The Right State

I found some more interesting votes by my favorite Congressmen in District 17 in Texas, Chet Edwards at the On The Issue, a non-partisan website devoted to keeping track of our Congressmenn. For more of Chet Edwards voting record, see my previous post on him located here. Mr. Edwards vote on certain issues remains troubling. Take for instance:

Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

I am not sure why Chet Edwards who attended my alma mater, Texas A&M University, would want to continue Affirmative Action when it is such a division and controversial issue. And wrong I might add. Discrimination is discrimination.

Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. Don’t need to add anything here!

Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)

After we were viciously attacked on 9/11, Chet Edwards voted not to allow school prayer. This was at a time when most of the rest of the nation was praying for God’s protection, His guidance, and His mercy in those troubled times. I will continue to pray for God’s guidance of our President during these times. I would like to see how Edwards talks his way out of this one.

Rated 100% by the NEA.

Now this is scary. The NEA is an ultra-liberal teacher rights organization. If there was one group I did not want a 100 percent rating from it would be this group.

Voted No on school vouchers.

We need to make public schools compete for students, then they might improve.

Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

With this vote, Chet Edwards is toeing the Democratic line. The drilling site is a barren two square mile area. No caribou, no deer, no bears, not even a polar bear. This no vote is pure partisan politics.

Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol.

This protocol, or treaty, was put together with the help of Bill Clinton, who never brought it before the senate knowing its chances of passage were nil. If implemented, it would have required many of our businesses to adopt costly retrofits to comply with its stringent clean air requirements. Noteworthy is the fact that developing countries, such as China, all African nations, would have been exempt from the treaty. Basically what it would have done is to hamstring the American economy with costly equipment hurting U.S. businesses while helping other countries.

Rated 23% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record. And that says a lot.

Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

When you live in a state where houses without guns is an aberration, it is important to be pro 2^nd Amendment.

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004) Which drives up healthcare costs.

Voted NO on capping damages and setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003) Again, which drive up health care costs.

Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)

I don’t know what he was thinking on this one.

Voted NO on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)

This was a no-brainer. Chet should have voted yes.

Rated 67% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

For someone who claims to be the only one in congress supporting our troops, a 67 percent rating is abysmal.

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)

Rated 0% by FAIR, indicating a voting record loosening immigration. (Dec 2003)

With today’s illegal immigration issue on the front burner, this may come back to haunt him.

Rated 80% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-labor voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)

Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)

Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002) Same-O Same-O

Voted YES on permanently eliminating the so-called marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)

Voted NO on eliminating the “marriage penalty”. (Jul 2000)

Can’t figure this one and the one above it out. May Chet voted for it before he voted against it. Nope the other way around.

Voted NO on $99.5B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)

Voted NO on Tax Cut Package of $958B over 10 years. (May 2001)

Voted NO on eliminating the Estate Tax. (Apr 2001)

Voted NO on repealing the estate tax (”death tax”). (Jun 2000)

Voted NO on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)

So now Chet is against small businesses.

Rated 26% by NTU, indicating a “Big Spender” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)

So Chet Edwards believes that a woman has a right to an abortion, favors a constitutional amendment for equal rights for women, is for racial preferences in college admissions, is against school prayer, is against school vouchers, against the private ownership of guns, is a big spender in Congress, wants to increase taxes, and wants more immigration. So I would want to vote for him, why?

Tags: National Elections by Chuck
1 Comment »

There are times when you read news out of the New York Times that you wonder if the author is covering the news or is writing a novel.  I did not catch the article when it first came out, but it is still newsworthy.  Listen how it starts out:

It was after midnight and every lawmaker in the committee room wanted to go home, but there was still time to sweeten a deal encouraging oil and gas companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Come on!  The overt bias is the first sentence sets the tone for the entire article.  Edmond Andrews was covering a small part of the nation’s energy bill which dismissed royalties the oil companies were supposed to pay the government when pumping oil beneath government land, this time in the Gulf of Mexico.

Andrews first quotes Representative Joe Barton of Texas as saying the legislation was a non-issue.  Then he quotes Representative Markey of Massachusetts.

