And did I mention it’s in Youngstown? As in, the city Bob Hagan represents in the Ohio General Assembly?

You remember Bob, right? He was the one who used “Macaca” “Buckwheat” as a pejorative on his Facebook page, but insisted it wasn’t racist. In making his defense he said “They are so full of s—” and dropped “teabagger.” More recently he was one of the speakers who ranted like an angry, well, union thug at a rally held at Youngstown State University in opposition to Senate Bill 5, which would significantly curtail collective bargaining for public unions in Ohio. At one point during his rant Hagan instructed all those who support SB5 to “kiss my union ass.”

Charming fellow, as you can see.

On the other side of the ledger, Governor John Kasich, who would lose an election in Youngstown to Stalin, has been to Youngstown three times in the past month, and took a great interest in a recent shooting near Youngstown State University. Note the comments in that video from Youngstown’s Democrat mayor, who ran as an independent D against the Democrat-nominee, one Bob Hagan.

The other day, Kasich was in the Youngstown area where he gave a speech about his efforts to bring the state’s budget under control. He talked specifically about things that were being done at the state level to assist the local economy, and cited the GM plant north of town, where union concessions helped the plant win the Chevy Cruze, as an example of how unions and management can work together to help the company flourish, to everyone’s benefit.

In response to Kasich’s speech and everything going on my dad sent an email to our family list which I have edited and have encouraged him to submit to the Youngstown Vindicator. I present it here (in part because I doubt the Vindicator will print it). I think he crystalizes well the dynamic that we are seeing in the battles in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and in Washington.

Governor Kasich spoke well. I’m thankful he didn’t use language like what Bob Hagan has been using lately. Hagan should realize he lowers himself, and our area, when he rants like that.

I may not agree with Hagan much, but I need him to be the best representative he can be for me and you and ALL people in this valley.

He might come across better if he cleans up his choice of expressions (“teabaggers” was uncalled for).

He might even consider a leadership role in admitting that maybe the government employees could possibly, just maybe, reconsider the fact that they have not been subjected to the budget axe quite like their private sector counterparts. Things like accumulated sick pay, personal days, etc. need to be eliminated (can you say Wendy Webb?). I have many friends, union and non-union, who work for all manner of contractors. We all see this issue from the same side–not union vs nonunion, but public vs. private.

Maybe Hagan would gain a lot of insight by opening a business of his own, hiring some employees, and try to make a profit with absolutely no government help. If he is as passionate about helping the working man as he says, he could join the ranks of the private sector employers and deal with EPA; Workers’ Comp; new and exotic taxes and fees; sending in required reports on time or facing penalties; dealing with government employees who never give a straight answer, but know how to levy fines; lazy employees who, when they must be laid off, still get money from the employer through unemployment benefits (NOTE: I believe MOST employees are hard-working and honest); making payroll even though you are waiting to get paid; health insurance; etc,etc. For how many people would he “create” a job?

I’m not attacking anyone. I know there are honest, sincere people—and unscrupulous people—on both sides of the issue. This economy is hurting all of us. But I believe that government should spend less, and regulate less. Those are two of the major reasons businesses are hurting.

After all, last time I looked, small business is where most people work. Small business IS the engine that makes this country run. Everything else, especially government, is the lead weight that slows us down.

Bring jobs to America by reducing government interference, which will reduce the cost of doing business.

Paul Crowe
President
Crowe’s Cabinets, Inc.

(For clarification, I’ve provided party identifications, since the reporters unexpectedly failed to do so.)

In a slew of arrests this morning in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland area) Judge Steven Terry was hauled in by the FBI as part of a broad corruption investigation. Terry was appointed by DEMOCRAT Governor Ted Strickland in 2007.

The press release includes the obligatory praise, that you’d like to think the politician actually believes and means:

“Steven has the legal experience, integrity and commitment to serving the public that judges should exemplify,” Strickland said. “I believe he will carry out the duties of his position with fairness and good judgment.”

Heh.

Terry was pinched after he was recorded on the phone taking direction from the then-county auditor on how to rule on a foreclosure case. The auditor, DEMOCRAT Frank Russo, resigned this past Thursday, September 9, amid allegations he took more than $1 million in bribes, among other things.

DEMOCRAT Russo was one of the main targets of the federal probe, along with County Commissioner DEMOCRAT Jimmy Dimora, who was taken from his home this morning in cuffs and shackles, though by the looks of it he couldn’t have run far.

So far it’s local; no sign yet that anyone further up the statewide chain is implicated, but we’ll be keeping an ear open. One liberal who’s watching the events has already picked whom he think will be the star witness.

So John Kasich (and Rob Portman, should this further depress Dem voter turnout in a county vital to Fisher’s chances) just got a gift that will not leave the public consciousness or the front pages for at least the next 48 days.

Is this an inappropriate and possibly illegal violation of much-vaunted “separation of church and state”? Is this cause for the Catholic Church to lose its tax exempt status? No on both counts. Let me explain why, while also explaining how this doesn’t represent any sort of alternate theocratic state existing within US borders (a charge I can already hear coming from those who wish to equate this row with the desire of Islamists to have autonomous areas within the States where they can impose shari’a).

The Catholic Church is and has been a supernatural institution founded by God among men while He was in the flesh on earth. It exists to be God’s earthly channel of graces; to manifest God’s love on earth through a visible institution; to help souls get to heaven through knowledge and acceptance of, and a life live in accordance with, God’s love. The Church exists to teach, lead, and sanctify. This divine charge includes the responsibility to correct errant teaching to prevent heresy and, if need be, to make examples of those who cause scandal so that others might not be led astray by mixed signals concerning God’s truth.

The Church does not exist to be a secular ruler, to establish economic systems, to dictate governing policy, or to anoint kings. Various popes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, monsignors, etc. have wielded significant secular power through the millenia, to be sure, but this was always a result of the circumstances of the day, the personal ambition of the prelate in question, or some combination of circumstances where the religious authority and secular power , and was never the explicit purpose of the office of the prelate or of the Church.

