Monday, September 27, 2010


In the past week or so, I have been flooded with emails from my embarrassment of a congressman, Alan Grayson.  The latest campaign ad, which I received on Saturday night, is yet another hit piece on Daniel Webster.  What a surprise.  I posted about Grayson's last attack ad, accusing Webster of dodging the draft, when actually Webster received routine deferments while he was in college and was rated 1-Y status (which was later reclassified as 4-F) and wasn't allowed to serve.  I also mentioned his ad on how he allegedly "saved our schools" here in the 8th district. Yet again, lies.    

I refuse to post the ad from his website, because I don't want him getting the viewership hits, so here it is via youtube:

The ad is titled "Taliban Dan Webster".  Because, you know, those republicans are like terrorists, according to Grayson.  In it, Webster appears to be giving a speech of some kind, and he is saying "she should submit to me".  "Submit to me" is used three more times in the ad.  Grayson has also accused Webster of not allowing women to divorce abusive husbands because of his "radical extremist" views.

As usual for Grayson, this ad is chock full of lies and manipulations.  The Orlando Sentinel is the one to call him out this time.

As far as not 'allowing' women to divorce abusive husbands goes, apparently Webster is a proponent of "covenant marriage", which is a "legal union of husband and wife that requires premarital counselling, marital counselling if problems occur, and limited grounds for divorce".  However, those "limited grounds" include abuse, either physical or sexual, of either wife or children as grounds for divorce, among other things.  It is an attempt to make divorce more less of an option, instead relying on counselling to work through problems, but abuse is still grounds for divorce.  Radical, I know.

Webster's comment that "she should submit to me - that's in the bible" is taken completely out of context.  He was speaking at a couples retreat.  Here is what he really said (emphasis mine for context):

"Find a verse. I have a verse for my wife; I have verses for my wife. Don't pick the ones that say, um, she should submit to me. That's in the Bible, but pick the ones that you're supposed to do. So instead, love your wife, even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, as opposed to wives submit yourself to your own husband. She can pray that if she wants to, but don't you pray it."

As you can see when you hear the entire quote in context, he is advising against using those verses.   Grayson's ad is a gross distortion.  Period.  The blatant manipulation is disgusting. 

I received another email from Grayson's campaign crowing that Webster refused to comment on the ad.  They are attempting to make it seem that his silence is confirmation, when the reality is that this attack is so low, so egregiously wrong that it doesn't deserve to be addressed.  Webster is merely refusing to lower himself to Grayson's level. 

One can only hope that, as the real truth about this ad comes out, it hurts Grayson and shows him for the lying, conniving, ethics-free, Pelosi-owned albatross around the neck of the 8th district that he is.  If he tries to worm out of the controversy by blaming his staff, there is this politico article that points to Grayson as the main author of his campaign ads.  He owns this.

Grayson is a disgrace to District 8, the state of Florida, the House of Representatives and the country in general.  He is the poster boy for all that is wrong with partisan politics today.  The term 'political hack' is too complimentary for this nasty piece of work.  Whereas I was merely embarrassed to be a constituent, now I am disgusted.

Come on, District 8, let's retire this jerk in November!

UPDATE:  The GOP is questioning Grayson's stability.

UPDATE II:  The Sunshine State poll has Webster up by seven (43-36).  This poll was taken before the Taliban Dan ad was exposed as a complete fraud, so hopefully the gap will widen:

Digging deeper, the numbers look even worse for Grayson as 51 percent of respondents said they had an unfavorable view of the Orlando-area congressman.

"Grayson has real problems here," said Jim Lee, president of Voter Survey Service, which conducted the poll for Sunshine State News.

"He’s even more unpopular than the president, which is not surprising given how controversial he has been with his rhetoric, overall style and TV ads."

Webster has had a financial boon from the ads of about $70,000.  Unfortunately, Teacups has a war chest of well over a million, and he is personally very wealthy.  If you can contribute to Webster's war chest, please do.


Here is the cartoon of the week, brought to you by Michael Ramirez:

The man is brilliant.  For more of his stuff, check him out at

Friday, September 24, 2010


Today our federal government officially jumped the shark.  It couldn't have been more apparent if they had called Ted McGinley to testify instead of Stephen Colbert.  Don't get me wrong, Colbert is great.  He's a funny guy.  But how in the world is he qualified to testify on immigration - in character, no less?

