Thursday, December 01, 2005

Moving day

As of tonight, my new website is up. So please repoint your browsers to

I'll leave this site here for awhile for the sake of redirection and archives, but I have HTML copies of all my posts available at the new site.

See you there!

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Days off

Because I'm going back to Ohio (hopefully my city will still be there) no blogging for a few days. So each and every one of you have a Happy Thanksgiving. Don't eat too much turkey, go Lions, and take a moment to actually give thanks.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

In print again

Back in the print media as the Daily Times published my letter today. Surprisingly, other than a couple of word choices and splitting paragraphs, they didn't butcher it up like at times prior. Now the fun begins as the flaming liberals here start slamming me and it will be interesting to see what reaction (if any) I get from the November WCRC crowd.

I still haven't gotten word from the Congressman yet, but the last time I got a letter in the mail from him. Either he's not that tech-savvy or doesn't assign a staffer to deal with e-mail.

You know, I find it interesting that a lot of hot air was expended over oil profits last week but gas is down under $2 a gallon in our region, at least according to a report I heard on WICO radio today. They said gas in Easton is $1.999 a gallon. So the Labor Day $3 a gallon gas is a bad memory for now. I certainly don't foresee a major hurricane when it's in the 20's here!

This is the slow part of the year for politics now because of the past election and impending holiday season. Same for baseball since most free agents don't sign until January. So not a lot for me to talk about these days, or at least in those areas I have steered this blogsite around.

I am slowly working on my new site, and plan on getting it started in the next couple weeks. That will take up more of my time, and with my upcoming trip back to Ohio, don't expect a whole lot of posts for the next couple weeks. Tonight's simply an early bedtime.

Sunday, November 13, 2005

So....when does the civil war start?

Now it's an attack on the Oreo story. Why is it when there's an attack on someone from the GOP, particularly a black Republican, that every fact is questioned? Even if it's only true that the cookies were passed out at the debate, was that a comment on the issues of that period or just the hate-mongering that the Democrats like to use in place of an factual argument?

How about this example from Delegate Peter Franchot:

"Do we take the high road, the Democratic road, the road of peace, prosperity and personal freedom? Or do we take the low road, the Republican road, the road of intolerance, inequity and injustice?"

And that's from a Democrat talking about another more moderate Democrat! Let me get this straight - any cooperation with a Republican on certain issues makes a Democrat "intolerant"? I'm sure passing out Oreos at a debate with a black Republican is just making sure all that are in the audience are well-fed.

Then, it's the question of ethics, where both sides cut corners. A lobbyist and party loyalist who's accused of skirting the law. A public official, sworn to uphold the fairness of the vote, now under a cloud of suspicion for absentee ballot fraud. All in the name of power for their chosen party.

Apologists from one side claim that our nation's worst terrorist attack was an "inside job." The other side says that the Flight 800 disaster was no accident and covered up by an administration desperate to remain in power.

Meanwhile, the public grows more apathetic. "Politics as usual," they shrug, while a threat grows from without.

Too many of those who seek power for themselves gravitate to government so they can use other people's money to enrich themselves. When the GOP is in charge you get a Jack Abramoff. When the Democrats are in charge you get a Henry Cisneros. Obviously, the same things go on at the state and local levels - I'm not Pollyannish enough to think that it can all go away if honest people were all that were in government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and in a lot of cases, you don't have to be absolutely corrupt (or have absolute power.) A little goes a long way.

This may sound very simplistic, but in my opinion (and since it's my blog, you're entitled to it) the problem lies in the ignorance of one very succinct sentence enshrined in our founding document:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

It's my opinion that the federal government is far too large and takes up far too much of our money. And it's a damn shame that, even with the GOP controlling the levers of power, little is being done to stop this.

Somewhere in the dusty archives of the Congressional Record, somebody came up with the brilliant idea of having the federal government paying for a project that was ostensibly one that should have been handled at the state level. It led us to the "Bridge to Nowhere." Personally, I would have liked to see that pass to call Sen. Stevens' bluff.

The bridge is only a symptom of the disease.

To me, there are a whole lot fewer things the federal government needs to keep their hands in. And it's not that I necessarily want to see them go away. It's very noble that the people have decided that they want to assist the poor, but is that the responsibilty of the federal government? I think that falls under the "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" portion of the Tenth Amendment. If you look at Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, there's really not much that Congress needs to do. It's the man who first came up with the brilliant scheme to raid the federal purse for his pet project that has led us to these pork-laden days.

