George Phillips - NY House of Representatives candidate
Written by Michael Vass
The following video is the first part of a 4 part series that presents the interview of Michael Vass with New York 22nd Congressional District challenger George Phillips. The interview took place at the Endwell campaign office on July 23, 2010.
Mr. Phillips is challenging Rep. Maurice Hinchey, who is an 18 year incumbent in the House of Representatives. This is the second time that Mr. Phillips is has run against Rep. Hinchey.
The interview covers the topics of the economy, the Health Care Reform, the Obama Stimulus, jobs, immigration, taxes, the national debt, as well as the background and beliefs of Mr. Phillips.
Letter to Senators Gillibrand and Schumer, Rep. Hinchey - New Black Panther Party
Written by Michael Vass
**Note the following is a VERBATIM transcript of the letter sent to the New York elected officials named below. The only changes made are the inclusion of links and video for the internet reader.**
Senators Gillibrand and Schumer
Representative Hinchey
I am a constituent and voter in New York State as well as a member of the press. As such I am interested to know your opinions on a issue that has been again gaining attention across the nation.
During the 2008 election, members of the New Black Panther Party were involved in an incident that was initially identified as voter registration intimidation in Philadelphia. The incident can be found on Youtube as well as multiple news reports, from live video taken of the incident.
The incident, which appears to be a direct example of violations of Federal laws, was pursued by the Department of Justice after it was made public by the media. The case was won and sentences prepared to be imposed against the New Black Panther members involved (as reported by multiple news agencies), when Attorney General of the United States Eric Holder dropped the case.
Since that time (May 29, 2009), noted civil rights lawyer, activist, and self-acknowledged Liberal Bartle Bull, a witness of the incident has denounced the dismissal of the case. Former DOJ lawyer J. Christian Adams - who has spent years working voter intimidation cases - has recently come before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to state that the New Black Panther Party case was dropped due to an Obama Administration guidance (via Eric Holder) to essentially ignore incidents where people of color are in violation of voter intimidation laws.
Given the facts as they are known, this is an outrage. The Rights of American citizens to vote has been impaired, and it appears that the DOJ is willing to support such denial of Rights based solely on the skin color of those involved.
Yet given these facts, witnesses, a whistleblower. and a open and shut case Congress has essentially avoided comment. In my research I have only found comment from Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) on this matter. More to the point, I have not found comment from any of the New York elected federal officials.
Thus I ask the following questions of you all.
1) Do you believe that the New Black Panther Party violated the voter intimidation laws?
2) Do you believe the case, won by the DOJ, should have been dropped? If so, why?
3) Do you agree that voter intimidation can only be enacted by Whites against people of color, as Former DOJ lawyer J. Christian Adams has stated is the implicit policy of the DOJ under Eric Holder?
4) If you do not agree, when was your first public statement in disagreement?
5) If you do not agree, when did you address this issue in the Congress?
6) If you do not agree, what action are you involved with to prevent such actions and policy from continuing?
These are simple questions, and while election years politics generally motivates ambiguous responses I look forward to simple answers.
Be advised that this letter is being sent to each of those named above. In addition this letter will be found at www.mvass.com among other sources available to the public. ANY AND ALL RESPONSES WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC VERBATIM. If you prefer, I am also willing to record your responses via phone or in-person press interviews.
Thank you for your time and attention to this constituent concern.
Sincerely
Michael Vass
President - M V Consulting, Inc.
info@vassconsult.com
** To contact the New York elected officials mentioned, here are their email addresses I have contacted them at.
http://gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/
http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contactchuck.cfm
http://www.house.gov/hinchey/zipauth.shtml
Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napalitano did a bad thing
Written by VASS
Did you know that Janet Napalitano, currently Secretary of Homeland Security and former Arizona Governor, passed an anti-immigration law? No not the current law that has drawn out immigration activists like flies to dung. In 2007.
It was the Legal Arizona Workers Act. You probably didn’t hear about it because the anti-immigration activists didn’t make an uproar about it. The Legal Arizona Workers Act targets employers found to have hired illegals, and could empower the state government to revoke the business licenses of violators. 10 days for the first offense, permanently for a second.
In fact it states
In effect, the law signed by former Governor and current Secretary of Homland Security, Janet Napalitano is more restrictive and likely to create racial profiling, in the workplace, than that of the Arizonal Immigration Law signed by Governor Jan Brewer. A fact proven as the lawsuit, which will be going in front of the Supreme Court, names Napalitano among other State officials.
Given that the law is so restrictive, and anti-immigration in orientation, the question begs to be asked why she signed the Bill. Even moreso since a far less restrictive and actively prohibative of racial profiling law by Brewer was attacked by Napalitano - who did not read the law even 2 weeks after it was passed. How hypocritical for Napalitano to denounce a law less restrictive than a law she herself signed for the same State, 3 years later.
Perhaps it’s karma. Maybe it’s the absurdity of partisan politics. But it is definitely notable to know that Secretary Napalitano is as 2-faced as any other politician, especially in the Obama Administration and it’s campaign promise of transparency.
It is also odd that for all the screaming and boycotts and anger from pro-illegal alien (criminal) activists, not a moment of the media’s airtime went to denounce this previous law, that has been in the Court system for 3 years. Could it be that if they mentioned the Legal Arizona Workers Act, it would mean they would have to denounce President Obama’s choice of Secretary and be at odds with the Obama Administration?
In fact, since nothing has been said, to this moment, by the pro-illegal alien activists it can be concluded that all the hype they have manufactured is just political trash meant only to promote their ideals and distract Conservatives and the nation from the Obama Administration? If so, what then is the quid pro quo for leaving Napalitano alone? And what is it that the nation is being distracted from?
Oh by the way, as a moment of transparency not coming from the White House, Napalitano supported the law as Governor and in part since becoming Secretary. The White House is avoiding comment on the Napalitano law - though it is an anti-immigration law that the White House objects to on principle (which means they don’t have to read the law it seems).
Of course the Justice Department investigation includes advice from, you guessed it, Homeland Security and Janet Napalitano directly. She has not recused herself even though she signed the law and has publicly defended it. How transparent is that?
How does the Obama Administration feel about small business?
Written by Michael Vass
It’s a question that has been asked by conservatives since well before the 2008 election results. A question that has never been more clearly defined than perhaps now. And the only way we have gotten the answer is via Vice President Binden and his inability to filter his thoughts through the polispeak PC filter that is the hallmark of the Obama Administration.
Over the weekend VP Biden happened to go into a custard shop, Kopp’s Frozen Custard in Glendale, Wis., with Sen. Russ Feingold (Democrat). Its the same custard shop that served VP Cheney, without media attention or controversy. But Biden had to make an impact. Which took little time.
Upon being served Biden asked manager Scott Borkin how much he owed. The jovial response by Borkin was
“Don’t worry, it’s on the house. … Lower our taxes and we’ll call it even.”
Now any politician should be able to respond to that in their sleep. A quick statement like, ‘I’ll work on that’ or ‘We’re trying to make it happen for you’ and the moment passes without incident. It would be ignored as much as the Cheney visit was - at least on a national level.
But this is Biden, part of the Obama Administration. An Executive Administration that does not tolerate being questioned, and definitively quick to anger when confronted on their failures. The economy is a subject they know they have failed on, and the surge in taxes to everyone - especially small business owners - is on the horizon. So the response is really not a surprise.
Did you notice that? The answer to a request from a constituent about a matter that small business owners across the nation are concerned about is to call the man a smartass. You have to wonder if that was before or after he asked small business owners to make donations on behalf of the Democrat Party and Sen. Feingold.
Perhaps even more telling is the response of some media outlets. Rather than discuss the obvious opinion of the Obama Administration on a critical matter of the economy, they elected to edit the video and exclude the comments of the Vice President. Then they (WISN.com) refused to allow their video coverage to be released.
Why would the media do such a thing? Could it be that they have a vested interest in making the Obama Administration look better? Are they too looking to help Biden and Feingold raise funds? Do they not want small business owners in Wisconsin and the nation to know how the Obama Administration feels about their concerns - at least prior to the mid-term elections in November?
