|My Stewart-Colbert Rally Sign|
The Word "Truth" Is Nowhere In The Constitution - Tom Tancredo, Colorado's American Constitution Party Candidate for Governor.
|Hair styling was not a concern of the Framers.|
“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. . . And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." [Italics added]
"What is truth?" asked jesting Tancredo, but would not stay for an answer. Yesterday, Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo disastrously paraphrased those words whilst maintaining Obama was one of his gubernotorial opponent's "mentor[s]," Democrat John Hickenlooper.
Denver Post writer Jessica Fender reported:
Just one problem: The few extra words Tancredo put into Obama’s mouth made the misquoted comment race-specific.
A young Constitutionalist, on his
birthday, Dec. 20, 1952.
"(Democrat John Hickenlooper’s) mentor, the guy who talked him into running, a guy by the name of Barack Obama, remember what he said about those folks. ‘When the going gets tough, when economic times get tough, these bitter white people cling to their guns and Bibles,’ Tancredo said to more than 125 people in a Montrose Holiday Inn. 'If you’re going to cling to something, those are damn good things to cling to.'"Show Me the Word "Truth"!!! Perhaps surprisingly, the word "truth" is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution. But American Constitution Party candidate Tancredo undoubtedly knows that, given his reaction to misquoting Barack Obama's 2008 comment in San Fran. The fact is that primary candidate Obama did not name "white people" in his San Francisco speech, as you can plainly see above. Surely one can cut Tancredo some slack here, gaffes on the campaign trail are commonplace and easily corrected, and the Constitution is, as I've shown, silent on "truth" so an American Constitution Party member may ignore it, black letter and spirit.
|Fully functioning Constitutionally.|
Whoops, I Told the Truth! Constitutional scholarship aside, the "accidental truth telling" by the former Congressman was, of course, his implicit admission that truth is simply one choice among alternative lies. That's not surprising when one checks Tancredo's history. For example:
And these gems, from The Ed Schultz "Psycho Talk" segment:
Had enough? [If not, see Talking Points Memo] Well, here's one more, from his speech at the Tea Party convention 8 months ago:
Will He Win? Aside from Rasmussen's October 15th poll and one by Magellan Services released on the 22nd, other polling organizations show Hickenlooper with a substantial lead, in the 10-12% range. The GOP candidate, Dan Maes, is polling in single digits.
It's unlikely that we'll be addressing the former congressman as "Mr. Governor." Yet one can still be amazed and, candidly, freaked out that a man like Tom Tancredo got as far as he did, and as a member of a political party having "Constitution" in its title. Perhaps, as of November 3rd, he can find work as a National Constitution Center scholar, and sniff out any illegal immigrants, jihadists, Marxists, Socialists, gays, or even the "racist" Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, should any of them show up for the walking tour . . .
Alaska's Senate Contest - Still More Ethical Problems For GOP/Tea Partier Joe Miller . . . Likely Voters Deserting.
KING: He [Alaska Dispatch reporter Joe Hopfinger, for background , see my October 10, 2010 post] says what he was trying to do is ask you some simple questions about your past work for the Borough (FNSB), for the Fairbanks North Star Borough. You have said that you don't want to talk about those things. . .
MILLER: Well I think that there's been a real effort here in Alaska to basically take away from the Alaskan voter the opportunity to see the issues that are before them. There's been a concerted effort to cloud it with things from the past that really have nothing -- they're petty issues and that's all they are. They aren't things that have anything to do with where we are as a state. . . And as long as we talk about petty issues or we talk about you know a reporter that assaulted somebody, we aren't getting at the issues.
KING: I think a fair issue for any voter to make is can I trust somebody that I'm going to send to Washington for a six-year term to deal with these big consequential issues, and the question Mr. Hopfinger says he was trying to ask you was this. Were you ever disciplined when you worked for the Borough for improperly using essentially public taxpayer computers for political purposes?