Abortion is one of the issues which the Church repeatedly, clearly, unwaveringly has said is morally reprehensible. Unlike issues such as the level to which a government should provide a social safety net for the poor, how strict environmental protection laws should be, or even the death penalty, where there are prudential judgments involved based on many factors, abortion is a clear, black-and-white issue: it is wrong. Period. Repugnant to God’s law of life and love. Even the Hyde amendment is not as strict as the Catholic Church is on these issues (it’s not the child’s fault he or she was conceived in rape or incest).

Bishop Tobin is the shepherd of the diocese of Providence, which includes the entire state of Rhode Island. Patrick Kennedy is one of his spiritual children. Bishop Tobin is the chief teacher of his diocese. He has spiritual responsibility for all people–Catholic and non–in his diocese. Patrick Kennedy supports the “right” to abortion, and even supports forcing all Americans to pay for abortions (he voted against the Stupak amendment).

Kennedy’s support for abortion “rights” signifies a significant breach of communion with the Catholic Church. Like the God who animates her, the One who named Himself, “I AM WHO AM,” The Catholic Church is what she is at her deepest level. While disciplines, liturgies, orders, and other aspects of her life on earth can and do change from time to time so she might address the contemporary milieu more directly, she does not change in her essentials. An institution founded and guided by a God who does not change cannot itself change. While abortion may have become a political football, the defense of life is first and foremost an issue of God’s sovereignty, and therefore one in which the Church has been interested since the earliest disciples evangelized pagan cultures that practiced human sacrifice (indeed, since the prophets of various Ba’als were depose and their altars torn down by the prophets of old, considering the continuum of Jewish-Christian history as the same revelation of the one God).

Over the past few weeks Bishop Tobin has tried to meet with Congressman Kennedy to discuss the abortion issue and its implications for Kennedy’s standing as a Catholic. In a letter concerning the potential meeting, Representative Kennedy said, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.”

Bishop Tobin responded publicly on the merits of that statement, and not on the topic of healthcare legislation. He said (all bolding mine),

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

What follows is a brilliant and concise catechesis into what exactly does it mean to call oneself “Catholic.” I recommend the entire letter.

But the point is that Bishop Tobin was instructing one who calls himself “Catholic,” and clearly intends to continue so to do, what that identification means. No one can force Kennedy to stop calling himself Catholic; nor can anyone force him to believe that which he chooses not to believe. But if the one does not square with the other, it is the Church’s responsibility, and particularly the bishop’s responsibility, to make sure one very public person’s obstinate dissent is not taken as a tacitly approved position for Catholics to maintain. Qui tacit consentire, the principle states, “silence gives consent.” Hence Bishop Tobin’s letter.

Since then, Kennedy, in an interview, made public that Tobin also instructed him not to receive Communion and is barred from receiving Communion in the diocese of Providence. A few significant points on this action.

First: Kennedy, not Tobin, made this public. Remember that when anyone says Tobin injected religion into politics. In fact, Tobin’s office made very little comment, only to deny that Tobin has discussed this matter with the pastors of the diocese, which casts serious doubt on Kennedy’s assertion that Tobin “barred him” from Communion in the diocese. It seems more likely that Tobin strictly instructed Kennedy personally not to present himself for Communion, especially while in the diocese of Providence. (Bishops have canonical authority only within the bounds of their own diocese. Archbishop Wuerl of Washington would be the one to officially bar Catholyc politicians from Communion in Washington, DC, while the home bishop retains spiritual fatherhood of the members of Congress who reside within their several dioceses.)

Second: What is the significance of this? The very name of the Sacrament in question suggests the significance: Communion. This Sacrament has so many levels that can be examined (e.g., the reception of the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ has and does keep theologians mesmerized for a lifetime) but we’ll focus on Communion as the outward sign and inner reality of spiritual and actual unity. We receive the same one Lord who is One and has no division within Himself. Our unity as a body of believers of the same faith is to include undivided belief on those matters where unity is required. The Communion we share is a sign of our unity of belief and it draws us into the One Lord where all shall be one with Him. Before presenting himself for Communion, each and every believer is charged to examine his conscience and determine if he is guilty of any separation from the body of Christ through mortal sin or any schism–overt or covert. The believer who determines that he is not in fact in communion is then obliged, under pain of sacrilege, not to present himself for Communion. The obligation changes from person to person according to their spiritual formation and public status–public officials must consider not only their private standing, but the public scandal their actions may cause. With respect to public officials and sins of scandal, the bishop of the local Church can and must also consider the impact the public actions of Catholic public officials on the faithful at large. (The bishop’s first consideration must be the individual soul of the public official, but preventing scandal is a close second. The former is rightly reserved to private meetings and communications, the latter to public–a division we have seen Bishop Tobin respect in this matter.) If the bishop determines that the official’s actions can or will lead to scandal and confusion, he has authority–perhaps even the obligation–to bar the official from Communion until such time as the threat of scandal is passed through public acts of atonement and amendment of will. Such actions are for the sake of the individual public official’s immortal soul, and for the sake of the unity and purity of the Church.

What this is, then…

From the secular point of view, this is nothing more than a matter of a private institution governing itself; a leader of an institution instructing a “member” of that institution on the essential substance of being a member in good standing of the institution. The individual can decide whether he will remain a member in good standing, but he cannot set his own definition of what that means. Whether Kennedy remains a member in good standing of the Catholic Church is up to Kennedy. He can choose. Bishops Tobin has made clear the path Kennedy must walk, but he cannot walk it for Kennedy.

The Catholic Church is an institution that is intimately involved in this world because its Founder and Lord is intimately involved in this world. The Church seeks only to guide souls to heaven, and affect politics only inasmuch as her guidance leads her members to act and govern in accordance with God’s law of love and life. She does not force anyone to become or remain a member. She does not, as an institution, declare policies or governments legitimate or illegitimate. The realm her Lord commands is in this world as human hearts and souls are in this world, but she holds as secondary the politics of this world as she points to and leads her children to the life of her Lord in the world to come.

Note, if you will: Bishop Tobin did not tell Kennedy how to vote on any legislation. He did not inject religion into politics. He did not endorse the Stupak amendment, did not inveigh against the healthcare bill, did not mention a single piece of legislation. He instructed a wayward son on questions affecting eternity, morality, sanctity. As such, there is no violation of tax-exempt status.