No matter the thoughts of some in the media, the fact is that the economy is not a laughing matter. Just like the response of Biden was not humorous, neither are the new tax burdens that the Obama Administration wants to place on small business.
It must be another example of “Change”, whether you want to believe it or not.
World Cup: Slovenia vs. USA - final
Who was that team in the blue in the second half? The USA? Where were they in the first half.
Truly a comeback performance by Team USA. Lead by Landon Donovan at 47:33 with a goal to invigorate the US, America became the aggressors they needed to be in the first half. But the USA would not go through the half without controversy. Lot’s of it.
Multiple calls by the referee were the critical point of the match. Call after call went against the US, each being more bizzare than the last. There was the yellow card against Forward #20 Robbie Findley in the 40th minute. A hand ball call off the coner kick as the ball clearly deflected off Findley’s face, ending the attempt at scoring a much needed tie goal when Slovenia only had 1.
There was the yellow card in the 68th minute. Could it have been a RED card? Altidore was charging for the pass from Donovan, he was the last man. He was in full charge and he was thrown to the ground inside the penalty box. The call was a yellow and a free kick that failed to convert.
There was the bizarre call in the 85th minute as #19 Maurice Edu was denied a goal off of a free kick. A play in which #4 Michael Bradley and #17 Jozy Altidore were being held and fouled, and Edu was clear of everyone. Yet the winning 3rd goal was waved off.
Those were 2 opportunities and a definite score, all denied by the referee. And that says nothing of various challenges and fouls that either went against the US or were ignored in favor of Slovenia.
It’s not to say that Slovenia was not making it’s own mistakes. Slovenia filled a flag with Yellow cards in the second half, aquiring 3 within 15 minutes. They were shaken by the goal of Donovan, and then seriously put off by the goal by #4 Michael Bradley in the 81st minute. Passes got sloppy and challenges became far more brutal. The cohesive play of the first half devolved quickly, though Slovenia remained a strong force. Several times thay pushed on the counter-attack to try to score another goal to finish off the US.
Howard also had a great game. Though he gave up the 2 goals in the first half, he made up for it with several great saves in the 2nd. Whether he could have done more if uninjured from the match against England will never be known, but there was no question of his ability in the 2nd half.
But ultimately only 2 things are true of the entire match. The USA could have played far better in the 1st half, considering the play of the second they underestimated Slovenia. Given that, had they come out with the fire and organization of the 2nd half, the score likely would have been 2 or 3 to 0.
The second fact is that the referee was abysmal. He seemed to have a bias at the worst, and was inept at the least. It’s yet another time where America was hindered by bad referees than by play on the field. If America does not qualify for the Round of 16, which is still possible, it will almost assuredly be because of the call in the 85th minute by the referee.
Final score Slovenia 2 - USA 2
**If you are enjoying our coverage of the World Cup, please take a look at our sponsors at World of Vass and Alchemy at World of VASS. Your support is appreciated.**
World Cup: France vs Mexico - final
Written by Black Entertainment USA
Some fans of the World Cup may be unaware, but it’s winter in South Africa. And it is a cold wind that’s filled the heart of many french fans today.
France is overrated. It was true in 2006. It was true when the odds were placed on this World Cup. It was proven against Uruguay and has been definitively proven in the match against Mexico.
Both teams came into the match looking to prove something. That they deserved to move on to the Round of 16. That they deserved respect. Mexico has both, France neither.
After a first half that started with a push by Forward #17 Giovani Dos Santos, that resulted in a shot on goal saved by the post and called offsides, the game wound down to a stop and start of free kicks and bad challenges. Back and forth the 2 teams fought, trading long passes and bursts of speed. Neither gaining a solid advantage nor vital connections to players in scoring position.
But the pent up energy of the youth of Mexico was being pulled taunt. With the start of the 2nd half Mexico got more aggressive. They pushed harder. With no avail until the 63rd minute. After 3 wide shots on goal and an offsides attempt in the first half, with 2 more offsides calls on Dos Santos as he attempted to break out, #14 Javier Hernández (a substitute) finally got his opportunity. Receiving a long pass from Mexico captian #4 Rafael Márquez, Hernández broke out, skipped the ball past the charging French goalie #1 Hugo Lloris, and tapped in the ball for a simple goal.
Mexico 1 - France 0
Mexico was inspired. Energized by the youngest member of the team (at 22 years of age), the team surged on the attack. 2 more times the long pass was attempted to Dos Santos, each time he was just offside from another breakout run at the goal. But Mexico would not be denied.
This time it was #7 Pablo Barrera, a substitute coming out of the midfield for his breakout run at the goal. The French were at a loss. They could do almost nothing. And nothing would have been better than what did happen. Defender #3 Eric Abidal, chasing down Barrera, made the flawed decision to challenge for the ball. A foolhardy attempt in the penalty box, one that was assured to draw a yellow card and provide a penalty kick. And it did.
Who would take the penalty kick for Mexico? The youthful Hernández that had done so much to energize the team? Barrera who was cruelly denied his shot on goal? No it would be #10 Cuauhtémoc Blanco, the elder (37 years old) repository of knowledge for Mexico - who had scored in the previous 2 World Cups.
Without hesitation, with a sure right foot to the left side of the net, just outside the reach of the diving Lloris, Blanco scored the deciding goal. Mexico had 2 (Blanco because the first Mexican player to score in 3 seperate World Cup events - 1998, 2002, 2010), France was shut out. 12 minutes of regulation play remained, and France was not the team to recover from this knockout blow. Mexico would not let their first chance of beating a former World Cup winner pass - not after 11 draws and 5 losses to prior winners. Not today.
Mexico went forward and dominated the match from there. They kept the pressure on France. Kept them out of the box and tied up every time they crossed the midfield line. Dos Santos was flying across the pitch to challenge any French player that dared look at the goal with a hope. Mexico was going to win, they were determined.
Thus the match ened with 3 minutes of added time. France was denied a single goal, and with it their chance of advancing equally descended. Mexico is assured an advance into the Round of 16, playing Uruguay next Tuesday. A match that neither team needs to win to advance to the next stage.
The match up of Uruguay vs Mexico will be lackluster. Neither team needs the win. Neither wants to draw a red card or 2nd yellows. Neither can afford to lose players to accidental injuries. Thus the game will likely be a 1 - 1 draw. Enough to advance when nothing else is really needed.
The man of the match was Dos Santos. His energy and drive to win kept the pace high and the pressure strong on France. It was the Battle of Puebla all over again. Like in 1862 the victory was for Mexico.
**If you are enjoying our coverage of the World Cup, please take a look at our sponsors at World of Vass and Alchemy at World of VASS. Your support is appreciated.**
Feds refuse to obey law - blame Arizona
Written by VASS
The most shocking news was announced at 1pm today. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has announced, via John Morton, it is considering NOT acting on illegal aliens sent to it by the State of Arizona. In effect it is a federal agency that is promising to willfully ignore federal law, solely because John Morton disagrees with the Arizona Immigration Law.
Imagine that. A non-elected official is now effectively dictating public policy for the nation, based on his whim and the political ideology of the President. When has that ever been the case in America?
What right does a Government Agency have in picking and choosing the laws it will abide by? What right gives them the option of selecting where and how they will support the American people?
John Morton believes, like Eric Holder and Janet Napalitano (who have not read the 10 page Arizona Immigration Law), that the Arizona law is bad. A law passed by the people of Arizona, and signed by the Governor of Arizona with the support of the people. John Morton, in his position as a member of the federal government dedicated to enforcing the laws of the nation, knows better than a State of over 6.5 million people acting in a legal democratic process that the nation is based upon.
Some would say this is a sign of problems for this nation. Some would say that when Government officials act to supercede the will of the people of the nation, democracy is dying. Some would say that Government officials, acting without knowledge, imposing their will on Americans is more akin to autocratic governments than a representative system we have been taught in schools and demonstrate each November on Election Day.
Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that this news is not being shared at this moment. On MSNBC, not a single word was heard about this. On that cable news outlet the discussion was on a new book decalring the success of President Obama, and attributing the rise in the stock market to Senate approval of the new banking regulations (not the fact that unemployment levels decreased in 34 States). At the time this was being written YAHOO had no indication of the news as well. Why is this not being presented to the public?