[Dodging interviewer King' direct question, Miller continues, TWSA! writer comment]
MILLER: What he [Alaska Dispatch reporter/editor Hopfinger] asked me was I ever threatened with termination from the Fairbanks North Star Borough and I answered him directly and I said no and that's the straight truth. That's exactly what we've said consistently throughout this campaign and that was the answer that we gave him and again, yet another attempt to look at something from years ago to dissuade the voters from the issues that are at hand. Yes, our perspective is, is the record speaks for itself. The work I did there as a part-time Borough attorney speaks for itself.
KING: The mayor of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Mr. Whitaker, was quoted in a newspaper saying you were disciplined for violating the ethics policy. Is that true?
MILLER: I will answer that correctly that it was in fact a case that happened while I was at the borough. There were a myriad of things that happened over time and this was something back in 2008, but the fact of the matter is the performance of the borough at the time that I left had absolutely nothing to do with anything that happened two years before then. This is an attempt again to take away from the voters an opportunity to see where we are at as a state, an opportunity to take a choice that is not based on the past which is the Scott McAdams Lisa Murkowski path, but one that is designed to look at the petty issues and say that really is what matters to voters. I don't think it's fair to Alaskans. . .Is he actually saying that his resignation without notice (Sept. 1, 2009) was due to "the performance of the bureau," and not his own new violations of FNSB leave policies? In fact, Miller had been warned for previous violations of the leave policy. So his implication that on September 1, 2009 he suddenly quit his FNSB job due to conditions at FNSB runs hard aground on the facts of his leave policy violations, and the likelihood that FNSB would soon discipline him or terminate his employment.
Quo Vadis Alaska? So, given the new revelations about Joe Miller - especially his attempted manipulation of FNSB's leave policy - will any of this affect his election prospects? And if so, will the effect be negative or positive? His far right and further right Tea Party support is thought to be glacier solid, but will the sudden glaring light of his personnel records pack enough heat to melt it a bit? Since the beginning of October, incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski has gained a bit of ground, to be sure, yet, although Miller has lost a small amount of support over time, he's still maintained a lead of from 2 to 9 points, depending upon whose polls you believe, as of this October 27th post.
CNN/Time Poll Shows Possible Miller Weakness. Only a CNN/Time poll has yet measured the preferences of likely voters since October 17th's "debacle at Central High," the Miller Town Meeting where Alaska Dispatch editor Tony Hopfinger was handcuffed and "arrested" by Miller's security detail. On October 19th, however, a CNN/Time poll found the race to be a dead heat among likely voters with Miller and Murkowski both pulling 37%, with Scott McAdams (D) at 23%. So perhaps Murkowski's gain was due to the events a the Town Hall meeting blowing back on Miller. I believe it was.
Generally, a significant number of voters make no decision until the week of the election. Although the polls indicate relatively few undecideds in Alaska, Miller, I believe, is stuck in the mud, permanently. His months long record of deflecting FNSB issues suggests he's consistently played a shell game with the voters and the press that informs them. He also was suspiciously late reporting his financial records, and within the last week questions have arisen regarding legal status of some 1,000 acres of Willow, Alaska property that Miller allegedly illegally failed to disclose in 2004 while serving as a federal magistrate.
The full weight of these disclosures will, I think, cause Miller's campaign to sink further into the mud, and benefit both Murkowski and Democrat Scott McAdams. Will McAdams gain enough to contend? Will Murkowski gain the lead in time for the election? I'm guessing that by next Tuesday the toss up will be McAdams vs. Murkowski, with Miller consigned to the mud. Well earned all.
In summary, Joe Miller would like to make an unequivocal statement about the circumstances surrounding his resignation from public service with the Borough:
North to Alaska. Tea Party U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller probably hoped he could put this off until November 3rd, the day after the midterm election, but tomorrow, under a court order, the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) will release some of his personnel files, with some documents redacted.
Though Miller fought to delay the court order, on Sunday, Superior Court Judge Winston Burbank ordered their release Tuesday afternoon (to allow the parties to appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court). The files may disclose facts related to his disciplining for a 2008 ethics violation while he served as a part-time attorney for FNSB from 2002 to 2008.
