Colorado’s junior Senator, Michael Bennet (D) recently assailed what appears to be a sparsely attended Senate session with Congress’ abysmal approval rating of just 9%!Bennet underscored how pathetic that was before comparing Congress to the IRS, Fidel Castro, and banks.
We’re almost at the margin of error for zero!
Fricking Hugo Chavez has the same approval rating as Congress, for crying out loud! Next election, turn these arrogant, worthless buffoons out on their duffs!
When I first heard Herman Cain refer to himself as Häagen-Dazs Black Walnut, I cringed for two reasons. First, he’s using a company name for political purposes, either without permission, or they’re paying him for product placement. Second, I took the flavor to have a clear racial undertone contrary to Cain’s calling out Rick Perry for his leased camp’s former name. Maybe it’s just because Cain can say it, but if I did, I’d be considered insensitive, at best. In any case, Cain has been milking (no pun intended) the ice cream analogy.
I happen to believe there’s iced milk, and then there’s Häagen-Dazs black walnut. “Substance, that’s the difference. I got the substance. I’m the black walnut! It lasts longer than a week.
Now, Herman Cain finds himself at the head of the pack of Republican contenders. This shouldn’t be too surprising since Mitt Romney speaks out of more mouths than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir has and Rick Perry has performed miserably in the debates. I don’t know why her constituents elected her in the first place—Michelle Bachman’s elevator stops a floor short. Never mind the also-rans.
Well, here’s a ripple for Mr. Cain: Häagen-Dazs no longer makes black walnut ice cream. It had a limited run because sales fell below expectations. Beyond his ice cream substance and 9-9-9 tax plan, what exactly is Herman Cain standing for or offering in his presidential bid? Hope and change didn’t work the last time, so if that’s his meme, he’s going to melt away.
Previously on Herman Cain:
A 20-year-old Saudi Arabian, Abdulaziz Mubarak al-Shammari, twice tried to enter the cockpit of American Airlines flight 1936 from New York’s JFK to Indianapolis On 05 October. On the second attempt, fellow passenger Rodney Bailey intervened. He asked al-Shammari if he was looking for the bathroom which evoked a head shaking no. Bailey said he has traveled “all over the world. I’m not going to die over a cornfield in Indiana.”
Operated by American Eagle, the flight landed safely in Indianapolis and al-Shammari was detained by airport police. American Eagle spokesman Ed Martelle said, “He might have briefly touched it [the cockpit door], but there is no indication that he was headed there. Those doors don’t open.” Seriously? What’s the purpose of the door, then? And al-Shammari went to the door, not once, but twice. Martelle, you weren’t there, but Capt. James K. Kolostyak told police he heard someone trying to open the cabin door and saw the interior door light come on. So, yeah, al-Shammari was trying to get in.
Claiming he’s a student at University of Indianapolis, al-Shammari was on the third leg of a flight from Saudi Arabia. Except the University of Indianapolis has no record of al-Shammari as registered there. Does al-Shmmari have a student visa? Were his tickets one-way? Authorities said al-Shammari is not on any terrorist watch list. Neither were the 15 young Saudi Muslim males who participated in the attacks on 9/11.
Despite a thousand holes in his story, al-Shammari was released without charges! And here’s the kicker: “The police report stated: ‘T.S.A. would not respond to the scene.’” According to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) spokesman Jim Fotenos:
‘The flight landed safely and local law enforcement responded. TSA monitored the situation and was satisfied with the actions taken by local and federal law enforcement.
Obviously, TSA is too busy treating US citizens like criminals to be even the least bit interested in al-Shammari’s highly suspicious airborne activities. Never mind his story is flimsy at best and totally fabricated at worst. It’s not likely al-Shammari went through any serious security check in Riyadh. As recent as May 2011, a traveler said he found Riyadh’s “security screening laughable.”. According to TSA, Saudi Arabia has no restrictions on bringing liquids on board aircraft.
