Archive for June, 2010

President Obama Pledges to Cut Deficit In Half

June 29, 2010

  In a press conference following the G20 summit in Toronto, Canada, Pres. Obama announced that he along with the other world leaders at the summit had agreed to cut their deficits in half by 2013.

  Really? Please tell us how Pes. Obama. We had a deficit of $1.42 trillion in 2009 and are estimated to have a deficit of $1.6 trillion this year. We are spending the last stimulus package and the President is asking for another. Not to mention that the stimulus has shown no real signs of working. President Obama oversaw the nationalizing of the health care system, which will cost trillions once it is up and running( pray that it never is).

  This president has spent and proposed to spend,more money than all of the other administrations since this nation was formed. And now he is going to cut the deficit he created in half in two years? While still pushing for even more federal spending? How?

   I’ll tell you how. In the same press conference where he said,”Because a durable recovery must also include fiscal responsibility, we agreed to balance the need for continued growth in the short-term and fiscal sustainability in the medium term,”  and also said, “As I reiterated to my colleagues, after years of taking on too much debt, Americans cannot — and will not — borrow and buy the world’s way to lasting prosperity.”

  So how will he balance the spending he believes is needed for growth along with the promise to cut the deficit? Smoke and mirrors my friends.

  In this same press conference while talking about cuts, he pointed out the amount of money the United States spends on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

  So I believe that the President will propose even deeper cuts to both Medicare and Medicaid. But we won’t really be saving anything, because the money saved from these programs will have to be moved over to Obamacare to pay for the people who are dropped from the Medi programs. Also we will no doubt be seeing more people forced onto the public plan from private insurers if Obamacare is ever allowed to get up and running.

 And for all of you “Animal Farm” fans out there, surely you remember that the animals were promised an easy retirement. That a paddock had been set aside and that a pension of oats would be given to each animal upon reaching retirement age. The thing was,that as Boxer the horse, the hardest working and most loyal of all the animals,reached retirement age, the pigs changed it.

 Well get ready my fellow animals. Many European countries like France for example are raising their retirement age.Look for President Obama and his legion in congress to propose doing the same here in the United States.

  This is exactly why we can no longer afford moderates in congress. We must send people to the House and Senate, that will hold to hard-line fiscal conservative principles. We can no longer afford compromise. Every time a moderate compromises , they move further to the left. The nation has been allowed to move far too far to the left already.

  We must on all levels of government, from local to county, to state , to federal, demand real fiscal conservatism, and not just lip service. The time has come to stand up for our founding principles and values.


Delaware Senate Bill 328

June 29, 2010


  Synopsis : This Constitutional Amendment will increase the annual amount of compensation an officer must receive, from such position, before Senate confirmation is required. This Bill will increase the current amount of five hundred dollars to fifteen hundred dollars. The current amount of five hundred dollars has existed since 1897.

 Primary sponsor ; Cook 

  Co-sponsors;Sen. Blevins; Sen. Sokola

  Additional sponsor, Rep. Gilligan

 Is this just a case of updating, or is it a way for the governor to appoint more officers without oversight?

Thank You Mr. Castle For Being Yourself

June 28, 2010


  Check out this post from today on Human Events by John Gizzi.  

  It would seem as if there is a bit of momentum building behind the O’Donnell campaign. First the Mark Levin interview and now this on Human Events.

  Of course the usual Castle legion will come out and tell us no one knows anything about Human Events, the same as they told us no one knew Mark Levin.

The People

June 27, 2010

  Over the history of our great nation, we have seen many changes. We have gone from being servants to a King, to being a free people. We began as a confederation of states, only to become a union .

  Some of our Founding Fathers, such as John Adams, believed that we should be governed by those of wealth and power, much in the same way as we were governed by a King. Others, like Thomas Jefferson, believed that the true power was with the individual citizens.

