Posted by: reddiva | July 14, 2010

Real Change is on the Way

This is getting to be quite interesting, isn’t it? has updated numbers as of July 14, 2010, showing a probable Republican gain in the House of Representatives at +30.  If that holds true, the current seats held by Republicans, 179, would increase to 209 while the current Democratic seats, 256, would be lowered to 226.  That hardly represents a super majority in the House.

The numbers projected for the U.S. Senate are exciting as well.  It seems there could be an increase on the Republican right from the current 41 seats held to 47 cutting the current Democrat left from 57 to 51.  Can you say, “Look out incumbents!”

While lower numbers than I would prefer, says the change in Republican Governors could reflect an +9 increase from 24 to 33 with Independents claiming 1 new State House and the Democratic total reduction of -10 from 26 to 16.

A colleague, KingsJester, writes in his blog this morning:

San Fran Nan Pelosi is torqued off at Baghdad Bob Gibbs, White House Press Secretary for daring to speak the truth:  The Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November.   But wait, there’s more!

Much to the Liberals’ chagrin, Democratic control of the Senate may also become a fond memory.   While President Barack Hussein Obama’s (mm mmm mmmm) approval ratings continue to tank, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the future of his former colleagues in the Senate is in even worse shape.

Within the last week, polls have shown Republican challengers taking the lead over Democratic incumbents, such as Barbara Boxer in California and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin.  In fact, pundits are now prognosticating that the Republicans could win the Senate seats formerly held by both President Obama in Illinois, and Joe Biden, vice-president, in Delaware.

Also possibly added to the Trophy Wall for the Republicans is Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic majority leader, in Nevada, whose seat may be won by Sharron Angle, Tea Party supporter.   So, it now looks like the republicans have a legitimate shot at controlling both houses of Congress. What’s even sweeter is the fact, that, due to the American public’s awakening as to the true nature of President Obama, he is a liability on the campaign trail, not an asset.

On July 6, Yahoo News posted this giggle for conservative voters they called “The Endangered Senators of 2010.”

The most endangered senators of 2010

Little hope for survival:

  • Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.): Lincoln‘s supporters cheered her June 8 primary runoff victory over Bill Halter, but an even bigger fight lies ahead. Lincoln has trailed the Republican nominee, Rep. John Boozman, in polls throughout the election cycle. Republicans targeted Lincoln for defeat early on, preparing to spin her Democratic record against her in an increasingly conservative state. And Boozman has been reaping some of the national momentum building behind the Republicans this cycle. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is scheduled to campaign for Boozman on Tuesday. Lincoln still enjoys a huge fundraising advantage over her challenger, but so far that gap hasn’t been reflected in any of the polling.
  • Harry Reid (D-Nev.): The majority leader has been a lightning rod for conservatives ever since he came to power after the 2006 Democratic takeover of the Senate. And indeed, the fervor of the national GOP’s anti-Reid sentiment  helped propel tea party favorite Sharron Angle to a primary win over GOP establishment favorite Sue Lowden. Angle, a former state assemblywoman, continues to lead Reid in major polls since the Republican primary. Reid, like Lincoln, has been winning the fundraising game thus far, but many outside groups have been willing to supplement Angle’s war chest with national funds.
  • Michael Bennet (D-Colo.): The appointed senator is getting hit from all sides this year. Though much of Colorado‘s Democratic establishment has lined up behind Bennet for the August primary, there are some notable exceptions: Just last week, former President Bill Clinton endorsed former state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff over Bennet. And if Bennet survives his primary, he’ll face a tough general-election fight in November.

Still kicking:

  • Russ Feingold (D-Wis.): A wealthy tea-party-backed challenger and a tough political climate have thrown Feingold into a surprisingly competitive re-election race. Plastics manufacturer Ron Johnson became the GOP star candidate in the race after winning the May party convention. He has tapped his personal fortune to blanket the state with ads to boost his own name recognition while casting Feingold as a tool of the Democratic establishment. But Democrats say that the media flurry will die down and Johnson’s right-wing views will push centrists and independents back to the Feingold camp by November.
  • Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): Cycle after cycle, Boxer looks vulnerable on paper in her re-election bids, even though the California electorate reliably leans Democratic. This time out, though, the stars may be aligning against her. The cash-strapped Golden State is looking askance at many of Boxer’s liberal policy priorities, and the nation’s growing anti-incumbent and anti-Democratic mood won’t help. And unlike her past re-election bids, Boxer is now going up against a strong — and well-heeled — challenger: former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina.
  • Patty Murray (D-Wash.): Murray wasn’t pegged as vulnerable at the start of this cycle, but Republican Dino Rossi’s surprising showing in early polling has changed that. Many Washington state insiders had dismissed Rossi, a former state senator, as a poor prospect for statewide office, largely on the basis of his razor-thin 2004 gubernatorial loss to Democrat Chris Gregoire and his less-narrow loss to her in 2008.  But Washington is no longer trending as strongly blue as it used to, and polls show that Rossi would have a fighting chance if the election were held today.
  • Richard Burr (R-N.C.): After Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole’s 2008 loss to Democrat Kay Hagan in North Carolina, Democrats added Burr to their 2010 target list. Burr faces a challenge this year from the Democratic secretary of state, Elaine Marshall, who has picked up backing from special interest groups, including environmental organizations, eager to oust Burr. Polls since Marshall’s primary runoff victory show Burr basically running even with the Democratic challenger, but before Marshall‘s runoff bump, Burr had been consistently in the lead.

Moving out of the danger zone:

  • David Vitter (R-La.): Vitter’s re-election odds continue to improve as the cycle plays out, despite the senator’s scandal-tainted past. His Democratic opponent, Rep. Charles Melancon, has been aggressively attacking Vitter for everything from his handling of the BP oil spill to the personal misconduct of an aide. But the Blue Dog Democratic challenger has yet to make a significant dent in Vitter’s polling edge.
  • John McCain (R-Ariz.): McCain’s primary challenger, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, was expected to significantly complicate McCain’s re-election bid, chiefly by appealing to anti-immigration sentiment in Arizona. Hayworth has maintained tea party support, but he has failed to gain much real traction, in part because he’s found himself on the defensive over several recent campaign attacks. McCain almost certainly will make out of the primary and won’t face any other hurdles to re-election.