“The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. “Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

The rest of the article is dedicated to those who do not like the proposed legislation.  Andrews admits that the legislation will spur increased out production, but then he continues to harps on the windfall made by the oil companies and the lost revenue for the government.  (More funds for the Democrats to spend)

Andrews does not seem to realize the costs involved in filling your tank with gas today.  If the oil companies can forgo paying the government royalties for oil pumped from the sea, it will help, not a lot, but some, with the high gas prices.

This country consumes 19.6 million barrels of oil a day, an incredible amount when compared to the rest of the world. (25 percent of the world total)  As a result we as a nation are held captive to the oil cartel, OPEC.  Andrews does not bother to discuss this part of the issue.

We are too dependent on OPEC oil.  Markey’s own Senator Kennedy could help out and let wind generating turbines be built on one of the windiest places in the country, Cape Cod, and help which would out with our energy dependence with the Middle East, but he doesn’t.  Kennedy continues to block all attempts to build the wind generators because it will obscure his view of the sea.  Andrews does not bother to mention this either.

The Democratic Party will not let us drill for oil in a little barren two square mile area of  ANWR.  This would also help with our energy dependence.  Did Andrews mention this little secret?  Nope.

So what did Andrews cover in his ‘unbiased’ reporting?  Evil Republicans with their hands in the pockets of greedy oil companies getting rich off of the American middle class.  According to ConocoPhillip’s own website, with gas at $2.60 a gallon, the oil companies are making a whopping 9 cents a gallon.  Does Andrews cover this aspect of the issue?  No way.

This just goes to prove that if you want to prove a point, all you have to do is ignore what does not agree with your point and include what does.  Of course Andrews does that all too well.  I found all of my information with a modicum of research.  Too bad Andrews and the New York Times can not do the same thing.

Update: Ankle Biting Pundits has a similar article concerning bias at the Washington Post.

Tags: Bias by Chuck
1 Comment »

I said it would happen. The town of Watsonville with a population of 45,000 is located approximately 125 miles SW of San Francisco. This small town became the scene of yet another protest march against the proposed legislation making illegal immigration into the United States a felony. And once again most of the protesters were young people, this time from their nearby high school. One of the first things the students did was to take down the American flag, turn it upside down, and place the Mexican flag above it (seen here.)

As I predicted the students got into a skirmish with police who were on hand to keep the students from disrupting traffic and to keep the peace.

Nearly 1,000 high school students came precariously close to clashing with dozens of officers armed with batons Tuesday after a demonstration on immigration rights turned into a tense standoff above Highway 1 near Pajaro Valley High School and ended with five arrests.

What I want to know is why the High school let the students out to protest? If fighting with the police was not enough, the students began to fight one another. This occurred once their disruptive activities had been stymied.

Shortly thereafter, a fight among students on the P.V. High campus broke out, sending motorcycle officers through the quad.

This, I believe, is just the beginning. The situation will worsen before it improves.

What is incredible is that these students are protesting against the very country that is educating them. When these kids carry and wave Mexican flags, they are telling the rest of us that they are more loyal to Mexico than to the United States. If that is not the case, it is time for the Mexican people to stand up and say so. In case you are wondering, I will not be holding my breath waiting for an answer.

One more question. Will congress lose their nerve with these protests and kill the proposed legislation or have they finally seen that the American people have had enough of illegal immigrants intering our country? Time will tell which is correct.

Hat tip to Michele Malkin.

Update: The above quotes are from the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Update 2: Just when I thought I could leave the immigration issue alone for awhile, this come out.

The Associated Press reports many of the 500,000 people who crammed downtown Los Angeles last Saturday to protest the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act learned where, when and even how to demonstrate from the Spanish-language media. The mass protests against the legislation designed to stem the tide of illegal immigration were not spontaneous. According to the Associated Press the protests were organized, promoted or publicized for weeks by Spanish-language radio hosts and TV anchors as a demonstration of Hispanic pride and power.

So the spontaneous uprising of the Mexican community was not so spontaneous after all. Whose side are these people on, Mexico or the US?

Hat tip to RedState

Tags: Immigration by Chuck
1 Comment »