  Our young nation went back and forth on this through the first six administrations. In that short amount of time the Federal government had become very powerful. John Quincy Adams, who was described as a nationalist,and  believed that the nation was best run by a strong central governing body, pushed to expand the country through road and canal projects. Think of it as an 1800s stimulus program.

  We can actually look to this period to see what not to do in our current state of economic affairs. The nation had just experienced its first depression in 1819. This is believed to have been brought on by over speculation by banks. Many believe that the Bank Of the United States (BUS) added to the length of the trouble by extending to much credit at first and then by restricting lending for too long . Sound familiar?

  From the period of 1819 and leading up to the presidential election of 1828 the federal government had become arrogant. Those in power sought only to consolidate their power. Many moves were made to effect the outcome of elections by re-writing the laws governing suffrage and the electorial college. Again, sound familiar? In many states the right to vote was actually taken away from blacks and women, where they had formerly  been able to vote.

  The presidential election of 1828 saw the nationalist John Quincy Adams pitted against the more popular war hero Andrew Jackson.

  Jackson was labeled by the political establishment as being unqualified for office.On the other hand, Jackson was portrayed by his supporters as the latest version of a Jeffersonian candidate, a candidate of the people. That he was for the people, while Adams and his supporters were for a centralized power run by elitist. Now it must be said that the country was already going through the pains of state-rights and the argument over the abolition of slavery, and that this was playing a large part in the election of 1828.

  In a letter to a friend shortly before the election, Jackson summed up his view of what was riding on the outcome.

   ” The present is a contest between the virtue of the people, & the influence of patronage. Should patronage prevail, over virtue, then indeed “the safe precedent,” will be established, that the President, appoints his successor in the person of  the sec. of state-Then the people may prepare themselves to become”hewers of wood & and drawers of water,” to those in power, who with the Treasury at command, will wield by its corrupting influence a majority to support it – The present is an important struggle, for the perpetuity of our republican government, & I hope the virtue of the people may prevail, & all may be well.”

  Jackson ran as a reform candidate. He wanted to be elected to put an end to the rampant abuse of power and the habitual routine of patronage. Jackson would come into office as a reformer and in his first year find plenty to reform.

   In the first year alone, Amos Kendall, a special auditor appointed by Jackson would turn up over three hundred thousand dollars missing from the Treasury department alone. In 1828 money, that was quite a bit.

  Pres. Jackson was concerned that a strong centralized government, with the power of the Treasury at its disposal, could control not only the states, but the very citizens. That through the purse strings of the federal government, those in power could create a dependent class that would keep those whom they were dependent upon, in power.

  We can draw many parallels between the election of 1828 and the current state of affairs in the nation today.

  As in 1828, we are witnessing a federal government gone mad with the power of the treasury. We have witnessed the federal government spending money to bail out private banks and industries. We have seen the federal government takeover health care. We may be seeing the financial sector being completely swallowed up by the federal government and the oil industry not far behind.

 All of this is intended to make more and more citizens dependent on the government for all of their needs. Add in the amount of entitlement programs that many of our citizens now depend on for their survival and you have a large amount of your electorate that is beholden to those already in power.

  The real danger to our republican form of government, comes from those in power feeling as if they are safe in their position. That they no longer need answer to the citizens. This is when we the citizens become, “the hewers of wood and the drawers of water,” for those in power.

  We as citizens must take on the challenge of removing from office those in power that feel that they no longer must answer to the people. We must remind them that they are not in office to govern over us, but are in office to exercise the will of the people. And that they serve at the pleasure of the people.

“The present is an important struggle, for the perpetuity of our republican government, & I hope the virtue of the people may prevail, & all may be well.”

Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf Is One High Roller

June 26, 2010
It would seem, at least to me, that Delaware State Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf is up to his old “EXPANDING GAMBLING” tricks again.
  He has sponsored HB 194, with co-sponsors Reps. Atkins,Booth, Hudson, Lavelle, Longhurst, B. Short; Sen. Sokola.
This Act authorizes any holder of a valid Delaware thoroughbred or harness racing license granted as of September 1, 2008: (1) the right to become a video lottery agent if it otherwise meets the eligibility criteria for licensure; (2) the obligation to maintain a certain minimum number of harness racing race days; and (3) the duty to make payments to the State Lottery Fund comparable to those made by existing video lottery agents. This Act also exempts the granting of a video lottery terminal license to a newly created harness racing track from triggering a reduction in the statutory minimum number of days that existing thoroughbred or harness tracks must offer harness racing.
 Here is a link to the full text of the bill,$file/legis.html?open
  Now if I read this right, and I am no lawyer, but it seems as if these so-called race tracks, need only hold races on twenty days out of a five-year period and I see no requirement for the number of races held on each of these twenty days. So does this mean that they could hold one race on each of the twenty days and qualify for slot machines? Or could they qualify by only scheduling twenty race days? What if no one shows up to race?
  Excuse my cynicism, but when I see Rep. Atkins of the 41st District as a co-sponsor I have to think that this may have something to do with Del Point, the proposed “RACE TRACK” and casino for the Millsboro area. I also believe that this is another in a series of moves to expand gambling beyond the confines of the race tracks.
  We have already been subjected to the expansion of the types of gambling allowed in Delaware from video slot machines to sports betting , to now full-blown table gambling. And since Rep. Schwartzkopf would allow more venues for slots, is it such a stretch that he would in the future support allowing these same venues to have table gaming? I think not.
  The idea that Delaware will solve its fiscal troubles through gambling revenue has been proven to be a false hope over the years. First it was the Lottery, then slots, then more slots, now it is sports betting and table games. Where will this end. At what point do our legislators realize that the only way to solve our fiscal troubles is to cut spending and reduce the size of government.

Christine O’Donnell On The Mark Levin Radio Show

June 25, 2010


    Mark R. Levin, national, conservative talk radio host and best-selling author of the book “Liberty and Tyranny”, had U.S. Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell on his show yesterday. They discussed Ms. O’Donnell’s GOP primary opponent, Rep. Mike Castle.
  Mr. Levin is known as one of the most outspoken conservative voices in the country. He rarely minces words, and had nothing good to say about Mr. Castle. Click on the link to hear the interview with Christine O’Donnell.

Mike Castle’s Voting Record

June 23, 2010

  There has been a lot of discussion about Mike Castle’s voting record. His supporters will tell you that he votes with the GOP somewhere around 80% of the time. That number could be accurate. That is, if all you are doing is counting yes and no votes with the party.

  But as I have often pointed out, if you get down in the weeds and start looking at those yes and no votes a very different picture begins to appear.

  It seems that Mr. Castle has a tendency to vote yes or no with the GOP on amendments and then will find an escape hatch when it comes time to vote for passage. These amendment votes keep up his average of voting with the GOP, while allowing  him to vote his more liberal conscience on the real issue. He is counting on no one paying attention.

  Of course another factor that leads the casual observer to believe that Mr. Castle is some kind of party loyalist is the number of times he cast votes with the GOP on such important issues, as for example, when he cast a yes vote along with every other Republican in the House on October 27,2009 on HR : Recognizing Weber State University for the 120th Anniversary of its Founding as an Institution of Higher Learning. Or when he also cast a yes vote along with every member of the GOP in the House on October 22, 2009 on HR 836: Expressing support of Teen Read Week. And let us not forget that all important yes vote he cast with every  member of the GOP in the House on S Con. Res. 43: Authorizing the use of the Rotunda of the Capital for the presentation of the Congressional Gold Medal to former Senator Edward Brooke. Of course he was also voting yes with every member of the Democrat party in the House as well, so maybe those are a push.

  The point is that Mr. castle seems fine with voting with the Republicans on resolutions and amendments, but tends to leave them at the altar when the time comes to say, “I DO”.

  Let’s look at some key issues that the Congressman has left the party on.