And this is the great intersection of the secular and the Christian religious realms–the battleground of the human person. Secular governance is carried out by human actors. Each human actor chooses his actions on the basis of first principles of anthropology and morality and the political and economic philosophy that arises from those first principles. The Church has much to offer and instruct on morality and anthropology, which directly feeds governing philosophy. Her members who enter politics cannot ignore her teaching just because the prevailing opinion is that they ought to–that prevailing opinion is itself built upon a competing set of first principles, not upon a virtuous dispassionate ideal of “fairness,” or a gauzy notion of “separation of church and state.” Her members who embrace “personally opposed, but…” introduce division into themselves, and therefore into the Church. But since the Church abides no division on essentials, they set themselves against the Church. But in all actions here, the Church remains what she is while her recalcitrant members and unfortunate critics scurry about constructing worlds of nuance and exception around themselves–worlds ultimately doomed to destruction. Her critics, internal and external, will continue to criticize her according to their own hang-ups, angry that she refuses to bend with the winds they prefer.

One such hang-up is the charge that this is no different than the Islamists who seek to establish shari’a law in autonomous enclaves within the borders, or even to simply be a separate and unpatriotic people living within the borders ready to subvert the government–a charge Catholics faced for a good portion of this nation’s history. Only those with their own ax to grind and/or a profound ignorance would seriously make this charge. A moment’s reflection upon the nature of shari’a and the nature (as I’ve outlined in this commentary) of the Catholic understanding of the role of the Church vis-a-vis secular governance puts the lie to such a notion.

Even so, I expect a backlash to Bishop Tobin’s pastoral admonition. It won’t be the first nor the last anti-Church action, and it will be just as wrongly directed as the criticisms that led Augustine to pen City of God when the enemies of the Church blamed Christianity for the demise of the Roman empire. And it will also fail to strike at the heart of the Church’s influence and power, just as every previous attack from without or within has failed.

So you’ve decided to vote for the healthcare bill. I’ll not waste more pixels trying to convince you of its wrongness–you’re clearly beyond convincing or rational argumentation based in fact, reality, or sanity. I’m especially surprised by your announcement in the wake of the recent elections in which opponents of the government healthcare plan won in Virginia, New Jersey, and even in New York where the victor, Owens, campaigned AGAINST key provisions of the current bill (notably the public option) and still only won because the GOP shot itself in the foot. The nation doesn’t want this plan–that’s not the same as saying the nation doesn’t want ANY plan, but in every poll the key provisions are decidedly unpopular–and increasingly less popular the more we find out about them. Yet you seem to be okay with all that. Against all sense, against all logic, against public opinion, against good governance, against the interests of your district. I can only conclude that you played it right, held out long enough, and got a sweet deal out of it.

So I wonder: what will you get for selling out your pro-life and blue dog convictions in voting for a fiscally irresponsible bill that will subsidize the slaughter of innocents? Judas got 30 pieces of silver; what’s your payoff?

I’m reminded of Robert Bolt’s play, “A Man for All Seasons,” about the patron saint of lawyers and politicians, St. Thomas More. After Sir Richard Rich gives the damning, perjured testimony in exchange for becoming the attorney general to Wales, More explains to Rich, “It profits a man nothing should he gain the world and lose his soul… but for Wales, Richard?”

That play is chock full of great nuggets you would do well to consider. I’ll buy you a copy and even read it to you if you’d like.

One last note. Per Archbishop Burke, for the sake of your immortal soul, I hope you stop presenting yourself for Communion after casting your vote for the healthcare bill until such time as you realize the sin of the vote, repent of it, and bring it to Confession.

You’ll be in my prayers that you reconsider this regrettable decision. Miracles do happen. Perhaps you will think sensibly and consider real, positive reform that addresses the problems in our healthcare system, doesn’t incur massive debt, and doesn’t subsidize another slaughter of the innocents.

In Christ,
Thomas Crowe

First of all, it is important that you vote ‘YES’ for Issue 2. You can go to this website to find out why: www.ohiolivestockcare.com. This will explain some of what you need to be informed about.

The gist of the Issue is to create a Livestock Board made up of 13 members who will monitor reports of abuses of animals and take care of any problems that arise. It is not connected in any way with any local Humane Society, although there will be one member from a Humane Society. If farmers are to make a living from their wise care of their animals, they sure don’t need Washington or any other out of state organization telling them how to do it! They need people who are close to the agricultural community! And people wo live and work in Ohio!

I don’t want to get on my soapbox, but if you are to convince anyone to vote ‘yes’ you need to know what you are talking about.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) [which opposes Issue 2, by the way,] is headquartered in Washington, DC. Their membership consists of mostly vegetarians (who don’t want you to have a choice of what you eat). They have a BIG budget. They managed to get Proposition 2 on the ballot in California, and it passed (mostly because the city folks didn’t have a clue about agricultural practices). Now in California in 2014, they will have no more caged layers, no more broiler houses, and no more gestation crates for hogs. The caged layers are clean and dry, well fed, and just do their job laying eggs. The HSUS painted the picture of poor little chickens living in poop, no water, just turning out those eggs. Not true! The broiler house have chickens that go from hatching to the butcher in 6 weeks, and are those nice meaty chickens that you buy in the supermarket. They are well fed, warm, (or cool) and are cleaned regularly. The gestation crates are for mamma pigs and are small enclosures that prevent the mom from laying on her babies when she has them (or eating them sometimes). Hog farmers know how to raise hogs, beaurocrats [sic] do not!

If this issue fails, in about 5 years you will be paying $5 – $10 for a dozen eggs, and much more for chicken and pork in the supermarket, and who knows where it will be shipped in from! VOTE ‘YES’ FOR ISSUE 2, AND TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS! Sorry so long, but I am rather passionate about this. And join the Farm Bureau if you want to help. $62 a year and many discounts come with a membership.

Dear Congressman Wilson,

I received your letter this past Friday and was frankly disappointed at the way that you persist in repeating thoroughly discredited talking points as though all of your constituents were too dumb to know the difference. Even the AP (not noted for their conservative bias) and FactCheck.org (funded by the left-leaning Annenberg Foundation) confirms the simple fact that the Hyde amendment would not restrict the new streams of federal funding created by Obamacare from funding abortions.