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.): Appointed senators such as Gillibrand — who took over Hillary Clinton’s seat last year when Clinton became secretary of state — face extra hurdles in running for a full term. That’s why Republican strategists targeted Gillibrand early on as potentially vulnerable. Still, despite her short term, Gillibrand has been performing well in head-to-head name recognition against the field of potential GOP challengers — which in a strongly Democratic state like New York translates so far into a 20-point edge over the competition.

Now comes the news from the Alabama Primary run-off of July 13 from   The Republican candidate for Governor will be Robert J. Bentley; U.S. House CD-2 will be represented by Republican Martha Roby while CD-7 Republican Don Chamberlain takes that runoff victory.  On the Democrat side of the CD-7 run-off was won by Terri Sewel over Sheila Smoot.

These are fairly strong Republican candidates who have a great chance of taking home the November General Election victories.

So, Liberals, how’s that hopey-changey thing working out for ya, huh?

Posted by: reddiva | July 8, 2010

Our Best Chance Yet

This was a very interesting article I read in World Net Daily this morning.  I’m betting you will think so too.

U.S. House plan overturning Obamacare halfway there

If 109 more signatures gathered, even Pelosi couldn’t halt new vote

By Bob Unruh

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A measure in the U.S. House of Representatives that would force the chamber into a new vote on Obamacare, even if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want it, is halfway toward its needed support.

Advocates say constituents need to call their representatives to tell them to get on board right away so that the petition is positioned to move forward whether or not the GOP becomes the majority in the House after the 2010 fall elections.

The plan is a discharge petition pushed by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.

“Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I, Steve King of Iowa, move to discharge the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Education and Labor, the Judiciary, Natural Resources, Rules, House Administration, and Appropriations from the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4972) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which was referred to said committees on March 25, 2010, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures. …”

Its target is the $940 billion, or more, bill adopted by the Democrat-controlled Congress in March. King’s measure has 109 signatures, exactly half of the 218 needed for it to move forward without hindrance.

House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor, who have joined the campaign, released a statement encouraging the effort.

“Republicans are the proponents of limited government, personal responsibility, and constitutional liberties, principles which ‘Obamacare’ violates,” said King. “Recognizing this fact, every House Republican voted against ‘Obamacare’ just three months ago. Now that our repeal effort has been endorsed by House GOP leadership, House Republicans should stand by their votes by signing onto discharge petition No. 11.”

He said, “The American people did not want ‘Obamacare’ passed, and they have consistently called for their representatives to show that they stand with them by repealing the legislation. Our discharge petition provides an avenue for repeal that even Speaker Pelosi cannot block.

Republicans recognize that a clean, 100 percent repeal bill is the best strategy for uprooting ‘Obamacare’ lock, stock and barrel, and will continue to show their commitment to ‘Obamacare’s’ repeal by quickly signing our discharge petition.”

Congressional officials said Pelosi, an adamant advocate for government-controlled health care, never would allow a vote on a plan to overturn Obamacare. But through the discharge petition process in the House, if a majority of members sign on, she cannot stop it.

The fact that support is required from 218 members also means any plan thus endorsed likely would pass the 435-member House.

GOP leaders want all party members to be on board – as they all voted against Obamacare. Also, Democrats that also opposed the narrowly approved plan are being asked to participate.

An inside congressional source told WND the pressure also will be on all other members as the November 2010 elections approach, since poll after poll has indicated a significant majority of Americans dislike Obamacare to the point of seeking its repeal.

The issue is expected to play a role in the elections, with voters, especially supporters of tea party principles, calling on their representatives to stand up against what a multitude of lawsuits already are describing as an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats.

Both Democrats and Republicans will have to answer to voters on the issue, the source said.

And, whether the GOP or the Democrats are in a majority after the fall elections, the petition will put the issue in a position to be forwarded immediately.

“This isn’t a battle we want to give up on,” the source told WND. “Obamacare needs to get pulled out by the roots.”

There is much more to this article that you can read here.  In addition, you will find a list of the co-sponsors as of July 1 here.

That’s not all.  Trailblazersblog, a part of the Dallas News website says there is another discharge petition being floated around.

Last week, House GOP leaders signed King’s petition but they also have endorsed a forthcoming discharge petition by Rep. Wally Herger , R-Calif. It will advocate “repeal and replace,” by which the main law passed by Democrats would be repealed but some protections would be added to federal law for people with pre-existing conditions.

Some Republicans, such as Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. of Louisiana, have argued that the GOP won’t be able to capture the Senate and White House until the 2012 elections, so there’s a need to couple repeal with “good reforms.” See his quote in a May 27 story in The Hill. King, though, opposes offering some fall-back reforms, believing that just muddies the issue, his spokesman John Kennedy told me today.

“Our approach is the best,” the King spokesman said. “It can unify [GOP opponents] and can also unify Democrats who voted no.”

In Texas, 16 of the 20 GOP House members have signed King’s petition. The four who haven’t are Reps. Sam Johnson of Plano, Joe Barton of Arlington, Lamar Smith of San Antonio and Michael McCaul of Austin. A Smith spokesman said he intends to but simply hasn’t gotten around to doing so. Spokesmen for the other three either could not be reached or said they needed to do some checking.

GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Republican leadership, has signed on to a repeal measure, though some other top Senate Republicans haven’t, according to a story in The Hill this week.

If I understand this correctly, a discharge petition only works for a bill stuck or being ignored in committee.  What’s that you say?  Obamacare has already passed through committee and has been enacted?  Yes, but….

Immediately after ObamaCare was passed into law back in March, many representatives and senators introduced repeal ObamaCare bills, including Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). Those bills are now in limbo in various congressional committees and will never see the light of day, much less come to a vote, unless further action is taken.

Representative King’s bill is H.R. 4972.  The legislation is titled “To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”  Related Bills include H.R.4901, H.R.4903, H.R.4919H.R.5005, H.R.5216S.3147, and S.3152.  So it is Mr. King’s bill that this discharge petition applies to rather than Obamacare itself.