The reality show that is Washington politics of late has gone too far.  By inviting Colbert, Immigration Subcommittee chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) turned the entire immigration debate, as well as congressional hearings, into a joke.  And not even a good one, with all due respect to Mr. Colbert, who was doing his satirical best:

Okay, so he was kind of funny.  In an awkward, trainwreck-y kind of way.  You really can't fault him for doing it - what entertainer in their right mind would give up a chance to play the Hill?  Even the famous Onion, the University of Wisconsin's hilariously satirical newspaper/website, couldn't have dreamed this up.  This will boost his ratings phenominally, and he will come out of this just fine.  The people who invited him to speak, however, may not fare so well.  Unless, of course, Rep. Lofgren is angling for her own show in case she loses on Nov. 2nd - in this job climate, it's every congressperson for themselves, and sometimes you have to think outside of the box!

Some democrats seem to be slaves to the cult of personality, and Colbert's appearance plays more like a desperate attempt for the party to be seen as hip and cool than a legitimate attempt to investigate policy issues.  The fact that this opens them up to ridicule and lowers the profile of the US governement as a whole seems to matter little to Lofgren.  At least Rep. John Conyers )D-MI) tried to stop the circus and preserve the dignity of our legislative branch.  He most likely saw what many other people saw - the serious issue of immigration reform, the U.S. Congress and the democrat party in general being made a mockery of in one fell swoop.

In a country where Comedy Central's Daily Show host Jon Stewart is seen as the most trusted name in news, this irresponsible dog and pony show will only further blur the line between real world politics and political satire.

At least we got a laugh out of it.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010


Regular readers of my blog know that I am no fan of my Congressional "representative", Alan Grayson.  As far as I'm concerned, the man is an embarassment, not just to me, but to the district and, frankly, the country as a whole.  He rode in on Obama's coattails, and hopefully he will be riding right back out again in November.  He is a political bomb thrower who has never been hampered by the inconvenient ethics of honesty and professionalism.

He has sunk to many, many lows over the past year and a half that he has been in Washington.  He's smug, he's smarmy, and he's willing to sink to any level to further his our interests.  The latest example of this is a new ad that he is airing about his opponent, republican Daniel Webster.  This ad is nothing short of an outright lie.  He, being a lawyer, will argue that there is a grain of truth in it.  I, as a voter, argue that it is low, deceiving and, well, par for the course from this piece of work. 

Here is the ad (via the Orlando Sentinel):

Kudos to the Sentinel for reporting the fallacies in this ad.  I have to admit that was surprising - the paper is known to local conservatives as the "Slantinel".

So the grain of truth in the ad is that Webster had six deferments.  He was in college at the time of the Vietnem war, and it was routine to defer college students from the draft.  Neither the Johnson nor Nixon administrations wanted a "brain drain" in the country.  If you were in college when your number came up, you were deferred.  So five times Webster was deferred.  The sixth time, he reported for duty and was found to be 1Y status and was not asked to serve.

There were thousands of deferments issued during the Vietnam war.  Some recipients include former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Al Franken, former VP Al Gore, Sen. Henry Waxman, NM Gov. Bill Richardson and former DNC chief Howard Dean. 

I would love to see an intrepid reporter ask the above mentioned "draft dodgers" how they feel about that label, as well as the fact that, according to Grayson, they should not have been allowed to serve their country because they supposedly refused to back then. Wouldn't it be interesting to see their responses on YouTube?  Giles?  O'Keefe?  Any takers?

That Grayson is willing to lie in a campaign ad is nothing new.  The man has to look up to see the gutter.  As a constituent, I have received pamphlets in the mail touting the millions in pork he has brought home.  In the anti-earmark political climate that exists today, running on the amount of pork he has pillaged from the wallets of taxpayers isn't a winner.  Then, of course, there is the infamous "Alan Grayson saved our schools" ad - a creepy bit of work that is one lie after another (be sure to check out this WESH news report on just how false this ad really is).  If Alan Grayson saved the schools, why did my daughter's high school just have to let staff go and juggle the students' schedules to accommodate the $380,000 budget cut they just got hit with at a time when they are trying to comply with class size regulations in overcrowed schools?