Both Democrat bills do in fact provide taxpayer money for abortions. This is not a matter of opinion; it is not a question of interpretation or legislative intent; it is just a statement of fact. It follows that, like White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, you are either lying about the bill or have not looked into it carefully enough to inform yourself about some of its most troubling provisions.

For a long time this year, I have defended you in conversation after conversation here in the District. I explained to people that you are a relatively new Congressman, that you are a mortician by training and not a lawyer, that you wanted to do the right thing, that (while you clearly wouldn’t say no to President Obama or Speaker Pelosi on spending issues) you really did have a pro-life voting record so far. I pointed out that you had made at least symbolic pro-life votes like voting with the minority to defund Planned Parenthood (symbolic of course because the leadership only allowed a vote knowing that it couldn’t pass). I argued that as soon as you’d had a chance to really understand what was in the bill, you would take a stand.

Though it became harder, I continued to make that argument even after the telephone town hall where you just read the White House and Speaker’s Office talking points. I don’t think I can continue making that case anymore. In fact, I’m not sure that you’d want me to since, at this point, the only case I can make in your favor is starting to sound a lot like “Wilson’s not a liar, he’s an idiot.”

My friends want to know why their Congressman knows less about the bill than they do; why they know what the Capps amendment does and you (as you demonstrate in your letter) do not. You have to admit, it’s a fair question.

Let me be clear, I am not opposed to health care reform. Frankly, I don’t know anyone who believes that we can just let things run as they are. Everyone knows that the current American health care system, while it is the most effective in the world at treating illness, has serious and systemic problems that cannot be left unaddressed: problems of burgeoning costs and problems of access to that system for everyone.

There is a lot of room for legitimate disagreement on how we set about fixing these problems. The stakes are very high. Getting it wrong could be economically disastrous and consensus seems elusive. Entrenched special interests are all pleading for their little piece of the pie and some of your colleagues are clearly more focused on winning the next election than solving the problems. I get it. This is a tough and tangled problem and there just is not going to be a simple solution that everyone is happy with. I’m glad that you have slowed down the insane rush that the White House was trying to gin up and I hope that, despite appearances, your leadership will permit a real debate to take place.

But there are some areas that should be easy to come to consensus on. Seven out of ten Americans are opposed to taxpayer funding for abortion. I haven’t seen the crosstabs but I’d be willing to bet that it’s even higher than that here in Ohio’s 6th Congressional District. When I called your DC office, your staffer Emily told me that you wanted to be “pretty much pro-life” yourself. I’m not sure what that means exactly, but surely it includes not spending taxpayer dollars on abortion.

This is not a question that you can continue to ride the fence on. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own set of facts. The letter that you sent contained grave factual errors. In particular, you cite the Hyde Amendment as though it automatically applies to Obamacare (HR3200); you should know that it does not. You go on to grossly mischaracterize the provisions of the Capps amendment (in language that makes me suspect that perhaps you have been talking to lawyers after all).

Here are the facts. The Capps amendment explicitly requires at least one plan in every area to cover abortion. It requires the public option plan to pay for all abortions where rape or incest are involved. It permits the public option to cover all other abortions, provided that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (a notorious supporter of even the most gruesome late-term abortions) approves.

You are technically correct when you say that the Capps amendment provides that no tax dollars are supposed to be spent directly funding abortions in subsidized private plans. But that’s double-talk and everyone knows it. It’s like saying you’re only putting water in one side of a bucket and not the other. It’s nothing but a dodgy accounting trick. Under the Capps amendment, a private insurance plan, purchased with taxpayer subsidies, can provide full abortion services coverage (and at least one plan everywhere must provide it) so long as the insurance company collects at least “$1 per enrollee, per month” [see section 113(b)(2)(C)].

Whether you want to admit it or not, Congressman, that’s taxpayer-funded abortion. If you have not read the Capps amendment for yourself, I urge you to do so; it is only seven pages long.

I understand that it is difficult to break with your Party leadership. I understand that to do so will upset some of your donors and supporters. But this is a question of maintaining your integrity. It is a test of your character. Can you do the right thing even when it’s hard?

And it is not as though you are all alone in this. As I understand it, there are 40 of your Democrat colleagues in the House who have stepped up with the Honorable Bart Stupak (D-1-MI) to oppose taxpayer-funded abortion and demand at least an up or down vote on Mr. Stupak’s amendment (see below). My friends and I will be praying that you find the courage to join them.

I would appreciate hearing from you. Please write to me again when you’ve made your decision as to which side of this issue you will be on when you come down off the fence.

Sincerely,
Rob Corzine

P.S. Here is the complete text of Mr. Stupak’s amendment that really will do what you claimed in your letter the Capps amendment does:

No funds authorized under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Dear Congressman Wilson–

Sometime today a resolution to punish Congressman Joe Wilson will come before the House.

I do hope you will vote against this resolution, or, if we are to punish wrongs, I hope you will support efforts to punish Congressman Charlie Rangel as well.

Let us be clear: Congressman Wilson should not have shouted out during the joint session of Congress. But his action does not warrant official sanction for a number of reasons. For one, the rule that forbids a representative from calling the president a ‘liar’ only applies during House business. A joint session is not regular House business so the applicability of this rule is questionable, at best. Second, what Congressman Wilson shouted out was true–the President had, for 30 minutes, been speaking half-truths, distortions, and bald-faced lies for 30 minutes. Many independent organizations have affirmed this, and the actions of Democrats, including the President, to include stronger language preventing illegal aliens from being covered by the House bill have born out Wilson’s assertion.

Third, when President Bush spoke to a joint session of Congress on the topic of healthcare in 2005, there was a general, and easily audible murmur of the sort you hear in the English Parliament during ‘Questions for the Prime Minister.’ That general uproar was talked right through by the President and there was never an effort to find out who led it or to punish anyone.

In addition, I find it highly, highly partisan that Congressman Wilson would be held up for punishment for his action, but a man like Charlie Rangel not only gets a pass on his numerous tax evasions and shady dealings, but is permitted to remain chair of the Ways & Means Committee–the very powerful committee that writes the very tax code Rangel has repeatedly flouted.