If I understand correctly, if 218 signatures are secured to either of the discharge petitions mentioned above, Representative King’s bill to repeal Obamacare would almost immediately be sent to the House Floor for a vote.  This would give Democrats a chance to redeem their idiocy and Republicans a chance to finally be heard on the atrocity of Obamacare.

Does it matter that approximately 56% of the American people are opposed to Obamacare?  You bet it does.  Can you imagine the Senators and House of Representatives getting telephone calls from 56% of the American people?

Whattaya say, folks?  Are you up to taking a little law into your own hands?  Yeah, me too.  Call those guys to remind them they work for us, and tell them to vote FOR the discharge petition.  The Democrats don’t believe they will be voted out in November?   Okay, fine.  Let’s all pretend we are from Missouri – let’s SHOW THEM.

Here is the entire text of what an honest, open bill looks like:

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

Quite a difference, isn’t it?

Posted by: reddiva | July 6, 2010

Of Mosques and Americana

I am really trying very hard to understand why the idea would even be considered.  It makes no sense to me at all.  Why would the city government even consider this anti-American behavior after living through the tragedy which occurred right in their own front yard?

Has it been so long that people have forgotten?  Has New York City, well known for allowing the almighty dollar to rule city decisions, finally become so jaded that it no longer recognizes the value of American lives?

There are times on the American landscape when every American will say, “I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when…”  The assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy is one such event.  The attack on America by Muslim extremists in 2001 is another one.

November 22, 1963

I was in my 7th grade English class with Mrs. Gilbert at the blackboard when the intercom came to life and our Principal made the announcement that President Kennedy had been shot.  I turned to my best friend and said something that to this day I have no explanation for.  “It is amazing what these politicians will do for publicity.”  I must have heard my dad say something like that about another situation.

Our classes were dismissed soon after that announcement.  By the time I got home following a 12-mile ride on the school bus to find my dad sitting in front of the television crying I realized the gravity of the situation.  I did not understand all the implications involved, but I knew this was something that should not have happened in America.  My world was still involved with trying to accept and adjust to the death of my mother just a few short months before.

Our nation mourned through the funeral which seemed to last for five days or more; then we gradually began to move on.

September 11, 2001

I was getting ready for work watching television, History Channel not news, when my phone rang.  I niece told me to turn on the news – airplanes were flying into the World Trade Center twin towers.  They kept showing those scenes over and over.  I could tell that one of them was an American Airlines plane, but I could not tell what the other one was.

Eventually, after the numbness wore off enough for me to get dressed and literally drag myself to my job, I sat in that room at my desk with the other people I worked with not looking anyone in the eyes.  None of us said anything.  What was there to say?  We all realized that the world as we knew it was changing, but nothing we could say was going to make it better at that moment.

The next several days, weeks and months were a blur to most of us.  We went about our jobs and did our best to console each other.  We all felt the loss of two American Airlines planes and the passengers and crews as well as the United Airlines planes and their passengers and crews.  It was personal to us.  We worked for American Airlines.

Each year until my retirement in 2003, we all trekked over to the headquarters building for the memorial service American provided to provide a way for us to show our respect for our lost extended family members.  The memorial services helped, but to this very day I still cannot watch those planes flying into those buildings.  I cannot watch the buildings crumble to the ground.  It is still too painful for me.

I still have a memorial of my own.  This photograph became my computer wallpaper and will remain so that I will never forget.  Just one glance at this picture reminds me of the attack on my nation, the destruction of a vital piece of my feeling of security, and the anger that remains even nine years after the actual event.

New York City is committing a travesty of justice against American Airlines, United Airlines, the people who lost family members and friends in the tragedy and those who have died as a result of our attempt as a nation to right the wrong and bring the one responsible to justice.

There were a total of 2,995 deaths, including the 19 hijackers and 2,976 victims. The victims were distributed as follows: 246 on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,605 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon.  All the deaths in the attacks were civilians except for 55 military personnel killed at the Pentagon.

Muslim terrorists.  Muslims who hate American freedoms; the American way of life.  They spit on our Creator God and kill Christians and Jews – the “infidels” who reject the false teaching of Mohammed.  Muslims who will kill their own children if they become too “Americanized.”  Muslims who burn our flag while shouting “death to America.”

Muslims, who want to build a mosque on the sacred ground where Americans and other foreign nationals were brutally murdered by the terrorist activities of Muslims.

Do we dare allow them to desecrate the graves of those who died by establishing their own monument to the false god they worship offering praise to him for the very killing of those who were murdered?

A controversial plan to build a $100 million mosque and community center just two blocks north of Ground Zero could be undone by history.

The 152-year-old building at 45 Park Place that would be torn down for the mosque is under the protection of the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which has had a pending application on its books since 1989 to grant it landmark status.

A Landmarks spokeswoman said that the application had been on hold for more than two decades but that a hearing would be scheduled and a vote would follow on the designation.

The landmarking issue is a potentially big obstacle for a project that both the city and the mosque’s backers had said could be built “as of right,” with no interference from city land use laws.

If the commission approves landmark designation, it would be highly unlikely that the building could be torn down to make way for Cordoba House, a proposed 13-story mosque and community center.

And until a vote is taken, the building has temporary landmark protection.

Mayor Bloomberg yesterday continued to support the project, despite the latest wrinkle.

“Anybody who wants to build a house of worship in this city, we’d love to do it,” he said. “They have to comply with the zoning laws. In this case, I think the community board’s already been consulted and they overwhelmingly like the idea.”

The 11 members of the landmarks commission are appointed by the mayor.

Cordoba House has been proposed by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, whose director, Daisy Khan, yesterday said she didn’t believe the landmarking issue would prevent the project from moving forward.

Landmarks officials reached out to the building’s former owners last year before the mosque plan was public, and Cordoba House backers were told of the pending review.

The building was purchased last year for $4.8 million by the Islamic group.

Recent history could also conspire against the proposed mosque by contributing to the building’s legacy. On Sept. 11, 2001, a piece of landing gear from one of the hijacked airliners crashed through the roof of what was then the Burlington Coat Factory.

The project has come under fire, with some 9/11 families protesting the location of a mosque so close to Ground Zero. A rally opposing the project is planned for June 6 near the site.

