Sunday, February 28, 2010

Buying Insurance in Fantasyland -- Doug Patton

March 1, 2010

“We agree philosophically that we want to end the prohibition on preexisting conditions.”
- President Barack Obama
White House Health Care Summit
February 25, 2010

Which of the following scenarios seems the most ludicrous?

Scenario #1: A young man is renting an apartment. He has a 60-inch flat panel television on the wall, a surround-sound home theater system with state-of-the-art speakers, a new Macintosh computer with a 21-inch monitor, brand new furniture and some nice jewelry. Altogether, everything is valued at approximately $25,000. One day, he comes home and discovers that someone has broken into his apartment and stolen everything. He still has his laptop, so after calling the police, he goes online to find an insurance company. He fills out a form for renter’s insurance, gets approved, and then logs back on to file his claim, knowing that the company cannot discriminate against him for a preexisting condition.

Scenario #2: A middle-aged woman is driving to work one morning. She comes up too fast, hits her brakes at the last second and slams into the car stopped in front of her at a red light. The other driver gets out to inspect the damage to the back end of his automobile. The woman assures him it is not a problem. She picks up her cell phone and calls a number she has programmed into her speed-dial for just such occasions. She tells the car insurance agent on the other end of the line to go ahead and sign her up for the full coverage. Then, knowing that the company cannot discriminate against her for a preexisting condition, she tells him she wants to report an accident involving property damage and possible whiplash.

Scenario #3: An older couple awakens in the middle of the night to the piercing sound of their home fire alarm system. They make their way through their smoke-filled living room, out their front door and into the frigid night air. They go to a neighbor’s house and use the phone to call 911. However, by the time the local volunteer fire department has arrived, their home is completely engulfed in flames. Shaken, the couple wonders what they will do. The neighbor gives them the name of his insurance agent and tells them to call him in the morning and insure the house. “After all,” he says, “they can’t discriminate against you just because of a preexisting condition.”

Scenario #4: A woman awakens in the morning to find her husband of twenty years cold and not breathing. She screams and calls 911 for an ambulance, but the man is dead from a massive heart attack. Grief-stricken, she laments that she doesn’t know how she and her children will make it financially. That is when her teenage son advises her to simply find a good life insurance agent and take out a million-dollar policy on her husband’s life. “You know, Mom,” he tells her, “it’s illegal for that company to discriminate against you for a preexisting condition.”

Scenario #5: A 47-year old father of five has been a smoker since he was a teenager. During a routine checkup, his doctor discovers a tumor on his lung. He goes to his boss and says, “You know that health insurance policy the company offers? Well, I need some surgery and possibly some chemo, so I’d like to sign up for it now.”

Bottom line: I pity you if your belongings are stolen. I regret that you had an accident on the way to work this morning. I sympathize that your house burned down. You have my condolences that your husband died in his sleep. And I feel sorry for you if you are seriously ill. Like most Americans — the most generous people on the planet — I will probably even volunteer to help you if I can.

There are ways for a compassionate society to deal with such problems, but the truth is that neither your misfortune nor your preexisting condition gives you claim to my life, liberty or property.
© 2010 by Doug Patton
Doug Patton is a former speechwriter and public policy advisor who now works as a freelance writer. His weekly columns appear in newspapers across the country and on various Internet websites, including Human Events Online and, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers can e-mail him at

Just Say No to the Police Union Contract

The Police Union Contract continues to be in the news and there will be a public hearing on it on Tuesday with a vote presumably on the following Tuesday unless it is laid over. Already, we know three of the six voting council members will vote against it while Mayor Suttle's lackeys Chris Jerram, Garry Gernandt and Ben Gray walk in lock step with their exalted mayor in the give-a-way.

There are lots of reasons why this contract shouldn't be approved and we've discussed some in the past, but to reiterate and maybe enhance our past efforts, here are the reasons why the contract should be defeated:
  • There is absolutely no guarantee that this huge additional contribution (13.5% of payroll for the next 40 years) will solve the pension shortfall.It is based on a average EXPECTED market gain of 8% every year for the next 40 years.
    Future negotiations could change everything.It is a crap shoot - with a huge cost to the taxpayers.
  • THE SAME NEGOTIATOR, Tom Marfisi, who has negotiated all of the contracts for the past 20 years, contracts that have contributed immensely to the $500 million pension fund shortage, that allowed spiking and incredible health care benefits has negotiated this one. The city needs a new, impartial negotiator--not an incompetent one whose guidance has virtually destroyed the city's fiscal abilities.
  • This deal comes with a huge price to the citizens of Omaha, a minimum of $32 MILLION DOLLARS for pension contributions only!
  • The guarantied salary increase in years 3, 4 and 5 is UNKNOWN! It could be 15% or more!
  • The taxpayers will pay more than 34% of salary costs for the union for the NEXT 40, yes 40 YEARS! This is the result of paying an additional 13.5% of payroll added to the 22% it already pays.
  • This 'fair deal' requires the police to pay only .8% more than they pay now, about 15% and may be in violation of the city charter which requires pension contributions to be essentially equal.
  • While the agreement provides for a 13.5% reduction in benefits for officers, most of the reductions are put on new officers and hires and the reductions will not equal 13.5% until 2028!!! And officers with 18 years or more of service will see very little in benefit reductions.
  • While the mayor claims spiking is eliminated, the contract continues to allow overtime, specialty pay and premium pay to be used in pension calculations. Some officers will, as a result, retire at 100% or more of their base pay.
  • A five year contract is unacceptable. It goes beyond what would be a normal term and into the term of the next city council and mayor.

Worse yet, is the mayor has no present source of funding for this so-called 'deal of the century'. He has only looked to potential new taxes which the council may very well not pass, meaning reduced services (not a bad idea) or more property taxes. The mayor is not a leader but simply a pawn of the police and fire unions afraid to face them down.

We hope the council and its future appointee will just say no.

One Nut Out But The Same Nut In

We've been advised that Kris J. Pierce will withdraw as a candidate for Nebraska Secretary of State on the Democrat ballot tomorrow, leaving just one Democrat to face off in November against current Secretary of State John Gale.

Unfortunately, but of no consequence, Pierce will apply to the Omaha City Council to fill the seat of Chuck Sigerson. The bad news is that still means that there is absolutely NO DEMOCRAT who is qualified for the job to apply thus far.

With that said, there will yet be one who will apply and will get the appointment.

Will Liz Sigerson Apply For Husband's Council Seat?

Could Liz Sigerson be considering applying for her husband Chuck's Omaha City Council seat? Sources close to us have suggested that some have talked to Liz about doing just that. There is still adequate time to take out a petition and get signatures before the deadline.

We frankly think that Mrs. Sigerson would be an extremely capable successor to her husband and could more than competently fulfill the duties and represent those who voted for her husband.

Judas Ben Supporting Reconciliation?

Yep, it sure sounds like it. Ben told KLIN Radio in Lincoln that he is open to reconciliation if that's what it takes to pass the Nelson/Reid/Pelosi/Obama health care bill. Following his normal 'opt-in, opt-out' routine, Judas Ben said that he wouldn't decide until he sees the overall package, now devoid of his Cornhusker Kickback.

What does Nebraska's Judas have to lose at this point? He has already lied to his constituents, tried to reinvent the history and reason for his actions, taken a $600,000 quid pro quo from his friends at the Democratic National Committee and basically told Nebraskans that they are a bunch of ignorant rubes who don't understand his efforts.

