Category Archives: Senate

Election Prognostications

Posted on by

The November General Election is a month away and races across the country are tightening. I’ve been following the Kansas Senatorial (Roberts vs. Orman), and to a lesser extent, the Gubernatorial (Brownback vs. Davis), race. My prediction: Roberts and Brownback are toast.

I’d prefer ‘Pub wins in both offices but that is not going to happen. Kansas has always had a strong RINO contingent. The reality of Kansas politics is that liberals have always ruled the state either outright as democrats or stealthily as RINO ‘Pubs. Brownback’s win for Governor in 2010 as a conservative is a rarity.

The reasons for the Brownback’s probable loss is different from Roberts. For Roberts, it is his time to go. He ran a vile, mudslinging race against Milton Wolf and alienated the state’s conservatives. Now that he needs their votes, they aren’t there. They still remember Roberts’ negative primary campaign and they will either vote against Roberts or not vote at all.

Brownback’s probable loss is different. He was betrayed by ‘moderate’ ‘Pubs who banded together to support democrat Davis for Governor.

Why? Many reasons, some because Brownback is a conservative and took on the state’s Education Mafia. Others back Davis because Brownback is trying to cut Kansas taxes. That, the traitor’s believe, means budget cuts for education.

Kansas education is over-funded. The problems with education in Kansas aren’t due to a lack of funds, it is because those funds have been squandered on non-education projects. Lining the pockets of the education unions for one. Whenever any education reform is attempted, the Education Mafia runs to the courts; courts that have been loaded over the years with liberal, activist judges from local circuit courts up to the state Supreme Court. Just look how that court rewrote state law with the dems wanted to remove their own senatorial candidate to shift votes to their other candidate, Greg Orman.

From my perspective as a non-Kansas resident, Brownback is a great governor. Kansas, as a state, however, is still ruled by an liberal oligarchy that despises conservatives.

Roberts is a lost cause. He’s drawn heavily on outside help from the NRSC, who helped Roberts campaign against Wolf, to pulling in Ted Cruz to schmooze the conservatives. Cruz was a good idea…until Roberts’ NRSC assistants pull a boner like this one.

Why the GOP will probably lose Kansas in just one Tweet

 By: streiff (Diary)  |  October 6th, 2014 at 11:15 AM

If you want to smell the flopsweat hitting the Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), re-election campaign, there is no better example than this tweet from the NRSC:

The GOP is attacking a guy for being a successful businessman. Does this make sense? Are we against people avoiding taxes? If so, I missed the memo because the GOP is against Obama’s war on corporate inversions. Should I run out and vote for an out-of-touch septuagenarian porkmeister who only survived a primary challenge because of attacks on his opponent that were beneath the dignity of any creature aspiring to the status of “man?”

Walsh, like his fellow-traveler the slightly befuddled Brad Dayspring, seem to have no talent at all beyond attacking conservatives and using the most disgusting calumnies to do so.

If you don’t object to your money being wasted by their truly bizarre choices of candidates to support, then, for Heaven’s sake, be offended that your money is being squandered by idiots.

I repeat my mantra from yesterday:

“I can protect myself from my enemies, but Heaven help me to protect myself from my friends.”

Facebook

Wow! What a weekend.

Posted on by

I had a real busy weekend. I had a real busy week. My shootin’ buddy and I spent Thursday at the range practicing for a pistol match coming up next month. Saturday night was a Friends of the NRA dinner and auction in H’ville. Then Sunday afternoon was the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance 25th Anniversary picnic.

I’m pretty much whooped.  Still…I’d do it again in a second.

***

The Kansas Senatorial race continues to be in the front of the news. I’ve had some friends ask me what the controversy is all about. It’s this, as briefly as I can explain.

There are (were) three candidates running for US Senator; Pat Roberts, the incumbent on the Republican Ticket, Chad Taylor on the democrat ticket, and Greg Orman, a democrat who the democrats wouldn’t let run against Taylor in the primary. Orman decided to run as an ‘independent.’ In reality, it’s two democrats running against one ‘Pub. Ordinarily, this would be a shoo-in for Roberts because Orman would split the democrat votes with Taylor.

Suddenly, the environment changed. Polls indicated that Orman was running better against Roberts than Taylor. To the democrats, this meant one of their candidates was a possible winner, especially since Roberts pissed off much of the grass-roots conservatives who had backed Milton Wolf. A significant percentage of those Wolf supporters declared they would either vote for Orman or stay home.

The democrats were now in a dilemma. Orman, a democrat in an independent’s costume, was ahead of Taylor. They decided to have Taylor quit. That would allow the democrats to vote for Orman instead of splitting their votes between the two democrat candidates.

The Kansas democrat leaders forced Chad Taylor to quit.