Landmark status puts site in limbo ( )


Last Updated: 10:01 AM, May 21, 2010

Posted: 2:49 AM, May 21, 2010

With so many people, organizations, city councils states and others boycotting the state of Arizona for trying to protect her citizens; with Obama, the Muslim, and his Washington/Chicago thugs announcing today that they will pursue a legal challenge against Arizona; with outcries from the American people to support America for a change, Mayor Bloomberg is supporting the building of this mosque.

Please help defend the lives of those who were lost as a result of the radical Muslim terrorists.  There is an email form here.  Please use it to contact Mayor Bloomberg.  Let him know that you will boycott New York if he and the city allow this mosque to be built.

We must stand up for the thousands who died.  We must speak out for their sacrifice.  We must take action now to avoid the desecration of the sacred American soil by Muslims who are intent on destroying the rest of America one piece at a time.  We must stop the building of this mosque.

Posted by: reddiva | July 5, 2010

Rand Rapidly Rankles Republicans

Quote from

Republican Rand Paul’s opponent in the U.S. Senate race isn’t the only one who thinks Paul compromised his stance against business as usual in Washington, D.C., by taking campaign cash at a high-dollar fund-raiser there last month.

It rankled some Republicans, too.

I have two questions about that statement.

  1. What was your first clue?
  2. Where have you been?  He has done nothing but rankle his Republican supports since he started opening his big mouth after the Kentucky Republican Primary.

Paul’s embrace of GOP establishment rankles some supporters


“I am deeply disappointed that he did that,” said Warren Scoville of London, an attorney who served more than 20 years in various positions with the state Republican Party. “I voted for (Paul) because of where he was, and now he’s not where he was.”

Last year, with the primary election still months away, Paul pledged not to accept contributions from any senator who voted for a federal bailout of the banking industry.

That was in response to plans by Paul’s main opponent, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, to attend a Washington fund-raiser hosted by Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell and others who voted to shore up giant banks with taxpayer money.

Paul has been sharply critical of the bailout, citing it as a reason he got into the race.

After trouncing Grayson, however, Paul benefited from a $1,000-a-person fund-raiser June 24 in Washington hosted by McConnell and attended by senators who voted for the bailout.

Attorney General Jack Conway, Paul’s Democratic opponent, said the move showed Paul had become part of the very thing he railed against in the primary, and Conway accused him of hypocrisy.

Paul’s camp disagreed with Conway‘s assessment.

The GOP primary was a battle for the direction of the party, and Paul won it with his platform of requiring balanced budgets and complete opposition to bailouts, said his campaign manager, Jesse Benton.

“Dr. Paul accepts financial support from anyone who wants to support his ideas of limited government, term limits, balanced budgets and real reform but makes it clear to them that money will not influence his votes or positions,” Benton said.

It’s difficult this early in the general election to gauge how Paul’s decision to get cozier with the establishment he criticized in the primary will affect voters Nov. 2.

David Roos, a retired minister in Murray who has been active in the Tea Party movement, said it didn’t escape notice in his circle that Paul had, as he put it, “capitulated to the establishment.”

Tea Party activists and others concerned about record federal deficits helped drive Paul’s primary win.

Roos said he and others had hoped that Paul would remain independent of McConnell and that the Internet fund-raising prowess Paul showed in the primary would be enough to free him from taking money from the traditional political powerhouses.


“Most of us will support him in spite of that. We’ll take 80 percent of a loaf rather than none,” Roos said. “We’ll probably have to hold our noses.”


Scoville said he probably won’t vote for Paul in November. The effort to raise money with McConnell raises questions about whether Paul will change his stance on other issues, Scoville said.

“I don’t trust Rand Paul anymore,” he said.

Gee, Mr. Scoville, I can’t believe it took you this long to realize that Rand Paul cannot be trusted.  He has flip-flopped his positions so many times that I can’t even keep up anymore.  To me, this is just standard operating procedure for Rand Paul, candidate in trouble.

My Kentucky friends know that Paul is not to be trusted.  They have seen his lies and policy-switches first hand.

Kentucky will more than likely have a liberal Democrat in the U.S. Senate after the November election simply because of Rand Paul and his Libertarian attempt at infusion into the Republican Party.

In Texas, we have a saying for a situation like this:  That dog don’t hunt!

Posted by: reddiva | July 3, 2010

Celebrate America’s Birthday

It is once again time to remember the cause of FREEDOM that prompted the Declaration of Independence.  I hope you enjoy this cross section of patriot celebrations of this monumental day in our history – the day we declared our Independence from England and King George III with his unreasonable demands on a people longing to be FREE!

Posted by: reddiva | June 30, 2010

Uncle Harry is So Outta Here!

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=senator+harry+reid&iid=8974155″ src=”″ width=”386″ height=”594″ /]

Sweating it out, Uncle Harry?  He must be frightened out of his gourd.  His son won’t even use his last name on campaign materials in his race for Governor of Nevada.  Pretty cool, huh?  But can you really blame him for not wanting to be associated with his dear old dad?

Rasmussen says that Sharron Angle has lost her post-primary bounce.  They say she is still leading Uncle Harry Reid by 7 points – 48% to 41%.

Reid‘s campaign and national Democrats are already pounding away at Angle’s views as unacceptable to the state. But at this early stage, the race continues to be about Reid, who earned 61% of the vote when he was reelected in 2004 but whose support in this election cycle against any Republican candidate has never risen above the low 40s. Any incumbent at this point in a campaign who is earning less than 50% support is considered vulnerable.

Reid’s numbers fell even lower after he helped engineer passage of the national health care bill in March. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Nevada voters favor repeal of that bill, while 42% oppose repeal. This includes 45% who Strongly Favor repeal and 33% who are Strongly Opposed. These findings are comparable to voter sentiments nationally.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of those who Strongly Favor repeal support Angle. Reid draws 81% support from the smaller group that Strongly Opposes repeal.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=senator+harry+reid&iid=9064765″ src=”″ width=”386″ height=”594″ /]Shortly after Sharron Angle, a committed conservative, won the Republican Primary, Uncle Harry’s gofers began running a negative ad.  What else is new about that?  Negativity is the only thing Uncle Harry knows how to be presented.  This ad takes a quote Ms. Angle made totally out of context to intentionally mislead voters into thinking that she has plans to “phase out” Social Security and Medicare.  Here is that advertisement.