Nebraskans should not be surprised by anything Judas Nelson does between now and his upcoming, ill-fated, election defeat in November of 2012.

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Putting Lipstick on the Pig

Well, that's kind of what it is about---putting lipstick on a pig. That's what Senators Joe Lieberman, John Kerry and pseudo-conservative Lindsay Graham want to do with 'their' version of environmental legislation as opposed to adopting the cap-and-trade bill passed by Nancy Pelosi and her liberal ilk in the House last year. Seems these guys, recognizing that cap-and-trade won't go anywhere in the Senate have devised this wolf in sheep's clothing to further regulate our lives--cap-and-dividend.

Now we want to be clear. We support RATIONAL EFFORTS to reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil. THAT'S A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE and a fiscal issue. Fighting the arrogant, egotistical cottage industry notion of global warming through schemes such as cap-and-trade or the above trio's 'cap-and-dividend' is not what this nation needs. There are rational ways to incentivize rather than punish efforts to reduce this country's dependence on foreign oil that may incidentally give some solace to those who are members of Al Gore's Church of Global Warming.

We don't need to send jobs overseas, make businesses less competitive, drive up the cost of living in the United States and penalize Americans for some mythical pursuit.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Audit The Fire Department Don't Spend Money Developing a Finance Plan

With the announcement today that State Auditor Mike Foley will look into the Omaha Fire Department and consider a full audit, we say GREAT!. This is exactly what needs to happen in order to find out just how the current incompetent Fire Chief Mike McDonnell has mismanaged and very possibly misappropriated funds since the beginning of his reign under his buddy Mike Fahey.

With that said, why in the world would the city want to pay $38,000 to have someone develop a finance plan for the fire department. That's the reason mayors hire COMPETENT managers for police, fire and all their departments, to manage budgets and personnel. Incidentally, Mike McDonnell is apparently incapable of doing any of the latter. So the solution is to fire this thug for cause, for incompetence, not to hire someone else to do his job.

Also, you may recall that Mayor Suttle hired a finance director , Pam Spaccarotella for $180,000 a year. Yes, she altruistically gave up $40,000 of that but she still gets $40,000 more than her predecessor. Now, with such high powered support why would the city council outsource a finance plan?

Two council members, Jean Stothert and Franklin Thompson, had the good sense to vote against hiring outside help.

Once again because of the fiscal and management incompetence of Mayor Suttle and his lackeys (Gernandt, Jerram, Gray) which now appears to include Pete Festersen, the tax payers are getting screwed. If this $38,000 study is so important perhaps Spaccarotell will donate those funds from her salary since apparently she isn't able to develop a plan--even after saying she and her folks would meet weekly with the fire department management on their budget.

We hope that State Auditor Mike Foley conducts a full blown audit of the Fire Department. The city may have to pay for it, but it will be a lot more valuable than some study that competent management should be able and required to do.

What's Wrong with the Police Contract?

Later today or tomorrow Maggie O'brien (Miss Inappropriate Professionally Dressed Woman of Omaha) will be reporting some of the following information in the Douglas Street Rag in regard to the police union contract:

Spiking was never a shown as a benefit in the 2004 police contract.

Spiking was never accounted for cost wise, thus no contribution for the new benefit by employees (a benefit that resulted in an overall increase in payroll costs of 7.4%).

In fact, spiking was never even mentioned in the contract.

  • Failure to include any reference to spiking or the cost of this Fahey giveaway quid pro quo for election has cost the taxpayers of Omaha millions of dollars.

  • Under the current contract there will be another rush of policemen to retire under the spiking terms of the old contract.

  • Others will still take advantage of the spiking provisions in the new contract furthering the cost to the citizens of Omaha.

  • Citizens will be paying for these mistakes/cover ups/sellouts for years to come, 35 to 45 years in many cases

  • The Millman study said that 7.4% of police payroll costs is the result of spiking. But the city and union are equally sharing the cost of getting rid of it. Why?

  • The 7.4% of payroll is 55% of the so-called union give back, but the City of Omaha is paying half of that, a cost that will essentially continue for 35 to 45 years!

  • Accepting this provision of the contract will cost Omaha taxpayers an additional $18.5 million just over the next fire years

The City of Omaha should not pick up half of the union give back (3.7% of payroll costs). The union should give back the full 7.4%.

Mayor Suttle tells you that this is the deal of the century. Yeah, it's drops in the bucket on a contract that should be totally renegotiated from bottom up.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Crossing the Rubicon on Healthcare

Michael Gerson has a good take on what the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama will do to himself and his party if he allows 'his' health care bill to pass by some form of reconciliation. Among, other things he says:
  • Obama now approaches the Rubicon. The Senate is in disarray. Its procedures frustrate his purposes. Before crossing the river with his army, Julius Caesar is reported to have said, "Let the dice fly high!" For what stakes does Obama gamble?
  • First, the imposition of a House-Senate health reform hybrid would confirm the worst modern image of the Democratic Party, that of intellectual arrogance. Parties hurt themselves most when they confirm an existing, destructive public judgment. In this case, Americans would see Democrats pushing a high-handed statism. It is amazing how both parties, when given power, seem compelled by an irresistible inner force to inhabit their own caricatures.
  • Second, this approach would almost certainly maintain conservative and Republican intensity through the November elections. In midterm elections, it is intensity that turns a trend into a rout. It is one thing to pour gasoline on a populist bonfire. It is another thing to pour gasoline on a populist bonfire while one is already being roasted.
  • Third, this action would undermine Obama's own State of the Union strategy, which seemed like a shift toward the economy and away from health care reform. The White House finds it impossible to settle on a strategy and stick with it. Democrats keep being drawn back into debates -- Reid is now proposing the return of the "public option" -- they have lost decisively, as if one more spin of the roulette wheel will recover their losses.
  • Fourth, a reconciliation strategy would both insult House and Senate Republicans and motivate them for future fights. The minority would not only be defeated on health reform, their rights would be permanently diminished -- a development that would certainly be turned against Democrats when they lose their majority. Each side would have an excuse for decades of bitterness, creating a kind of political karma, in which angry spirits are reincarnated again and again, to fight the same battles and suffer the same wounds.
  • Fifth, Obama would manage to betray many politically vulnerable members of his own party, proving himself a party leader of exceptional selfishness. Because the legacy of his presidency is at stake, or because of his pride, or because he is ideologically committed to an expanded public role in health care, Obama is pressuring Democratic members to join a suicide pact. When a president doesn't care about his party, his party eventually ceases to care about him.
  • Democratic leaders respond: Since we have already taken the damage for proposing health reform, we might as well get the benefit for passing something. But there is always more damage to be taken on a self-destructive political path. And, in this case, there is a respectable alternative: approve and take credit for incremental reforms while blaming Republicans for blocking broader changes.
  • Obama's decision on the use of reconciliation will define his presidency. If he trusts in his charmed political fortunes and lets the dice fly, it will raise the deepest questions about his judgment.

You can read more at:

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

The Incestuous Fire Department of Mike McDonnell

We've said it in the past and will reiterate that Fire Chief Mike McDonnell is nothing more than a fox in the hen house. He is an incompetent manager and an apologist for the union which he represented for nearly a decade before being appointed chief by former Mayor Mike Fahey in a quid pro quo for the support McDonnell's union provided him in his re-election.