Once you’re through the security checkpoint, you have access to most of the rest of the air travel network, with exceptions, without having to go through re-screening. So, was al-Shammari confused, the excuse people are trying to make for him? Or was he making a dry run or collecting intelligence for some future jihadist act? Is anyone checking out the giant chasms of his story?
Yesterday, 17 September, marked the 224th anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution. Of late, it seems our Constitution is under attack and the federal government wants to expand its reach beyond Constitutional authority.
As a case in point, from my perspective, the government has no authority to require me to buy health insurance. Or anything else, for that matter. Requiring the purchase of health insurance does not fall under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. The Constitution is as the center of the political debate:
The struggle over the holiday is yet another proxy in the fight over the proper role of government. On one side are those who embrace an “originalist” view of the Constitution, where New Deal judicial activism started the country down the path to ruin. On the other are those who say that its language — allowing Congress to levy taxes to provide “for the general welfare,” to regulate commerce, and to do what is “necessary and proper” to carry out its role—affirms the broad role of the federal government that has developed over the last 100 years.
The fear induced by the attacks of 9/11 led to the USA PATRIOT act and subsequent losses or restrictions of civil liberties and freedoms. The most apparent aggregiousness is with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and their seemingly arbitrary and inefective rules for airport checkpoint screening.
Not satisfied with just cowing ordinary citizens, the today’s government seeks to silence internal dissenters and whistleblowers. The federal hegemonic conspiracy is no longer a Republican or Democratic construct. Rather, it is the result of the government seeking to ensure its own continued survival despite its citizens.
Previously on the Constitution and rights erosion:
Just two days ago, on 6 September, Eduardo Sencion shot 5 Nevada National Guardsmen, killing 3 of them and a civilian, and wounding 5 civilians before taking his own life in a Carson City NV IHOP (International House of Pancakes) restaurant. Authorities still don’t know why Sencion, 32, whom family members say had mental health issues, opened fire at the IHOP with an AK-47, but Sencion doubled the Nevada Guard’s death toll in the Global War on Terror:
One [Maj. Heath Kelly, 35, Reno] was an Iraq War veteran who loved military history. Another [Sgt. 1st Class Christian Riege, 38, Carson City] was an Afghanistan war vet and fitness buff. The third [Sgt. 1st Class Miranda McElhiney, 31, Reno] would bring in cupcakes for colleagues when they got promotions.
All of them were National Guard members and they were sitting at a table at a Nevada IHOP when a gunman burst in and began shooting.
All three died in the attack, a death toll that matched the total number of Nevada guardsmen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan over a decade. A patron was also killed.
While Sencion’s motive for the shootings remains unclear, it is equally uncontestable he shot toward the back of the restaurant where the Guardsmen were seated.
Here’s what bothers me. Whether Sencion targeted the military or not, it took 2 days for a “news item” to appear on National Guard Bureau’s website and there is nothing about this incident on the Army, DoD, or White House websites. Not even condolences to the families. They were in uniform, so they were in a duty status. If this had been on Fort Hood, it would be big news, but shooting 5 Guardsmen in Nevada doesn’t even warrant any comment from senior military officials, even at Guard Bureau? That’s lame and disconcerting. Don’t talk to me about Soldier care if you have nothing to say about this incident.
For those who want to help, the Nevada Support Alliance provides a way to support the Guard family and its fallen, particularly regarding this incident.
Thursday, 1 September, the Los Angeles Times “broke” the story Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has flown home to California 5 times in his 9 weeks in office. No one begrudges the man his weekends to decompress and spend time with family. The article’s tone suggests insiders wonder if Panetta takes his job seriously and just how in charge is he. To clarify the significance of this, the Service Secretaries (Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force) and the Combatant Commanders report directly to him. He is second, only to the President, in the National Command Authority.