There are a lot of us who are fed up with the shenanigans going on inside the Beltway. Someday that's all going to come to a head because the government as it stands now is unsustainable.

Thomas Jefferson spoke, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." We have many patriots shedding their blood in faroff lands to give those who live there a long-awaited breath of freedom. It may yet be in my lifetime that we see the blood of patriots and tyrants run on our fair land as the people rise against the powerful.

Thursday, November 10, 2005

Pissed off

I really should be going to bed because I'm under the weather, but I just had to write a little bit more. I fired off two letters tonight; one to my Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest, and one to my local paper.

Gilchrest's letter chewed him out for being a spineless squishy moderate and holding up the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 because he doesn't want ANWR drilling. Obviously he wants countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia (4 of our top 5 suppliers) to control our energy policy. I say drill that sonofabitch dry, but in a nicer tone.

The Daily Times letter is a solicitation for a Gilchrest primary opponent in 2006. Since we have a RINO in the House, methinks it's time for a conservative to get in the ring. If Gilchrest is on the ballot for the GOP, it's going to be very tough for me to vote for anyone. Hopefully a Libertarian will run, I can at least help that party out a bit. I did it a couple times in Ohio for "safe" GOP races.

This matter pretty much finishes me as a Gilchrest supporter. The more I see how he represents this district in Congress, the less I like it. It's time for a change.

I apologize for the lack of hyperlinks, I just don't feel up to it now. Tomorrow I'll come back and edit those that are helpful into this post. Time for bed.

12:29 p.m. Friday: I added those two hyperlinks. Wish I could find newer oil supplier info than 2002, but it's roughly the same. No word from either Congressman Gilchrest or the Daily Times yet.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Let the spin begin

Tonight I'll do an election wrapup from various areas of interest. Since I have no election here this year, I watched several from afar.

First of all, does America REALLY think that the Democrats retaining their governorships in New Jersey and Virginia is that big a deal for 2006? New Jersey's a "blue" state, and in Virginia, while it went for Bush in 2004, outgoing Governor Warner was very popular and all Tim Kaine did was hitch his wagon to that.

For example, the New Jersey race was actually closer this time than in 2001.


Jon Corzine (D) - 1,150,687 (52.6%)
Doug Forrester (R) - 956, 795 (43.8%)
Minor parties - 78,115 (3.6%)


Jim McGreevey (D) - 1,256,853 (56.4%)
Bret Schundler (R) - 928, 174 (41.7%)
Minor parties - 42,138 (1.9%)

A case can then be argued that this is a Republican win - we were closer to winning than the last time. It's the Paul Hackett argument.

In Virginia, the numbers from 2001 to 2005 barely moved, as both parties polled last night about 1% or so below where they did in 2001, each election about a 5 point win for the Democrat. So it's debatable whether Bush campaigning for Jerry Kilgore really had that great of an effect either way.

On the other hand, I don't really count the Bloomberg win in New York City as a large win for the GOP, as Michael Bloomberg is about as nominal as a Republican as one can find outside the United States Senate.

And each side can spin about state election results. I'm sure the Democrats are crowing about their defeat of several of "Governator" Schwarzenegger's ballot initiatives. That seemed to garner quite a bit of press. But notice in the same article the paragraph at the very end about Ohio, where the voters bitchslapped ballot initiatives by "Democrat-leaning" groups. That would be the unions, George Soros, and This is what the website noted about their defeat:

Reform Ohio Now's powerful reforms unfortunately suffered a defeat on Election Day. Some voters reportedly were confused by the complex ballot language needed to make those changes, and there were problems with some Diebold electronic voting machines. In the end, Reform Ohio Now was outspent and outadvertised by their opponents, backed by the state GOP and funded by huge contributions like the $500,000 from billionaire Carl Lindner, while many Democratic officials remained silent. On the bright side, Democracy for America's recommended candidates for the Columbus City Council were all victorious.

So it wasn't the will of the Ohio people who decided that these so-called reforms were nothing but sour grapes for the 2004 defeat of John Kerry - it was the stupid voters and the rigged voting machines! Not to mention the "huge" $500,000 contribution. Moveon doesn't mention the vast percentage of money from out of state contributors that went on the RON side (such as over $600,000 from People For the American Way.) Funny how that works. It'll be interesting to see the website when the figures clear next year.

One other note about the Ohio ballot initiatives. It's now truly apparent that my old hometown of Toledo is now the moonbat capital of Ohio. With the exception of the absentee ballot issue (Issue 2, which was the only one of the four the local Toledo Blade editorialized against) Lucas County had the highest percentage of any Ohio county in support of these ballot measures.