With that said we come to the fact that McDonnell has a fire department staffed with kin whom he looks out for and who look out for him. In that regard here are a few interesting facts.
  • Mike McDonnell was union president for about 10 years and followed the family tradition, his father having been the fire union president years before.
  • While he was the union president, he negotiated budgets that virtually tied the hands of the city and any TRUE fire department chief.
  • McDonnell has controlled hiring for virtually the last decade, hiring friends and cronies from Gross High School, McFly's tavern, a fire union hangout.
  • McDonnell's brother-in-law is the Internal Investigator(Doug Krysl).
  • McDonnell's cousin, Bob McDonnell is a Battalion Chief, Union E-board member, and the head of our PAC committee.
  • McDonnell's younger brother is a Fire Apparatus Engineer. He recently backed into a Battalion Chiefs car and received no discipline. He threatened the life of a fellow firefighter and has not been banned from any city buildings.
  • McDonnell's other brother-in-law, Tim Qunlan, is a battalion chief at one of the busiest stations and in one of the largest battalions in Omaha.
  • Another of McDonnell's brother-in-laws, Mark Driscoll, is a captain at the same station.(Mark Driscoll).
  • McDonnell has an entrenched network of untouchable family members that have a strangle hold on the fire department.
  • There have been 48 internal investigations in 2009. If any fire chief started 48 investigations when Mike was the Union President he would have called it harassment.
  • There is pure unadulterated FEAR of Mike McDonnell. He rules with an iron fist. He is a thug.

Yep, this is what you get when you hire a union thug to be your fire chief. This is what you get when you allow a union thug to control a mayor by virtue of buying his election.

Nelson Begins Sham of Political Turn-a-round

Yep, Nebraska's Judas sellout, Ben Nelson, has begun his political turn-a-round so he can come back home and once again try to convince cornhuskers that he is a conservative. Yesterday he was the only Democrat to vote against the $15 billion jobs bill promoted by the Democrats. In fact, he was the only Democrat to vote against it. Of course, it was a 'safe' vote for Judas Ben since five Republicans voted against it, Scott Brown, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins and Chris Bond, Voinovich.

The two stories here:
  1. Ben Nelson will vote with Republicans on every inconsequential vote where his isn't required to further the Reid/Pelosi/Obama takeover of control of your life. He is still a Judas who will sell out for the highest price or be the 59th vote when required.
  2. Scott Brown is not a down the line conservative. The G.O.P. should be happy to have him but you can bet that he would like to be for Massachusetts and the Republicans (and Democrats there) what Ben Nelson has been for Nebraska and the Democrats. That worked for Nelson up until December 20, 2009 when he made the wrong calculation and had to sell out to his party rather than represent his constituents.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Polling Numbers and Health Care

While the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama's favorability numbers continue to plummet, he has unveiled his 'health care' plan, giving Americans the finger so to speak. Today Rasmussen Polling reports that his numbers have reached a new low. According to Rasmussen,

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 22% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. That matches yesterday's result as the lowest level of strong approval yet recorded for this President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19." More on this is available at:

Rather than start over, Obama has just provided a rehashed senate bill that Harry Reid can pass by reconciliation when those 'just say no', uncooperative Republicans who attend the president's 'can't we just all agree' health care meeting on Thursday walk away in disgust. This is no more than a public relations effort to refurbish the images of Reid and the president.

The White House iteration of the bill supposedly:

  • Sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving tens of millions of Americans the exact same insurance choices that members of Congress will have. Excuse us, the same exact insurance choices members of congress have? We think Lee Terry actually recommend this. Unfortunately, that's not what this bill will deliver.
  • Makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps over 31 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.
  • Ends discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more.
  • Eliminates the Nebraska FMAP provision and provides significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid. Yeah, 100% for a while and then 90% saddling the states with yet another unfunded mandate while, incidentally continuing the Louisiana Purchase.
  • Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" coverage gap.
  • Strengthens the Senate bill’s provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families.
  • Strengthens the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. Why has responsible government done this before?
  • Increases the threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and starting it in 2018 for all plans. This is just a sell out to unions and will provide plenty of time for congress to correct this to protect them.
  • Improves insurance protections for consumers and creating a new Health Insurance Rate Authority to provide Federal assistance and oversight to States in conducting reviews
    unreasonable rate increases and other unfair practices of insurance plans. This is no more than a seizure of state control over insurance companies and represents yet another creation of another bureaucracy.

Of course, somehow in the reiteration the bill continues the Senate's and Judas Nelson's sell out of pro-lifers rather than adopting the Stupak Amendment which is the only reason the House bill passed.

This bill will end up as a reconciliation one in the Senate where Ben Nelson can cry fowl and be one of 40 some nay votes--but remember he said one of the reasons he voted for closure was to avoid exactly this (he lied). Hopefully, in the House, this bill will fail since three of those who voted for it are no longer there and since it passed by only one vote to begin with because of the many votes cast for it based on the Stupak Amendment which is not in the new reiteration.

This bill was crafted by a president who somehow thinks it can reverse his down hill slide in popularity. It's simply a set up to try to embarrass Republicans while devising a last ditch scheme to pass what more than 60% of Americans have said they don't want.

If this effort succeeds, it will only increase the downward spiral of numbers for the president and enhance the disaster facing Democrats in both houses this coming November.

Health Care Plan Will Provide Even More Government Control

Well, Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama is about to release his health care plan which will be carefully crafted so that comrades Pelosi and Reid can slam it down the throats of Americans through reconciliation when the the fixed results of his health care summit fail due to the intransigence of those mean Republicans to go along.

On top of that we now see that a new government agency is likely to be included in the 'proposed' bill, one that will oversee premium increases by insurance companies across the nation. Because of the inept timing of premium increases by Anthem Blue Cross of California, your president and his comrades want to take over another formerly state responsibility, regulating authority of premium increases. No doubt this will become yet another massive bureaucracy. Of course, no one has suggested that allowing folks to purchase polices across state lines might temper such rate increases, although conservatives have been promoting this idea for two decades.

The health care summit will be nothing but a well orchestrated effort to try to embarrass Republicans while foisting the Ben Nelson/Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi/Obama health care plan prescription down America's throat. We hope a serious reverse peristalsis response greets them.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Bold Colors or Pale Pastels - Doug Patton

February 22, 2010

“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pastels, but bold colors, which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
- Ronald Reagan
Speech to CPAC
March 1, 1975

When Ronald Reagan spoke those words to the second annual Conservative Political Action Committee convention, he had just completed his second term as governor of California and was preparing to challenge President Gerald Ford for the 1976 GOP presidential nomination, a race he almost won. The Watergate scandal and subsequent resignation and pardon of Richard Nixon had devastated Republicans in the congressional mid-term elections of 1974, and as dispirited conservatives met at CPAC that spring, Reagan knew that talk of a third party was in the air.

In those years after Watergate, CPAC attendees were hungry for a candidate who would unapologetically crusade for the values and ideals embodied — but unfulfilled — in the Republican Party platform. Meanwhile, the pale pastel crowd was busy trying to convince the party faithful that in order to hold the presidency — let alone ever gain congressional power — the GOP had to become more “moderate,” especially in its positions on social issues. The party chose the moderate course in 1976, nominating the accidental incumbent, Gerald Ford, who went on to lose to the most incompetent man ever to occupy the White House, Jimmy Carter.

Does any of this sound familiar?

There will never be another Ronald Reagan. That’s what makes great leaders great. They are one of a kind, and they are molded by the times in which they live. Such was the case with former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the late Pope John Paul II, both of whom will go down in history, along with Reagan, as heroic leaders in the struggle to bring down the evil of the now-defunct Soviet Union.