After a series of legal shenanigans, with the aid of their left-leaning KS Supreme Court, they got Taylor off the ticket. Bad news for Roberts. But Orman isn’t the clean-cut, scandal-free candidate the democrats and he projects. He is being sued for failure to pay royalties to another company for the use of their patented technology.

The establishment ‘Pubs are rallying around Roberts and Orman is facing more scrutiny from the national press. Surprise, surprise! Orman is keeping closed-mouth about what his political views?

Greg Orman, a political enigma, faces growing scrutiny in Kansas Senate race

By Philip Rucker September 28 at 8:53 PM

WICHITA — Greg Orman, the upstart Senate candidate threatening to unseat longtime Republican incumbent Pat Roberts in Kansas, says it’s liberating to run as an independent: “I can go to Washington as a problem solver, not a partisan.”

But not having a party also liberates Orman from taking positions — especially on controversial issues that might alienate partisans.

Greenlight the Keystone XL pipeline? Orman said he doesn’t have enough information to say yes or no.

What about gun control? He said gun restrictions should be “strengthened” but would not specify whether he backs an assault-weapons ban.

And on the biggest question of all — Would he caucus with Democrats or Republicans? — Orman insists he’s not sure.

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, left, and independent candidate Greg Orman talk after a debate at the Kansas State Fair Saturday, Sept. 6, 2014, in Hutchinson, Kansas. (Charlie Riedel/AP)

“It’s not in the best interests for us to say that,” Orman said in an interview here last week.

Orman has said he would caucus with whichever party has the majority after November’s midterm elections. But what if the Senate is evenly divided and Orman’s decision swings the balance? He said that would be “a wonderful opportunity for Kansas.”

Orman’s rise has transformed deep-red Kansas into the year’s unlikeliest political battleground. Many voters say Roberts has lost touch with the state he’s represented in Congress since 1981.

Since Democratic nominee Chad Taylor withdrew his name from the ballot this month, Roberts has been in a two-man race with Orman, who has previous ties to the Democratic Party but preaches independence. Public polling has been unreliable, but both sides believe the race is very tight.

Orman, who entered the race in June, has surged on the strength of his pitch to fix a broken Washington without any allegiance to a political party. But now the enigma is under increasing pressure from voters to provide a clearer sense of his ideology and politics, while facing attacks from the Roberts camp over his business ties and Democratic past.

“I’ve been impressed with Greg so far, but we’re still in the ‘I’m an independent’ stage,” said Lynda Neff, 68, a retired teacher. “I’m ready to move past that and hear about some issues. . . . I will support him if he gives me a little more information.”

Perhaps the biggest test for Orman, a multi­millionaire investor who is partially funding his campaign, is surviving the intensifying public scrutiny of his business and personal relationships with Rajat Gupta, the former Goldman Sachs board member who was convicted in 2012 of insider trading and is serving a federal prison sentence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dre/politics/election-lab-2014

Election Lab: See our current forecast for every congressional race in 2014.

View Graphic

Roberts and his Republican allies have launched a barrage of attacks designed to make Orman appear untrustworthy. On the campaign trail in Kansas last week, a parade of top Republicans alleged that Orman is a liberal Democrat in disguise.

“Anybody with a liberal record like Greg’s . . . that’s not independence. That’s someone who’s trying to snooker you, Kansas,” Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and vice-presidential nominee, said Thursday in Independence.

Palin’s 2008 running mate, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), told voters a day earlier in suburban Overland Park: “Let’s be honest — he’s a Democrat. He walks like a duck and he quacks like a duck and he is a duck.”

Robert J. Dole, a former Senate Republican leader and 91-year-old Kansas legend, said Monday night in Dodge City, “There’s a multimillionaire who claims he’s an independent, but really [he’s] in the other party.”

In Kinsley on Tuesday, after reporters asked whether he trusted Orman to govern as an independent, Roberts said, “All of a sudden, if there’s a metamorphosis and the caterpillar changed — why, I just don’t think that’s in the cards.”

Orman argues that the Republicans are reading him wrong. He said he voted for Obama in 2008, and public records show that in the middle of that decade he made donations mostly to Democrats, including Obama and Sen. Al ­Franken (Minn.). In 2008, he briefly ran for Senate against Roberts as a Democrat before dropping out.

The column by the Washington Post is long. You can read it completely on their website.

I was surprised that the Washington Post says the new Senate will be ‘Pub controlled, 62 to 48 given their history of biased reporting. Joni Ernst now leads Braley, 44 percent to 38 percent. Most of the polling over the last month or more has Ernst in the lead but the MSM claimed otherwise and called Iowa a ‘leaning blue’ state.

Des Moines Register: “The ground under Bruce Braley has shifted. The Democratic U.S. Senate candidate is 6 points behind his GOP rival, Joni Ernst, according to The Des Moines Register’s new Iowa Poll of likely voters. Ernst leads 44 percent to 38 percent in a race that has for months been considered deadlocked…. One potential reason: Two-thirds of likely voters who live in the country are bothered by a remark he made about Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley that’s been perceived as besmirching farmers.”