Curiously, the article fails to cite any specific allegation the Secretary’s shirking his duties. To the contrary, several official sources state Panetta is available 24/7 and taking care of business. Panetta is required to use government aircraft to ensure he has secure communications available. There’s no doubt Secretary Panetta has secure communications capability in his Monterey CA home, what some are calling the Pacific Pentagon. So that’s not the issue, nor is it Panetta himself. From the Times article:
It is common for members of Congress to fly back to their districts every weekend or so, and Panetta did so when he represented Monterey in the House from 1977 to 1993, and as CIA director, his first job in the Obama administration.
For his trips home, Panetta must reimburse the Treasury for the cost of commercial coach fare. Since he’d never fly coach, why not require him to reimburse the cost of first class? I checked coach from DC to Monterey; round trip cost was $427. Panetta typically flies on a C-37b, the military version of a Gulfstream 550, which costs $3,200 an hour to operate. Flight time by C-37b between DC and Monterey is 4-1/2 hours, so each round trip is $33,280. After Panetta pays his share, taxpayers are left with the remaining $32,853 per trip cost. At the current rate, Panetta will make about 26 trips per year, taking $854,178 out of our pockets.
We all know, however, Panetta is not the only senior official who takes junkets in government aircraft. Suppose, for the sake of argument, the 21 other cabinet and cabinet-level officials make 10 trips per year equivalent to Secretary Panetta’s. In such a scenario, there’s an annual cost to taxpayers $7.75 million. There are 535 Sentators and US Representatives, which the Times article mentioned also make frequent trips home. Since travel distances are different for each, and some travel more or less frequently, let’s assume each makes the equivalent of 10 of Leon Panetta’s round trips per year. Under that assumption, total cost to the taxpayers for our elected officials to commute is $178.05 million. Ending this perk, just at this level, could cut the deficit by $186 million annually. That’s not much by deficit standards, but it’s a start and it doesn’t affect the little guy.
Previously on government travel costs:
Visit Florida GOP Senate candidate Mike McCalister’s campaign website. Do you see any of his political views? No. Do you see any of his stands on the issues? No. Do you see he was a Colonel? Why, yes! That seems to be the only thing his website is about. He’s a Colonel. In fact, the website’s title is “Colonel Mike McCalister for Senate”. There’s no “about the candidate” section, but there is a “Meet the Colonel” tab that does nothing but justify the “facts” of COL (Ret) McCalister’s 33 year career in the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, and a few years on active duty. In short, this guy’s entire campaign is based on his being a retired Colonel. While I respect his service, it doesn’t automatically translate into credentials for elected office.
Not much of a platform, but ok. Unfortunately, it seems the Colonel has embellished his record, implying he participated in “black ops” when, in fact, he was a desk jockey. McCalister thinks he’s a superior operator when, in fact, he was just a staff officer.
While every officer knows they are entitled to their own political views, they also know they cannot use their military position to support those views. In particular, it’s clearly against regulations to wear the uniform—retired or not—to political events. Yet, COL Mike McCalister did so, wearing his Mess Dress Blues to a fundraiser in February. Any claim by him that he didn’t know any better is inexcusable; a Colonel should know better or research the regulations to know what is permissible.
COL McCalister (“Ret”) says he’s waiting for DoD approval to post copies of his Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs). Dude, they’re your OERs; you don’t need DoD approval to post them. Along the same lines, the award citations on your website are not the official citations presented with your claimed Legion of Merit and Defense Meritorious Service Medals. How about copies of the actual citations accompanying the presentation of the medals? You know, the ones with the signature of the awarding authority.
Hello, Florida voters: can it be any more obvious this guy is only about padding his resume and personal gain? Even worse, it seems McCalister is not a serious candidate, playing on public goodwill toward the military for nefarious and, as yet, undisclosed purposes. Is that why he’s got absolutely no political positions regarding any issues on his website?
This guy casts a bad name on military officers from all branches and components of the services. His underhandedness and self-aggrandizement makes me sick. It’s time to “terminate the Colonel’s command.”
Take Action: Contact Mike McCalister’s campaign and tell him what you think of his embellishment.