This is troubling news, no matter the opinion of the Arizona Immigration Law. If the Government can choose which law it will enforce, if it can choose where it will enforce laws, where has democracy gone? What will a Government like that do next? Who will it favor and who will it abuse? Will you even know until the actions of a Government like that affects you and your family?
Should we blame Arizona, as many Liberals, Democrats, the Obama Administration, and the Mexican Government have done? Or should we notice what the Arizona Immigration Law is highlighting about our Government right now?
Michael Vass commentary on L.A. Boycott, the Mexican President, and Arizona immigration law
Written by VASS
Here are some facts and conclusions based on recent events and threats about the Arizona Immigration Law (SB 1070). Sometimes it’s better to see and hear a thing than to read it.
Mexican President Calderon won’t admit this, but it’s obvious. The Obama Administration won’t explain their position, but they can’t seem to stop themselves from giving opinions. The Los Angeles City Council wants to bully an entire State, without the balls to stand by their convictions.
Given all these things, what seems more dangerous, more deceitful, more of a problem, Arizona and the 60% of Americans that agree with SB 1070 or the few that oppose it based on their political ideals without knowledge of what it states?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the mind of Congress
Written by VASS
A day after Fannie Mae reported loses of $13 billion in the first quarter of 2010, and days after Freddie Mac reported losses of $8 billion in the same period, the Senate took action. Of a sort.
Since 2008 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been funded with $145 billion in taxpayer dollars. According to statements reported on this blog yesterday, there is no end in the foreseeable future of the need for more taxpayer money. Estimates range that the intermediate-term need of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac range from $40 - $50 billion. Given these facts it is obvious that there is a problem, it is not being resolved, and that the problem will grow over time.
Thus Senate Republicans proposed to end the Government run of these insititutions. That came to a vote in the Senate, which was defeated 56-43 by Senate Democrats (including NY Senators Gillibrand and Schumer - both up for re-election). Senate Democrats voted to keep allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operating exactly as they have been, running a deficit of book values that no other corporation (if privately owned) could ever maintain and be in business.
Instead, Senate Democrats offered to study Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That vote passed 63-36 (including the votes of New York Senators Gillibrand and Schumer).
What exactly needs to be studied? Fannie Mae has a book value of -86.78/share, Freddie Mac is at -94.90/share. It’s very obvious that the only thing that keeps these companies in operation is the financial funding from the U.S. Government. What is not clear is why the Government allows these companies to operate in such a faulty manner without so much as a need to request additional funding. Funding is automatic, and unsustainable.
Thus there is a conclusion to be made. Senate Democrats like Senator Gillibrand and Senator Schumer are more than willing to accept funds from Wall Street for their re-election campaigns. They are more than willing to make public statements that the need for financial reform is imminent, and vital to the economy. They are more than happy to use these statements (and not mentioning the funding) as keys to their re-election efforts.
But they are not willing to cross a political line in the sand; to act on 2 critical insititutions responsible in large part for the current financial crisis and economic downfall. They are unwilling to require fiscal responsibility in the GSE’s (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) at the cost of over $145 billion in taxpayer funds which is growing by the day. They actively refused to make a real decision on reforming the most needy inistitutions, yet expect praise and votes for that refusal.
Maybe the concept is too political and mathematical for the Senators and those not familiar with the situation. In effect, The U.S. economy is the Titanic. We have just hit the iceberg that is the mortgage and financial crisis. The ship is being flooded by debt. But like the captain of the Titanic, Senate Democrats (Senators Gillibrand and Schumer among others) believe the ship cannot sink. They have decided to keep sailing on. They want to look at the hole in the ship, but do nothing about it.
Given that scenario, if you had the chance to vote the captain out of his position and potentially save the ship would you? In November, when Senators like Gillibrand and Schumer are seeking re-election will you give them your vote?
Sneak preview: Central New York Business Journal - Financial Quarterly edition
Written by VASS
If you are in the Central New York area, you may want to pick up the May 14th Financial Quarterly edition of the Central New York Business Journal. In that edition will be found the views and projections of this writer. It is a proud addition to the citations this blog and writer have gained over the years. The article will also be found in the Mohawk Valley Business Journal, and Greater Binghamton Business Journal, Financial Quarterly.
Excerpts of part of what will be found in the newspaper articles follows:
“…Today there is little better that I can see coming in the months ahead. Unemployment continues to exceed 9% nationally, and regionally. Many of the short-term benefits of the 2009 Stimulus have come and gone, with jobs like the Census soon to come to an end further impacting the unemployment rate.
Energy costs continue to move higher. Gasoline cost are edging up closer to all-time highs even before the impact of the oil spill in the Gulf being considered. The potential of off-shore drilling being suspended or any refinery shutdowns only adds to the cost of gasoline and other refined oil products. Thus the intermediate-term costs will go higher, likely exceeding the highs of 2009 and 2008.
Another factor that is not often discussed is the international instability. Whether the question is Greece, Afghanistan, a nuclear Iran, or attempted attacks on America it all has an effect on the markets. The current instability of Greece and its effect on the Euro might be devastating to Europe and thus America as well…”
“…The company has total cash of $59 million vs total debt of $40 million with a current ratio of 5.59. Book value (11.13/share) is 1.31x the current price. The forward P/E is targeted at 10x, with 78% institutional holding.
The negative is that potential slowdown in sales related to Lockheed Martin have not been factored in. Giving a discount to book of 10%, and factoring in a similar discount to cash while increasing debt proportionately, the company maintains an attractive overall balance…”
“…It is unlikely that all these things will happen, or to the degree mentioned. In fact none of this may happen. But the markets react based on emotion and the perception of what might happen. Investors that remain calm and evaluate the circumstances stand the best long-term advantage.
Remain calm in commotion, evaluate situations to determine if changes in a company are fundamental or market driven, have a long-term objective and strong fundamental reasons for owning any investment. Plan for a degree of the unknown occurring, establish downside limits. And always speak with a trusted investment professional before acting on an investment…”
There is more to the article and the answers than the excerpts above. But it gives a small indication of the information that will be found in the Financial Quarterly. [Note, the article was written on Thursday May 6, 2009 for publication deadlines, and all stock data is based on those closing date prices.]
If you have the chance, do purchase the respective Journals for the full article. Thank you for your support.
P.O.W./M.I.A. Remembrance Service in Binghamton NY at Wall That Heals
Written by VASS
Though it was a cold, overcast, misty evening dozens of veterans and their families came together at Columbus Park in Binghamton, New York. The reason for the gathering was in part the Wall That Heals, one of the Moving Walls that are travelling 1/2 sized versions of the Viet Nam Memorial found in Washington D.C. The other part was the Remembrance Service held at 6:30.
The Remembrance Service is in honor of those that gave the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, but have yet been unable to come home. It is for those that were captured and tortured in lands where there is no debate allowed about how anyone is treated. It is for members of every service, those that served in Korea, Viet Nam, the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other conflict that America has ever had or will ever have.
Thus with deep respect, and in honor of those brave and dedicated souls, I present the P.O.W./M.I.A. Remembrance Service so that every American, young or old, never forgets them.
**If you know a veteran or anyone that would appreciate this, please pass it on.**
Is Cindy Sheehan a racist?
Written by VASS
Cindy Sheehan is controversial. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Right or the Left, she has detractors all around her. Which is odd considering that just a few years ago, while President Bush was in office, she was the darling of the major news media and Democrats.
But then President Obama was elected. Democrats neither needed nor wanted to discuss the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. The major news media all but forgot the anti-war protestors and activists. Yet, Cindy Sheehan continued to push her agenda, going so far as to run against Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Today Cindy Sheehan is still advocating her anti-war stance. In addition she is speaking out against the Government, Republicans and Democrats. Much of this is in her latest book, which is what brought her to Binghamton, New York. Oddly it was also the same time that the Viet Nam Memorial arrived in Binghamton.
Sheehan arrived late, at River Read Books in downtown Binghamton, due to flight difficulties. She was greeted by a small group of fans and supporters. In total there were roughly 15 or 16 people (10 appeared to be 50 or older, 3 in thier 20’s - 30’s) and 5 members of the press - including this writer - that attended at least some part of the event over the 2 hours that Sheehan was there.