So I looked to see what she actually believes about Social Security and Medicare.

Example One:

Social Security and its attendant Medicare are broken and bankrupt systems because we, as voting citizens, have allowed congress to transform these systems from insurance programs to and entitlement programs. The government must continue to keep its contract with seniors, who entered into the system on good faith and now are depending on that contract. (Pat Boone, a champion for seniors and the spokesman for 60’s Plus, has endorsed Sharron Angle’s candidacy.)

Free market alternatives, which offer retirement choices to employees and employers, must be developed and offered to those still in their wage earning years, as the Social Security system is transitioned out. Young workers must be encouraged to investigate personal retirement account options.

Doctors and hospitals must receive timely payments and emergency rooms can no longer serve as primary care facilities for the uninsured.

TRICARE (the health care program serving active duty service members, National Guard and Reserve members, retirees, their families, survivors and certain former spouses worldwide. As a major component of the Military Health System) must be protected from attacks that dilute quality of care and increased costs.

With everyone in the Nevada lamestream media out to destroy a conservative, how else is she to respond?

Example Two:

I found an article posted on June 17, 2010 (and updated the next day, mind you) providing a “Q & A” of sorts with Ms. Angle.  I will highlight in BOLD Ms. Angle’s responses.

LAS VEGASAs Sharron Angle greeted supporters at Stoney’s Restaurant in Las Vegas, 8 News NOW Reporter Nathan Baca approached her to ask about her Social Security plan.

Her website calls for “transitioning out” Social Security and Medicare.

“Why do you want to eliminate (Social Security) for younger folks, because your plan calls for transitioning out,” Baca asked.

“You believe the Harry Reid lie,” Angle replied.

When asked to define “transitioning out”, Angle said, “Transition into a personalized account… personalized Social Security accounts that they can’t raid.”

The stock market, Baca countered, almost crashed in 2008, meaning millions of seniors would have had their savings accounts wiped out.

Angle replied, “Now, you’re putting words into my mouth from Harry Reid. I want you to be very clear on this. I’m here to save Social Security… Harry Reid is here to bankrupt Social Security.”

Baca then asked Angle about her quote calling for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency. “Why do you want to eliminate the EPA when we’re in our worst environmental disaster in this country,” Baca asked.

Angle replied, “Where are you getting these questions? The issues are not about the EPA… The issues are homes here in Nevada… He is trying to make this a campaign about me. But, where’s Harry? Go ask him… Please go ask Harry about the EPA, and why they have failed.”

“And why you want to eliminate it,” Baca asked.

“Why they have failed to do what they needed to do in the Gulf,” Angle answered.

Angle walked away when asked about her website once advocating the United States‘ withdrawal from the United Nations. She then gave a 20 minute interview to conservative radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock.

She told the assembled media she’d answer four questions, but refused to answer Baca’s question about a previous Angle statement in which she said, “If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking towards those Second Amendment remedies.” Baca kept asking into the parking lot, but received no answer.

The reaction from the Angle campaign was swift. A campaign spokesperson called Nathan Baca “an idiot” and another term that can’t be repeated. The campaign spokesman did say he would detail Angle’s positions, but he refused to answer on camera.

In a statement released Friday, the Angle campaign says “A news account has reported that someone “from the Angle campaign” described as “a campaign spokesperson” for the Sharron Angle U.S. senatorial campaign had used abusive language with a reporter yesterday evening during an event in Las Vegas. This is not correct. The official in-state spokesman was not at the event. The person who spoke to the reporter is unknown and is not an employee of the Angle campaign and was in no way authorized to speak on behalf of the Angle campaign.”

KLAS-TV 8 News NOW. 3228 Channel 8 Dr., Las Vegas, NV, 89109, 702-792-8888

I believe it was mid April when Ms. Angle was interviewed by Mark Levin.  There is a good 11-minute YouTube audio in which he asks her about her stance on various issues.  I think it is well worth listening to, so if you have 11 minutes to spare, check it out.

Please help me to help Sharron Angle defeat Uncle Harry in November.  Her momentum is building among voters in Nevada.  We need to do all we can to support her efforts.  If you can do so monetarily, I urge you to make a donation.  If you are like me and living on a fixed income, there may be many other things you can do.  Contact her campaign office to see how you can help.  The sooner you do that, the sooner Uncle Harry can start packing his bags.

(775) 787-6017 (Reno)
(702) 243-1976 (Las Vegas)

Posted by: reddiva | June 30, 2010

House of Cards

Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together?  When the part of the plan that is coming together wasn’t part of the plan to begin with it is especially sweet.

During Election Day 2008, there were many reports of voting center disruptions by members of the Black Panther Party seeking to insure a win by “their man.”  They were clearly and obviously intimidating voters who they suspected would not be voting for Obama.  Millions watched on television as the Panthers slapped nightsticks against their hands, wielded the kind of power that only a force for “the dark side” can, and literally stopped voters from going in to vote.

I am not aware of any physical injuries to anyone that day.

Allow me to refresh your memory.


There was another video showing examples of voter intimidation, but someone has removed it from YouTube.  So I found the next best thing – Thank you, Michelle Malkin!

She has a written transcript posted on the article she wrote at the time.

FOX: LEVENTHAL (Alleged Black Panthers Voter Intimidation)

JANE SKINNER: breaking election news, we have reports of possible voter intimidation in some way — pennsylvania. republicans saying that two black panthers have been blocking the doorway of one polling locations. rick, what are the details on this? what are you hearing?

RICK LEVENTHAL: i do not even know where to begin, but we have reached a polling place in the city of philadelphia. one of the two black panthers who was allegedly blocking the door is standing right over here, with an accused us of intimidating voters because we were here with a camera and microphone. he did not answer questions, other people here have confirmed that another person in black panther attire was holding a night stick and apparently the concern was that they were intimidating people who were trying to go inside to vote. a republican poll observer actually called the police, the police were here and we miss them, they came and left. that person called the police is here. why don’t you tell us — step down off the curb, if you do not mind. what is going on here?