Republican presidential hopefuls for 2012 cannot be Reagan, but they can and should take lessons from him. But already, we are seeing chinks in their armor. Mitt Romney is saddled with the dubious distinction of having been the only governor in the country to enact a health care plan that forces citizens to buy health insurance. He can’t decide from one election to the next whether he is pro-life or pro-abortion, and he is too slick by half.

Mike Huckabee is a passionately conservative former Governor of Arkansas with a lot of great ideas (I love the Fair Tax), but he has some work to do convincing his critics he is not a “bleeding heart conservative” — soft on crime, soft on taxes, soft on the border.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty looks and sounds a little nerdy and is distrusted by some conservatives who see him as a bit of a tree hugger.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, arguably the most creative mind in the public policy arena today, nevertheless shot himself in the foot in upstate New York when he endorsed hyper-liberal Republican State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava for Congress instead of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate. Scozzafava showed her true colors — much to Newt’s chagrin — when she dropped out of the race before the special election and threw her support to the Democrat, Bill Owens, who subsequently won (by the slimmest of margins).

And then there is Sarah Palin. Dear, sweet, smiling Sarah. How we passionate conservatives do love her so! And she was doing everything right, too, until — out of loyalty or pity or some other emotion — she decided to endorse her former running mate, John McCain, for re-election to the United States Senate over a clearly more deserving candidate, J.D. Hayworth.

This is not to say that the Gipper didn’t have his flaws. One of his greatest regrets, he would later admit, was signing into law one of the nation’s first statutes legalizing abortion while he was governor of California. Today’s crop of presidential wannabes can overcome their political warts, too, but only if they continually ask themselves this question: Which represents passion and conviction, pale pastels or bold colors?
© 2010 by Doug Patton
Doug Patton is a former speechwriter and public policy advisor who now works as a freelance writer. His weekly columns appear in newspapers across the country and on various Internet websites, including Human Events Online and, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers can e-mail him at

Judas Ben Nelson Continues His Lies

Apparently trying to find someone to clap for him, Nebraska's Judas, Ben Nelson appeared at a Democratic fund raising dinner in Lincoln last night. Nelson continues his litany of lies and political reinvention given some of his statements. He cried that the ado he received for his Cornhusker Kickback and the 30 pieces of silver he got from it (not his words) was the worst he had experienced in his political career. Wait until fall of 2012...

Nelson told the Lincoln Journal Star, "You don't like it. But what I like even less was the fact that the media was so willing to print and repeat inaccurate information." Funny how 67% of the rubes in his home state were misled by the media....

Again, trying to reinvent history he said he never asked for a special deal and that the, not his, provision was put in the bill to gain Medicaid funding for all the states. Yeah, a review of his comments after he sold the vote, indicate no such thing. It was only after the firestorm for his Judas like sell out of his fellow Nebraskans that he came up with that line.

Ben seems to be pretty mum about reconciliation. We'll see what he does but you might remember that one of his excuses for selling his vote was to avoid reconciliation. He'll probably reinvent the intent of that statement whether he votes for or against it after his fellow comrades Reid and Pelosi have their transparent health care conference with Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama this Thursday.

Ben continues to pan questions as to his running for re-election in 2012. We'll answer that for him by saying he didn't coerce the Democratic National Committee to spend $600,000 in Nebraska defending him last month while thinking he would walk away in January 2013. And his continued arrogant response to his sellout only confirms that Ben thinks he walks on water rather than being the Judas.

Al Gore, We Need to Hear From You.

A good column today by George Will on global warming or the lack thereof, 'Blinded By Science', at:

Saturday, February 20, 2010

More Nelson Double Speak

We find it interesting that while our other U.S. Congress members were out do town hall meetings, our Judas Senator Ben Nelson was cutting ribbons and trying to reinvent his history in Kearney, NE.

Here's what the Douglas Street Rag reports on what Nelson had to say when the topic of passing health care with a reconciliation bill came up:

"My preference is not to do reconciliation because it gets you down to 51 votes,” Nelson said. “My preference on this kind of legislation has always been to seek to get bipartisan support and get as many supporters behind it as you possibly can.”

Nelson has voted for reconciliation in the past, but said it's not his preference.

“You have to look at the underlying legislation to see whether or not it's something you can support and that's more important than the actual process when it comes down to it.”"

Gosh, has Nelson forgot that one of the reasons he gave for breaking the filibuster was to avoid reconciliation? Seems Judas Ben continues to reinvent the process behind his sell out with each passing day......

Friday, February 19, 2010

The Coming Financial Disaster

Despite the 'happy talk' from your friends in Washington, D.C., things are not quite as rosy as they'd have you believe. There is a great article in the Washington Post today which while oriented around the commercial real estate market in D.C. offers some pretty scary scenarios of what is happening and is likely to happen in the commercial real estate industry in the next couple of years. It isn't particularly optimistic about the future of smaller community banks and their lending capacity, although you have certainly heard our great leader Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama back down from his attack on banks and his enjoining and cajoling them to lend more money.

Here are a couple of interesting facts from the article:
  • The new round of financial pain, which some had anticipated but hoped to avoid, now seems all but certain. "There's been an enormous bubble in commercial real estate, and it has to come down," said Elizabeth Warren, chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel, the watchdog created by Congress to monitor the financial bailout. "There will be significant bankruptcies among developers and significant failures among community banks."

  • Nearly 3,000 community banks -- 40 percent of the banking system -- have a high proportion of commercial real estate loans relative to their capital, said Warren, whose committee issued a report on commercial real estate last week. "Every dollar they lose in commercial real estate is a dollar they can't use for small businesses," she said. Individuals -- who saw their home values drop in the residential mortgage crisis -- would not feel that kind of loss, but, Warren said, a large-scale failure would "throw sand into the gears of economic recovery."

  • Nationwide, at least $1.4 trillion in commercial real estate debt is expected to roll over during the next three years. Warren said that half of commercial real estate mortgages will be underwater by the beginning of 2011. A fifth of residential mortgages are underwater now, she said.

One shouldn't underestimate the potential affects this situation is likely to have on the economy. We hope we don't wake up some morning to hear the president and the Department of the Treasury telling us they just discovered that we have to spend trillions to save our country from imminent depression.

You can read the article at:

The World is Still Burning

Yes, undaunted by misstatements, cover ups and TYPOS, the folks at the New Nebraska Network (a 'progressive' group to be sure) and The National Wildlife Federations, with blinders still on, are spreading the dictum that the world is about to burn. Not only are we hearing it on the radio, but we're getting their e-mails which spread 'their message' and encourage those misguided U.S. Nebraska Senators Johanns and Judas Ben (how many pieces of silver will you offer me?) Nelson to 'rethink' their ways.

So, in our 'we get mail' category we offer you the following from the 'progressives' at the New Nebraska Network:

"An excellent diary last month took on Ben Nelson's Misguided Climate Change Denial. Now, the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund is running the following radio ad in Nebraska challenging Nelson and fellow Senator Mike Johanns for their efforts to undermine the Clean Air Act and to prevent the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases:
Sue Brown, executive director of the NWFAF, also released the following statement:

"Senators Nelson and Johanns need to drop this misguided assault on the Clean Air Act, an attack that's being coordinated by lobbyists for some of America's worst polluters. Our senators need to get to work instead on clean energy and climate legislation that creates clean energy jobs and secures America's energy future.