Vote 86: H R 1105: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009

   Mr. Castle voted yes with the Democrats


Vote 906: H R 976: In this 265 to 159 vote the House passed an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The bill also passed the Senate by a vote of 68 to 31. The bill increases total funding for the program to $60 billion over the next five years and provides health insurance for 9 million currently uninsured American children. The $7 billion yearly expansions were a major sticking point for the White House and ultimately lead to the fourth presidential veto from the Bush administration. The measure is a key agenda item for the Democratic majority in Congress, and Democratic leaders have vowed to push for a veto override, which would require a two-thirds vote. White House press secretary Dana Perino criticized Democrats for sending the president a bill she said they knew would be dead on arrival. “They made their political point,” Perino said. The White House contended that the 61-cent increase in the federal tobacco tax would not be able to recoup the required funds needed to fund the bill. White House officials also argued the measure would push millions of children already covered by private health insurance into publicly financed health care program


       Mr. Castle voted yes with the Democrats.


Vote 99: H CON RES 63: This measure expresses the House’s disagreement with President Bush’s planned troop buildup in Iraq. The nonbinding resolution pledges support for U.S. personnel serving “bravely and honorably in Iraq” but says Congress “disapproves” of the president’s plan to add more than 20,000 combat troops. The resolution was approved 246 to 182. Seventeen Republicans joined 229 Democrats in support of the resolution. Two Democrats opposed the measure. While the 95-word resolution has no legal weight to force the president to change his course in Iraq, it marks a first key showdown between the White House and the new Congress controlled by Democrats.

               Mr. Castle voted yes with the Democrats.


Vote 40: H R 6: This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf. <br> <br> Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to $15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources, according to The Washington Post. <br> <br> The bill was designed to reduce the United States’ dependency on foreign oil by investing in alternative energy sources. However, critics say it actually would decrease domestic oil production so the country would rely more heavily on imported oil. <br> <br> The House passed the bill on Jan. 18, 2007, with a vote of 264-163. All House Democrats except one favored the bill. They were joined by 36 Republicans. The Senate must debate the bill. <br> <br> The Washington Post reported that the Bush Administration opposed repealing the tax break for oil companies when other manufacturing industries benefited from the 2004 reductions. It also frowned on forcing companies to renegotiate their Gulf of Mexico leases.

           Mr. Castle voted yes with the Democrats.


Vote 23: H R 4: This bill would allow the government to negotiate directly with drugmakers for lower prescription drug prices for individuals using Medicare. The bill, which amends the Social Security Act, permits the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with drug companies on behalf of private insurers that run the drug benefit program for Medicare. This overturns a 2003 law which made private insurers responsible for these negotiations. The bill would require the secretary of Health and Human Services to lead negotiations and report back to Congress in six months. Even with this new legislation in place, pharmaceutical companies are not mandated to lower their prices. The House swiftly passed the bill on Jan. 12, 2007, by a vote of 255-170, with 24 Republicans joining House Democrats. A companion bill has not been offered in the Senate. A similar Senate bill allows the government to negotiate with drugmakers in some instances.

                  Mr. Castle voted yes with the Democrats.


Vote 18: H R 2: This bill would increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years. It would increase the minimum wage in three increments. Sixty days after enactment, the minimum wage is to be raised to $5.85. A year after that it will be $6.55, and a year after that it will be $7.25. This is the first change to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 since 1997 when the federal minimum wage was increased from $4.75 to $5.15 an hour. The bill also applies the federal minimum wage to the North Mariana Islands, a territory of the United States. The legislation passed in the House on Jan. 10, 2007, with a vote of 315-116. Every House Democrat voted in favor of the proposal along with 82 Republicans. The Senate version has been stalled because President Bush recommended that tax cuts for small businesses be added to the bill. Senate Democrats lost a 54-43 cloture vote on Jan. 24, 2007 to pass the legislation without tax cuts. The Senate bill now includes $8.3 million in tax breaks even though House Democrats argue constitutional precedents require that tax legislation originate in the House, according to The Washington Post. If the Senate passes its version of the bill, both the chambers will have to reconcile their differences between the two versions.