Alan Grayson cannot run on his record in Congress because he was in lockstep with Pelosi.  He cannot run on what he wants to do in his next term, because it will be more of the Pelosi, Reid, Obama progressive agenda.  So all he has left is smearing his opponent.  It's not just a cheap shot, it's an outright fabrication - and this isn't his first time peddling lies.  They say that everyone eventually finds their own level.  The question is, do we, as a district, really want to sink to Grayson's?

Remember in November.

Monday, September 20, 2010


Reason #1,576,984 on why I'm happy to be an American:  The UK is proposing that all gross paychecks now go directly to the government first, so that they can take out whatever taxes are necessary before direct depositing the money in the bank account of the worker who earned it. 

The interesting thing about the CNBC article reporting on this latest intervention by the state is not the reaction of the populace to such a proposal, nor the invasion of privacy by the state that is involved, because neither are mentioned.  The real issue seems to be the logistics of the proposal, and whether or not it is fiscally and logistically attainable.  This is stunning.  Heaven knows we americans wouldn't stand for such a suggestion.  Will the english people really allow this unprecidented grab of power?

Public sentiment aside, the bigger question right now seems to be if the central government can impliment a plan like this.  According to the reportage I've seen on the subject, the accumulation of data will be problematic, as well as security issues and timeliness.  They attempted an overhaul of the national health system that would have brought all of the county rolls into a centralized system, and ended up having to scrap the plan:

And the chance of widespread mistakes could be high, according to Bull. HMRC does not have a good track record of handling large computer systems and has suffered high-profile errors with data, he said.

The system would be massive in terms of data management, larger than a recent attempt to centralize the National Health Service's data, which was later scrapped, Bull said.

Nothing like high profile errors that directly affect not just your weekly paycheck, but also your bank account in general.  I don't know about you, but the thought of the IRS with weekly access to my accounts is the stuff of nightmares. 

The CNBC article also mentions issues of security -  a program like that would be like catnip to thieves and hackers.   It also states that the current computer system and infrastructure would have to be completely overhauled, at an exorbitant cost to taxpayers.  There is a potential savings of hundreds of millions for businesses down the road, but that number is by far overshadowed by the cost of implimentation and upkeep. 

I still keep going back to what the english people think of all of this.  Are they so used to the central government intruding in their lives that this program, while an utter outrage to americans, is just par for the course over there?  Or will they rise up in protest to something like this? 

Perhaps another chapter of the International Tea Party movement is about to be born.  Welcome aboard, mates!

Friday, September 17, 2010


Two hundred and twenty three years ago, the framers of the Constitution created a document unlike anything that had come before.  This people's republic was created so well that not only has it persevered, but has shone the light of freedom on the whole world, and ushered in a new era of achievement. 

Was it a perfect document?  No...and yes.  It had it's flaws, true..  And yet, therein lies the perfection.  Those thirty-nine men were fully aware that, as mere men, they were subject to failings of judgement, and so they managed to create a document that was amendable.  It is not an easy process, something that is not undertaken lightly - but it can be done.  This does not mean it was meant to be a "living document" that is supposed to change with the times.  The inherent philosophy, that our rights are inalienable and derived from our maker, is something that simply cannot  be changed.  That is our fundamental creed. 

The results of our Revolution were truly revolutionary.  We opened our arms wide and offered our freedom to the world.  We have singlehandedly improved humankind's lot in life a thousandfold the world over.  Throwing off the yoke of tyranny and giving the people a voice in their future and their very lives brought out the best in us.  We innovated.  We thrived.  We prospered.  The world watched our living experiment, and many were inspired by us.  Some tried to adopt our way of life; some simply fled the tyranny of their homelands and began anew under the rising sun of our Constitution. 

We are truly a blessed country.  What other nation can trace it's roots to a document created by a group of men intent not on their own self interest, but in the interest of an entire people?  The selflessness, deliberation, honor and integrity that went into that document makes it a one-of-a-kind masterpiece.

And it was created by ordinary men.  Men who, plainly speaking, really weren't sure of what they were doing.  And yet the result was....magnificent. 

The Constitutional awakening we have been experiencing in this country is a welcome thing.  We had grown lax, too busy enjoying the fruits of liberty to tend to the tree.  But now, where our founders had watered the tree with the blood of patriots, for us, the tree will thrive on tea.

God bless America and the Constitution that makes her great.