How is this not hyper-partisanship at its worst? How is this “the most ethical Congress in history”? How is this transparency or post-partisanship? How can any Democrat accuse the Republicans of playing partisan “games” in this climate?

I urge you to vote no on the resolution to punish Congressman Wilson today. And I urge you to support efforts to punish Congressman Rangel. Justice, fairness, and a decent respect for the law demand these things.

Sincerely,
Thomas Crowe
Steubenville, OH

Dear Congressman Wilson–
I was in Washington this past weekend. Sorry I didn’t stop by to see you, but the crowd made it tough to move anywhere. I did, however, enjoy a nice dinner at the Dubliner after standing with more than 250,000 fellow Americans to oppose, among other things, the various attempts by you and your fellow Democrats to takeover the greatest healthcare system in the world.

I do hope you took note of how many people were there. They were not “astro-turf.” They were not paid to be there–they paid to be there, as did I. They were not rabble rousers, nor were they violent. But they were angry–righteously angry at the various attempts by Congress and President Obama to remake this country into a government-run, rather than citizen-run nation.

You have been unfailingly sunny about the prospects for shangri-la to break out should some form of the healthcare bill pass. For the life of me I cannot fathom why, unless you agree that we ought rightly to be a centrally-controlled populous, reliant upon the benfices of Washington for our bread, water, air to breathe, and any comfort we thing we might desire or need.

The peaceable assembly in Washington this weekend was unprecendented. It was not manufactured, nor was it just a bunch of Fox News zombies. We are too busy and intelligent, and you do us a severe disservice if you think otherwise.

You owe your constituents and this country at large your every effort to push back against the efforts by your party leadership, especially the President and his cadre of radical left-wing ‘czars,’ to remake this country into a place where freedoms are granted, rather than protected, by the government.

Sincerely,

Thomas Crowe
Steubenville, OH

I think Specialist and a commenter on that post were onto something.

I think Palin’s political history suggests he may be more right than anyone who says anything about her being “just a politician.” Hillary is “just a politician,” and it’s all she’s ever been. Ditto Obama. Kennedy. Romney. Ford, Jr., Tim Ryan (my parents’ Congressman, who got elected to the Ohio statehouse, is now in the US House, and has designs on statewide office), and anyone who begins running for political office in their twenties or thirties and never really considers doing anything else but staying in that position or parlaying it into a higher office, or at least some other statewide/national office they’ve not yet given a whirl.

Palin didn’t do that. You look at her background, she happened into politics and was elected governor of a non-flashy state <i>after</i> establishing herself as a mother, and with no intention (obviously) of ceasing to be a mother. She took the opportunity to be veep, but only because she was asked–did anyone seriously think she was the top candidate, or was actively seeking it?–and then returned to her duties as Gov. of Alaska because that’s what she was elected to do. While veep nominee she stuck to the horrid script she was dealt, but was herself within it–someone who honestly connected with Specialist and other real people, and not because she stopped by the plant with a crisp denim shirt and lots of cameras.

I reject the notion that she’s “just a politician.” She has been and acts like a real person with real concerns. A commenter at Specialist’s post was right: “just a politician” would have <i>stayed</i> in the governor’s mansion, let the state pay for legal fees, used her family as political football “victims” and try to parlay the governorship and the whole she-bang into the Presidency. “Just a politician” (especially a woman) would only have 1.5 children (see: Hillary, Michelle, Nan).  ”Just a politician” would not have started her political career on the local school board (!) as inauspiciously as she did. I don’t see her as “just a politician,” for those reasons, but also because of that gut sense of decency about her that I get. (I believe the “impending scandal” thoughts are our own national cynicism. I would be terribly upset, and, frankly, shocked to find out otherwise, especially considering the level of idiocy it would require for a woman who is already politically marked to take such a risk.)

I don’t know if this was the best thing to do (which possibly makes me unique among political junkies–someone with no strong opinion on whether Palin is brilliant or a dolt) but one thing I can say with certainty is that this was not the move of “just a politician.” This was the move of someone with a larger sense of what she thinks is right, goes with it, and doesn’t worry much about the official opinions of the Really Smart People who think differently. In that regard, she’s her own person, a real person, and not “just another politician.”

For what it’s worth, I don’t think she’ll be a POTUS candidate in 2012, focusing instead on raising her family, getting conservatives elected nationwide, and boning up on the issues (in that order, likely). But look out in 2016 (if Obama hasn’t abolished term limits and opposition parties), or 2020 if the GOP keeps its head out of its ass in 2012.

She’ll age well. In pretty much every way, methinks.

But then time elapsed and the madness that has taken hold in Washington got so bad that when Hugo Chavez called our President “ignorant” we were compelled to nod in agreement; and when the EU (!) said, “You guys are nuckin futs! a wee bit crazy!” we found ourselves yearning for leaders with the wisdom of the European Union president. (Heck, lots of us actually miss President Clinton!) Strange bedfellows. Is pestilence saddling his horse?

So what happened? Well, the Democrats got the populace ticked about bonuses which, we quickly discovered, the Democrats themselves explicitly sanctioned in law, and my own Cong. Wilson introduced a piece of legislation called the TARP Wage Accountability Act… which is worse than it sounds, if you can believe it.

In touting a bill Hugo Chavez could have written, Wilson actually says, condemningly, “Yesterday I read in the Wall Street Journal that companies – anticipating Congressional action – are trying to go around us [HOW DARE THEY!? DON'T THEY KNOW WHO WE ARE?!] by proposing to significantly increase pay rather than have to deal with scrutiny of bonuses,” and then, in a fit of populist pique, says that his bill will “force companies that took 10 billion dollars or more in TARP funds to abide by the government Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) structure set for military and government employees.” Because, after all, “If the COLA is good enough for our soldiers and government workers, it should be good enough for Wall Street.”

All emphases mine. So’s the confounded stare. Repeated.

Anyone wanna guess how easily a bill like this could be conjoined to Overlord Geithner’s request for authority to seize most any company he deems threatening to the economy and form an unholy two-headed beast that devours the souls of entrepreneurs and the possibility of America being a great nation ever again?

