Support Doug Hoffman in NY-23

I’ve said in the past that I no longer will consider giving money to the RNC even though they continue to ask for it.

As I stated, I don’t want to give them money only to find that they have used it to support candidates that I would NEVER consider supporting. I’m sure that many others from both parties have found the same thing to be true.

I said at the time, and I’ll say again, that with the power of the internet, I can donate directly to candidates or causes that I totally agree with and encourage others to do the same.

An example of what I’m talking about is the RNC support of the Republican candidate in the congressional race in New York’s 23rd district. Dede Scozzafava is the nominee of the party bosses and is receiving money and support from the party.

The problem with that is that Dede is at least as left-leaning as her Democratic Party opponent. As a state assemblywoman, she voted for massive tax increases, Democratic budgets and a $180 million state bank bailout. She also supported the trillion-dollar federal stimulus package — which every House Republican voted against. She is an abortion rights advocate who supports gay marriage. Scozzafava’s husband is a leading upstate New York union organizer. She supports the federal “card-check” legislation that would massively boost union rolls. Scozzafava in past elections has embraced the ballot line of the Working Families Party, a socialist organization with ties to ACORN. In fact, ACORN head Bertha Lewis, who is a close friend of Scozzafava and a political supporter, wears a second hat as vice chairman of the WFP. The WFP has been listed in ACORN documents dating back to 2000 as an “affiliate.”

It is with this backdrop that I cannot support the RNC, the RNCC or the chosen Republican candidate for that seat. Instead, I have chosen to support the Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman.

Doug Hoffman is committed to ending the reckless spending in Washington, D.C. and the massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government. He stands for smaller government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and a commitment to individual liberty.

You can help Doug by visiting his official website below and joining me in supporting his campaign:


Florida’s Plan to Bar Some Patients in the Event of Flu Pandemic

Florida health officials are drawing up guidelines that recommend barring patients with incurable cancer, end-stage multiple sclerosis and other conditions from being admitted to hospitals if the state is overwhelmed by flu cases.

The plan, which would guide Florida hospitals on how to ration scarce medical care during a severe flu outbreak, also calls for doctors to remove patients with poor prognoses from ventilators to treat those who have better chances of surviving. That decision would be made by the hospital.

The flu causes severe respiratory illnesses in a small percentage of cases, and patients who need ventilators and are deprived of them could die without the breathing assistance the machines provide.

In June, Florida Surgeon General Ana M. Viamonte Ros sent the draft guidelines — which had already undergone a series of internal revisions — to 16 state medical organizations for their feedback.

The document addresses one of the most heart-rending issues in medicine: What to do if the number of people in need of ventilators and other treatment dramatically exceeds what is available.

The goal, the plan says, is to focus care on patients whose lives could be saved and who would be most likely to improve. While it says those decisions are not to be made based on patients’ perceived social worth or role, the plan calls for different rules for some populations.

One goal of Florida’s plan is to “reduce or eliminate” the legal liability of health care workers who, in good faith, deny or withdraw treatment from some patients in an emergency. The plan includes sample executive orders that the governor could issue to shield workers and authorize hospitals to implement the guidelines.

The draft document also outlines how the health care system should stretch critical resources before moving to ration care.

The guidelines suggest reusing supplies, canceling surgeries that are not absolutely necessary, training staff to perform additional tasks and drawing on stockpiles. The general public’s responsibilities include treating certain sick family members at home and monitoring public health messages.

I’m sure that the health officials involved in this are not considered by the state Surgeon General’s office as being “death panels” any more than the health care plans being discussed in Washington includes “death panels,” but here we already have government officials deciding who’s to live and who’s to die. We just won’t call those making the decisions “death panels!”

Obama’s Unaccountable Czar

Last week the United States Department of the Treasury Special Master of Compensation Kenneth Feinberg announced a wage control scheme for the 175 executives of the seven companies that have received the most funds from the taxpayer funded Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). At first the Obama administration denied any involvement in Feinberg’s decision.

But after yesterday’s announcement that the Federal Reserve released its own plan to control how banks compensate their employees, the New York Times reported:

“The announcement was choreographed to coincide with the decision by the Obama administration this week to cut the pay of many high earners at the seven companies that received the most taxpayer help. Both decisions were announced amid growing public outrage over large pay packages at many of those companies.”

Which is it? Are the new wage control schemes launched by the Pay Czar and the Fed the acts of independent experts, or are they the closely controlled policy decisions of the Obama White House?

The answer to that question goes to the core of the very real constitutional problems that the proliferation of czars in the Obama administration creates. Obama appointed Feinberg to be his pay czar without any input from the American people and without any approval from Congress.

By Feinberg’s reading of the law that created his office, Obama had no legal authority to veto or modify the pay plan he submitted Wednesday, he said. “The White House has played absolutely no role whatsoever,” Feinberg said. “Zero intervention by the White House in this process.”

The actions and comments by Feinberg raise another question. If these unelected, uncomfirmed Czars of the Obama administration aren’t responsible to the American people or to Congress and apparently, according to Feinberg’s opinion of the law, not answerable to the President…who in the heck do they answer to?

Administration Attempts to Exclude Fox News from White Hous Pool

Over the past two weeks, three White House officials have publicly criticized the Fox News Channel by denigrating its status as a news outlet – White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, Senior Advisor David Axelrod and Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Even the president himself commented on his opinion of Fox News.

Last Thursday, the Obama administration failed in its attempt to exclude Fox News from participating in an interview of the Treasury Department’s “pay czar,” Kenneth Feinberg when they planned to make him available to every member of the network pool except Fox.

The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks “ought not to treat them that way.”

I applaude the bureau chiefs for standing up for what is right. I’m sure the decision was made because they know if they were to allow the White House to exclude Fox simply because the administration feels they are too critical, they would have to live with the threat of “who would be next?”

Senate Passes Defense Bill…or it a Hate Crimes Bill?

The Senate Wednesday passed its annual defense policy bill, authorizing $680 billion in spending for the coming fiscal year.  The $680 billion spending bill for FY 2010, which passed on a 68-29 vote, included a recommendation to the administration to continue developing an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, despite a White House pledge to veto it if funding for the alternate engine would “significantly disrupt” the overall program.

The Senate also attached an amendment to the bill as has become a trademark in Washington when the amendment has significant oppostion.  The decision to attach the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act generated some opposition to the defense authorization bill, with 29 Republicans voting against the bill, which usually passes by a wide margin.

The hate crimes provision, which creates additional penalties for violent crimes motivated by the victim’s gender, sexual orientation or disability, had been championed for the last decade the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

I am not stating here that I am for or against the hate crimes legislation.  I am stating here that I am opposed to this tactic of attaching amendments that are grossly unrelated to the topic of the original bill.  I would urge President Obama to veto the bill simply based on that issue alone.  He won’t, of course.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s Dept of Justice Overrules the Will of Voters

The small North Carolina city of Kinston is getting a taste of what life is like now that the Justice Department is run by Attorney General Eric Holder. Last year, the voters of that city voted overwhelmingly to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections.

The Obama Department of Justice overruled the decisions of the voters and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without candidates being clearly labeled as Democrats. Ben Conery of the Washington Times recently reported:

“The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

 Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department’s decision “racial as well as partisan.”

“On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,” he said. “That is un-American.”

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.”

Say what?!  This is yet another case of Progressives in Washington deciding that We the People cannot make decisions for ourselves.