                Mr. Castle voted yes with the Democrats.

       And here is one of my favorites. From a man who is clearly an environmentalist.


Vote 445: H R 6: Offered tax breaks and incentives in what supporters said was an effort to spur oil and gas companies to provide innovative ways to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution.

           Mr. Castle voted no with the Democrats. So it would seem that Mr. Castle will do almost anything to spur the developement of alternative green energy sources, that is except for offering tax breaks and incentives. Fiscal conservative my eye!

         And now one for my fellow social conservatives out there.


Vote 90: S 686: Gave federal courts jurisdiction in the Terri Schiavo dispute

          Mr. Castle voted no with the Democrats. Well at least he was consistent on the abortion of life.

   So while we may have to concede the over all average of Mr. Castle’s voting record, when you count such weighty issues as recognizing university anniversaries, we must also recognize the fact that many times on some very important issues, Mr Castle has not only been on the wrong side of the aisle, but many times completely on the wrong side of the issues.

  All the above information is from the Washington Post ” U.S. Congress Votes Data Base”

Compare The Two

June 21, 2010




                   Mike Castle

     This is a direct link to the “Compare” page of the  Christine O’Donnell for United States Senate website. This is for those who have been asking what she stands for. Some have suggested that she needs to lay out a specific agenda, detailing what she would do if elected. That in my opinion would be foolish since many things could change between now and even September, let alone by the time she takes office. To lay out a specific agenda that could be made irrelevant by some unforeseen developement, would put her campaign at risk of having no direction at the most vulnerable time. Right before the primary.

  I believe this “Compare” page from her site lays out what she stands for on principle. She states what she will work to achieve. To demand that she list exactly how, when the playing field of world politics is an ever-changing field is unreasonable and not realistic.

Using The Crisis Playbook

June 20, 2010

  As the oil continues to spill in the Gulf Of Mexico a new controversy has arisen.

  It seems as if the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward, has been seen on his yacht of the coast of England. This has angered the press, the people of the Gulf Coast , and it would seem, White House Chief of Staff  Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel said, when asked about the yachting trip, of Mr. Hayward, “And I think we can all conclude that Tony Hayward is not going to have a second career in PR consulting.”

  It would seem to me that Mr. Emanuel is making a prediction that Mr. Hayward may be losing his job at BP .

   Now from a public relations stand point, the yachting trip may not have been such a good idea. But it really doesn’t bother me that much.

  Let’s be logical about this. Did Mr. Hayward’s going yachting in anyway stop or hamper the clean-up efforts? Did his being out on a yacht cause more oil to spill into the Gulf? Was he completely out of touch with those who were still hands on in the clean-up effort?

  What do these people think? That the CEO of BP is the one and only person in charge? That if he isn’t within ten miles of the spill , that all work grinds to a halt. How many times has President Obama played golf since this started? And yet the clean-up continues.

  No my friends, this latest attack on Mr. Hayward and BP isn’t about him being out of touch. It is the White House and the press using the Crisis Playbook again.

  We saw the same sort of thing when the financial meltdown happened. The CEOs were criticized for their previously planned trips to the Caribbean, and Vegas. We saw it with the auto industry takeover, when those CEOs were laid low for using their private jets to come to Washington, to be laid low.

  This is another case of the Obama administration using class warfare to anger the “SMALL” people, so as to set up the need for the government to take over the oil industry. Mark my words, in the near future we will be told that the oil industry cannot be trusted to run such a dangerous industry without government being in control. Even more so than they already are.

 And one last point. People in high stress jobs need time away from that stress. If not they suffer burn out, which can lead to mistakes. We have had enough of that already.

Clean Energy ?

June 19, 2010

  These days we are always hearing this or that politician talking about the need for clean energy.

   Most times they are talking about either solar or wind generated energy. They feel because the energy is generated by the sun and the wind and that there are no bi products from that generation, that these are so-called alternatives to fossil fuels, that create that naturally occuring element CO2.