CITIZEN: we got a phone call that there was intimidation going on. i walked up to the door, two gentlemen in black panther guard, one brandishing a nightstick, standing in front of the door. they closed ranks as i walked up. i am a veteran, that does not scare me. i went inside and found full- watchers, they said they had been here for an hour — i went inside and found poll-watchers, they said that they had said not to let people outside because black people are going to win no matter what. at that point, i spoke to him, we would not get into a fistfight, i said, and i called the police.

LEVENTHAL: the person with the nightstick was escorted away, which i just confirmed inside. but the implication is that you were telling me that the black panthers were there to intimidate white voters from coming to this location?

CITIZEN: anyone who is not going their way, i do not know. someone in front of a polling place with a nightstick, that is intimidating for all voters.

LEVENTHAL: this is the first time i have heard of black panthers being stationed outside of a polling place. the one gentleman who is still here, he is a poll-watcher?

CITIZEN: yes, and he can wear what he wants.

LEVENTHAL: the other person was not allowed to be there with a nice that?

CITIZEN: you cannot stand with a nightstick anywhere, that is a weapon. obviously, you cannot stand around with a weapon menacingly in your hand under any circumstances.

LEVENTHAL: that is situation, as far as we know it. we have heard of other incidents in the city, including voting machines breaking down. we heard of an incident not far from here where far — all three machines broke down. people did wait, most of them. lines have dissipated. i have not made it inside yet, we had a skirmish in front of the door. apparently there is voting going on as well. at this point, apparently anyone who wants to vote here can vote here.

SKINNER: i know that they do not have enough people to man ever falling site, but as far as you understand the police have come and gone. is anyone monitoring in case someone is still hanging around?

LEVENTHAL: well there are poll watchers still standing here, we’ve been to at least a half a dozen polls around here and I haven’t seen any police officers, they don’t want a police presence to intimidate some voters, they did escort one gentleman out of here

SKINNER: It’s true in some places they don’t want police on sight, plenty going on there for you

On May 29, 2009, FOX News filed this report:

Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force — one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.

The complaint says the men hurled racial slurs at both blacks and whites.

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960’s and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote “I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.”

He also said they tried to “interfere with the work of other poll observers … whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically,” noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, “The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote.”

Rick Moran asked a very interesting question in American Thinker;

Who pressured Justice to drop case against voter intimidation in Philly?

After screaming for 8 years about Bush “politicizing” the Justice Department, it appears that there is a clear cut case of interference in a legitimate prosecution of the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters at a polling station in 2008 by Obama appointees.


The career prosecutors at Justice had a default judgment against the New Black Panther Party in hand and Obama’s political hatchetmen at the department put the kibosh on the whole thing.

Evidently, voter intimidation is fine – when the other side is being intimidated. And don’t be fooled by the “New” Black Panther Party. It’s as thuggish as the old one.


We shook our heads when Obama’s Justice Department and his main flunkie Eric Holder said there would be no charges filed because it wasn’t provable.  Excuse me?  Did they not watch the video?

Fast forward to December 16, 2009, and this report from The Washington Times.

The Justice Department has told the federal attorneys who filed a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party for disrupting a Philadelphia polling place last year not to cooperate with an investigation of the incident by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

The commission last week subpoenaed at least two Justice Department lawyers and sought documents from the department to explain why the complaint was dismissed just as a federal judge was about to punish the New Black Panther Party and three of its members for intimidating voters.

Joseph H. Hunt, director of the Justice Department’s Federal Programs Branch, ordered the lawyers’ silence in a letter to the attorney for J. Christian Adams, the lead attorney for the department in the New Black Panther case. The letter said “well-established” and “lawful” Justice Department guidelines prohibited Mr. Adams’ cooperation in the commission probe.

In the letter, Mr. Hunt said the Civil Rights Commission “possesses no authority to initiate criminal prosecution of anyone” and has the ability only to make referrals to the Justice Department recommending that a criminal case be opened. The commission does not have the authority to enforce subpoenas, he added.

Also we must never forget how many previously deceased voters may have cast ballots in the election thanks to the illegal efforts of Acorn – another Obama flunkie organization.

On June 28, 2010, an interesting thing happened.  A Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams has now officially resigned over Obama’s racist refusal to allow the prosecution of armed Black Panthers who openly intimidated voters during Election 2008.

In a letter to the Washington Times, he called the case “the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law” he had ever seen in his entire career at the Justice Department and condemned Obama’s bigoted, dishonest handling of the case as “corrupt” and “indefensible.”

Mr. Adams letter said in part,

Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department’s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.

So, here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into, Obama.

Posted by: reddiva | June 29, 2010

We’ve Got REAL Problems Here

This came as an email, but I looked up the website because…well, quite frankly, I couldn’t believe what I was reading.  The article is rather long so I will print only a portion of it here for you.  I suggest you read the entire article before faxing it to your own Senators as well as the seven Senators who voted to confirm Elena Kagan as Solicitor General.  After reading the entire article, try to answer this question:  What kind of rulings would Kagan fight for if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court?  I am not happy at all with the answer I gave.

Breaking News:  Elena Kagan Demanded Sex Change Operation Benefit for Harvard Students

The Pray In Jesus Name Project has contracted with part of a team of private investigative journalists to research Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, and that team has now released a breaking news report about how Kagan’s administration forced Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield to pay for sex-change operations as a benefit for students as Dean of Harvard Law.

The breaking news report by Amy Contrada and Peter LaBarbera, just published this morning at,  contains links to 2006 and 2008 articles from the Harvard Crimson newspaper.  The Harvard Crimson reports prove Elena Kagan teamed up with the Lambda “Trans-gender Task Force” as Harvard Law Dean overseeing the administrative team that forced Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield to provide sex-change operations as a paid benefit, including breast enhancement or breast-removal (but not yet genital mutilation) for students or faculty who suffer from “gender identity disorder.”  The partial sex-change operations must be fully covered by insurance premiums, as Kagan’s administrators demanded they be funded as an “equal right.”