Sheehan started off by discussing why she was late, the fact that she was banned from Scranton, PA. and her sudden realization that the Catholic Church opposed views like gay marriage that she supports to some degree. From there Sheehan discussed her prior 2 books, her dislike of President Bush (with numerous jokes and insults directed towards him), and her disenchantment with President Obama and the existing Government structure. Which led to her discussing her book (which there were no copies of in the book store) via a cheat sheet of photocopied pages.
The group of people present were subdued and attentive while Cindy Sheehan spoke. Several laughed loudly as jokes/insults of President Bush and/or President Obama were made. The entire group joined Sheehan in her dislike, and distrust, of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Many nodded their heads as Cindy Sheehan described in part her observations of the myths that she believes are the American Government and society (which her new book details). This included her declaration that America is divided into 2 classes, Robbers and those that are Robbed From; as well as that she believe most Americans are so sheepish as to be willing to die for these myths she exposed in her book.
Of the many statements Cindy Sheehan made that stood out for anyone not on an extreme political view, several were particularly surprising. Cindy Sheehan described the Cuban Revolution 50 years ago as “no better or worse than the one [revolution] 200 years ago.” She described how she sought economic justice and human rights in America, detailed why she felt elections don’t matter, mentioned how over the past decades no President has held term for more than “4 - 8 years”, many for a single term [which ignores the limitations of term limits]. Sheehan even described how she felt compounds were necessary, seperating people from the Government, though she strongly felt violence was wrong.
One later part of Sheehan’s discussion that was of interest was when she described how she disliked the concept of limited x-ray screenings at airports, even after the underwear bomber event occured, and refused to allow her bags to be opened at airports without a warrant. This caused a member of the group to excitedly note it was the “14th amendment”. No one bothered to correct the individual, since the 14th amendment deals with slavery, while the 4th Amendment deals with privacy and warrants.
Later in the discussion Cindy Sheehan descibed, almost with pride, how she has been arrested numerous times, is banned from the White House (after President Obama took office), had been shot with rubber bullets, and had a new technology used to ‘destroy the cells of her body’ (actually a LRAD, as seen on the television show Future Weapons, is a non-lethal crowd-control and hailing device).
At this popint the floor opened up to questions. Of the various local members of the news media waited for a member of the group to speak up, Michael Vass - president of M V Consulting, Inc. and author of this blog, spoke up.
This was the hardest questions asked of Cindy Sheehan publicly during the event. One of the easier questions out of the 4 questions that came from the group was from Jim Clune, about why Sheehan is banned from the White House, who stated with pride after he was asked for his name by this writer that, “I was arrested with her.” Whether Mr. Clune was a plant for such a situation or merely proud of his acts of civil disobedience along with Cindy Sheehan is unclear.
Perhaps the most interesting part of her answers to questions was her comment
“I forget who said it but it’s in my book, I think it might have been Thomas Jefferson or Karl Marx I don’t know…one of those guys…somebody like that, that said people shouldn’t be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people.”
The group could not decide if it was Jefferson or Marx. In fact it was a line from the movie V for Vendetta, and originated in the movie (possibly the comic book the movie is based on but I cannot confirm that clearly). The quote that goes to Jefferson can be found here. Though confusing Marx and Jefferson does appear to be unusual.
In all the event was very quiet, and civil. Several books were signed, and Cindy Sheehan answered every question posed to her by the news media and from the group alike. She then went on to speak at another event later in the day.
Thus it is up to the individual to decide if Cindy Sheehan is as Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former President Carter have stated, those opposed to the policies of President Obama do so because they are racist. It is up to the individual to agree or disagree with the major media’s sudden reversal of policy to not follow every move and statement by Cindy Sheehan in her anti-war and anti-government activism. Perhaps the most interesting question that you may ask yourself is the question posed to this writer by George McAnaname (an associate of Cindy Sheehan seen in the video standing to her right in the white shirt),
“Who do you think embodies the principles of Dr. Martin Luther King more, President Obama or Cindy Sheehan?”
**Note - Additional video of the event will be added to this article as it is editied and formated. The limitations of manpower and technology will not allow this to be done and included in a timely manner for immediate publication.**
Viet Nam Memorial in Binghamton New York pt. 1
Written by VASS
The Wall That Heals, one of the Moving Walls of the Viet Nam Memorial in Washington D.C. arrived in Binghamton NY, at Columbus Park at 1:45pm. The Memorial is half the size of the actual memorial found in Washington D.C. and allows the public that might not be able to get to it a chance to be involved with this symbol of the dedication and lives of the Armed Forces that served in the Viet Nam War.
Like my father, the father of Tom Stevens served in Viet Nam. When asked about what the Memorial means to Tom, he mentioned how he felt that Vets returning from Viet Nam were not given their deserved recognition and respect. That left America with a feeling of guilt, especially when compared to the way vets from the Gulf War were treated. But that did give America an opportunity to embrace our Viet Nam Vets, which is continued today. Those thoughts were shared by several of the vets that were at Columbus Park today as the Memorial arrived preceded by a Color Guard.
In the community there were many thoughts about the Viet Nam Memorial. In the Broome County Urban League across the street from Columbus Park, CEO Jennifer Lesko stated, “There are a lot of countries that don’t have freedom. The ability to wear what you want, or say what you want. We have those Rights due to the military that have sacrificed so much for us all. The memorial is a reminder of that sacrifice.”
But when Robbie Rodriguez, a resident of Binghamton and 18, was asked about the memorial he had a very different view. Robbie is very detached from Viet Nam, noting that he knew little about that war because he wasn’t around for it. For Robbie the focus is on Iraq and Afghanistan. He stated “They’re sending people to war. It won’t end. We kill them and they kill us. It’s a cycle. It should end and just have peace.”
Perhaps that is the most important reason that Ron O’Shea and Marjorie Brink got the Wall That Heals to Binghamton. To make Viet Nam and the veterans that fought there more of a part of the current generation. To provide those vets, and those that gave their lives, a place in history in the minds of all Americans, old or young, that they deserved and earned.
As Tom Stevens looks at it, “Keep in mind there are 3 generations involved. The generation that was involved directly, many due to the draft. The next generation that was involved with the Gulf War who did not get drafted but volunteered. And there is this generation, that has more multimedia and information than any other. That generation, more than the others, are coming to their own opinions about things sooner than we did.”
The current generation is indeed getting more information, and the Viet Nam Memorial allows them a chance to speak with veterans like Barbara Beebe, Commander of the American Legion Post 1700, who was one of the women to serve in Viet Nam from 1962 - 1964. “It’s about time we honor the men and women that served in Viet Nam. Many didn’t get a warm welcome home. So I’m glad to see this here. For those that can’t go to Washington D.C. this gives them an idea of the feeling it means to me. It chokes me up, and I get a warm feeling just looking at it.”
For those that served, the sons and daughters of those that served, their friends and family, and the youth of Binghamton and America the Moving Wall Viet Nam Memorial provides a tangible link to our past as well as the dedication and love of our country so many made the ultimate sacrifice for.
April 8th, at 6:30pm, will be the opening ceremony for the Memorial. Several community members will be on hand to speak as well as Binghamton Mayor Ryan. On April 9th, at 6:30pm, there will be an event in honor of the P.O.W./M.I.A.’s of Viet Nam (initial reports were of 21,794 in 1975, as of November 2001 there are still 1,948 unaccounted for - Library of Congress). On April 10th there will be a Celebrate Community Event at 1pm.
2010 Dems mid-term election slogan - Change - again
Written by VASS
In 2006 Democrats thought up a great campaign slogan, Change. The theme was to change from the policies of the unpopular Bush Administration. It lead to Democrats taking the House and Nancy Pelosi becoming Speaker of the House, and Harry Reid becoming the Majority Leader of the Senate.
In 2008 Democrats picked up the slogan with a few more words added, Change you can believe in. The theme was to change from the policies of the unpopular Bush Administration. That lead to the election of President Obama, and a supermajority for Democrats.
In 2010, Democrats are going to be innovative and use a slogan of … wait for it… Change. The theme will be to change from the unpopular policies of the Bush Administration and Republicans.