  For right now I am going to focus on wind generated energy. Right here in little old Delaware , we have been talking off shore wind for years. We also currently have a bill in our state Senate(SB #119), that would require traditional power companies to incorporate even more energy generated by alternative sources , in the energy they supply to their consumers.

  Obviously our legislators care nothing about the cost raising effect this will have on the consumer.

  But let’s examine the reasons they use for pushing such legislation. The number one reason is that they say it is a clean energy. But is it?

  Now to decide whether wind generated energy is clean or not I believe you must look at the whole industry, not just the end result.

  For example, do you know that in one commercial wind turbine there can be as much as two tons of rare earth elements. Most of these come from China, a place not known for their environmental consciousness. So, many of the same people who are in favor of wind energy and who are against mountain top mining of coal, have no problem with China strip mining for the elements needed to build the wind turbines.

  You also must factor in the production of the sub parts. These parts are not made by hand. They are manufactured in factories, and while I am sure these factories attempt to impact the environment as little as possible, there is no way it  zero percent.

  When you are talking about land based turbines , you are talking about a single turbine needing a cleared flat area of 3-5 acres. You will have to build access roads, power lines and substations. You will have an increase in traffic to these areas. Now remember that these projects aren’t built-in downtown Dover, no they are built out in rugged remote areas. These lands are often deep forest that are forever ruined by these wind projects. So again, the same people who won’t let oil companies drill in ANWAR, are oh so willing to allow wind farms to be erected on the beautiful Appalachian Mountains.

  What is the impact to animal and humans from living around these wind turbines? Well in many cases the noise, shadow flicker and vibration from the wind turbines have caused health problems in many rural homeowners, forcing some to abandon their homes. As for animal life around the turbines, the highest risk is to birds and bats. It seems that especially raptors(birds of prey) such as American Bald Eagles are prone to strikes. This is due to the fact that they have extremely good eyesight but cannot see fast-moving turbine blade tips(125 mph),this is known as “motion smear”. Songbirds are also prone to strikes due to the fact that they migrate at night.

  A recent ongoing study by the National Park Service, indicates that moderate noise can have major impacts on animals. The intrusive noise generated by commercial wind projects is well documented. So once more, many of the same people who are so concerned about reducing CO2 outputs so as to protect animal habitat, are just as willing to intrude on animal habitat.

   Now of course here in Delaware we are talking about offshore wind turbines. And while the impact on people may be reduced due to the turbines being offshore, the impact on the environment will be the same. Birds will be endangered. The amount of boating traffic for routine maintenance and repair will be an issue.The risk to recreational boaters cannot be ignored. There will have to be underwater power lines. These lines will come ashore in the most environmentally sensitive areas along our coast, our wetlands. Again major power lines will need to be run and substations built. Do our environmental friends not care about the wetlands? Do they not care about the birds?

  Now finally we need to look at another aspect of wind generation that very little is known about, due to the fact that as a commercial industry it is a very new one.

  The final impact on the world may be, how do we at the end of the turbines life cycle, remove and re-cycle the materials used in the construction of the turbines? Danish researcher, Per Dannemand Andersen, writing in the International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, stated, “”Because the wind-turbine industry is relatively young, there is only a limited amount of practical experience on the removal and recycling of wind turbines,” Dannemand Andersen says, “It is likely to take more than 20 years before a substantial amount of practical experience regarding the dismantling, separation, recycling, disposal, etc., of wind-power systems is gained.”

  Twenty years ? Before we know the impact of removing and re-cycling these environmental nightmares. How is that acceptable to the environmentally active people in our society?

  How come with so much knowledge of the very real impact on the environment by these turbines, and so little knowledge on the impact of removing and re-placing and re-cycling them. Why has President Obama not put a moratorium on all new construction of both land and offshore wind turbines?

  I also suggest that Blue Water Wind create a $1 Billion  fund for the loss of those jobs that have yet to be created and the environmental impact if they ever actually build the windmills.