And finally, possibly the most interesting election saga of all goes on about an hour north of Toledo, where Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick scored a come-from-behind win to be re-elected mayor. Oddly enough, the exit poll showed a clear win for challenger Freeman Hendrix. And the FBI is holding 45,000 absentee ballots as part of a voter fraud investigation - more than Kilpatrick's victory margin of about 14,000 votes.

Seems to me, as I recall from my days of following elections, that absentee votes are counted last. Makes me wonder how that margin disappeared so suddenly.

Bottom line on Election 2005 - the status quo is holding. It's not the Democrat juggernaut the partisan media would have you believe it is. All they're doing is settting up what they want to report on come Election Day 2006, as they hope for a Democrat sweep. But the Democrats have to come up with some ideas first, not simply oppose everything Bush and the GOP do out of hand.

Friday, November 04, 2005

Idiocy. Just plain idiocy.

It's all I can say about this. I've told people that I read the Maryland Democrats' website far more than the GOP's because it's more entertaining, although maybe I'm the kind that watches NASCAR for the 20 car pileups too.

Actually, I'm not really a NASCAR fan, which may surprise those like "crallspace" who associate me with the hayseed hicks who have the pickup with the full gun rack, the Confererate flag plate in the front, and the pinch between the cheek and gum - Wal-Mart shoppers all. (For the record, I have a Saturn sedan, the standard Maryland plate in front, and I don't smoke or chew tobacco. But I do shop at Wal-Mart weekly.)

Without further ado, here are my sources of entertainment and mirth for the day, both DNC press releases:

In the wake of last Friday's indictment of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, the Democratic National Committee unveiled a new web video to remind President Bush of the standard that he himself set for conduct in his administration. DNC Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement calling on President Bush to apologize for his Administration's actions, fire Karl Rove, and adhere to the ethical standards he professed during his campaign:

"Given the serious nature of the charges against Scooter Libby, and the significant questions that remain regarding the actions of Karl Rove and the White House Iraq Group, President Bush should take responsibility for this lapse in conduct. He should start with an apology to the American people for those in his Administration who acted on his behalf to manipulate intelligence to win support for the war in Iraq, smear opponents of that war, and cover up that smear campaign. President Bush must also keep his promise to fire anyone involved in the outing of Valerie Wilson by terminating Karl Rove and anyone else in the White House Iraq Group who participated in this conspiracy.

"During his campaign for president, Bush promised to hold himself and his aides to the highest ethical standards, promising to 'put conscience above what the lawyers tell us.' But, in handling the most serious national security decisions, the Bush White House has dramatically failed to meet the standard they set. Despite hosting numerous White House photo-ops vowing to uphold the highest ethical standards, the Bush White House has blatantly compromised our moral code by placing its political agenda ahead of America's national security. America deserves better than empty rhetoric and meaningless photo-ops. The President must hold himself and his administration accountable."

Hey, it's not the nature of the evidence in the indictment, it's the seriousness of the charge!

I'd like to see President Bush fire Robert Novak, as well as Vanity Fair-posing Joseph Wilson, and the members of the partisan media who called it "common knowledge" that Mrs. Wilson was a CIA agent (but not a covert one.) Oh yeah, guess he's not a dictator. And it's really interesting how you in the Democrat party change your tune regarding the Iraqi threat from 1998 or even 2003 to now.

Finally, since Karl Rove has not been indicted or even shown to be an unindicted co-conspirator, where's the reason to fire him? The only indictment I see is Libby's, and he resigned. So, do you apologize to Libby if he's found innocent of all charges?

Tell me again, besides the indicted Libby (indictment not necessarily meaning guilt,) who in the Bush administration has resigned due to criminality? I know, there's 15 other indictments out there, right?

Finally, has anyone definitively disproven the British intelligence on yellowcake in Niger, or that there are NO (zip, zero, nada) WMD's in Iraq? And did anyone take back the UN resolutions that dealt with Saddam?

So many questions, so few answers, so much rhetoric. That brings me to part two:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"President Bush shouldn't try to use the nomination of an extreme conservative to distract from the ethical problems his White House is facing. Three days after a top White House official was indicted, President Bush continued his troubling pattern of playing to his right-wing political base in times of political trouble. In an indication of his weakened political position, Bush has nominated Samuel Alito, a conservative activist judge, to replace Justice O' Connor, who has been a voice of moderation on the Court for a generation.