With that, er, inspiration, here’s the latest letter I sent to Congressman Wilson. It’s a little restrained, yes, but I figure saying most of the above, or the bulk of what I’d like to say, may not be the best approach to win friends and influence people. Without further ado:

Dear Congressman Wilson–

Sincerely,
Crowe

I previously wrote you and pledged to work for your ouster. While I am still miffed about the massive size of the stimulus and the secretive, irresponsible manner in which it was composed and passed, I believe the only way forward is to work together so the best ideas win out and America moves forward to the brighter future that can be ours, if we just stick to the basic principles that made America the great nation she has been.

That said, I’m concerned about a number of things with regard to the “stimulus package” lately.

Firstly, deception on your website. On the page dedicated to showing how the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act will help the sixth district you cite the Congressional Budget Office’s figure that 74 percent of the funds will be invested by the end of FY 2010. But you fail to note that the same CBO said that while the stimulus may show short-term growth, the long-term effects will be deleterious–actually leading in a net shrink in the economy due to the massive government debt the bill will incur.

Moreover, Congressional Democrats–David Obey and Nancy Pelosi in particular–have practically admitted that they aren’t entirely optimistic about the prospects of the $787 bilion stimulus package by beginning talk of a possible “second stimulus”. Throwing good money after bad is not good business, not good governance, and it is terribly irresponsible.

Also, thus far, the only jobs you’ve pointed to as being “saved or created” by the stimulus bill were two dozen police officers in Columbus who would have been laid off without the money from Washington. Four things: 1) state and local police operations are, and ought to be, the responsibility of the local community to raise and support. If Washington is involved in such a manner as this, there is a problem of federalism which likely (as in this case) results from Washington taking too much money out of the local communities and then sending a portion of it back to finance projects the self-appointed elites in Washington have determined “worthy projects.” This is not the federalism envisioned by the Founders. This is central planning. 2) Two dozen jobs is a pittance for the massive size of the stimulus bill–even only three or so weeks hence from the time is became law of the land. The economy is in dire straits now. It needs all the stimulus it can get now. 3) Those two dozen jobs were government jobs. Important police jobs, to be sure, but government jobs–the kind supported by tax dollars, not by private employment and free market principles. Government jobs, by definition, are a drag on the economy, not a benefit. They don’t produce wealth, but suck it away through taxes from those who do. Many government jobs are Constitutional and necessary. Very, very many are not. 4) Real economic improvement will come when the government stops trying to engineer the economy (a-la coercing banks into giving bad loans and setting up a Ponzi scheme to back them up through the ill-fated Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac apparatus) and lets private citizens keep more of their own money. Real people who are engaged in their own day-to-day lives spend money at a far quicker and more efficient clip than a government bureaucracy. And they do with it what they will, not what the bureaucrats instruct them is really in their best interest.

Which brings me to my next point. Your latest email update talks about how jobs will be created through a government program intended to help people weatherize their homes via government grants funded by the stimulus. So here we have government bureaucrats (paid by tax dollars) running a program (funded by tax dollars) evaluating which people who apply for the grant program are worthy of the funds (others’ tax dollars) to weatherize their homes. I suppose a few private contractors who do some of the actual work will get business they may not have gotten otherwise, but think: if the tax dollars hadn’t been taken in the first place, those people could have opted to weatherize their own home with the money that hadn’t been taxed away, and all the money that was drained out of the economy to run the bureaucracy that dispensed the funds would not have had to be sucked out of the economy either. That’s a bunch of money still in the economy where it could be invested or spent in ways that truly create wealth-creating jobs.

And my final point, which builds on what has come before, is a note on what the government could really do to spur the economy to ridiculous growth. Seeing that we enjoyed an unprecedented 55 consecutive months of uninterrupted job creation and economic growth during the previous 8 years, and seeing that that stretch began after the tax cuts which ended the mild recession of 2000-2001, I propose that the most assured way to spur growth in the economy is through tax cuts–payroll taxes to help the lower and middle class workers, cap gains taxes to assist small business owners (the real backbone of our economy, and those who employ the majority of Americans), and income tax cuts across the board to assist all tax payers. This way, real Americans who work in non-government, and therefore not-tax-supported, jobs will have more of their own money today, immediately, to spend and move the economy forward. Hundreds of millions of Americans doing their individual day-to-day thing can and will do more for the economy than hoards of bureaucrats crafting plans and reviewing applications and dispensing funds with strings attached and red tape.

For the good of nation, I implore you to call for this far more responsible and, frankly, American plan that respects the wisdom of the American worker, upholds the freedom and independence of the consumer, recognizes the incredible engine of wealth-creation that is the American market, and brings us back from the precipice of a bleak, socialist, centrally planned future.

Sincerely,
Crowe
Steubenville, Ohio

Emotional arguments aside (muslim influences, lack of flag pin, blah blah etc.) I cannot find one single solitary point I agree with him on. Not one. Certainly not race relations (imagine if I called Ian’s family typical black people HA!), his tax policies, the way he views people like me (and I am not even close to being one of the “rich folks”), his blatantly Marxist views, his associations with shady organizations (not even talking about Ayers here), the fact that his campaign refuses to answer challenging questions and the fact that he views the Constitution as fundametally flawed. I have audio recordings. The fact that he refuses to tell Americans to take personal responsibility for living beyond their means. You bought too much house, I hope your plasma TV and stainless appliances keep you warm in the cardboard box you DESERVE. I am not joining any McCain or Bush fan clubs by any stretch of the imagination. But just because one is well spoken and stands for change, doesn’t mean that it is good. Change for change sake isn’t always best. Because it looks like Obama is winning, I have been fearing for my job. Guess what, my company will probably be giving pink slips to 5,000 by the end of the year. Maybe I can get some of that redistribution. Or perhaps you can redistribute your house to my family, you don’t deserve it anyway. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. For you young Crowes (and older for that matter) I challenge you to read the Federalist papers, Marx and then Obama’s speeches and book. You tell me what is fundamentally flawed.

And there it is.

1968 may seem tame.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner filed suit with the SCOTUS to avoid being forced to do what she can to make sure the Ohio election is not a sham. She said,

As things now stand, the secretary must reprogram the statewide voter registration database by Friday — after Ohioans have begun voting, and as she and the 88 county boards of elections are undertaking other efforts to ensure that the general election in Ohio will be a smooth one.