Braley should have known that dissing farmers in Iowa is not a career-enhancing tactic.

Facebook

If ya can’t beat ’em…

Posted on by

It should not be surprising. After all, it is an established liberal campaign tactic; if you can’t beat ’em, intimidate ’em. That tactic is in the news again. Democrats facing strong opposition this year, are turning to the IRS to tyrannize opposition groups.

Vulnerable Dems want IRS to step up

By Alexander Bolton – 02/13/14 06:00 AM EST

Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the Internal Revenue Service to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races.

In the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, the Democrats are publicly prodding the agency instead of lobbying them directly. They are also careful to say the IRS should treat conservative and liberal groups equally, but they’re concerned about an impending tidal wave of attack ads funded by GOP-allied organizations. Much of the funding for those groups is secret, in contrast to the donations lawmakers collect, which must be reported publicly.

One of the most powerful groups is Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. It has already spent close to $30 million on ads attacking Democrats this election cycle.

“If they’re claiming the tax relief, the tax benefit to be a nonprofit for social relief or social justice, then that’s what they should be doing,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D), who faces a competitive race in Alaska. “If it’s to give them cover so they can do political activity, that’s abusing the tax code. And either side.”

Asked if the IRS should play a more active role policing political advocacy by groups that claim to be focused on social welfare, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) responded, “Absolutely.”

“Both on the left and the right,” she said. “As taxpayers, we should not be providing a write-off to groups to do political activity, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.”

She called the glut of political spending by self-described social welfare groups that qualify under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code “outrageous.”

Shaheen is in a good position now but could find herself embroiled in a tight campaign if former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) challenges her.

Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, said the IRS has jurisdiction over 501(c)(4) groups, as well as charities, which fall under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code and sometimes engage in quasi-political activity.

“That whole 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) [issue], those are IRS numbers. It is inherently an internal revenue matter,” he said. “There are two things you don’t want in political money, in the fundraising world and expenditure world. You don’t want secret money, and you don’t want unlimited money, and that’s what we have now.” 

This month, Americans for Prosperity launched a three-week advertising campaign targeting Pryor. The group has also targeted Shaheen and Sen. Kay Hagan (N.C.), another vulnerable Democratic incumbent.

Last month, Americans for Prosperity-New Hampshire launched a television ad criticizing Shaheen for her 2009 and 2010 votes for the Affordable Care Act. It highlighted the plight of New Hampshire residents who have to travel hours to find healthcare in hospitals covered by the state’s insurance exchange.

Last week, the group announced a $1.4 million TV campaign against Hagan.

On Wednesday, it unveiled an ad hitting Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), another endangered incumbent, for voting for ObamaCare.

A spokesman for Americans for Prosperity estimated the three-week advertising campaign would cost $750,000.

Robert Maguire, the political nonprofit investigator at the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks spending by outside groups, said Americans for Prosperity has spent far more money than any other 501(c)(4) group this election cycle.

In the last election cycle, Crossroads GPS, a group founded by GOP super-strategist Karl Rove, spent the most political money of any social-welfare group, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which estimated the total at $71 million. The group has remained relatively quiet this cycle.

The law states that 501(c)(4) groups must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, but the IRS has traditionally adopted a more lenient standard, said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.

The IRS says social-welfare activity must be the primary activity of such groups. It gives them broad leeway by not classifying voter registration drives and even ads that criticize candidates as political activity.

Under new proposed regulations by the Treasury Department, the IRS would define voter registration, distributing voter guides and running ads that mention candidates as political activities. 

It also proposed setting a bright-line limit for what percentage of groups’ activity would be allowed to fall into the category of candidate-related political activity.

If enacted, the regulations would, in effect, limit how much outside groups, such as Americans for Prosperity or League of Conservation Voters, could spend as a percentage of their budgets on the Senate races.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, called for the IRS to curb political spending by outside groups during a major speech on how to blunt the impact of conservative donors such as the Koch brothers.

“The Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government,” he said in remarks at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

“There are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies — we must redouble those efforts immediately,” he added. 

Democrats, however, know they must tread carefully while pushing the IRS to act. Revelations that the tax agency had targeted conservative groups swelled into a major controversy last year. Congressional Republicans have grilled the Obama administration on why there have been no indictments nine months after the IRS news broke.

The column continues at the website. The telling sentence in the article above is this: The law states that 501(c)(4) groups must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, but the IRS has traditionally adopted a more lenient standard, said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. But, as evidence has shown, lenient treatment only happens if the organization being investigated is a liberal one backing democrat candidates.