"A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States is too important to be sacrificed on the altar of short-term political gain. President Bush's nomination of Alito is not leadership, it is capitulation.

"Alito's record suggests an activist judicial philosophy bent on rolling back the rights and freedoms that all Americans value. Alito has sought to limit the rights of women and people with disabilities in discrimination cases, demonstrated an open hostility to women's privacy rights even in basic reproductive health matters, has a record of hostility toward immigrants, and tried to immunize employers from employment discrimination cases. It is particularly troubling that President Bush would nominate a judge who would reverse American progress and make the Supreme Court look less like America on the same day that most Americans are honoring the life and legacy of Rosa Parks.

"Now, as Alito goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he must demonstrate that he will be a Supreme Court Justice who uses his position on the highest court in the land to protect and advance the fundamental rights and personal freedoms of all Americans. Alito must prove that he is not a captive of the radical right-wing, and the White House must provide the Senate with all the information it needs to thoroughly evaluate Alito's nomination."

Well....since there weren't any aspirin factories handy, I guess Bush just had to nominate a constructionist to the Supreme Court to divert the public's attention from these so-called ethics problems that no one outside the Beltway cares about except extreme political junkies like myself. Now, that last president managed to invent a whole new word for oral sex, so I think that the nation may have been paying rapt attention to that one.

Hey Howard, Alito IS a voice of moderation. It's only a Democrat who can see someone who reads the Constitution as written as an extremist. The rest of us like the idea of a set of rules that doesn't change with the whim of a judge who may have woke up on the wrong side of the bed and decided parents aren't the final authority on sex education.

The money phrase in all this comes at the end. It's up to the White House to provide the Senate with all the information it needs to evaluate Alito? I think all the Democrats need to do is get off their lazy asses and read his opinions. Do they use case law and relevant Constitutional precedent to state his reasoning for his rulings? Check. Then he should be confirmed forthwith before Justice O'Connor loses her husband - that was her reason for resigning.

She's already waited long enough. I don't understand why Alito has to wait for January, they could get him in by Thanksgiving if Arlen Specter showed any cajones. He was raring to go on Harriet Miers. Oh yeah, he's one of those RINO moderates, balls optional.

Interestingly enough, I got an e-mail back from Senator Sarbanes' office today regarding the Alito nomination. Thought I kept a copy of my original e-mail, but it's in the mist someplace. Basically, I noted that Alito was confirmed by Sen. Sarbanes as part of unanimous voice vote in 1990, so no reason not to now. His office wrote back:

Dear Mr. Swartz:

Thank you for contacting me to express your views about the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments regarding Judge Alito.

As I am sure you are aware, the Constitution grants the President the authority to nominate and, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," appoint Justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stands at the head of the judiciary, the third independent and coequal branch of our Government. The Supreme Court has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution and protect our individual liberties guaranteed by, among other things, the Bill of Rights. The decisions made by the Supreme Court impact every American, and as a United States Senator I must carefully evaluate a nominee's experience, integrity, and intellectual responsibilities when the full Senate considers a judicial nomination.

President Bush announced the nomination of Judge Alito on October 31, 2005. The nomination has been referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which will hold public hearings on Judge Alito's nomination. Although I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee, you may be certain that I will keep your views in mind if Judge Alito's nomination comes before the full Senate for consideration.

Again, thank you for taking the time to express your views to me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future with regard to this or other matters that may be of concern to you.

In the future please visit my web site at rather than clicking reply.

With best regards,
Paul Sarbanes
United States Senator

Yeah, it was boilerplate. And if I thought you'd listen to me on other matters that would concern me, I'd write more often. I'll lay odds right now that he's a "no" vote.

Somehow I don't think I would have been a really welcome guest at your fundraiser/farewell dinner. But I did appreciate the fast reply.

I thought I sent a similar e-mail to Senator Mikulski as well but it may have gone into the vapors of cyberspace, or else she's going to ignore me.

And while I'm on the subject of ignorance, when are the Democrats going to come out with a vision of the future instead of rehashing the 2000 and 2004 elections? I thought Dean would be a little more forward-looking but all he seems to do is bash a President (and Vice-President) that are finished with their political careers after January 2009.

Meanwhile, they obstruct things that would be good for America like Social Security reform, spending cuts/tax relief, and thoughtful jurists who would enhance the courts and embrace the original intent of the Founders insofar as possible in this day and age of profligate government.