During an October 19th CNN interview, and again during a public debate Sunday night, Miller admitted to violating the FNSB Code of Ethics in 2008. His ethical faux pas: a one-time use of FNSB computers for political purposes (an attempt to vote in an online opinion poll regarding the Chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, about whom Miller disapproved). [For more background on this issue see my post here.]
How this yet unresolved scandal will play out - and whether, in the end, it will be viewed as a scandal at all - depends, of course, on what is revealed in Tuesday's release of Miller's FNSB personnel records. Since polling data has not yet truly reflected the controversy, unknown is the affect on the campaign, which appears to have narrowed the race to a toss up between incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski (running as a write-in) and Joe Miller. Democrat Scott McAdams trails by double digits, but is perhaps in a spoiler's roll. (Miller 37% to Murkowski 37% to MCAdams 23% with 2% "no opinion," and 1% indicating "neither," as of Oct. 19, via a CNN/Time poll [likely voters]).
Which, What and Where? Which FNSB Code of Ethics rule did Mr. Miller violate? What's the wording of the code section(s)? And where is it written? Well, here's the link to the FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH CODE website where you can investigate. Once there,
- go to the sidebar on the left and click the plus (+) to expand the entries;
- then go to and click on Chapter 2.25: CODE OF ETHICS FOR MAYOR AND BOROUGH EMPLOYEES
- Have a look at the subsections, browse around, but see the sections below:
2.25.120 Misuse of official position. A. The mayor or a borough employee may not use, or attempt to use, his or her official position for personal gain, and may not intentionally secure or grant unwarranted benefits or treatment for any person.
[Section] B. The mayor or a borough employee may not:
(Unrelated subsections omitted, notes in brackets [ ] are mine)
3. Use borough time, property, equipment, or other facilities to benefit personal or financial interests; [Miller admitted to using FNSB computer equipment for personal interests, as defined below]
7. Use or authorize the use of borough funds, facilities, equipment, services, or another government asset or resource to include borough letterhead or logo with the intent to differentially benefit or harm a candidate or potential candidate for elective office or a political party or group. [At Sunday night's debate, Miller admitted that he had participated in a "private [political] poll during his lunch hour," allegedly to harm the reelection prospects of the then Chairman of the Alaska Republican Party.]
[Section] C. A borough employee who, during his scheduled work hours, engages in political campaign activities shall take approved leave for the period of campaigning. [Arguably, Miller's actions may be construed as "campaign activities," although, as to "during his scheduled hours" in section C above, he maintains he did so during a single lunch hour in 2008.]
From the Definitions section: “Personal interest” means an interest held or involvement by the borough mayor or employee, or his immediate family member or parent, including membership, in any organization, whether fraternal, nonprofit, for profit, charitable, or political, from which, or as a result of which, a person or organization receives a benefit; [Bolding added]We can expect to hear much of this tomorrow afternoon after the documents are released, unless one of the parties dicides to appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court, in which case we'll hear a lot about that. In any event, it'll be an especially cold day in Alaska for someone.
much less write." Former President George W. Bush, Chicago book tour, October 20, 2010
The Decider Can Write Too. In my post of a few days ago, George W. Bush Regrets His Failure To Accomplish Even MORE Damage, I alluded to his upcoming memoir, on sale November 9th. With the release date speeding towards us like a freight train, and us stuck in our cars on the track, the former president is off-ranch promoting, promoting, promoting, until an appearance on Oprah November 9th. Here's the cover I liberated from Crown Publishing:
|(Available November 9, 2010 Abridged, Unabridged, and Randomly Abridged: |
Hardcover, CD, Kindle, Download, Large Text, Small Text, No Text,
Scroll, Graphic Novel, XXX Rated, and Coloring Book)
a poster or a greeting card emblazoned with the
Big Book of Presidenting cover!!!!!
9/11 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton Book Indicts Neocons for Iraq Lies, But Eases Up On Bush.