The democrats and establishment DC ‘Pubs are working hard to make the law irrelevant. They should quake in fear of that occurring because it means that neither side will be restrained.

***

Another news item nearly slipped by me this morning. I heard that Time-Warner was in trouble. It hasn’t been much in the news but they have been looking for a buyer for some time. According to this report, they’ve found one—Comcast.

Why does this bother me? I’m a Comcast subscriber, Comcast has the franchise for my hometown. I’ve always gotten good, reliable service from them, yearly cost increases aside. This bothers me because in our area, there will be no major competition, aside from AT&T and satellite providers whose reliability and service is a running joke in the industry.

More and more, we see, instead of competition, consolidation. Our commercial law is geared towards big business and mergers. This one is an example. Like telecommunication carriers, there aren’t all that many voice/internet/cable TV carriers out there. When you tie that environment with the municipal exclusive service franchise, you can bet costs will go up and service will go down. Why should they not? They have a captive client base with no other place to go.

Comcast Scoops Up Time Warner Cable

By SYDNEY EMBER

COMCAST SWOOPS IN TO ACQUIRE TIME WARNER CABLE  |  Time Warner Cable has been dodging a takeover for months, but it finally accepted another suitor with a sweeter offer. Comcast on Thursday announced an agreement to acquire Time Warner Cable in an all-stock deal valued at about $45.2 billion. The merger will unite the biggest and second-biggest cable television operators in the country, David Gelles writes in DealBook. Under the terms of the deal, Time Warner Cable shareholders will receive $158.82 a share based on Comcast’s closing price on Wednesday.

The merger is likely to bring to an end a protracted takeover battle that Charter Communications has been waging for Time Warner Cable, leaving Charter Communications to wonder what might have been. As for Comcast, the Time Warner Cable deal would be its second big act to radically reshape the media landscape in the United States — the company completed its acquisition of NBC Universal less than a year ago. But despite combining the country’s two largest cable operators, a merger will probably have little effect on consumers. Nevertheless, the combination of the two cable operators is certain to attract antitrust scrutiny by regulators.

Mr. Gelles writes: “For Time Warner Cable, the deal provides a neat solution to its problems. It will receive just about the $160-a-share price it said was its true value, and possibly more. It will no longer have to slog ahead with a turnaround plan being run by a new chief executive, Rob Marcus. And it will allow it to become part of the company that is already the dominant force in cable television services.”

The column continues with a review by the Wall Street Journal of T-W’s woes and the negotiations leading up to the proposed merger.

***

Erick Erickson has a column today in RedState and mirrors what I’ve been preaching since 2008 when I started this blog…”Primaries Matter!!”

Primaries Matter

 

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  February 13th, 2014 at 04:30 AM

The House and Senate Republicans have handed Barack Obama a blank check to raise the national debt as much as he wants.

Throughout last year, Republicans said conservatives should fight on the debt ceiling, not the continuing resolution. They said they should filibuster the debt ceiling, not the continuing resolution. They said they should shut down the government over the debt ceiling, not the continuing resolution.

After conservatives balked at their lies and the Democrats shut down the government, Republican leaders scrambled as fast as possible to throw conservatives under the bus and reopen the government. Still, they said, the debt ceiling fight was coming up and they’d hold the Democrats accountable.

Just two weeks ago, Senator Mitch McConnell claimed the GOP would refuse a clean debt ceiling increase and demand cuts and reform.

But this week the GOP caved across the board. They gave the President the right to raise the debt as much as he wants until March of 2015 — as much as he wants. Republicans have abdicated their own responsibility for restraining the size of the federal government.

Primaries matter. Mitch McConnell was the deciding vote in the Senate to move forward. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and House GOP leaders structured this deal in the House. Primaries matter. Until you defeat these guys, you will do nothing to change Washington.

If they are going to give Barack Obama a blank check, we should cancel their paychecks at the ballot box.

Amen, Brother!

Facebook

Where is the GOP going?

Posted on by

I’ve written a series of posts about the internal civil war within the GOP. More and more, the GOP DC elites, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, Cornyn, act in concert with the democrats. The latest fiasco was the debt limit increase.

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION Scene from Game of Thrones and John Boehner.Rather than fight the increase and use it to cut spending, as Boehner and others promised last year during the ‘Continuing Resolution’ battles, Boehner, et. al, dropped all opposition and submitted a ‘clean’, that is no spending cuts, no restraints, as Reid demanded.

Conservatives rally against debt ceiling ‘surrender,’ call for Boehner’s head

11:18 PM 02/11/2014, Alexis Levinson, Political Reporter

The House voted Tuesday to raise the debt ceiling with no conditions attached, and conservative groups are calling for Speaker John Boehner’s head.

The vote was 221-201, with just 28 Republicans joining 193 Democrats to vote for it. Speaker Boehner cast a rare vote in favor of the bill.