Do you see a pattern? Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sure seems to. Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, believes that Change is still the key top victory. His concept is that America needs to be reminded that Republicans are the Party of the staus quo
Van Hollen may not see it but there might be a flaw with this strategy.
Perhaps the biggest issue that might be noticed is that former President Bush has been out of office for more than a year. The DCCC might not have noticed but Democrats control the White House, and both Houses of Congress. The policies affecting the nation are those of Democrat and President Barack Obama.
Another potential bump in the road is the economy. Given that Presidents Clinton and Bush spent money wildly, President Obama has spent more in a year than either President in their full terms. And President Obama is still spending. Yet the economy has become stagnant in the opposite direction of every campaign and post-election promise made.
Given that President Obama walked into an economy in a tail-spin. Just as President Bush did from the Clinton Administration (of did we forget that the Internet Bubble was created and burst under Clinton?). Plus President Bush had to deal with 9/11. But the Bush Administration did turn things around, if for a relatively short period of time. As was expected at the end of the Internet Bubble - not that most recall the forecasts and warnings of the time.
But President Obama took hold of the nation almost immediately after the election. He was planning the Obama Stimulus with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (which she created at a cost of $50 billion) so he would be prepared to resolve the recession immediately. He promised the nation that jobs would be the priority of the Administration. He passed the Obama Stimulus, because we needed to change from the policies of the Bush Administration, and virtually guaranteed that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8%, and would be 7.5% (at worst) in 2010. He then proceeded to work on Health Care Reform and setting a timetable for retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan. Next up is immigration reform, jobs are in the backfeild.
So Van Hollen wants to change. He wants to continue to stay away from the policies of President Bush. In favor of what? More of the current? There’s no way to know.
Van Hollen wants to help America avoid the status quo of the Republican Party. But Republicans are not in charge. Democrats are the policymakers for a year now. They are dictating, against the wishes of a majority of Americans in the case of Health Care Reform, the policies of America. The status quo is what Democrats want, not Republicans that couldn’t stop ANY Bill or law for over a year.
The biggest issue that appears to be glaring in the “new” strategy for Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections is the same one that was in the 2006 mid-term election, and 2008 Presidential election. What is change exactly?
Rep. Van Hollen is using the same old strategy, spouting polispeak that sounds great and hopeful, without making a substantive explaination of what he is talking about. Change is like saying weather. The weather changes every day. Sometimes you get sunshine, sometimes you get a hurricane, or a blizzard, or a drought. Change in and of itself is neither good nor bad, nor an indication of anything. But it is a great way to let the listener envision unspoken, and possibly unintended, positives and to profit off that miscommunication.
Recently the New York State GOP head Cox stated that Republicans will ride the was of disapproval of Democrats into office. That statement was confronted in this blog as unsatifactory, because it provided voters in New York no benefit. Rep. Van Hollen is equally as vaccuous in promoting an empty slogan that gives voters nothing to gain. It is perhaps worse because the DCCC plan is national, which potentially abuses everyone instead of just New York State.
Perhaps both Parties should stop and realize that voters aren’t that stupid nor are they that sheepish. This blog and it’s readers certainly aren’t.
The answer to unemployment
Written by Michael Vass
At the State of the Union Address President Obama stated clearly that he understood that jobs and the economy were the primary concerns of the American public. He then went on to forcibly pass the Health Care Reform. After a year of effort that might be understandable to some, mostly Democrats not up for re-election. The next thing the Obama Administration is doing is … immigration reform, Cap & Trade, and universal registration. So how is that working out locally?
Taking a look at Binghamton New York, unemployment is roughly 9.3 - 9.7% depending on which organization you get your stats from, and if you are looking at actual numbers, revised numbers, or estimates. No matter how the numbers are looked at they are not good. But there are 2 silver linings for those that are unemployed.
The first answer comes from Rep. Maurice Hinchey. His view is to increase the amount of time that people can get unemployent benefits.
Considering that currently taking all benefits available means that a person can be without a job for 24 months, extending the time they can be without a job seems like avoidance of the problem. The issue is that jobs are not being created. That was without the added burden of increased taxes and mandatory health insurance that will now enter the equation due to the Health Care Reform, which Rep. Hinchey, Senator Schumer, and Senator Gillibrand supported.
Plus there is the growing list of taxable items proposed by Gov. Patterson. Taxes on soda, movie tickets, beer, wine, car rentals, weight loss, haircuts, cable and satellite tv, clothing and shoes, even car purchases are all planned to go higher. How many industries and small businesses will be affected by this list? Which is hardly the complete list, nor does it include items like the 7.9% increase in property taxes Endicott, NY and other areas across the state are planning to impose.
But what if Rep. Hinchey can get even more unemployment checks to flow? And if Sen. Schumer can get his China currency Bill to pass. Plus add in all 235 jobs coming from the Obama Stimulus - at a cost of $20 million from the Obama Stimulus. Even add the attack on cybercrime that Sen. Gillibrand has promised to do, which is unclear exactly how it will create jobs. Will any of this drop the unemployment rate below 9%? Below 8.5%? At all? Especially as we factor in the higher costs to businesses and individuals?
Well actually it might. This is where the 2nd item mentioned above comes in.
This week 700 people will drop from the unemployment rolls in Binghamton alone. 46,000 in New York State this week. In coming weeks those numbers will increase. But as they increase the number of unemployed, as counted by the Government, decreases. Because those not getting benefits, specifically the initial claims but to a lesser degree all claims, are not counted as unemployed. They go to another category which is far less discussed, the underemployed.
The underemployment rate for NY as of Feb 5th 2010 was 14.3% (data not available on a city basis). It’s a figure that well may go higher. Except it too does not include everyone that is out of work. But it is closer to the truth.
Considering that the proposals for dealing with unemployment include the Obama Stimulus, the Obama Stimulus 2 (proposed in Congress for $150 billion that increases the national debt), making Chinese products more expensive via tariffs, punishing cybercriminals if and when they are caught, and extending unemployment benefits (that need to be paid for - higher taxes which impede job creation), the net outlook is not impressive.
Why does New York State matter? It is the 3rd largest State and economy in the U.S. The economy of New York State is 16th in the world (as of 2007) just behind the nation of Turkey. If these are the problems and solutions being offered to such a huge part of the nation’s vitality how much better off can we expect the rest of the nation to be.
Is this the “Change” that was promised in the 2006 and 2008 elections? Is this the focus on jobs and the economy that was promised in the State of the Union Address? Is this the very best we can expect from our elected officials in Congress? Most importantly, does any of this sound like an answer to unemployment?
Sen. Charles Schumer is taking on China
Written by Michael Vass
Sen. Schumer is seeking to enact legislation, the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2010, that will force the Treasury to cite China for manipulating their currency, which he believes is a factor in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in New York State and specifically the Southern Tier. This legislation could impose tariffs to countries that manipulate their currency, and prevent them from winning U.S. Government contracts.
It is a topic of no small debate. In the past decade some 300,000 in New York alone (5.3 million in the nation) manufacturing jobs have been lost, mostly to China, due to their cheaper costs which Sen. Schumer believes is tied to manipulation of their currency.
This sounds great, but is it accurate? Is this in the best interest of New York and the nation, or a positive spin on an issue that conveniently distracts from his support of the Health Care Reform and the potential consequences on his re-election bid in November?
Consider this. In China, the products created are often a B-class compared to good made in the U.S. This is due in part to lower quality raw resources, and less adept workers. At the same time, the cost of producing almost anything in China does not include healthcare, retirement funds, unions, and a host of taxes.
In the U.S., especially New York State, there are additional costs. While the item will often be an A-class product, it will have its price include: union pay scales, EPA and/or FDA restrictions and requirements, health care costs, some of the highest business taxes in the world, property taxes, cost of living increases, and of course the wages of American workers which far exceed that of workers in China.
Effectively this breaks down to an overly simplified example: Assuming that China does not manipulate its currency
Raw resource cost is fixed at say $3 for both China and the U.S.
The production cost in China is half that of America (just workers salary) - so $3 China and $6 U.S.
Add to this the cost for taxes, federal mandates, healthcare, and all other expenses not involved in production (U.S. only) - $6
Given even a good economy, a product can be bought from China for half the cost and still provide the same use. Which item will sell more? Basic economics says the cheaper item.