A Rummy Time For All. Those quotes above are pretty straightforward, precise, like the crease in a general's pants leg. Such is the mood of former Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton's just released autobiography, Without Hesitation: The Odyssey of an American Warrior. I downloaded the book from Audible.com and, forgive me Gen'l., skipped merrily ahead to the period between 9/11 and 10/11, particularly because at that time General Shelton was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and thus was relating direct, firsthand knowledge.
Without having to listen for very long, it became clear that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and the inimitable Co-President Dick "Dick" Cheney were three of the Four Horsemen, whip hands beating us again and again to war in Iraq.
Bush Looked Good, By Comparison. Somewhat surprisingly, and contrary to the accepted truth, President Bush (alas) - at least according to Shelton - was unimpressed by the Three Horsemen. Shelton, in the passages excerpted below, makes that quite clear, bluntly and with a certainty I find credible. One must recognize Bush's achievement and not, in his iconic words, "misunderestimate" him: he actively resisted the onslaught of the neoconservative mandate, a virtual force of nature. Led as it was by the abrasive-on-a-good-day Donald Rumsfeld, this was no easy task.
During the initial days following the 9/11 attacks, Shelton portrays a commander in chief acting like a commander in chief, rejecting half-baked arguments to invade Iraq. He kept firmly to his focus on Afghanistan, Bin Laden, and Al Qaida. Well, obviously that determination wilted, to say the least - after all, Bush did say (below) that "We're gonna get that guy," but not just yet. We all know now that Bush fairly quickly joined the neocons, heart and soul, but initially, he accepted Shelton's and Secretary of State Colin Powell's urgent pleadings that there was simply not an iota of evidence hinting at Iraq's of Saddam's involvement in 9/11.
[All italics and bolding added]
"What we're proposing is an aggressive covert-action plan directed primarily toward al Qaida and the Taliban, and to achieve this we will insert a CIA paramilitary team into Afghanistan to work closely with opposition forces -- primarily the Northern Alliance -- to prepare the way for Special Operations forces."[Then, on September 13th the group met at Camp David and the meeting took a quick Rumsfeldian curve:]
It was an aggressive plan, and Cofer presented it with a dynamic enthusiasm that completely captivated the President; he was totally on board. The plan would be refined in the days to come, but it would be the foundation of the CIA's Camp David presentation over the weekend.
In spite of the setting, it didn't take long for the meeting to turn ugly, with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz pushing hard to invade Iraq, Colin Powell and I countering that we should go after bin Laden at this time.
|Add your own caption|
Earlier both Colin and I had reiterated that there was not one shred of evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack -- it had all the earmarks of bin Laden, but no link whatsoever to Saddam. By the time I was finished stating my case, the President seemed to have made his decision.
"We're going to get that guy [Saddam], but we're going to get him at a time and place of our own choosing," he said, nailing the lid on any further discussions about Iraq for the moment.
The meeting reconvened, and the President went around the table for opinions, much as he had in the Cabinet Room."General, what have you come up with?" he asked when he came to me, referring to our plans to attack the al-Qaida in Afghanistan, as well as the Taliban. I presented three escalating options: The first entailed TLAM strikes, cruise missiles -- that most likely, would hit a few vacant training camps and cause some very expensive craters in the ground. The second option involved the TLAMs supplemented with manned bomber attacks on additional targets -- an escalation from the first option, but still, most likely, not of the intensity we were after at this point.So perhaps some further downgrading of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney is needed - their hunger for Iraq is clearer in Shelton's prose than I've encountered in a credible source. Yet, too, President Bush needs some more positive reassessment. At first, he acted Presidential in parrying the punches of the neocon cabal. At first. What happened? With President Bush's memoirs due out on November 9th, will we learn more . . .?
Before I could get to option three, a voice from behind the SECDEF and me interrupted. It was Wolfowitz again. "But we really need to think broader than that right now; that's not big enough.We've got to make sure we go ahead and get Saddam out at the same time -- it's a perfect opportunity."
The President became irate. "How many times do I have to tell you, we are not going after Iraq right this minute, we're going to go after the people we know did this to us. Do you understand me?" Colin and I just looked at each other and rolled our eyes.
Below is an interview of General Shelton by ABC's Christiana Amanpour that has other revelations and biographical goodies:
is here) emailed this Gawker link and I couldn't resist sharing it and the video. It's another demonstration of just how much basic high school civics information escaped the notice of Christine O'Donnell, RTP (Republican Tea Party) candidate for a Delaware U.S. Senate seat. Fortunately, her poll numbers rest at a steady 37% in her race against Democrat Chris Coons.
Should O'Donnell win, however, she'd be entitled, for example, to place a "hold" on legislation and judicial or executive branch nominations thereby halting consideration of the measures for any reason she chooses. All that without having to disclose any of her holds or state her reasons. Additionally, she'd be able to do everything else that a real senator may do, including such things as vote and speak.
So, to get an idea of where she stands on the 1st (particularly the separation of church and state), 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, the video needs no preface. Just listen.
What does this kind of dialogue accomplish, particularly the church-state issues? I'm hoping O'Donnell's boffo performance will create a "separation of O"Donnell and Coons" in the polls and the election.
Further Reading (all links will open in a new tab):
A Tea Partiers Take on Separation of Church & State
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, 301 U.S. 1 (1947)
U.S. Senate Doc. 108-17 (2002 ed.)
Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution: Annotations of Cases
Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
U.S. Senate Doc. 108-17 (2008 Supplement)
Library of Congress Guide to Law Online (U.S. Constitution)
***** There is no "Read More" for this posting *****
|Here's how I looked when I was being the decider.|
No surprise. Bush, you'll recall, wanted to privatize the Social Security program. That's the highly successful primary safety net for older Americans of retirement age - yes the one having "security" in its title. Many believed, and still believe, that privatizing the program would transform it into a gamble untethered to anything consistently secure, i.e. the stock market.
Tellingly, by picking Social Security, Bush dodges greater regret for the morass of lies and distortions that led to our invasion of Iraq, and its mismanaged and corrupt occupation. He apparently doesn't consider the bumbling response to Hurricane Katrina as a candidate for "greatest regret." The scandalous way in which the Justice Department was converted into a political campaign organization? Nope. Nor was the trashing of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division to subvert the voting process. Greatest regret? Not for a financial cataclysm caused in largest part by Bush administration indifference to oversight. All of these, and more, it seems, did not strike Bush as candidates for "greatest regret." Perhaps he was overwhelmed by the competition for the title.
It Gets Worse. The record of the financial success of the stock market is chequered. One may predict - without partisanship - that some future retirees would, indeed, make out fairly well; however, if the past is prologue, and economic and market performance cyclical, more future social "security" recipients would suffer than those who would flourish. People do not fully understand that equity prices can stay depressed, even yield negative returns, for long time periods. The risks are many. About the risk, a 1999 Brookings Report concluded what - in light of Wall Street's recent and continuing shenanigans - is even more accurate today:
The risk that asset prices will decline around the time workers begin to retire; The risk that annuities will be expensive to buy when the worker must convert his retirement nest egg into a level annuity; And the risk that price inflation during the worker's retirement will seriously erode the value of his annuity. The existence of these kinds of risk means that there is a continuing and crucial role for traditional Social Security, even in the case of workers who earn middle-class wages throughout their careers.
Alaska Senate Candidate Joe Miller's Website Billed Disasterous Town Hall Meeting As A Public Event.
|Why is this Tea Partier smiling?|
Site accessed on 10/19/2010.Because your friends, colleges, family, acquaintances, neighbors, need to be informed and hear Joe Miller speak for himself. Don't let the media skew your views. Make the decision for yourself. Help send Joe to DC!"
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Goes Silent.
(AP) A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips' landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.
"This order from Judge Phillips is another historic and courageous step in the right direction, a step that Congress has been noticeably slow in taking," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United and the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans. Servicemembers United is the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans.Questions, As Always, Remain and Remain.
The possibility of appeal of Log Cabin Republicans v. U.S. partially overshadows the future of the court order since DOJ has 60 days to decide whether to appeal. Already, Attorney General Eric Holder has a letter from 21 senators requesting that DOJ walk off the field and thus let the injunction stand. As for those who are disgruntled with the injunction, the LA Times reported that "Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, called on the administration to immediately appeal . . . Otherwise, he said, it would 'only further the desire of voters to change Congress' out of anger at 'activist judges and arrogant politicians.'" In any event, with the midterm elections a little more than two weeks away, it will be very interesting to see how the court's ruling is "played" by the contenders.
In addition, an issue related to the scope of the injunction arose quickly as well. The L.A. Times reported that Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, observed,
How About We All Think Of It This Way?"A federal judge always has the power to declare a law unconstitutional," but the Log Cabin Republican case raised an "interesting question [that] concerns a nationwide injunction. On the one hand, I think, [the court] is on strong ground in doing so. On the other hand, one district judge doesn't have the authority to bind judges in other districts or circuits. They can decide for themselves. The key question is whether the Obama administration will appeal."
Florida's Chan Lee, political cartoonist extraordinaire, enlightens best:
Not many words required . . . (although I reserve my right to comment. Sorry.)
1. Here's the growth of the foreclosure crisis, the demon spawn of the financial system's brilliant inNOvation called Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS).
3. So, more and more of us are furtherer and furtherer behinder. Of course, most of us have often heard of the marvelous mortgage modification programs that are available for one and all, so, "What me worry?" Unfortunately, there are very few mortgage mods being approved due to the banks' now obvious disinterest in following through on the promises made. Basically, many homeowners have, through bank delays and disinclination in processing paperwork, U.S. homeowners are being "modified" into foreclosure.
Imagine, all this fuss about simply misplacing the TITLES (!) to those mortgaged-to-the-hilt homes . . . Certainly, the mortgage industry will now understand when we misplace our check books when a payment is due . . . you know, all that paper to keep track of . . .
Perhaps the Fed, having lately announced its plan to engage in quantitative easing, will buy up (and honor) all those toxic MBS's . . . creating new money for the sellers (the very banks that caused this new crisis) to bury in tomato cans in the back yard. . .
Before you leave, please
and see our ANYTHING! Posters & Greeting Cards
***** There is no "Read More" for this posting *****
The United States Code (Title 26 Section 509) defines "Private Foundation" that are exceptions to typical "501(c)(3)" non-profit entities. At the end of a longish four paragraph general rules section, the statute makes a friendly attempt to clarify:
"For purposes of paragraph (3), an organization described in paragraph (2) shall be deemed to include an organization described in section 501 (c)(4), (5), or (6) which would be described in paragraph (2) if it were an organization described in section 501 (c)(3)."
Hope that helps!
***** There is no "Read More" for this posting *****
Foreclosure's Not So Much Fun Anymore. Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL)[Central Florida] recently spoke of a foreclosure controversy that is crawling to the top of the news cycle. The subject is the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) . . .
"Nationalize" W/4 "Banking Industry" MERS may be incubating new Decession lifeforms that just might feed on what's left of the banking industry, and, in turn, the stock market, the bond market, etc. Will we again hear the word "nationalize" in close proximity to "the banking industry"? (I'll follow with a post on this soon.)
Of course, the congressman was reviled by the "all truth none of the time" network, FOX, so he, and many others, must be onto something. I tend to believe a man who titles his proposed legislation like these:
H.R.4431 : Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act
H.R.4432 : Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act
H.R.4434 : End Political Kickbacks Act of 2009
H.R.4444 : Defund the Crooks Act
H.R.4487 : End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act
H.R.4511 : Pick Your Poison Act of 2010
H.R.5353 : War is Making You Poor Act
and my favorite, the 11th Commandment:
H.R.6000 : Thou Shalt Not Kill Thy Customers Act
(To find out more about these, none of which, unfortunately, has gone anywhere in this Congress, click here)
Rep. Grayson's homepage
Before you leave, please
and see our ANYTHING! Posters & Greeting Cards