"Finally, NWF provides the following warning for what inaction on climate change will really mean for the state of Nebraska:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates average temperatures in the state could rise nearly seven degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 if climate change continues unabated. Among the potential impacts in Nebraska: * Resulting loss of wildlife and habitat could mean a loss of tourism dollars. In 2006, 807,000 people spent more than $514 million on hunting, fishing and wildlife viewing in Nebraska, creating 11,809 jobs in the state. * Drier summer conditions could cause crop failures and increasing competition for irrigation, ultimately hurting Nebraska's agriculture economy.

Hopefully, Senators Nelson and Johanns are paying attention and will reconsider standing in the way of progress addressing our state, our nation, and our world's climate change crisis. "

Somehow, we doubt that Judas will get his National Democratic Committee to send half a million dollars back to the home of the Cornhusker Kickback to defend him on this one. But then, maybe he can sell the pittance of whatever integrity he has left to the next highest bidder.

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Thaddeous McCotter

A couple of weeks ago Congressman Thaddeous McCotter, Republican (MI-11) was in Omaha to speak to a Republican gathering and at a morning coffee for Congressman Lee Terry. While Congressman McCotter may not generate the excitement of Marco Rubio, McCotter's speech was among the most inspiring we've had the opportunity to hear. Now McCotter is a bit monotonic, but the message and the intelligent analysis behind it is inescapable--that the Republican Party got exactly what it deserved in 2006 and 2008 and that there is, in fact, reason to be optimistic about the future.

Much of what McCotter said is contained in the following four part U-Tube presentations. His delivery has gotten much better since he presented his original speech in 2008 in the House of Representatives. But it is not so much the delivery as the content which we'd encourage you to consider in what will take a total of about 30 minutes. Check it out at:

Change You Can Believe In

We have to admit that there are very few conservatives that get us really excited when we hear them talk. In fact, the Republican Party and the conservative movement seem to have a lot of folks that say the right thing but fail to excite. That's certainly not the case with one 38 year old Marco Rubio, candidate for the U.S. Senate from Florida. He's running against Florida Governor Charles Crist.

The Democrats have somehow had their national convention keynote speeches given by folks like Bill Clinton (1988) and Barack Hussein Obama (2004). We hope that the Republican Party has Marco Rubio deliver its keynote speech in 2012 because he is exactly what conservatives and America need in their leaders-ones who are unabashedly conservative, intelligent, attractive and exciting and not apologetic about it.

If you didn't hear Rubio's speech to CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) we'd recommend you spend the next 26 minutes listening to this guy at:

Where is Judas?

Has Ben (Judas) Nelson gone out and hanged himself? While other U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen are back in Nebraska having town hall meetings, where is the other one? You know, Senator E. Benjamin (Judas) Nelson?

The abhorrent commercials funded by his friends at the Democratic National Committee have finally ceased reminding us of his sell out for his 3o pieces of silver. They've finally quit trying to reinvent the history of his fabled 'Cornhusker Kickback' which we are still hearing about on a daily basis. Where is Ben?

Maybe Ben's back at the Turkey Farm living off the largess of his constituents in Sarpy County wherein he enjoys his 'greenbelt' tax exemption because of the agricultural use of his property?

Ben, we miss you. We know you probably don't want to hold a town hall meeting at some local pizza restaurant, but maybe you could find a three by five room into which you could gather all your remaining constituents and still exclude the rest of the public because of an over-filled meeting?

61% Believe They Aren't Governed By Consent - Hear it Here Before Rush Discusses

Before Rush Limbaugh goes on the air today we will point you to a new Rasmussen Poll, just as he will, that notes that only 21% of the population believes that government, federal government, has the consent of the governed. You should read this at:
Of note, Rasmussen tells us that, "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure."

This is precisely the reason the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama and his stooges Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Ben (Judas) Nelson, etal., are approaching the popularity and credibility level of pay-here-by-here car salesmen in their seersucker jackets. This is the reason that 'hope and change' has become despair and return to reason. Its why the folks who yesterday signed the Mount Vernon Statement will have a major impact on the fall elections.

Palin is Not the Future of the Republican Party

We'll not make any friends today among conservative populists, but we agree with George Will's column today, 'Sarah Palin and the Mutual Loathing Society,' which you can read at:
Will opines that, "Yet Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska's governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states."

We like Sarah Palin. She will help a lot of conservatives raise money as well as their ire. She deserves to earn big bucks giving speeches. But as we've said in the past, she has been 'Quayled' by the media and her own performance. She is not the presidential hope of the Republican Party or of conservatives serious about electing the next president.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Take Your Potatoes to Judas

In our "we get mail" category, today we received an e-mail from our friends at and once again they want us to call our good Senator Ben (Judas) Nelson. Even better they want us to drop by his office and deliver a potato or bag of potatoes (Dan Qualye please check our spelling).

Here's what they want:

"Dear MoveOn member,

Last week, Democratic leaders announced their plan to stop the flood of corporate money into politics.

Unfortunately, the Democrats' plan is small potatoes—especially compared to the threat posed by the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns.
The good news is that the bill's authors say they will strengthen it if they hear from enough people, so we can definitely still have an impact.

Can you drop by Sen. Ben Nelson's office tomorrow or Thursday and deliver a bag of small potatoes to let him know that this proposal isn't enough? All you need to do is grab your potatoes (really, any size potatoes will do) and print a flyer to bring with you. We'll provide a flyer you can bring with you. Click here if you can do it:"

Mayor Suttle and His Political Double Speak

Those who took time to attend Mayor Suttle's State of the City Speech this morning got to hear some of his normal double speak. He said he would keep Omaha pools and libraries open and not let folks be turned away from these important services. Apparently, he has learned from last summer's closing of pools and decimation of library hours and staff that those actions weren't exactly what the tax payers wanted.

We wouldn't hold our breath on his promise as Suttle will no doubt have to resort to more of the same since he isn't going to get either a half-cent addition to the city sales tax and since we can't imagine the citizens opting to give themselves a garbage fee. His only alternative to fund essential services, barring spending cuts, is an entertainment tax or more likely huge property tax increases.

With his plea for the council to pass his outrageous police contract and the advent of an even greater give-away to 'his' fire union, increased taxes are his only alternative. Is this the same candidate who promised to cut taxes during last spring's campaign?

Better than a "Contract With America"

It was the Contract With America that ushered in the 'seizure' (we like to use that inflammatory term that the Democrats used to describe the voters' rebellion against their spending and social over-reach programs of the early 90s) of the House and Senate in 1994. There has been lots of talk about whether nationalizing the conservative agenda this fall in some similar way would/will be an effective redo. But others are not waiting.

It seems that a conservative manifesto is being crafted by conservatives in the form of 'The Mount Vernon Statement' which will be unveiled tomorrow. According to the Washington Post:

"The "Mount Vernon Statement,'' to be signed on an Alexandria estate once owned by George Washington, is billed as a declaration of conservative values and beliefs. Organizers say it is modeled after the 1960 Sharon Statement, signed at the Connecticut home of William F. Buckley Jr., which helped usher in the modern conservative movement."

We can only hope that this has an impact in uniting conservatives in the G.O.P., the 912 movement, the Tea Party movement and others. We'll stay up on this as more develops.

For the article you can go to:

Your Freedom

Thomas Sowell has a good column today, 'Politicians Taking Away Your Freedom', that concludes:

"The phrase "public servants" is increasingly misleading. They are well on their way to becoming public masters-- like aptly named White House "czars." The more they can get us all to resent those they designate, the more they can distract us from their increasing control of our own lives-- but only if we sell our freedom cheap. We can sell our birthright and not even get the mess of pottage."

Sowell iterates that by creating hate against various elements of our society politicians cover the fact that they are taking away your freedom to make choices for yourself. We agree.

You can find the article at:

GOP Senate Chances Improve But Still No Control In Prospect

For those of you who want a good update on the chances of the G.O.P. taking back the Senate come November you might want to check out Stuart Rothenberg's latest iteration at: For those of you who don't it still looks like the best you can hope for at this point is a net of 8 seats -- which isn't too bad.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Is The Earth Still Burning?

We've made our opinions about Al Gore's Church of Global Warming pretty clear in the past. If you're really bored, you can check out that category on our archives. So, we'll be brief today and just take note of one item that caught our eye and that was the recent admission that the U.N.'s panel had say the glaciers in the Himalayans would melt by 2035. Somehow, it seems that was a 'typo' and the year was really 2350. Only 315 years off. Guess that's good enough for government work.

You can check out an article on this in today's Washington Post at:

Sovereignty Mentality Growing

Rasmussen Reports tells us today that 59% of those polled believe that states should have the right to opt out of federal programs they disagree with.

Here are some of the findings:
  • 59% of likely voters say states should have the right to opt out of federal government programs they don’t agree with. Just 25% disagree, while another 15% are not sure.
  • 47% said states should have the right to opt out of the national health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats if it is passed into law. Nearly as many (40%) disagreed and opposed an opt-out clause for individual states.
  • Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters also think states should have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them. Seventeen percent (17%) say states should not have the right to opt out of federally mandated programs.
  • Only 14% of voters think individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country. Seventy-two percent (72%) do not believe states have this right, and 13% more are undecided.

What this says is that the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Comrades Pelosi, Reid, Ben Nelson and others have been awakened by the government over-reach into their lives. They now want less federal control of their lives and more state control.

You can find more on this at:

Another Democrat Gives Up Or Does He?

Hot off the wires From the Washington Post:

"Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) will not seek re-election this year, a decision that hands Republicans a prime pickup opportunity in the middle of the country. Bayh will announce the decision at a press conference later today.

He was first elected to the Senate in 1998 and was re-elected easily in 2004. National Republicans had recruited former Sen. Dan Coats to challenge Bayh in 2010 although polling suggested Bayh began the race with a 20-point edge. He also had $13 million in the bank at the end of the year."

This is a blow to the Democrats and could result in a Republican elected to a seat the Democrats had hope of hanging on to. With that noted, one can't help but wonder whether this avoids a hotly contested race to retain his seat and a potential loss verses the opportunity to run for his party's presidency against Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama in 2012.

Remember we said this before Rush.......

Why Sigerson's Replacement Will be a Democrat

With City Councilman Chuck Sigerson's recent resignation there is a lot of speculation about who will be appointed to fill his seat. The City Council will soon announce what the process will be to fill that position and it will look 'fair and unbiased'. Despite some talk that a Republican should be appointed to fill the seat of a Republican it won't happen. Despite the fact that the position of councilman is a 'non-partisan' one a Republican won't be appointed. Despite potential names of solid well known Republicans in the district being put forth, i.e., Dave Friend, Mike Friend, Glenn Freeman, etc., a Republican won't be appointed.

Here are a few of the reasons why a Democrat will be appointed to serve in Sigerson's place:
  • The Mayor needs another Democrat vote to pass his tax increase agenda, including an entertainment tax.
  • The President of the City Council, Garry Gernandt, is nothing more than a lackey and a mouthpiece for Suttle.
  • Councilman Jerram is another Democrat ideologue and lackey for Suttle.
  • Councilman Gray is a lackey for Suttle as well and will never support a dirty anti-black-community Republican
  • Councilman Festersen who plans on running for mayor as soon as Suttle leaves (forceably through recall or lamentedly through the expiration of his first and only term) is the one vote Suttle can't count on since he won't vote for tax increases so as not to taint his record when he runs for mayor. This means Suttle needs another tax increase councilman vote to pass his agenda.
  • There are only two remaining Republicans on the council so there voice will be unheard in the process.
  • Suttle and his lackey's Gernandt, Jerram and Gray will not allow any appointment of Sigerson's replacement without assurance that he/she will vote for Suttle's tax increases.
  • A Democrat appointed to fill Sigerson's seat will have three years to 'work' Sigerson's district and try to solidfy his/her base although he will only be a lackey who will owe his votes to Suttle, Gernandt, Jerram and Gray.

Suttle Vs. White

The latest volley in the Mayor Suttle verses Senator White argument over the senator's effort to eliminated sales taxes on Omaha's sewer tax mandate was fired this morning by Senator White on KFAB radio and the Scott Voohries Show. Among other things that White said this a.m. was that:
  • His last conversation with Mayor Suttle about three weeks ago was 'icy but polite.' Yeah, knowing Suttle we bet.
  • Taxing the sewer fees was a 'stealth' property tax increase
  • It would be easier for a mayor who was a 'good Sheppard' of the citizen's tax dollars to justify to them the need for a property tax increase
  • It would be easier to be a 'good Sheppard' and one (Mayor Suttle) would have more creditability if he wasn't increasing salaries and paying high salaries at a time like this.

With that said, White was also trying to reinvent himself by suggesting that the country needed folks that weren't concerned about party (he should talk) and who could take the power back. In the interview White tried to steel back the 9-12ers and tea party members his party has lost by saying that he was basically a libertarian, suggesting that he opposed requirements for motorcyclists to wear helmets and increased property taxes. It will be interesting to see how that platform plays out.

Omaha Ranked No. 60 -- Omaha Omaha Finest Place You Ever Saw

Your mayor may not be promoting a new Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index that shows Omaha as number 60 in its poll of best places to live in its assessment of jobs, finances, physical health, emotional state of mind and communities. In fact, he will probably calling his 'friends' over at Gallup to suggest they erred in their appraisal.

Omaha ranked 26 in 'emotional health', 73rd in work experience, 34th in physical health, 139th in healthy behaviors and 39th in basic access.
One can bet Mayor Suttle will find some way to fund improvements in healthy behaviors and work experience at the taxpayers's expense.

Here are the definitions for their numbers:
  • Life Evaluation: Personal assessments of one's present life and life in five years, on a scale of 0 to 10.

  • Emotional Health: Measures a composite of respondents' daily experiences, including laughter, happiness, worry, anger and stress.

  • Work Environment: Measures job satisfaction, ability to use one's strengths at work, trust and openness in the workplace and whether one's supervisor treats him or her more like a boss or a partner.

  • Physical Health: Measures chronic diseases, sick days, physical pain, daily energy and other aspects of physical health.

  • Healthy Behaviors: Measures smoking, consumption of fruit and vegetables and exercise.
    Basic Access: Measures basic needs optimal for a healthy life, such as access to food and medicine, having health insurance and feeling safe while walking at night.

With that said, we thought we'd refresh you on the words to our city's own song, words and music by Fritz Al Carlson:

I've been here, I've been there, I've been ev-ry where from New York to the coast,

Cities large, cities small I have tried to com-pare but my home town still I boast

It calls me, It wants me, the Gate of the West, some-thing do-ing all the time

best of all, large or small, I love it this grand old town of mine

O-MA-HA, O-MA-HA, Finest place you ever saw,

come a-long, join the throng cause you simply can't go wrong.