This is not a perfect example. The root of the example is accurate though. Even with all other factors equal the cost to make anything in America is more expensive than in China, currency manipulation or not. Thus even if the Bill is passed into law, it will not replace the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost to China, Mexico, India and everywhere else that does not have the added factors of high taxes, government restrictions, and massive regulation.
Thus the Bill that Sen. Schumer is presenting is more akin to a smoke screen than effective law. It sounds impressive and implies a benefit, but the benefit is impossible to achieve as the real world factors prevent the equal footing he hopes to establish.
It would be great to say that this is a purely constituent based motivation on Sen. Schumer’s part. He has tried to pass similar legislation before, at least 2 years ago. But the timing of this legislation seems odd considering that it comes a year after the Obama Stimulus has failed on all its primary goals. It comes after a publicly distasteful Health Care Reform debate and partisan passage. It arrives just in time to be fully used to advantage in his re-election bid.
Perhaps the answer comes when we go back to the example. If all things outside of the cost to make a product are the same, will the cost of American goods ever be lower than that of China, Mexico, India and other countries around the world? The answer is no, under the current fiscal outlook of America and New York State. Therefore any claims to return jobs is empty at worst, and minimal at best.
Therefore it seems that the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2010 is less a benefit to constituents and more of a political benefit to a Senator seeking re-election. But I am open to hear from Senator Schumer to explain how my theory is incorrect.
How much to get an email answered by New York elected officials?
Written by Michael Vass
Let’s say that you are a Democrat, and you are an elected official. Your Party has just passed a massive piece of legislation that most of the country opposes, regardless of political affilitation. Add to that recent scandals of Rep. Rangel, the reviled backdoor deals in passing Health Care Reform, and the abysmally low approval ratings of Democrat leadership. All of that taken into account, would you decide to send out a letter stating that donors of $50,000 will be able to speak with policy makers and influence how they create labor laws and reforms? Does this make sense to you?
Well whether you think it makes sense, or even like the concept, it is a fact. It is exactly what New York State Senators have asked union leaders to do. State Sen. Jeff Klein, D-Bronx, sent out a letter stating this exact idea.
When reading such a statement, it becomes far more understandable how Representative Rangel “misplaced” $500,000 or how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid considered the Cornhusker and Louisiana deals (or bribes as some call them) fair for a yes vote. It puts into perspective how Rep. Barney Frank could tell the nation that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sound, 2 weeks before they had catostrophic failures. It nails down how life long proponents of ideals (like say pro-life Rep. Stupak) could vote yes on language they openly disagree with, and how Sen. Dodd would be open to a sweetheart deal from a mortgage company that his Committee is supposed to oversee.
Mind you, that Republicans are no better, State level or above, even below for that matter. Yet you would think that in the middle of all the controversy, after taking actions against the will of the people, Democrat New York State Senators might have thought better of the idea?
Then again New York is a special kind of State. The Democrat State Senators are a special kind of legislators. Brazen is the word that comes to mind. Because not only are they blatantly taking money from unions so unions can peddle influence in their favor, the Democrats are planning to enact the same kind of opportunity for a women’s advisory council, as well as one for the environment, and business.
Consider this. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand would not attend a town hall in 2009, and re-used 6 month old boilerplate messages to respond to constituents questions on Health Care Reform; yet she had no problem voting to keep spending New York and federal taxes on ACORN after they gave her support for re-election. Senator Charles Schumer wouldn’t do the town halls nor reply to questions at all; yet he is sitting on more than $10 million dollars for his re-election campaign thanks to donors and fundraising mostly from special interests. Representative Hinchey likewise ignored voters, when it wasn’t time for a re-election. But if they are anything like their colleagues in the State Senate, then it would seem that if you ponied up $50,000 you might have gotten a real answer. If you paid to go to one of the multiple fundraising dinners, or spent cash to be around them, then you might get an answer.
The voice of the people? Not that important. Cash is king after all, especially in New York State politics apparently. And all of these State Senators (62 of them, 32 are Democrats) plus both mebers of the Senate and at least one member of the House expect New York voters to re-elect them just because they are in office?
Better question. Do you think that ANY politician that accepts money and/or gifts to vote in a particular way (especially against the will and benefit of the people) deserves to be re-elected? You can give your answer now, and/or in November.
Michael Vass comments on the Health Care Reform signing
Written by Michael Vass
Depending on when this is read, President Obama will either be about to, or will have, sign the Health Care Reform into Law. It will be a moment of the most grave importance to every American, and those yet to be born.
On April 6th I will be 42 years old. Once President Obama signs the Health Care Bill into law I will have just missed having a full 42 years of freedom. Because, all politics aside, once this Bill is Law EVERY American citizen will have lost freedom. Not all of it, but just a piece.
I know that many claim we lost freedom before. Some have even made arguments that it was for the best. But never has there been a time where the Government has actively controlled my life as it will be able to once the Bill is Law.
Government is a slippery slope most of the time. One legal ruling leads to another, and some interpretation takes it even further down a path that is separate of the original intentions of the law. That is a given. Now consider that fact.
Upon signing, the Government will have the Right to tell the people what they must do. It will have the Right to control and therefore restrict freedom. Not in a passive manner, like limiting free speech such that incendiary words or actions that provoke harm are restricted. It will actively force people to act in a specific manner, and enforce that action. In a way it’s similar to training a puppy.
Once this Right of the Government exists, eventually the Government will decide another Right is needed. Another restriction, to benefit the public, will be created and enforced. The next time it might even be popular. Which will lead to another and another Right, and restriction for the people.
Government will, eventually, gain greater power over the lives of the public - always with our best interests in mind. As has been said for far longer than I can imagine,
“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Is health care reform needed? Of course it is. No one denies this. But if you had to choose one or the other, Freedom or Restriction, which would you take? No matter how well worded, no matter the intention, which is more important?
When I was born there were no desktop computers, cell phones, hybrid cars, global warming, digital cameras, and so much more. But there was freedom. After the signing tomorrow, every child born in this nation will be without as much freedom yet far more distracted with technology; and that much closer to having only the freedoms they are given as opposed to those they have justly because they exist. They will be born into a world that will spiral their choices, sooner or later, to a life no better than slavery.
It may take 2 generations, or 1, or 10 but it will happen. Because the precedent has been set. The path has been created. To paraphrase Captain Jack Sparrow as he deals with his devil in the form of Davey Jones
“Ah, so the terms of the agreement are agreeable and now it’s just a matter of debate over the price.”
The question will no longer be if the Government can mandate our lives, just what are we willing to give up for each Right taken.
This scares me. As Congress moves forward with a Bill to allow the Government to take over ANY company it deems too vital to the nation, of course only in the best interest of the people. As the Government decides what is a fair wage, of course only for those companies and industries it controls. As a deal is being devised to summarily barter off citizenship. As the Government decides to restrict carbon dioxide as a danger (which all humans give off), and the Supreme Court allows schools to restrict aspects of Free Speech of students (the case in question - Nurre v. Whitehead, 09-671 - denies students the right to play Ave Maria on instruments). As school books are being re-written to eliminate our founding as a nation, our struggle to end slavery, our act to create a single unified nation under one banner. This is a scary time.
This isn’t about political ideologies, at least not Democrat and Republican. This is about the existence of America. It’s about Government buying off pieces of our Freedom, and on the cheap at that.
Tomorrow the Democrat leadership will celebrate. They will cheer a course of action so problematic that the majority of Americans opposed it almost from the start, that members of the Democrat Party had to be swayed with money and promises of power and titles, that every legal loophole had to be investigated and many used for its passage. A year of actions that appeared so corrupt that the New York Tammany Hall scandal pales in comparison for those that are aware of history even vaguely. That is what is being celebrated.
They will applaud and cheer what, in its absolute bottom line, is the barter of individual Freedom for the concept of Government provided comfort. When you read this, before or after President Obama signs the Health Care Reform into Law, think long and hard about it. Because while it may not be all or even most of your freedoms today, down the line it will be someone’s child’s.