“Prior to the modification, Harvard subscribed to a standard plan from Blue Cross that specifically excluded ‘services and supplies that are related to sex change surgery or to the reversal of a sex change,’” reported the Harvard Crimson.

But after Kagan’s involvement, “the new policy states that ‘gender reassignment surgery is one treatment option for Gender Identity Disorder, a condition in which a person feels a strong and persistent identification with the opposite gender accompanied by a strong sense of discomfort with their own gender.’… ‘Putting the insurance policy in line with Harvard’s goals of equity and inclusion goes along with the non-discrimination statement,’ says Eva B. Rosenberg […], chair of Harvard Transgender Task Force.

This raises a question that must be asked by Senators:  “Does Elena Kagan believe Obamacare is a Constitutional right, and does that include sex-change operations?”

Kagan also discussed allowing cross-dressing men to use ladies bathrooms at Harvard, after sympathetically hearing that demand by the Lambda community of homosexual students.

“Bathrooms, locker rooms, or dorms can be chosen according to one’s self-proclaimed ‘gender identity.’  Harvard College housing (now ‘gender neutral’) allows students to declare themselves ‘transgender’ or ‘other’ instead of male or female,” (thanks partly to Kagan’s pro-transgender leadership) the report reads.


“A lot of people don’t realize that using a bathroom or checking off gender on a form can be stressful to gender nonconforming people,” Rosenberg told the Harvard Crimson in 2008.   “Some of the discrimination that goes on is just unconscious or routine,” lamented trans-genders at Harvard.  IN OTHER WORDS, NORMAL PEOPLE DISCRIMINATE BY DEMANDING MEN USE THE MEN’S ROOM.  But Kagan supported Lambda’s efforts to make such “discrimination” illegal, as proven below…

The September 2008 Harvard Crimson reported Lambda had “begun conversations with the law school administration [i.e., Elena Kagan] to make our restrooms safe and accessible for people regardless of their gender identity or expression.”

Kagan spoke several times at pro-homosexual banquets, and personally said “I am committed to working with Lambda and others . . . on making progress for the elimination of discriminatory policies” not only in the military, but now apparently by any business that labels “Men” or “Women” on the ladies restroom (that’s illegal discrimination?), and Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield, who had previously excluded sex-change operations.  (That’s illegal discrimination?  Kagan believes yes, it is.)

Our alarming new report confirms how Elena Kagan will rule on laws like “E.N.D.A.” which homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) is trying to push through Congress, forcing all women and little girls nationwide to share public restrooms with cross-dressing men.


Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan attended Harvard’s first Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, Transgender alumni reunion dinner in September 2003, according to the Harvard Crimson newspaper that year, lending more proof to the original CBS news report that she will be the “first openly gay justice.”  Student reporters then described the event: “Celebratory at times, solemn at others, alumni and current students marked the anniversary Saturday with anecdotes about the personal challenges they faced, the battle they continue to fight to keep military recruiters off campus and the need for classroom instruction in legal issues pertaining to homosexuality.” [HLS Holds Nation’s First Ever GLBT Reunion, 9-22-03.]

In October 2003, Kagan appeared at a two-day conference held by Lambda, the Lesbian student group at the Law School. The Harvard Law Record reported:  “much of what Kagan said was a recital of her personal abhorrence for the military discriminatory policy [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell].  She said, ‘I am committed to working with Lambda and others . . . on making progress for the elimination of ‘discriminatory policies in the military.”  In September 2008, Kagan was a major participant at the 25th reunion of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus, titled “A Celebration of LGBT Life at Harvard,” serving as moderator of a panel that included recent Obama appointee (and noted lesbian activist) Chai Feldblum.

Besides the fact the White House now deceives the public claiming Kagan’s not Lesbian, Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel explains why it matters:  “Kagan’s ‘sexual orientation’ remains the pink elephant in the room: Can a sitting justice, potentially engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, be trusted to rule on cases that might well grant special preferred government status to some – including that very justice – while, at the same time, eliminating certain free-speech and religious-liberties rights enjoyed by others? (i.e., hate-crimes laws; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; constitutionality of “don’t ask don’t tell,” etc.)…whether or not Elena Kagan self-identifies as a lesbian, she has proven herself a radical anti-military, pro-homosexual ideologue and activist. There’s little doubt that she would take this activism with her to the high court….it’s my hope that a few Republican U.S. senators might take the time to introduce you to a nice fellow by the name of Phil A. Buster.”

In a breaking news interview by Politico, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s former college roommate spoke on her behalf, to reveal that although Kagan (rarely) dated boys 30 years ago, Kagan today still refuses to personally and publicly deny reports by four Harvard students in 2006-2007 that she is currently a practicing homosexual Lesbian.   Google queries for “Elena Kagan husband” and “Elena Kagan personal life” ranked in the top 10, showing we have created serious internet buzz that is forcing the Obama Administration to re-think their secrecy about Kagan’s sexual orientation.

“The rumors that Kagan is gay,” her former college roommate Sarah Walzer said, “were current before she became a public figure, and a source of frustration to Kagan and her friends – who were frustrated by their persistence, but worried that denying them could imply some anti-gay prejudice.”   What?  Read that again, slowly.

In other words, Kagan believes anyone who claims to be heterosexual is prejudice and anti-gay, (including you and me), just by stating they are not gay, so in order to not offend gays, Kagan will not publicly or personally claim she is heterosexual, nor refute the observations of Harvard Students who observed her with her female lover on campus.  In fact, Walzer here admits Kagan has intentionally rejected heterosexual labels for years, remaining “in the closet” even today, for fear of offending homosexuals.

Instead of speaking for herself, Kagan sends out a far-past roommate spokesman who only adds confusion to the mystery, to paraphrase Kagan’s private admission to Walzer: “I reject heterosexual labels to avoid offending homosexuals.”  Is this the kind of crazy-thinking we need ruling on the Supreme Court?