Boo-friggin’–hoo. You have to set up a system by which the counties can check on names that have already been determined not to mesh with the drivers licenses and social security rolls.

But, of course, it is far more important to the Dems for an election to go smoothly than for each citizen’s vote to be counted fairly. Dems tend to lose fair elections.

Rapists always love it when their victim doesn’t fight back, and especially love it when someone else ties the victim up for them ahead of time.

Good idea. Take steps to prevent the possibility of a problem. Prevent the “near occasion of sin,” as Catholics would put it.

But then the Maryland peeps reveal their internal Pharisee.

The letter which accompanies the sign says, “Halloween provides a rare opportunity for you to demonstrate to your neighbors that you are making a sincere effort to change the direction of your life.”

Full stop. Sex offenders may in fact want to demonstrate that they are making a sincere effort to change the direction of their lives, but taking action under threat of a parole violation doesn’t qualify. All compliance demonstrates is that the sex offender wants to avoid jail time — which, with our modern prison system, is a really dangerous place for sex offenders. Compliance demonstrates self-preservation, not “I’m trying not to be a sexual predator.” Coerced activity, by definition, is not honest, sincere activity. Our courts accept coercion as a mitigating factor in guilt. Christianity accepts coercion as a mitigating factor in culpability for grave sin.

It’s the same idiocy as the liberals’ notion that the only way the poor can be helped is if the government steps in to “spread the wealth around,” to quote the liberals’ current standard bearer and most committed, most prominent, politician. They say, “You’re going to help your fellow man, or you’re going to go to prison… There. Now aren’t you a good person for helping your fellow man? Aren’t you patriotic?” To which the response is, “Well, not on this score. I’ve been robbed at gunpoint so some bureaucrats could do with less efficiency and at greater overhead cost what I would do on my own if left to my own devices. I am patriotic, but this has nothing to do with my patriotism.”

Liberals fail to see the inherent contradiction in forcing people to be good and then thinking it denotes a good disposition. Liberals are like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time: good external actions (performed under threat of punishment) are what’s important. “The masses” cannot be trusted to have good motives and do good deeds, even if they screw up occasionally. And, like the Pharisees, they seek to quash the ideals and activities of those who think differently — i.e., those who think more people ought to be trusted with their own resources to do the good on their own with their own conscience as guide.

Seems like Liberals assume humanity is fundamentally evil and must be coerced to good action. Conservatives, OTOH, assume people are fundamentally good and will help each other out. As far as government, liberals think government is the tool by which those-who-know-better force the good outcome they seek; while conservatives see government as the last check to protect society from those individuals who go bad in one way or another. Which is the more hopeful vision of humanity? Which characterizes the USA — by far and away the most generous and giving nation on earth in private charitable donations? Which encourages personal responsibility and rewards individual accomplishment? And then, which discourages and punishes those?

I don’t know if it is possible completely to rehabilitate sex offenders. I think it prudent to take practical steps to keep them apart in some way, or at least keep people aware of their presence and whereabouts. But it’s counterproductive and misleading to ascribe “a sincere effort to change the direction of your life” to actions which are really only compliance with directives given under threat.

I tried to post the following comment on a CBSNews.com article:

Has CBS completely forgotten about objectivity? Anyone who reads the original article at the Des Moines Register site would see that the editors of that paper — the ones who actually interviewed McCain — had a very different take than the AP reporter here, or the CBS editor who took snippets.

This is sham news. This is an absolute dereliction of duty by CBS, as is the vast majority of the coverage of this election by the vast majority of major “news” outlets. It’s damaging to our republic that depends upon a well and fully informed citizenry to elect the candidate they prefer rather than the one packaged to them.

When I click “Publish,” that button gets grayed out and this appears:

The Publish button will be enabled shortly. We have temporarily disabled it so everyone has an opportunity to comment.

After a few moments that text goes away and the button is enabled. I click it again. The same thing happens again. Repeatedly.

CBS is no longer even trying to be objective.

Observe:

Biden wants to “take money [from people who make more then $250,000] and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

But “to put something back” generally means “to restore something to its former place of residence; to return something to that place from whence it came, whether it came voluntarily or was removed by force.” In the case of taking moneys from those who “make” (i.e., “earn”) more than $250,000 per year and giving it “back” the only way correctly to apply the action implied by the phrase “put it back” would be to give it back to those from whom it was taken (i.e., the ones who make (earn) more than $250,000) through coercive taxation measures. Giving it to those who did not earn it is not “putting it back” at all; that’s wealth redistribution.

He didn’t even put lipstick on that pig, he just called it “the animal from whence comes bacon” and thought we, being distracted by the mention of tasty bacon, wouldn’t notice that it’s a pig either.

Of course, he may mean that the money taken coercively from those who make more than $250,000 rightly belongs to those who did not earn it. In that case we’re looking at good old class warfare with the forces of amorphous “change” agitating and militating against those who “have more” on behalf of those who merely “have.” Perhaps we should coin a term for those who make more than $250,000… perhaps “bourgeoisie“?

Biden claims that paying taxes is the “patriotic” thing to do (comrade), and claims that the bourgeoisie has a duty to be patriotic. The middle class, however, will be treated with a tax cut… does that signify “negative patriotism” on the part of the middle class? I mean, if it’s patriotic to do one’s duty to “help get America out of the rut,” then shouldn’t we all pitch in to this mighty patriotic duty and surrender more money to the guv’mint?

In fact, if Biden had paid better attention in CCD he’d know that his notion of “being patriotic” doesn’t follow Biblical principles. Remember the story about a woman who gave the very little she had for the good of others and was credited as having given far more than the wealthy had given out of their largess? Biden obviously is not a good Catholic so we can’t fault him for not knowing his Bible, but the story teaches us that those who support a cause — in the case of that story the cause was the Temple, in our case it’s patriotism — out of their limited resources exhibit a greater level of dedication to that cause than those who give out of largess. So the middle class, and especially the poor, have a greater opportunity to show patriotism by giving just a little bit of money than do the bourgeoisie…

Pity the bourgeoisie.

Observe:

Biden wants to “take money [from people who make more then $250,000] and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.”

But “to put something back” generally means “to restore something to its former place of residence; to return something to that place from whence it came, whether it came voluntarily or was removed by force.” In the case of taking moneys from those who “make” (i.e., “earn”) more than $250,000 per year and giving it “back” the only way correctly to apply the action implied by the phrase “put it back” would be to give it back to those from whom it was taken (i.e., the ones who make (earn) more than $250,000) through coercive taxation measures. Giving it to those who did not earn it is not “putting it back” at all; that’s wealth redistribution.

He didn’t even put lipstick on that pig, he just called it “the animal from whence comes bacon” and thought we, being distracted by the mention of tasty bacon, wouldn’t notice that it’s a pig either.

Of course, he may mean that the money taken coercively from those who make more than $250,000 rightly belongs to those who did not earn it. In that case we’re looking at good old class warfare with the forces of amorphous “change” agitating and militating against those who “have more” on behalf of those who merely “have.” Perhaps we should coin a term for those who make more than $250,000… perhaps “bourgeoisie“?

Biden claims that paying taxes is the “patriotic” thing to do (comrade), and claims that the bourgeoisie has a duty to be patriotic. The middle class, however, will be treated with a tax cut… does that signify “negative patriotism” on the part of the middle class? I mean, if it’s patriotic to do one’s duty to “help get America out of the rut,” then shouldn’t we all pitch in to this mighty patriotic duty and surrender more money to the guv’mint?

In fact, if Biden had paid better attention in CCD he’d know that his notion of “being patriotic” doesn’t follow Biblical principles. Remember the story about a woman who gave the very little she had for the good of others and was credited as having given far more than the wealthy had given out of their largess? Biden obviously is not a good Catholic so we can’t fault him for not knowing his Bible, but the story teaches us that those who support a cause — in the case of that story the cause was the Temple, in our case it’s patriotism — out of their limited resources exhibit a greater level of dedication to that cause than those who give out of largess. So the middle class, and especially the poor, have a greater opportunity to show patriotism by giving just a little bit of money than do the bourgeoisie…

Pity the bourgeoisie.

Two more Democrats have further distinguished the Mahoning Valley lately, injecting race into Presidential politics in a way no responsible politician would or should. And this on the eve of a McCain-Palin event at the regional airport north of town today (Tuesday 16 Sept.) and a Biden rally downtown later this week.

“Race — that’s the only reason people in the Valley won’t vote for him,” said state Rep. Thomas Letson of Warren, D-64th, about Barack Obama, his party’s presidential nominee. “There are 1,000 reasons to vote for Obama [ed. -- and they are...?] and one reason why you won’t — race.”

…

It is the independents, the “swing voters” and Democrats who are or will support Republican John McCain who are the “racists,” Letson and state Rep. Robert F. Hagan of Youngstown, D-60th, said.

…

“When we speak to swing voters and we talk of issues, the only reason they’re undecided is because of race,” Hagan said.

How irresponsible and absurd.

The reaction from the vice chairman of the Mahoning County Republican Party, Mark Munroe, was spot-on:

“These guys have gone off the deep end,” he said. “This is probably the most absurd and disgusting comment we’ve heard from our elected Democratic legislators.”

While acknowledging “race may explain why some people vote for or against Obama,” Munroe said there are many reasons why people wouldn’t support him. They include, he said, Obama’s inexperience, his “liberal voting record,” and his position on the war in Iraq.

Emphases mine, because Munroe makes a very important point — while there may well be some racists who simply won’t vote for a black man, how many people have decided to vote for Obama solely on the basis of his race? “It’s time for a black President, all other factors be damned.” In fact, while on the USS Kearsarge for Operation Continuing Promise the only three Obama supporters I met were black, and two of them openly admitted their choice was because Obama is black. They failed to see the racism inherent in that position.

Now, in full disclosure, I have relatives who fall into both categories. My very Ukranian grandfather, a long-time union member who hasn’t even considered voting for a Republican in his entire life, will vote for McCain. God bless him, but my 85 year-old grandfather is racist. My dad, on the other hand, is a rather successful small business owner (a non-union custom cabinetry shop in the very-union Youngstown area) — one of McCain’s “fundamentals of the economy” — and is registered Democrat. He will vote for McCain simply because Obama is a terrible candidate and McCain is a good, if not great, candidate.

If Democrats in the Mahoning Valley need to flail about this wildly Obama is in trouble in Ohio. I already believed he was, but evidence to back up my hunch is welcome.

More evidence: I’ve listened more to local talk radio lately. While the hosts are as reflexively anti-Republican as ever, even as they occasionally claim still to be “undecided,” those calling in have been noticeably more pro-Republican than usual.

We should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin’s historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Senator McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Governor Palin will add an important new voice to the debate.

That’s it. Thirty-nine words of perfunctory political pablum in response to one of the most significant political moves ever. Thirty-nine words are all the first serious female POTUS candidate can muster when another woman (a self-made, accomplished, experienced woman) follows in the path that she herself has helped blaze. Thirty-nine insipid words.

Nothing on Clinton’s campaign website about Palin. (There is new content since she dropped out — a link to assist Gustav victims, a link to her 2008 convention speech, and a tribute to the late Ohio Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones — so she is clearly still updating the site.)

Nothing on her Senate website, though the “For Sale” sign there makes me think many things vis-a-vis the Clintons apart from the mortgage crisis info it’s intended for.

She didn’t appear on any Sunday talk shows. She hasn’t spoken about Palin at Obama rallies since then. (I’m taking an educated guess at this, since well-disseminated well-nigh Gospel-esque Hillary-on-Palin quotes are conspicuous by their absence)

Nothing but those 39 words. Why?

Could Hillary be sitting back with her arms folded, smiling coldly at her own party, staring holes through anyone who looks her way, all as if to say, “Hey stupid Jackasses — this wouldn’t be an issue if I were the nominee.” Could she secretly be rooting for a McCain victory? Methinks that one is quite likely.

Perhaps she realizes that Sarah Palin represents everything she would like to be, but is not — self-made, happily married, real-world experienced, executive-experienced, non-strident, young, attractive, compelling, and wildly popular. Oh to be in the mind of the Smartest Woman in America, who has just been out-maneuvered by a PTA-member Hockey Mom.