But the attacks began before the vote even took place, as soon as it was known that Boehner would bring a no-strings-attached debt ceiling hike to the floor.

“A clean debt ceiling is a complete capitulation on the Speaker’s part and demonstrates that he has lost the ability to lead the House of Representatives, let alone his own party. Speaker Boehner has failed in his duty to represent the people and as a result, it is time for him to go… Fire the Speaker,” said Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin in a statement before the vote. The statement linked to a petition to “Fire the Speaker,” and the group’s Twitter account has been tweeting since the vote asking people to call Boehner and tell him to “resign.”

Senate Conservatives Fund had a similar idea.

“John Boehner must be replaced as Speaker of the House,” reads a post on their website from before the vote.

“Instead of fighting for conservative principles, Speaker Boehner has completely surrendered to the Democrats,” the post reads, and the group launched its own petition to “Replace the Speaker.”

Club for Growth lampooned the idea, flagging it as a “key vote” for their rankings of how pro-growth members are.

“When we heard that House leadership was scheduling a clean debt ceiling increase, we thought it was a joke,” wrote Club for Growth Vice President of Government Affairs Andy Roth in an email to House offices before the vote. “But it’s not. Something is very wrong with House leadership, or with the Republican Party. This is not a bill that advocates of limited government should schedule or support.”

For America, another conservative group, also went after the House Republican leadership.

“Republicans have caved again!” reads a post on the group’s Facebook page. “They promised to fight Obama, but they’ve just announced they will raise the debt limit without any conditions … Yet another failure from the GOP and more proof it’s time to dump the leadership!”

The post is illustrated with a photo of Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy.

Freedomworks’ Matt Kibbe dubbed the vote the “Boehner debt hike,” and marked it as a key vote in their score card for members as well.

“Governing with Democratic votes to raise the debt limit with no reforms attached is an all-time low for Speaker Boehner,” Kibbe said in a statement. “Based on reports, the Boehner debt hike spends money we don’t have to increase entitlement spending and grow the debt. In other words, with the money they spend today, they’ll come back and borrow to pay for tomorrow.”

Heritage Action also knocked the bill, urging members to vote against it.

Historically, Boehner does not have a warm and fuzzy relationship with any these groups. In December, Boehner accused outside groups like these — that were criticizing the bipartisan budget deal — of “misleading their followers” and said “they’ve lost all credibility” in the wake of the government shutdown in October.

The GOP is splitting. The latest polls in the Kentucky Senatorial race has McConnell trailing significantly behind his democrat opponent. McConnell will meet a primary opponent, Matt Bevins, a strong conservative with backing from the SCF, Heritage Foundation and numerous grassroots and Tea Party organizations. According to those same polls, Bevins would beat the democrat candidate by a number of points.

It makes sense, to retain the GOP senatorial seat, for McConnell to step down in favor of Matt Bevin. He has refused to do so and apparently would rather lose the seat to the democrats than keep it for the GOP.

***

We have similar examples at the state and local levels. The Senatorial Conservative rankings were released over the last weekend. I wrote about it in an earlier post. We have another example of a ‘Pub, Roy Blunt, voting in concert with democrats.

We have more examples within our state legislature. During the veto override session last September, a significant number of so-called ‘Pub Representatives failed to support the veto overrides for bills they had voted for during the earlier regular legislative session. Locally, Donna Pfautsch, Representative for Missouri’s 33rd district, reversed her vote. Her failure to support the MO tax cut bill contributed to the failure to override democrat Governor Nixon’s veto.

When we have ‘Pub legislators supporting the policies of democrats, can we truly call them republicans? All too often, ‘Pubs, instead of opposing democrat lawlessness as exhibited by Nixon and others within Missouri, we have ‘Pubs voting in lock-step supporting the democrats.

That must end.

Facebook

Friday’s Follies for January 17, 2014

Posted on by

The first news item to cross my desk this morning was the announcement that Senator Tom Coburn, (R-OK), would leave the Senate at the end of the year. His term won’t expire until 2016, but due to a recurrence of his prostrate cancer, he’s leaving the Senate early. Erick Erickson of Red State calls Coburn the Horatius of Oklahoma.

With an unknown future, I can understand Coburn’s desire to spend more time with his family. I wish my so-called republican senator had Tom Coburn’s voting record and leadership.

I wish you well, Tom Coburn.

***

Union organizers lose another one. The International Association of Machinists attempted to organization an Amazon site in New Jersey and failed. As expected, the union claims it was all Amazon’s fault! In retrospect, that is true. Amazon provided a working environment that supported their employees, more than the union who only wanted their ‘take’ from the members paychecks.

Their unusual thug tactics failed.

Is It Hubris Or…? Undemocratic and dysfunctional Machinists’ union blames Amazon for employees’ rejection

 

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  January 16th, 2014 at 05:30 PM

amazon-box-500x344

Whether it is extreme hubris or blatantly deceptive spin, the International Association of Machinists does not seem to realize that, over the last several months, the union has done a number of things to sully its own reputation in the minds of its members—as well as the general public—which is likely costing it potential new members.

On Tuesday, a group of 27 Amazon workers employed by the company in Delaware overwhelmingly rejected representation by the Machinists in an NLRB-supervised election by 21-6.

According to union spokesman John Carr, the union’s loss was all the company’s fault.

The majority of 27 technicians at an Amazon fulfillment center in Middletown, Delaware, voted to reject an initiative to form a union under the auspices of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, said John Carr, a spokesman for the IAMAW. The vote, held late yesterday, was 21 to 6.

“That number is a clear reflection that the tactics Amazon and their law firm employed were very effective,” Carr said. “Under the intense pressures these workers faced on the shop floor, it was an uphill battle all the way.” [Emphasis added.]

Either Mr. Carr is completely ignorant of how the goings-on within his own union impact its reputation among potential new members or he is merely looking for a scapegoat to blame for his own union’s shortcomings.

In either case, events over the last several months within the Machinists’ union do not make a good case for the union to sell itself to union-free workers.

Guess the New Jersey employees weren’t too impressed with a union that jacked around its members as they have done with Boeing.

***

There were two stories in the news today about a theater overlooked by liberal media—the Western Pacific and the buildup of Chinese military forces. The Chinese declared an exclusion zone encompassing islands owned by Japan in addition to their claims in the South China Sea that covers territory claimed by a number of other nations including Viet Nam, Japan and the Philippine Islands.

(See my post from last year.)

Under our current non-leadership, our military forces have been degraded to the point that we can no longer secure the open seas nor support our allies in the Pacific. Japan is considering a massive buildup of their defense forces due to American military weakness.

Ominous warning: Admiral concedes U.S. losing dominance to China

Commander of Obama’s Asia pivot eyes military posturing by China

 

An F-18 Super Hornet flies ahead of the USS John C. Stennis while in the Pacific, 2013. (Image: U.S. Navy)

The Obama administration’s ballyhooed military “pivot” to Asia is running into some frank talk from the top U.S. commander in the Pacific. 

Three years after the Pentagon said it was de-emphasizing Europe in favor of the Asia-Pacific region, NavyAdm. Samuel J. Locklear III said this week that U.S. dominance has weakened in the shadow of a more aggressive China.

“Our historic dominance that most of us in this room have enjoyed is diminishing, no question,” Adm. Locklear, chief of U.S. Pacific Command, said Wednesday at a naval conference in Virginia.

Although Adm. Locklear said it is obvious that Chinese military power is growing, he suggested that it is unclear whether China will seek to be a hard adversary to the U.S. in the long term, so Washington should be working overtime on steering Beijing toward a cooperative security posture.

“China is going to rise, we all know that,” Adm. Locklear said, as reported by Defense News, which included several quotes from his speech at the annual Surface Navy Association meeting.

“[But] how are they behaving? That is really the question,” the admiral said, adding that the Pacific Command’s goal is for China “to be a net provider of security, not a net user of security.”

His remarks offered insight into the introspection at the Pentagon’s highest levels about how the U.S. should tailor its military presence in the region, where Beijing and Moscow — regional powerhouses and former Cold War adversaries to Washington — are keen to challenge U.S. dominance.

“The problem with this formulation is, for whom does Adm. Locklear think China will be providing security?” said Dean Cheng, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation. “The implicit answer is ‘to everyone,’ because the assumption is that we can somehow mold China into being ourselves — that China will see its interests as somehow congruent and coincident with those of the United States, and therefore China will assume the mantle of regional provider of public goods.

The column continues here.

Military weakness abetted by Chinese holdings of US debt can lead to an extremely dangerous future. The US is ignoring our pledge to protect and support Taiwan and our WesPac allies. We promised to provide Taiwan with diesel-electric subs for a decade or more. The US doesn’t have any, nor does the US build any, but that didn’t stop the promise from being made. To date, that promise has not be fulfilled. The US has also promised to provide Taiwan with some P-3C patrol aircraft. Some, two of twelve, have been delivered.

Taiwan, hoping to give China pause, is now conducting anti-submarine exercises in their territorial waters.

IN CHINA: Taiwan’s anti-sub drill

By Miles Yu, Thursday, January 16, 2014

The Taiwanese navy this week conducted an anti-submarine warfare drill as part of a recent effort to improve the island’s defenses against a Chinese underwater attack.

Conducted Tuesday about 10 miles off Taiwan’s southwestern coast, the drill involved surface vessels and helicopters in simulated hunt-and-kill operations against submarines.

China’s massive military buildup over the past two decades has prompted Taiwan to enhance its defenses — with significant help from the U.S. Washington provides key weapons systems that are mandated by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, which requires the U.S. to provide arms that allow Taipei to maintain parity with Beijing’s communist government.

However, the United States has been hampered by obstacles that have prevented Taiwan from keeping its defense capabilities on par with China’s offensive capabilities.

For example, the George W. Bush administration in 2001 approved the sale of eight diesel-electric submarines to Taiwan, even though the U.S. long ago ceased making non-nuclear-powered subs. Prolonged talks about cost and congressional concerns about technology transfer resulted in inaction that continues to this day.

China’s navy, with nearly 60 submarines, including a half-dozen nuclear-powered attack and ballistic missile subs, holds a decisive advantage over Taiwan. Taipei currently deploys only two old Dutch-made submarines.

Analysts say Taiwan must strengthen its anti-sub capabilities to counterbalance China’s forces.

To help meet Taiwan’s anti-submarine needs, the U.S. in 2007 agreed to sell P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft to the Taiwanese military. The first four were recently delivered.

The Taiwanese military recently upgraded two submarines by arming them with up to 32 UGM-84A Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The Harpoon, made by McDonnell Douglas [now Boeing], is an advanced, all-weather, sea-skimming, radar-guided missile. Its “over-the-horizon” system can reach targets about 70 nautical miles away, placing many of China’s surface ships within its range.

The column continues with the news of the assignment of the USS Ronald Reagan, (CVN-76) to its new base in Japan. The USS Ronald Reagan will replace the USS George Washington, currently on-station in the Western Pacific.

The world is a dangerous place. It always had been. All too many in the US fail to understand that truism.

A side-bar poll on the Washington Times website asks, “Will U.S. military might be the envy of the world 50 years from now?” That is a good question. I won’t be around then, well, it’s highly unlikely. I fear the answer will be, “No.” The website could have asked, “Will the U.S. still have a Constitutional Republic 5o years from now?” I fear the answer to that question, too, may also be, “No.”

Facebook

The Day of the Dron…duds

Posted on by

The Senatorial oversight committee investigating the Benghazi fiasco is still conducting hearings.  You wouldn’t know that if you read our local Kansas City Red Star nor would you be aware if you only listened to MSM outlets. Testimony last week from SecDef Leon Panetta and CJCS General Martin Dempsey revealed nothing whatsoever was done to send relief to our Libyan Consulate.

Both Panetta and Dempsey tried to evade questions. Dempsey at last responded to the question from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), “Was any asset—soldier, sailor, marine, airman, ship or plane sent to relieve the Benghazi consulate during the eight hours of the attack?”  Dempsey, after numerous attempts to equivocate and evade the question finally answered, “No.”

When Leon Panetta was questioned about Obama’s involvement, he, too, evaded questions. He said Obama was informed when the information was first known. Obama told Panetta, “to take care of it.” Thereafter Obama did not call for updates nor, apparently, did Panetta, Dempsey, nor anyone call the White House to provide Obama with an update.

In engineering, process design circles, this is known as an Indecision Loop. You see, neither Panetta nor Dempsey can order troops  to act outside of the the US border. That can only be done by the CIC—Obama. As has happened so many times, Obama was absent. Without Obama’s presence and authorization, nothing could be done.

Panetta admitted that the attack in Benghazi ended before anyone in Washington could act. The fact that military assets, from the 4-hour alert units of the 18th Airborne at Ft Bragg, to air and naval assets in the Med and Europe only minutes away, were available was immaterial. The non-leadership in Washington was running in circles because the only one who could make that final decision couldn’t be bothered.

It is interesting that several Generals and Admirals who were in a position to act and who gave orders to prepare to act pending release from Washington were fired. Not only was Washington incapable of acting, they punished those who could and were preparing to act.

From the emerging testimony from Leon Panetta, General Martin Dempsey and SecState Hilliary Clinton we now know the answer to the question posed to Obama during the 2008 election. When the phone rings at 3AM in the morning in a emergency who will answer the phone? Obama or Clinton? The answer, we now know, is neither.

Facebook

ABC…Anybody but Claire

Posted on by

Todd Akin, depending on the poll, is within 2pts of Claire McCaskill. I’m told there are still some conservatives who don’t know for whom they’ll vote. Frankly, I find that hard to believe for true conservatives. I’d expect that response from those who reflect the views of whomever they are around at that moment. Chameleons may be a better description.

McCaskill is trying to market herself as a moderate. The truth is she’s no where near a moderate. Not with a voting record that supports Obama and Harry Reid 98% of the time.