Thursday, September 16, 2010


So, is it me, or does the new Democrat logo that Tim Kaine was all excited about the other day look remarkably like a target?  Not to mention it's a little boring.  At least Obama's logo had flair, not to mention there was a bit of a Pepsi-inspired pleasant subliminal connection to it.  The DNC logo (and the website, really) is very...industrial looking.  They should have stuck with the jackass.  At least then they would be a moving target.

Just sayin'.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010


The national Republican party just doesn't get it.  Even after all these months, they still don't understand what conservatives want - I'm talking to you, Messrs. Rove and Cornyn.  When Tea Partiers say they are tired of both parties, they mean it.  They are tired of the reckless, untargeted spending, the pork, the expansion of government and the wholesale repudiation of the Constitution, and that was not just under the guidance of the democrats.  Bush was hated for his spending and expansion, too - was vilified for it, actually, and the democrats came into power in 2006 because of it.  The Tea Partiers aren't just looking at the past two years and dems were not the only ones in their sights, and the Delaware senate primary was proof of that.

Yesterday, Christine O'Donnell won the republican primary against incumbent Mike Castle.  This was a come from behind victory, in a hotly contested race.  She was heavily endorsed by the Tea Party Express and Sarah Palin, but had a much smaller war chest and some personal baggage, and yet still she won.  Establishment republicans are bemoaning her win, saying the seat is all but gone.  Democrats are cheering for their good fortune.  The National Republican Senate Committe, chaired by Sen. Cornyn, came out last night after the race was called for O'Donnell and flatly stated that they would not be funding her race in the general election.

Talk about sour grapes.  They feel O'Donnell doesn't have a snowball's chance, so they want to cut their losses and reroute the money to a race with better prospects.  Mike Castle refused to throw his support in with O'Donnell - a petty bit of churlishness - and the Delaware GOP still haven't taken down their attack website

Fortunately for Ms. O'Donnell, the NRSC was shamed into are seeing the error of their ways and made a max contribution today of $42,000.  Cornyn, in a deft move, then turned the potentially damaging funding and support issue back on the democrats, calling on them to fund their own longshot races.  Quite the politician.

As wonderfully unifying as it is that the NRSC is making nice-nice with O'Donnell and ponying up some cash, she doesn't seem to really need them right now.  Her website has been so inundated that it has been crashing all day.  There are reports that her money bomb bagged a whopping $750,000 today. 

It will be an interesting race to follow.   It is understandable that the RNC would support their own incumbent during the primary, but their petulant reaction to the loss is not.  They should take their cues from Bill Clinton.  Never thought I'd say that.  Speaking of Mr. Clinton, he had a moment of insight that the republicans should also take to heart.  He was referring to Bush when he said:

"A lot of their candidates today, they make him look like a liberal,"

Actually, a progressive, but why split hairs?

It is true that O'Donnell's chances are slim, but the desire for fiscal restraint is a powerful force these days, and should not be discounted.  As Ms. O'Donnell herself said, the experts said she didn't have a chance of winning the primary against the oh-so-popular and much loved Mike Castle, either.  And perhaps, if he hadn't voted for cap and trade, she might not have won.  But the cap and trade vote was what did him in.  It branded him a RINO and, with a few exceptions like John McCain (amazing how his pre-primary "no amnesty whatsoever" has phased into post-primary "resolving their issues..."), RINO's are becoming an endangered species politically speaking.

The republicans should take note and learn from this.  Are they being "held hostage" by the "right-wing radicals" that allegedly are the tea parties?  Well, if demanding a return to their fiscally conservative roots is being held hostage, then yes, they are.  Does it mean a return to ultra-conservative policies across the board, as democrats keep warning?  Not so much.  Most tea partiers are only concerned with fiscal policies.  Since the the early 1990's, the republican party has tacked to the center-left, buying into the theory that bringing home pork and expanding government was the way to keep getting elected.  The needs of the country were secondary to the party and the individual politician, and the Constitution was an inconvenient piece of paper that restricted their plans.  Establishment pols are being tossed because they are the problem, and the problem is on both sides of the aisle. 

Never underestimate an electorate scorned and taxed to within an inch of their lives.  Establishment  politicians have forgotten that they are public servants.  The tea party is simply reminding them.  They would be wise to take heed.  Even Chris Matthews has gotten the memo:

Saturday, September 11, 2010


September 11th is particularly pognant this year.  It is a difficult day for many americans anyway; a day to remember and, even nine years later, to grieve.  It is a day that we, the citizens of the most powerful country on earth, are confronted by our vulnerability.  Nine years and one day ago, the US was on top of the world.  We were the gentle giant, leading the world with our innovation and thriving economy.  It seemed inconceivable that just 24 hours later, we would be brought to our knees in shared grief, anger and disbelief.  The horror of it all is still a raw, gaping wound on the psyche of the country as a whole. 