I'll say it's great in O-MA-HA, O-MA-HA, boost your home town all day long,

and at night when you are sleeping dream of O-MA-HA

Happy Birthday Stimulus

We're a couple of days early but we'd be remiss in not recognizing the first birthday of the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama's 'Stimulus' plan.

Yes, just one year ago on February 17, our great leader signed into law his 'stimulus' program at a cost of ONLY $787 BILLION of your money. You may recall that unemployment was then at 7.6% and our 'savior' said that with this pittance of a few dollars unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%. Let's see, it's been hovering around 10% for months.

Our 'savior' said that passing the job would save millions of job and create millions of jobs. Now he brags that we only LOST 85,000 jobs last month, after losing millions in the months since his 'stimulus' was passed.

Many of the jobs our 'savior' was going to create were to come from 'shovel ready' jobs, but he didn't tell us many of those 'stimulus', 'shovel ready' job dollars wouldn't even be spent for years. Case in point, the State of Nebraska just recently applied for dollars to fund some of Governor Dave Heineman's educational initiatives-those funds part of the 'savior's' stimulus dollars. By the time some of these funds are distributed and used it will be years. Yes, that's real immediate spending stimulus on 'shovel ready' projects.

The 'savior's' 'stimulus plan did create some jobs and we'd be remiss not to recognize that contribution. Yes, the 'stimulus' created some 250,000 GOVERNMENT JOBS. It restored the 'era of big government' that you might recall former Adulterer-In-Chief President I Didn't Have Sex With That Woman William Jefferson Clinton claimed to have ended after the Republican 'seizure' of government in 1994. Sadly, those jobs will be funded by you and your children and grandchildren for generations to come even if there is another Republican 'seizure' of government.

Of course, our 'savior's' 'stimulus' project also contributed to the largest annual budget deficit in the history of this country. You and your children and grand children will be paying for this ineffective, misguided 'stimulus' for generations and generations to come.

The bottom line is that Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama's 'stimulus' didn't work. It was an outrageous and ineffective expenditure of your taxes and those of your children and grand children for generations to come which was nothing more than a 'photo-op' for the president and his equally misguided comrades Pelosi and Reid to show how government can solve all problems. The one unintended consequence of this is the arousal of the 'plebe-like masses' (according to the intellectuals in the beltway) who took part in 9-12 and tea party events in reaction to government over-reach in our lives. Fortunately, this reaction will be felt by Comrades Obama, Reid, Pelosi and associates this coming November.


Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Sigerson to Leave City Council

We are saddened by the announcement that Chuck Sigerson will not be returning to the Omaha City Council. This was a difficult decision for a man who has devoted so much of his life to political endeavors. While we know that Chuck is much improved from the severe stroke and heart attack he suffered late last summer, he felt he was not ready to return to his position on the council. Omahans should feel fortunate to have had Chuck's leadership over most of the last decade.

Here is what his letter to the council Chief of Staff and President of the Council Gernandt said:

Dear Chief of Staff Weaver and Council President Gernandt:

Liz and I want to thank you for your prayers and consideration over the last several months of my illness. I am well on my way to recovery and I expect to fully recover from all affects of my stroke and heart attack. Liz and I and my family have been overwhelmed by the cards, phone calls and other acts of caring from so many of you and by the assistance of the council staff.

It has been my hope and intention throughout the last several months to return to the Omaha City Council by March such that I could continue to represent my constituents in District 7. While my speech ability continues to improve, it has not come back as quickly as my other motor skills. This sometimes makes it difficult for me to fully discuss and articulate my thoughts which I believe that I must be able to clearly do in order to effectively represent my constituents. Because this process has not progressed as rapidly as I had honestly anticipated, it is now clear to me that it is appropriate that I tender my resignation from the City Council effective March 1, 2010.

I have been honored and privileged to serve Omaha and my constituents since 2001. I love this city and hope to continue to contribute in many ways in the future as I fully recover from my illness.

Again, Liz and I and my family want to extend our heartfelt thanks to you and the citizens of Omaha for your understanding and kindness over these last several months.


Charles W. Sigerson

FDR, BHO and the Audacity of Arrogance

February 8, 2010

Barack Obama loves to be compared to Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. Abraham Lincoln he definitely is not, but the FDR analogy is apt. In her superb book about the Great Depression, “The Forgotten Man,” Amity Schlaes describes the almost schizophrenic way in which our 32nd president governed the nation for the first eight of his twelve long years in office.

Based on Schlaes’ narrative, Roosevelt may well have been afflicted with Attention Deficit Syndrome (ADD). It seems the nation’s longest serving president would become bored and frustrated with a given program, to the extent that he would come up with a new one almost every other week. Of course, part of the reason for this frustration was the fact that his schemes for government control of the economy — much like Barack Obama’s — were destined to fail.

Another thing these two men shared was the inability to take criticism. Roosevelt famously tried to pack the Supreme Court with left-wing lackeys who would rubber stamp his socialist agenda for America. Many of his programs were designed to crush the private sector, which he obviously hated. Obama is even worse. Following the Saul Alinsky model outlined in the 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals,” Obama, perhaps more than any of his predecessors, is obsessed with centralized planning of the U.S. economy. The result is the decline of American prestige and economic clout at a time when our natural resources and entrepreneurial spirit could lift us to heights that would make the post World War II era look like a second Great Depression.

Few people know that the American economy fell into a depression in the early 1920s that was every bit as severe a downturn as that experienced in the 1930s. It lasted less than one year. Why? Because the federal government took a hands-off approach in order to let the private sector pull us out of the ditch. Roosevelt (and before him, Herbert Hoover, the wonder boy who gave us new taxes on the wealthy and the ill-advised Smoot-Hawley tariff) believed in massive federal action to right the capsizing economic boat. Consequently, unemployment and economic growth was nearly as stagnant in 1937 as it was at the beginning of the decade, and it took the preparation for and execution of a world war to pull us out of the Depression.

Obama’s proposed federal budget for next year has been called “staggering,” “breathtaking,” “unsustainable” and “irresponsible.” It is much more than that. It is reckless and downright criminal. At an incomprehensible $3.8 trillion, with a $1.9 trillion deficit raising our overall national debt to $14.3 trillion, it steals from future generations not yet born. It condemns our children and grandchildren to a life of servitude to a state that pretends to have their best interests at heart but which really is interested in the same thing for which all governments thirst when they are allowed to become too big: power and control.

Pundit and best-selling author Ann Coulter has pointed out that the first draft of history is written by journalists, a frightening thought if ever one was uttered. But accurate presidential history will record that Presidents Roosevelt and Obama, politicians cut from the same collectivist cloth, were both possessed of an elitism that drove them to believe that they alone were the salvation of America.

Both men distrusted the private sector, yet blindly and naively placed their full confidence in government to solve the problems of the nation. And both had an underlying contempt for the Founders and their vision of a federalist system of relatively sovereign state governments working in concert with a national government of very limited and constitutionally well defined functions. Neither man believed in that vision, but rather perceived America as a flawed nation in need of a powerful central government dictating to subservient states and a limited private sector.

To paraphrase Obama (from the title of one of the two memoirs he published before ever accomplishing anything), it is a glaring example of the audacity of arrogance.

© 2010 by Doug Patton
Doug Patton is a former speechwriter and public policy advisor who now works as a freelance writer. His weekly columns appear in newspapers across the country and on various Internet websites, including Human Events Online and, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers can e-mail him at

Monday, February 8, 2010

Scandal at N.U. Football Program?