Sold out: Democrats pass Health Care Reform
Written by Michael Vass
I will be posting a video of the vote shortly. But the question of the Health Care Reform is now answered with the fact that it is law. A law that the majority of Americans, for a year have rejected and disputed.
The question has never been healthcare reform. Everyone agrees with this. But how the reform will take place has been greatly at issue.
During this more than year long process, Democrats has supported the Bill, while avoiding constituents at every turn. In New York as one example, both Senators (Kirsten Gillibrand, and Charles Schumer) and several Representatives REFUSED to speak to voters about their concerns on the Bill. Members of Congress actively ignored voters letters, emails and calls. When responses did come some were like that of Senator Gillibrand, who recycled 6 month old boilerplate form emails that neither addressed any question asked, nor gave any reason for voter concerns to be alleviated. All of this culminating in arcane and unwanted legal manuevering that pushed the partisan aspects of Government to a new low in the eyes of the public.
Over 53% of Americans did not want this Bill passed, and have said so for more than 8 months. 73% of Americans wanted this process to stop and start over with new ideas that actually address the concerns of the people. But Democrats directly stated that this was going to pass, like it or not. Which makes this writer wonder who is in charge, politicians or the public that elects them?
In coming days President Obama will hail the passage as a victory for America. Democrat leadership will claim that all Americans have become better off due to this Bill.
In days and weeks ahead America will slowly learn of backdoor deals, schemes, payoff and partisan benefits doled out to members of Congress for their support. Most of that will be suppressed and virtually hidden by the majority of the media, as they continue their biased and partisan support instead of maintaining their nuetrality and responsibility to the public.
Ultimately the following will happen now that this is law. You can thank Democrats in the mid-term elections and in 2012 for this.
Taxes will increase for large and small businesses - a likely consequence will be more people unemployed.
The income of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) will face further pressure to make ends meet as a new, MANDATORY, expense has been added to the mounting bills due.
At some point an unknown number of people will be jailed and/or fined for failing to live up to Government Mandatory requirements.
More people will be serviced by fewer doctors.
The newly expanded IRS, and other Government agencies, will regularly check on the public’s actions to ensure enforcement of this law.
The American people will pay fees for 4 years without receiving a moment of service as it will not be allowed by law.
These are facts, without dispute.
Whatever else we may learn of, and now must be forced to accept, will come in time to affect EVERY American from now and forever.
Why are Democrats voting yes on Health Care Reform?
Written by Michael Vass
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Rep. Kucinich, Senator Gillibrand, oh the list could go on and on. What reason do they all have in common to vote yes?
It seems that not much has changed since 1940.
Senator Gillibrand on voter concerns
Written by Michael Vass
The race for the New York junior Senate seat is considered likely to go to a Republican in November. Part of that is due to the lack of knowledge about the appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand among voters in New York State. But there are other reasons that are even more the cause.
In August of 2009 the nation was filled with concern about the Health Care Reform and what it might mean to their lives. Democrat supporters across the nation had a choice to make, face their constituents in town halls and explain why they supported the Bill or hide from the masses. Senator Gillibrand chose to hide, along with Senator Charles Schumer.
Given that choice, I sent a letter to Senators Gillibrand and Schumer on August 11th. In that letter I asked 21 specific questions about the Health Care Reform Bill that they were supporting in the Senate. The simplest of those questions was
“Have you personally read and understood all 1000+ pages of the proposed Health Care Reform Bill?”
On September 10th I received a response from Senator Gillibrand. Not one of the 21 questions asked of Sen. Gillibrand - from a member of the press and a constituent - was answered by the reply. The full VERBATIM response can be seen at http://www.mvass.com/2009/09/17/senator-kirsten-gillibrand-responds-to-michael-vass/. That link will be very important in a moment.
The response, while hardly worth the time it took to cut and paste I suspect, was at least a response. A subsequent letter to Senator Gillibrand, on Sept 16, 2009, requesting a reasoning for her vote in favor of the now defunct ACORN went unanswered.
Since that time the debate over the Health Care Reform Bill continued unabated. The length of the Bill grew almost in proportion to the public sentiment against the Bill. In December of 2009, Senator Gillibrand along with Senator Schumer voted to pass the Senate version of the Bill, even before a final written copy of the Bill existed.
On February 20, 2010 as President Obama prepared to present his compromise Bill on the Health Care Reform to the public, I again wrote to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Senator Schumer. I reiterate that I am both a member of the press and a constituent, being a resident and business owner in New York State. The letter in Febrary contained 4 questions for the Senators. The most simple questions being
I ask if you have read the final written version of the President’s modification that will be offered for reconciliation?”
On March 8, 2010 I recieved the answer from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. The response, arriving at 5:29pm came from Senator@Gillibrand.senate.gov. This response was an OBVIOUS cut and paste response NOT to the questions asked. This can be verified by the drastically different fonts between the response and the signature portion of the email.
Far worse is the fact that the response on March 8th was a VERBATIM COPY of the exact response sent to me on September 10, 2009. The March 8, 2010 letter can be seen at http://www.mvass.com/2010/03/09/senator-kirsten-gillibrand-responds-to-vass-letter-on-health-care-reform/
Today at 10:30am I contacted the New York City office of Senator Gillibrand. I requested an on the record official answer as to why Senator Gillibrand sent out a cut and paste copy of a response from 6 months prior. I requested an official response to why, as a member of the press and a constituent of Senator Gillibrand, I received a response that failed to address, to even consider, the questions asked of my representative in the Senate. And I requested an offical response as to why throughout 7 months Senator Gillibrand seemingly willfully refused to answer the most simple of questions - if she has read ANY version of the Health Care Reform Bill that she ardently supports against the will of voters in New York State.
I was asked (by the press liason) which office I had sent my letters to [several went via regular mail and email to both the New York and Washington D.C. offices of Senator Gillibrand], as if that was a reason for the copied boilerplate response. I was told that there was no answer available for me for any of those points. I was further told that I would receive a response via telephone. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s office was notified that I would publish my post shortly after 5pm today. As of this post I have received no response, via email or telephone.
While I do not advocate for any candidate for the junior Senate seat of New York, I present this for the consideration of the voters in New York State. The question voters should ask themselves is if they want a Senator that is willing to go against their views in Washington D.C., and at the same time unwilling to answer even the most simple question that constituents might have. Do the voters in New York want an elected official that cares seemingly so little that they recycle 6 month old boiler plate responses rather than address a single concern, or even updating the boiler plate response.
America has a representative democratic government, yet the responses of Senator Gillibrand seems woefully in opposition of that style of governance. I would suggest to blogs, organizations, and other members of the press (outside of the major media conglomerates), as well as voters, to ask questions of their elected officials as well. I will be more than happy to publish ANY verified authentic question and the VERBATIM response of the elected official. Because elected officials ARE accountable to the public.
As always, I will provide ANY and EVERY response from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator Charles Schumer, and any elected official that I may speak with or chooses to respond to any item that I write. Those responses will always be VERBATIM.
I invite Senator Gillibrand to contact me to explain the emails that have been sent, the failure to respond to a member of the press and constituent, and to address any issue facing the residents of New York State and the nation (in that order).
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand responds to VASS letter on Health Care Reform
Written by Michael Vass
The following is the VERBATIM response received on March 8, 2010 from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand via Senator@Gillibrand.senate.gov. This letter was in response to a letter sent to Senator Gillibrand and Senator Schumer on Febrary 20, 2010.
I want to point out that this letter from Senator Gillibrand is a VERBATIM COPY of the letter sent by Senator Gillibrand on September 10th, 2009.
March 8, 2010
Dear Mr. Vass,
Thank you for writing to me about the current state of our healthcare system. I appreciate your point of view and share many of your concerns. I believe that it is vital that we act now to bring forth health care reform solutions that will lower costs for those currently covered by private insurance, strengthen Medicare for seniors and allow every American to access quality and affordable health care.
Our healthcare system is currently badly broken. Over the last ten years, health care premium increases have far outpaced earned wages and forty-seven million Americans, including three million New Yorkers, are currently uninsured and an additional 25 million are underinsured. With our current economic situation, many Americans are losing their insurance coverage when they are laid off from their jobs. Even people who thought they were adequately covered with the health insurance they purchased later learn that they are not when facing a catastrophic diagnosis. This is unacceptable. No family should be one health care emergency away from bankruptcy. Congress must act to provide stability in the health insurance industry.