But, for those of you who are really undecided, let’s sift the facts on Claire’s record. Here’s a list of issues and McCaskill’s stance on them. (From OnTheIssues.org)

Abortion:

  • Support embryonic stem cell research but not cloning. (Oct 2006)
  • Support a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Oct 2006)
  • Continue promising stem-cell research. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
  • Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
  • Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
  • Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
  • Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
  • Emergency contraception at all military health facilities. (Dec 2009)

You’ll notice that she was against the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. However, that was in 2006 during an interview on Meet The Press with Tim Russert , Oct 8, 2006. Since being elected to the US Senate, however, she has voted FOR every abortion issue and against restricting abortion. There’s a disconnect between what Claire says…or said in this case, and what she actually does—her voting record once in office.

Budget and the Economy:

  • Take on sacred cows that gave us $8 trillion debt. (Oct 2006)
  • $300 billion in Iraq is a lot of money. (Oct 2006)
  • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
  • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
  • Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
  • Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
  • Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
  • Ban abusive credit practices & enhance consumer disclosure. (Feb 2009)

 The disconnect with Claire’s word and her actions continue when it’s the economy. You’ll notice in the bullet points above a difference when George Bush was President and when Claire was elected Missouri’s Senator. In 2006 she was against more spending—especially when it was for the war in Iraq. Once in office she made a 180° turn. In office she voted against paying down the federal debt (2007), voted for more stimulus spending (2009), and voted for legislation on mortgage “abuses” that provided more federal taxpayer money to support underwater mortgages.

In fact if you examine Claire’s voting record, every vote that was the least bit “moderate” was one where the outcome was already decided. In otherwise a safe vote where Claire’s “moderate” vote had no effect on the outcome.

Let’s continue with McCaskill’s record.

Corporations:

  • Limit TARP recipients’ executive compensation to $400,000. (May 2010
  • Rated 86% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012)

Like all liberals, they refuse to acknowledge how and why corporate executives are paid.  Executives are paid for performance. They are given goals by the corporation’s Board of Directors and if those executives meet those goals, they are well paid—with a good salary, bonuses and stock options. It’s not easy to meet those corporate goals. That’s why the tenures of a CEO is short, a handful of years in most cases. Why? Because the first time that CEO fails to meet his goals, he’s out the door. 

If you limit his compensation, like McCaskill voted, what is the incentive for that CEO? He knows he won’t stay long as CEO. That’s the nature of business—perform or you’re out. So he’s expected to work and work hard with no incentive?

No, he won’t. He’ll go where he can be paid for what he’s worth.  Only the ignorant believes otherwise—or those who refuse to understand the nature of business. Business exists for profit. Without profit, the business will cease to exist. It’s the CEO’s task to insure that profit or get fired.

Let’s look at McCaskill’s stance on energy.

  • Energy independence by 2020 via alternative fuels. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
  • Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
  • Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
  • Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Again, McCaskill voted for initiatives that hurt the economy unless it was a safe vote. She voted against banning excesses by the EPA (2011), voted for Federal support (and taxes) for Global Warming (2007), voted for Cap ‘n Tax (2008), and supported the so-call Green Initiatives and have been a financial disaster (2008).

Finally, let’s examine McCaskill’s record on Healthcare and Obamacare.

  • Opposes annual limit on federal Medicare spending. (Sep 2006)
  • Expand Medicare for people, not for drug companies. (May 2006)
  • Negotiate for lower Rx prices and re-importation. (May 2006)
  • Uncovering Medicaid waste reduces cost of medicine. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
  • Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
  • Voted YES on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
  • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  • Voted YES on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare. (Feb 2008)
  • Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
  • Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  • Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
  • Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
  • Disclose payments from manufacturers to physicians. (Jan 2009)

Once again, McCaskill followed the liberal party line. Her stance before being elected to the Senate in 2006 was decidedly different after being elected. Before, she was in favor of curbing Medicare costs, afterward, it was curbing Medicare benefits.When she voted for Obamacare, she robbed Medicare to $700billion to feed the Obamacare monster. Note, too, that 70% of Missouri voters voted against Obamacare (Prop C). That didn’t deter McCaskill at all. She ignored Missouri’s vote against Obamacare and voted the dem party line.

She voted to allow the Indian Tribes to opt out of Obamacare when you could not. She voted for Medicare cuts and more limitations on Medicare reimbursement for Physicians, Hospitals and Drugs forcing many Physicians and private hospital to refuse any new Medicare patients while driving up the cost of healthcare for individuals. In addition, she voted against Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform plan.

When you examine Claire McCaskill’s record, there is nothing moderate about it. Yes, she did vote on occasion to support some conservative issues like gun control, but if you look at the actual vote in the Senate, those issues already had a clear outcome. McCaskill just hitched a ride to ease her opposition at home in Missouri.

Claire McCaskill is a liberal. Worse, she’s a lying liberal who attempts to mask her true nature. When you enter the voting booth next week. Vote NO against McCaskill and FOR Todd Akin. Akin, considering all his foibles, is still a true conservative—one who won’t sell his vote for expediency or personal gain.

Facebook