We don't normally deal in non-political issues, but we are hearing lots of talk about this. Allegedly, there is an issue involving the Nebraska football program that is not being reported and it involves Bo Pelini's brother Carl. Lots of Internet rumors about Carl allegedly having an affair with a major Nebraska donor's daughter. Also some talk that T.O. has suggested that Carl has to go, but brother Bo said that if Carl goes so does he.

Lots of Internet chatter....

John Murtha - R.I.P.

We acknowledge that we've haven't exactly been admirerers of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha who took earmarks to a new art form. With that said, Murtha passed away today and our condolences go out to his family and friends.

Interestingly, only moments after we got news of Murtha's death, the Rothenberg Political Report send us an e-mail noting that his district has now been moved into the 'competitive' category for this fall's election given that McCain actually carried it slightly.

Somehow, there is no time in politics to contemplate those who pass away......

Angry Voters

Rasmussen Reports has an extremely important poll to report this morning. It tells us that 75% of Americans are at least somewhat angry with government. Incumbents and candidates would be well to understand this with the November election just 267 Days away the mood of the American public is angrier than ever against Washington and control of our lives.

Here are some of Rasmussnen's findings:
  • The overall figures include 45% who are Very Angry, also a nine-point increase since September.

  • Just 19% now say they’re not very or not at all angry at the government’s policies, down eight points from the previous survey and down 11 from September.

  • Part of the frustration is likely due to the belief of 60% of voters that neither Republican political leaders nor Democratic political leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today.

  • Americans are united in the belief “that the political system is broken, that most politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers,”

  • Male voters are definitely angrier than women.

  • Voters earning $60,000 to $100,000 per year are more frustrated than those in any other income group.

  • Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans are angry with the government’s current policies, which is perhaps not surprising with the White House and Congress both in Democratic hands.But 78% of voters not affiliated with either major party agree.

  • Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats share that anger, but Republicans are three times as likely as Democrats to be Very Angry.
    The divide between
    the Political Class and Mainstream voters, however, is remarkable. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Mainstream voters are angry, but 84% of the Political Class are not. Those numbers include 57% of Mainstream voters who are Very Angry and 51% of the Political Class who are not angry at all.

  • But then 68% of Mainstream voters don’t think the leaders of either major political party have a good understanding of what the country needs today. Sixty-one percent (61%) of the Political Class disagree.

  • By comparison, the majority of Republicans, Democrats and unaffiliateds don’t believe the current political leaders have a good handle on what is needed today.Older voters and higher-income voters share that belief most strongly.

  • As the economy continues to stumble along, 59% of voters believe cutting taxes is better than increasing government spending as a job-creation tool, but 72% expect the nation’s elected politicians to increase spending instead.

  • Eighty-three percent (83%) of Americans say the size of the federal budget deficit is due more to the unwillingness of politicians to cut government spending than to the reluctance of taxpayers to pay more in taxes.

  • Voters have consistently said for months that they have more confidence in their own economic judgment than that of either the president or Congress.

For the full article, see:

Sunday, February 7, 2010

2012: President Daniels and Vice President Ryan?

When George Will starts talking about 2012 and presidential and vice-presidential presidents we at least find it interesting. When he starts talking about one of our dark horses, Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels, and another potential, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, we get very interested. We think Daniels, along with Senator Thune of South Dakota, have chances to assume the leadership of a conservative Republican Party after the fall elections. We also hear more and more about Paul Ryan and are frankly very impressed. We'd suggest you check out Will's column at:

Friday, February 5, 2010

Corpse Or Corpsman? A Tough Distinction

Just so we can help the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Hussein Obama get his definitions right:

Definition from Wikipedia: Corpse could mean: The body of a dead animal, most frequently a human body

Hospital Corpsmen (HMs) are members of the United States Navy Hospital Corps. They serve as enlisted medical personnel. Corpsmen serve in a wide variety of capacities and locations, including shore establishments such as naval hospitals and clinics, aboard ships as the primary medical caregiver for sailors while underway, or with Marine Corps units as battlefield corpsmen, the Marines' equivalent to Army medics. The Hospital Corps is the only all enlisted Corps in the United States military. This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. ... This image has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. ... USN redirects here. ... Military service is service in an army or other military organisation, whether as a chosen job or as the result of an involuntary draft (in that case usually termed conscription). ... This article is about the field and science of medical practice and health care. ... The UKs Royal Marines in a Rigid Raider assault watercraft A marine corps (from French corps de marine) is a branch of a nations armed forces incorporating Marines, intended to be capable of mounting amphibious assaults using infantry, armour, aircraft, and watercraft. ...

Can A U.S. Senator Be Recalled?

There's a lot of talk around the country and particularly here in Nebraska about whether states have the ability to recall U.S. Senators. We frankly would like to have the ability to recall the disgusting Judas Ben Nelson, but frankly we've doubted the constitutionality of it even if it were provided in the Nebraska Constitution (which it isn't) or if such a constitutional amendment were passed. However, we read a persuasive argument today by John Armor, 'The Right to Recall the Rascals (U.S. Senators)' which may at lest be worth a read if your interested in the topic at:

Here are a few of his points:
  • The U.S. Constitution states no right to recall federal officials. But that’s not the end of the inquiry, only the beginning.

  • There are two main reasons why the right of recall can be established for all elected officials, including Members of Congress. One is that the Constitution delegates general election law to the states. The other is that the 10th Amendment reserves to the states and the people all rights not delegated to the national government.

  • The right of recall has been rarely used, but it is older than the United States. It appears in the Massachusetts Charter of 1691. Several states included it when they rewrote their constitutions after the American Revolution. Recall of U.S. Senators was specifically included after 1789. It was not by popular vote, but by vote of the state legislatures, the “electorate” for Senators per the original Constitution.

  • Whether or not the Court was correct in saying that term limits constitute a qualification of office, recall is not a qualification of office but merely part of the electoral process, which was left to the states.

  • Around the turn of the 20th century, popular recall provisions were inserted in the constitutions of numerous states. Some referred to recalling federal officials. The clearest language is a more recent addition to the New Jersey constitution, which became effective in 1995:

  • The Constitutional Convention debated the establishment of a federal (or national) election law. The problem was sharp differences among the states on who were “electors” who were allowed to vote.
    The compromise struck at the Convention appears in the Constitution:
    “Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” In short, the details of federal elections were left to state election laws.

  • The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate federal elections, which it has exercised on voting rights and on federal election funding, but not on election laws generally.

  • In 1912, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, changing the election of Senators from choice by legislatures to direct election by the people. The Amendment repeats the language about “the most numerous branch,” again delegating details of election law to the states. Congress wrote this, knowing that some states had recall provisions.

  • The final point is the 10th Amendment. It reads:
    “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.”
    Note that the people of New Jersey used similar language in declaring their right to recall their federal officials.

  • In 2010, Secretaries of State in two states have decided whether their state recall provisions apply to Senators from those states. In Louisiana, the Secretary has approved the form of petitions to recall U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu. In New Jersey, the Secretary has ruled against the form of petitions to recall U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez. The latter decision has been appealed on a fast track basis in the New Jersey courts. It also may be withdrawn and reversed, since a new Governor, Chris Christie, has just been sworn in.

  • Both the Constitutional Convention and Congress itself in the 17th Amendment delegated election laws to the states themselves. In addition, the right of popular sovereignty is basic to all American governments. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “governments... deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

  • The proper conclusion is that the right of recall does remain with the citizens of each state, subject to the election laws of each state. This will remain true unless and until the highest court of competent jurisdiction rules that this provision of the New Jersey Constitution is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.