Quality care for the patient, affordability for families and small businesses, and patient choice are all important considerations in reforming our health care system. We need a plan in place that Americans will be able to afford, as well as allow them a true choice between competing health insurance plans. Having a public option, similar to a Medicare-for-all program, would create competition and result in lower health care costs across the board. If you are happy with the coverage you currently have, a public option would also allow you to keep it.
I have been a strong supporter of affordable, quality health insurance for all. I am committed to addressing this important issue and will work with my Senate colleagues on a bipartisan solution.
Thank you again for writing to express your concerns and I hope that you keep in touch with my office regarding future legislation and concerns you may have. For more information on this and other important issues, please visit my website at http://gillibrand.senate.gov and sign up for my e-newsletter.
Sincerely yours,
Kirsten Gillibrand
United States Senator
My response to this letter will follow.
Former Rep. Eric Massa
Written by VASS
There is no lack of buzz in the political world right now over the resignation of Eric Massa from the House of Representatives. But the main questions that should be asked are generally avoided at this moment.
Eric Massa was a freshman to the House of Representatives. He was also opposed to the Health Care Reform Bill that continues to move forward as a partisan Bill without the majority support of the public. His resignation has been attributed to health concerns, inappropriate comments to a staffer, and now machinations within the Democrat leadership.
This may be an example of sour grapes. A means to get back at those that have not supported Massa as he was ushered out of office in disgrace. But another picture also exists when looked at from the landscape of New York politics and the Health Care Reform Bill.
Currently Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) is undergoing investigation for multiple ethics violations. This is a process that has been in the works for 2 years. Rep. Rangel has repeatedly misreported hundreds of thousands of dollars in income, property ownership, and potentially misuse of Congressional power. This has caused Rep. Rangel to step down as head of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, temporarily at least, but not forced him to vacate his seat. Rangel supports the Health Care Reform strongly.
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand also supports the Health Care Reform strongly. The junior Senator for New York was not elected to her seat, but was appointed by Governor Patterson (who also holds a position that was not elected). Senator Gillibrand is seeking re-election, and has had all Democrat challengers removed by the Democrat leadership.
Governor Patterson is also familiar with scandal. He has decided to end his campaign to be re-elected as Governor of New York. Currently he has strong opposition to his continuation as Governor, led by New York Democrat leadership. He has been accused of tampering with a witness, and abusing the power of his office in securing Yankee tickets. It is also known that Gov. Patterson angered the White House and Democrat leadership by seeking re-election.
Without addressing the innocence or guilt of any of the elected officials involved, there does appear to be a pattern. That pattern is one in which those that support the Obama Administration and its policies are sheilded while those that are opposed are out of favor and subject to the harshest criticism. Massa claims this is exactly why he was forced out. Which is not dissimilar to comments made by Harold Ford Jr. initially about his decision to not seek the Democrat ticket for the junior Senate seat for New York.
Politics is never a clear path. There is almost always in-fighting and battles over power, clashes of political favor vs political support, and variances of political views in each Party. But the current problems in New York State seem to suggest that active manipulation in favor of political agendas, over the concerns of the public, are in play.
If that is even true in part, it is a violation of the core principles of the nation. It also raises the concerns of what is happening in other parts of the nation.
Eric Massa will be appearing later today on the Glenn Beck program. Far-left blogs are sure to attack every aspect of this program as they regularly do to Beck and Fox News in general. But the question is bigger than a dislike of a news commentator or a news organization. It is what is happening to elected officials, if even part of what Massa says is true.
If true even in part, what does this mean about the Health Care Reform? How does this reflect on the “Lousiana Purchase” (Sen. Landrieu’s $300 million deal to vote in favor of the Senate version of the Health Care Reform Bill) and the “Cornhusker Kickback” (Senator Ben Nelson’s deal for Nebraska). What does it mean in terms of the actions of Rahm Emanuel in enacting legislation? Is there a connection to the repeated swift voting on Bills in the House and Senate, even before many of the Bills have been finished being written? Worse yet, what else might be done as an act of persevation of the political status quo versus the views and opinions of the constituents across the nation?
These are troubling questions. This is a troubling time for America. Eric Massa may just be full of sour grapes. This may just be a cover for his own actions and the repercussions they have brought. But if it is even slightly more than that, if it is accurate… what does this mean for America?
Congressional term limits
Written by VASS
Congressional term limits is a subject that rarely ever gets discussed. Obviously Congress and the 2 major political Parties are less inclined to alter their power bases to any substatial degree. But it is a subject I have discussed before. I believe it is an issue well past due. It is something we can alter.
I would love to hear the response of any and all elected officials on this subject. I cannot imagine a reason that Congressional term limits should not apply, but I am open to hear them. Specifically I would like to hear them addressed to the following 8 items. [I did not create this Congressional Reform Act of 2010 but having received it, and read it, I do agree with it.]
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
- A. Two Six year Senate terms
- B. Six Two year House terms
- C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
- A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
- All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
- The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Regardless of personal political leanings, I believe we all can agree on the above. If you do, please pass this on to others. We can make it happen, because We The People are the power of America.
Send it to your elected officials and let’s see how they respond.
Senator Gillibrand on New York State economy
Written by VASS
Yesterday Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was in Binghamton to discuss that small businesses might survive in the current economic downturn. There were several ideas that Sen. Gillibrand suggested
Senator Gillibrand was also recently on the radio (WWRL) to furhter expand on her ideas to help Upstate New York.
Let’s think about just the business aspect of what Senator Gillibrand has said. Keeping manufacturing in New York and the creation of tax credits and loans.
A tax credit is a great idea, if you have the money. It was one of the key concepts of the Obama Stimulus. That businesses would be able to offset part of the cost of new employees with tax credits, making hiring more affordable.
Loans were another idea of the Obama Administration. It too was part of the Obama Stimulus. Billions were put in place for banks and credit unions to give loans to small businesses so they could expand.
Thus the net of the ideas of Senator Gillibrand appears to be more of what has already been put in place since February of 2009.
That concept, in effect for a year, has had a definitive effect on New York State. Unemployment increased to 8.6% as of December 2009 in the Broome County area alone. As of the most recent report, unemployment currently stands at 9.7% for Broome County. For the State the figures are (after being seasonally readjusted) 7.1% January 2009, 8.9% December 2009, and 8.8% January 2010. Comparing 2008 to 2009 the unemployment rate for the State increased by 58.1% to 813,400 in 2009.
Perhaps the most telling stat is the number of underemployed which counts total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers. That figure works out to be 14.3% for New York State in 2009 versus 9.6% in 2008, and 8.1% in 2007.
Somehow, businesses are not improving and many have left the State. Loans have been created, funds allocated, grants granted. Why has there been a net reduction if the plans that Democrats, Senator Gillibrand, and President Obama have championed are so great?
Maybe the fact that taxes continue to increase is a factor. Drawing more money from businesses of all sizes just to pay taxes leaves less for expansion or even staying even. Add to that the fact that to get a grant or loan a business must meet specific government restrictions, and fill out more than a few forms that are hardly simplified, then survive and wait for approval if they will receive it. Thus making the number of people that qualify a small pool, and those receiving the money even smaller. Add to that the fact that tax credits require upfront money that the government does not help with, as mentioned above.
Another item that Senator Gillibrand failed to mention was her support of the Health Care Reform Bill and Cap & Trade. The Health Care Reform Bill increases taxes on businesses, as well as taking funds out of the pockets of citizens mandatorially. The Cap & Trade Bill proposed to skyrocket energy costs by 150% or more, for businesses and individuals. Which then limits the funds to hire workers, plus limiting the funds consumers have to buy the higher priced goods.
Faced with one of the highest taxed States in the nation, proposed increases in energy costs, potentially iminent increases in costs due to the Health Care Reform, and fewer purchases from a growing number of consumers that are underemployed and thus incapable of buying, do loans and tax credits sound like a stimulative action?
Senator Gillibrand sounds positive. The ideas sound like they can have an effect. But when you stop to really look at what has been proposed and the effect it has had in the past, the question becomes why do more of the same?