This year, 9/11 will be more emotional for many because of the proposed mosque scheduled to be built two blocks away in a building that was partially destroyed on 9/11 when it was hit with the landing gear of one of the planes.  This project is an affront to all who lost loved ones that horrific day.  For those who say "It's not the "Ground Zero Mosque" - it's two whole blocks away!"  the response is simple - it was destroyed by the same forces that destroyed the Twin Towers.  It is Ground Zero.  Adding insult to injury, the mosque has been fast tracked, even though a Greek Orthodox church, which was destroyed on September 11, 2001 when one of the towers fell on it, has yet to receive approval to rebuild.

This past week has been a three-ring circus of outrages, from the unyielding determination of the mosque builders to the lunatic in Florida who has threatened to burn a Qu'ran today to the burning of american flags in protest of the qu'ran burning.  The nearly 70% of americans who oppose the mosque have been called "islamophobes", racists, zionists, and a plethora of other insults in an attempt to shut them up.  They have even been threatened, if you consider a warning of a potential explosion of rage in the muslim world if the mosque isn't built exactly where Imam Rauf wants it built as a threat.  His assertion that "the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse" is laughable, at best.  The "warning" he issued is quite indicative of exactly which radicals will take over the discourse, and from where the violence will come.   Michelle Malkin has an interesting rundown of some other incidents that have caused "explosions of anger" in the muslim world.  This threat is nothing new.  It is endlessly fascinating that, with all the rhetoric over the years that attempts to paint "radical christians" and right wing extremist opposition as somehow worse than jihadis, there has been no talk of the potential risk of a terrorist attack on the mosque.

Quite frankly, the constant threats have become tiresome, as is the perpetual kowtowing to these extremists. No, they don't represent a majority of muslims, but they certainly seem to be the only voice we hear on the subject.  There should be no support whatsoever for the burning of the qu'ran, and the pastor who threatened it dropped the level of the debate to somewhere in the septic tank range.  However, his attempt to equate the atrocity of burning the qu'ran with the atrocity of building an islamic center and mosque on the site of a devastating, deadly attack made in the name of islam has some merit.  Both acts are an affront to all that is civil and respectful.  The fact is, both acts are legal under our constitution, and both acts are morally objectionable.  In the case of the pastor, he stepped back from the edge.  In the case of the imam, he is refusing to budge from his position.

If the aim of this "cultural center" was really to build bridges between the muslim world and americans, Rauf is definitely going about this the wrong way.  Part of building a bridge is to meet halfway.  Demanding the submission of the american people to his will is most certainly not what most people would consider compromise.  That President Obama is backing Rauf and his demands is not surprising either.  After all, this is the man whose idea of compromise is for his opposition to shut up and support his agenda or be demonized. 

Staking out a position on the legality of the situation but refusing to comment on the morality of it speaks volumes about Obama's inability to properly unite and lead this country.  He may be charismatic, but he lacks empathy and he seems to lack the understanding that he is not just the commander in chief, but our moral leader as well.  That he does not understand the pain the mosque is inflicting on his people is indicative of his problems in the polls of late.  Because the wound is still raw, we need a leader who understands our pain.  Sometimes, a president is like a mother - required to reassure, comfort and defend her children even when she doesn't understand the full extent of their pain.  The fact that they are in pain is enough for her to act on their behalf.  Instead, Obama comes off as some sort of frustrated step-father, who cannot understand why the child can't move on and has no interest in building a bond by attempting to empathize.  It seems that all he sees are petulant children making his life difficult with their ridiculous demands for solace, understanding and protection from that which hurts them.  For all of George W. Bush's faults (and there were many) he got this concept, and his approval ratings in the aftermath of 9/11 illustrate that quite clearly.

It is ironic in the extreme that the so-called party of compassion is so very uncompassionate when it comes to this grievous wound to our country.  This year, when the hallowed ground of Ground Zero has become a political football for islamic radicals and the progressives who cater to them, our national loss is all the more poignant. 

 Cross Posted at Sisterhood of the Mommy Patriots