As a commissioned officer in the Army National Guard, I took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic”. As a result, and because of the First Ammendment guarantee of free speech, I believe in the right to speak against government actions and policies, even to the point of burning the US Flag in protest, which makes me cringe in a mixture of horror, anger, and restraint. This is significant since, in the military, the US and organizational flags—the Colors—symbolize the lineage and honors of the fighting formation and their national patriotism. Military personnel always salute the US Flag in passing.
While not often considered, I submit the First Amendment equally guarantees the right to not say things. This is the basis for not requiring students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. For many, the politically correct issue in the Pledge is two words: “under God”. For others, refusal to participate is a form of demonstration. So, we have Constitutional basis for disrespecting national symbols such as the Flag and Pledge.
I didn’t pay it much attention when Goshen College banned the words of the National Anthem last year. But, this year, Goshen College banned even the score of the US National Anthem! Their reason for this abberation is the song is “too violent”. For real.
Located in north central Indiana, Goshen College operated by the Mennonites, a Christian denomination. Instead of the Star-Spangled Banner, Goshen will play America the Beautiful, which better suits their pacifist traditions. All of this makes me wonder two things. First, do they keep score at their sporting events, even at the risk of winners and losers? Second, have they banned the Old Testament, which has far more violence in it than the National Anthem?
In the last election, Michigan voters turned out US Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D), gave newcomer Rick Snyder (R) the governor’s office instead of several seasoned politicos, and changed the state legislative landscape. Despite reelecting all but one US Congressional incumbent in the general election (throw out the incumbents, but mine’s ok), it seemed like Michigan voters might actually be starting to think for themselves. Could it be they’re no longer interested in superfluous hype? Will they really hold elected officials accountable to do their jobs?
Alas, probably not. Did I mention, Michigan voters returned 10 of 11 incumbents to Congress? The reason for this rant is polls show Mitt Romney leading Republican challengers in Michigan. Seriously? Just because he was born in the state and his father served as Michigan governor January 1963 to January 1969 doesn’t mean Mitt should be Michigan’s favorite son. He left the state in 1965 and hasn’t been back for any appreciable time since. That’s 46 years—more than 2/3 of his 64 years and all his adult life!
George Romney had been an auto company executive, but Mitt opposed the auto company bailout, calling for GM and Chrysler to go bankrupt instead. Still, even though Michigan jobs rely heavily on the auto industry, Romney stood in front of an auto plant and promised jobs in his 2008 presidential bid. So, which is it, Mitt? Pro automakers and Michigan jobs or not?
Then there’s that health care thing. Romney signed insurance mandates into law for Massachussetts but opposes Obama’s health care reform. How does that even make sense? The similarities are so coincidental, Republican presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty calls health reform “Obamneycare”. He’s not the first to point out so-called Obamacare is patterned after the like-named Romneycare.
Why do voters in other states get it but those in Michigan don’t?
Previously on Mitt Romney:
ConocoPhillips, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil, the five biggest oil companies, reported skyrocketing profits for the second quarter. The profit jumps result from higher oil prices, which seems counterintuitive to me. Obviously the cost is simply passed along to consumers and not absorbed by the oil companies. The top 5 Big Oil companies increased profits almost 10% over second quarter 2010. Their combined profit for second quarter 2011 was $35.1 billion.
Although second quarter profits were up 41% compared to last year, the results are “below expectations.” Investors called BP’s 13% improvement in profit over 2010 “disappointing” at $5.6 billion in the second quarter 2011.
On top of increased, but disappointing profits, Exxon Mobil pays a lower effective tax rate than individuals, at 17.6% compared to 20.4% for individual US Federal taxpayers.
With record profits and low effective tax rates, why do big oil companies get $70+ billion in tax breaks? How about slashing those to reduce the deficit? Silly me, Big Oil owns Congress.
Previously on Oil:
 | cynicalsynapse on Most Dangerous: Michigan in To… |
| cynicalsynapse on Detroit’s Woodward Light… |
| cynicalsynapse on How to Decline the Invasion of… |
 | still laughing on Most Dangerous: Michigan in To… |
| still laughing on Most Dangerous: Michigan in To… |
