more likely to die.

“He has saved lives today,” Rahn said of Nixon, calling his veto “courageous and compassionate.”

Until today, Nixon had been mostly silent on the issue. He disputed statements from advocates for the law who said that the governor had given them assurances he would let the bill become law. And he chided Rahn for spending public money on a lobbying effort. Rahn’s actions caused Nixon to veto $33,000 in MoDOT’s budget, the same amount of federal money the transportation department had spent on the survey.

In the end, though, Nixon ended up on Rahn’s side.

And that left members of the Freedom of the Road Riders, the motorcycle group that has led the push for the helmet repeal, feeling jilted.

“I talked to the governor’s office last week,” said Rick Gish, president of the Franklin County Local 42 chapter of the motorcycle group. “They assured me that it was going to ride. I’m very disappointed. We fought hard for this for several years.”

Gish said that Nixon told members of his group that he would neither veto the bill nor sign it, but let it sit on his desk until it became law. Nixon has disputed that characterization.

The bill passed easily in the Senate, 23-6, but had a tighter margin in the House, 93-65, meaning lawmakers might have a tough time overturning Nixon’s veto when they return to session in September. Lawmakers who favored the bill said that it wasn’t government’s job to protect motorcycle riders from themselves.

The law would have allowed motorcyclists to choose whether or not to wear helmets when on most Missouri roads except for interstates.

While Nixon had chided Rahn for spending public money to lobby him on the issue, he cited some of the same figures Rahn used in arguing that repealing the helmet law would be a bad decision. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, he pointed out, says that wearing helmets reduces the likelihood of a fatality by 37 percent. Nixon specifically pointed to statistics that show Florida’s motorcycle-related deaths spiked after that state repealed its helmet law.

Nixon also pointed to the increased costs of caring for motorcyclists injured while not wearing helmets as one of the reasons he vetoed the bill.

Jonathan Adkins, communications director for the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, said he hoped Nixon’s veto would have an effect on other states facing similar decisions.

July 9th, 2009 | Tags: Government and Politics, liars club, politics | Category: Open, Rants | Leave a comment

K Street Project – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The K Street Project is an effort by the Republican Party (GOP) to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and then-House majority whip Tom DeLay. It has been criticized as being part of a “coziness” between the GOP and large corporations which has allegedly allowed business to rewrite government regulations affecting their own industries in some cases (see Dick Cheney energy task force).

Shortly after the 1994 elections which gave a majority of seats to Republican candidates, DeLay called prominent Washington lobbyists into his office. He had pulled the public records of political contributions that they made to Democrats and Republicans. According to Texans for Public Justice, “he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that—or else. The “or else” was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership.”[1]

The project is named for K Street in Washington, D.C., where the largest lobbying firms have their headquarters. Lobbyists are, in some circles, referred to as the “fourth branch of government,” as some have great influence in U.S. national politics due to their monetary resources and the “revolving-door” practice of hiring former government officials. It is widely believed to be common practice for politicians to solicit money from lobbying firms in exchange for better access to officials, especially members of the United States Congress, and to buy favoritism in policies.

Candidates seeking to succeed DeLay as majority leader sought to distance themselves from the project, and as of January 15, 2006, all three announced candidates had vowed to dismantle it and overhaul the lobbying process. The Senate’s Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, passed March 29, 2006, bans senators from using their influence on the hiring practices of lobbyists “on the basis of partisan political affiliation”.

May 22nd, 2009 | Tags: Government and Politics, liars club, politics | Category: Government and Politics | Leave a comment