The following seven Republicans sadly voted for Kagan in 2009 in the 61-31 vote to confirm her as Solicitor General.  Please call each to say “oppose and filibuster Elena Kagan” right away. Let’s seize momentum!  Kyl (R-AZ, 202-224-4521), Hatch (R-UT, 202-224-5251), Coburn (R-OK, 202-224-5754), Lugar (R-IN, 202-224-4814), Snowe (R-ME, 202-224-5344), Collins (R-ME, 202-224-2523), Gregg (R-NH, 202-224-3324).  Also please call new Senator Scott Brown (R-MA, 202-224-4543)

CBS News reported that President Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan will be the “first openly gay justice,” pleasing much of Obama’s liberal base.  But after complaints by an anonymous White House staffer that parts of the report were not public, the CBS reporter updated the post to say “I have to correct my text here to say that Kagan is apparently still closeted – odd, because her female partner is rather well known in Harvard circles.”  The CBS report has now been pulled, after The Washington Post repeated the CBS report, and the White House denials, but criticized CBS policy, saying “most major news organizations have policies against ‘outing’ gays or reporting on the sex lives of public officials unless they are related to their public duties.”  The sudden media blackout on the ‘taboo topic’ is ironic, since Kagan’s private sex life already has, and will directly impact her public Supreme Court decisions.

At the bottom of the article they have listed the undecided Senators who will vote to confirm or join the Republican filibuster of Kagan for take these policies to the Supreme Court.

RELATED POST:  Kagan:  Pro-Abortion Political Activist

Posted by: reddiva | June 29, 2010

On the Side of the American People

I know this is not what you have come to expect from me on this blog, but this is my way of getting some things off my mind; saying things that may be more important to me than to you, my reader.  Isn’t that the implied purpose of one who writes regarding political opinion?

Like you, I have read all the emails people have been sending about the horrors that envelope the opinions of the Liberal-Progressive Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan.  Folks, she scares the bejiggles out of me.  For those who don’t live in the South, you may not know what bejiggles are, but feel free to substitute whatever word you are most comfortable with as you read.

I have written both my Senators-in-name-only (that’s SINO if you’re keeping track) practically begging them to do everything possible to filibuster and deny the confirmation.  I have asked God to intervene and use His power to remove her name from consideration.  I do not want any physical harm to come to anyone – I just want her name off the list.

You should know that I am strongly opposed to abortion, I reject those ideas which have brought Socialism to America’s capital, I am deeply offended when I hear “that man” say things like, “America is no longer a Christian nation.”  I want to throw something through my television if he comes on and I am not able to get to the remote control quickly enough before he actually starts talking.  The sound of his voice grates on my nerves.

He has no right being in the People’s House, and I want him out of there!  YESTERDAY!  He is the absolute sorriest excuse for a human being I have ever seen.  At the risk of sounding like his wife and cohort in crime, I have never in my life been so ashamed of my country as I was the night he was elected.  What in the world were the American people drinking???

I mean the man bows to every foreign leader in the world and refuses to place his hand over his heart in salute to the flag of our own nation.  Does he not know right from wrong?  Good from evil?  And why in the world would he really expect the American people to support his nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States?  She does not even want America to value the life of the unborn for goodness sake.

I have no idea how we are going to do it, but we must find a way to remove this man and his evil policies and take all the Liberals, Socialists and Progressives who work in the buildings of government in Washington with him.  Each of us must have a role to play – all we have to do is determine what that role is.  Once done, we must execute our role to perfection to remove them from office and install in their places people who will value and honor America and Americans with their public service.

We must return the pride we have all felt in our nation and our elected officials.  We must take the Constitution in hand and preamble ourselves right back into the forefront of the decisions Washington makes.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquiltiy, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let me know when the plan is ready.  I am ready to do my part.  Until then, I will try to keep writing and taking aim at the wrongs I feel are being shot like arrows into the heart of our Republic.  If I do that well more members of the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. White House will show up on my stats page.  At least the ones who usually stop by this blog are aware that somebody out here doesn’t like them.

Posted by: reddiva | June 27, 2010

Somebody Call the Constable!

In Kentucky, constables are elected from each magistrate, or Justice of the Peace, district in the state. There are between three and eight magistrate districts in each county.  Under Section 101 of the Kentucky Constitution, constables have the same countywide jurisdiction as the county sheriff.

Constables are Peace Officers with broad powers of arrest and authority to serve court processes.  The Constable has the authority to enforce both the Traffic Code and the Criminal Code of Kentucky. They may execute warrants, summonses, subpoenas, attachments, notes, rules and orders of the court in all criminal, penal and civil cases.

An elected Constable can not be barred from working in the city limits by a mayor, chief of police or by the city council but he or she must keep his office in the district which he or she is elected.

The Statement of Common Purpose from the website of Constable Andrew Lynn, current Fayette County Constable, is a very thorough piece of information that every citizen has a right to expect from their own constable.

The purpose of the Kentucky Constable is to uphold the law fairly and firmly: to prevent crime, to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the peace; to protect, help and reassure the community: and to be seen to do all this with integrity, common sense and sound judgment.

We must be compassionate, courteous and patient, acting without fear or favor or prejudice to the rights of others. We need to be professional, calm and restrained in the face of violence and apply only that force which is necessary to accomplish our lawful duty.

We must strive to reduce the fears of the public and, so far as we can, to reflect their priorities in the action we take.

Being a Constable is not as easy as it sounds.  It requires clear thinking, dedication to the residents of the county he or she serves, and a willingness to do the many thankless jobs that many of us would not want to do, such as service of warrants, subpoenas and summonses.  He must serve with the needs of the residents of his jurisdiction uppermost in his mind.

I know such a man, and it is my pleasure to endorse Mr. Steve Hamlin for the office of Constable for Fayette County, Kentucky.

On his campaign website, Mr. Hamlin lists three primary goals; ( ) technologically increasing efficiency, increasing the training of deputies, and increasing public awareness and perception.  These are goals that will serve the citizens of Fayette County well.

Although I do not know him well personally, I do know enough about him to know that he is a man who is happily and totally committed to his wife and family and his very solid faith in God.

Mr. Hamlin’s desire is to serve the people of Fayette County.  I hope you will give him the opportunity by electing him as your Constable.

NOTE:  I was asked to remove the emblem I had attached to this post because it might be misleading.  I have of course complied with the request and apologize if any reader misunderstood its use here.

Red Diva

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »