Charlie Brown for Congress

I am Not Better Off than I was Before

2008-06-18T10:05:00.000-07:00

I am not better off than I was 2 years ago:

I commute to work and I cannot afford $4.59/gal of gas

I have a home whose value has decreased by 10%

My son-in-law is being deployed to Iraq

My son is a cosmetics product line manager and has seen his sales decrease by 20-25% as a result of the economic downturn

My stock portfolio recently went from 20% return in 2006 to a minus 10% -- no changes being made to the stocks

No, I am not better off than I was 2 years ago and it is Republican policies that have caused this mess.

CHARLIE BROWN FOR CONGRESS IN 2008!!!

End Unregulated Speculation in Oil

2008-06-18T10:01:00.000-07:00

I am posting this article by Dick Morris re Oil Prices and urge measures to end unregulated speculation in oil. Why? I cannot afford to drive my car anymore.

Gonzalo

OIL PRICES: '08’S DEFINING ISSUEBy DICK MORRISPublished on TheHill.com on June 17, 2008.
Printer-Friendly VersionGas prices are the first important issue in the 2008 elections. But both parties have been pathetic in their solutions and, one suspects, in their understanding of what is going on.Democrats call for windfall profits taxes. Bad idea. How can you get oil companies to explore and drill if you tax away their profits? Republicans focus on a gas tax “holiday,” an 18-cent palliative to gas prices that now top $4.50.Fadel Gheit, managing director of oil and gas research for Oppenheimer and Co., and Jim Norman, author of the book The Oil Card, coming out next month, say that speculation is responsible for a huge part of the run-up in prices.The growing demand for oil by India and China and the instability of oil supplies certainly account for much of the increase. But the recent spike, they say, is equally due to the weakness of the dollar and massive speculation.

They argue that oil prices are, indeed, determined by supply and demand — not only the supply and demand for oil, but also the supply and demand for oil futures. (Oil futures are a commitment to buy 1,000 barrels of oil at a certain date at a certain price.)Formerly, most of the investments in oil futures came from energy companies. The federal Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sharply limited investments by those outside the business, to prevent precisely the kind of speculation now gripping the market.But when the stock market slowed down in 2000–2002, outside investors decided to speculate in oil futures.The new players were institutional investors like corporate and government pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, university endowments and other investors, guided by brokerage firms like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs.To avoid the CFTC caps, these investors moved their operations to London, setting up the International Commodities Exchange. Now they can buy all the oil futures they want.Michael W. Masters, of Masters Capital Management, told Congress that the volume of investment in commodities futures soared from $13 billion at the end of 2003 to $260 billion by March of 2008.After a while, the CFTC rescinded its limits on how much speculators could buy as long as they went through special “swap” desks at the major brokerage houses.You can buy oil futures for only 5 percent down on margin, a bargain considering the 50 percent margin requirement for stock market equity investments. Because the margin requirement on oil futures rises as the due date approaches, few investors actually end up buying the oil; they just roll over their investments.So the willingness of sellers to unload their oil futures, and of buyers to acquire them, sets up its own market of supply and demand that has more to do with determining the actual price of oil than even the global demand and supply for the product itself.On May 20 of this year, Masters told Congress: “Commodities futures prices are the benchmark for the prices of actual physical commodities, so when index speculators drive futures prices higher, the effects are felt immediately in spot prices and the real economy. So there is a direct link between commodities futures prices and the prices your constituents are paying for essential goods.”Gheit and Norman suggest that the CFTC regulate the domestic oil futures market (NYMEX) and the participation of U.S. companies in the ICE, restoring the caps on the amount of oil futures speculators can buy. Gheit also urges raising margin requirements for them.Both worry that the oil futures bubble is going to burst and cost a lot of investors — particularly pension funds who channel their investments through the swap desks of the brokerage houses. We don’t need another sub-prime or savings-and-loan crisis on our hands right now.

The Senate recently tried to force CFTC regulation of all commodities speculators, but the bill was loaded down with a windfall profits tax, so the Republicans killed it.John McCain needs to get with this program. In his town hall meeting in New York City last Thursday night, he attacked speculators for driving up oil prices but didn’t propose remedies or really explain the problem.Americans will pay close attention if he does.

The Ongoing Saga of the Do Little Record, August 6, 2007

2007-08-06T23:46:00.000-07:00

Recent House Votes

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (411-8, 13 Not Voting)The House passed this bill that would provide greater transparency in the legislative process.Rep. John Doolittle voted YES

Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (225-204, 4 Not Voting)The House voted for this bill that would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, adding up to 5 million children to the program.Rep. John Doolittle voted NO

Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act - Vote Passed (229-194, 3 Present, 6 Not Voting)This House passed bill calls for U.S. soldiers to spend an equal amount of time between combat and home.Rep. John Doolittle voted NO [How would he empathize with something like this?]

New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act - Vote Passed (241-172, 20 Not Voting)The House passed this bill that would require utility companies to produce 15 percent of their electricity from wind, solar power and other renewable sources and calls for the gradual reduction of using fossil fuels to generate electricity.Rep. John Doolittle voted NO

Protect America Act - Vote Passed (227-182, 23 Not Voting)The House passed this bill which would temporarily expand the executive branch’s authority to spy on suspected foreign terrorists without a court order, when communications are passing through the U.S.Rep. John Doolittle voted YES

Defense Appropriations Act, FY 2008 - Vote Passed (395-13, 24 Not Voting)The House passed this $459.6 billion appropriations bill for the Department of Defense.Rep. John Doolittle voted YES

The Doolittle Record, July 30, 2007

2007-08-02T11:02:00.001-07:00

Recent House Votes

Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2008 - Vote Passed (268-153, 10 Not Voting)

The House passed this $104.4 billion bill that would fund the Department of Transportation and Department of Housing and Urban Development for the 2008 fiscal year.

Rep. John Doolittle voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 - Vote Passed (281-142, 9 Not Voting)

The House passed this $53.6 billion bill that would fund the Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, NASA and other science agencies.

Rep. John Doolittle voted NO......send e-mail or see bio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act - Vote Passed (231-191, 10 Not Voting)

The House passed this large farm bill, which provides aid for farmers and funds for low-income nutrition programs.

Rep. John Doolittle voted NO......send e-mail or see bio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving America's Security Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (371-40, 22 Not Voting)

The House passed this bill which would implement recommendations from the 9/11 Commission.

Rep. John Doolittle voted YES......send e-mail or see bio

Do Little and His Friends are Running Out of Money

2007-07-17T16:11:00.000-07:00

US congressman under federal scrutiny runs low on campaign cash and heavily in debt
JENNIFER TALHELM Associated Press Writer

(AP) - WASHINGTON-The predicament of a Republican member of Congress, who is dogged by legal problems and running low on campaign cash, is giving Democrats hope that they can take over his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in November's elections.

Rep. Rick Renzi, whose family business was raided by the FBI last April, ended the last quarter with $20,418 (â‚¬14,816) in the bank, according to campaign finance reports covering April 1-June 30. That is just one-quarter of the $80,000 (â‚¬58,050) he had on hand at the end of the first three months of the year.

He raised $41,664 (â‚¬30,233) during the quarter, a fraction of the $300,000 (â‚¬217,691) he raised during the corresponding period in the last election cycle.

The report, filed Sunday with the Federal Election Commission, showed Renzi has spent $126,388 (â‚¬91,711.78) and owes $456,024 (â‚¬330,907.77).

Renzi's office did not immediately respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment Monday.

Of the half-dozen Republican House members under some form of federal scrutiny, party leaders are most worried about allegations concerning Renzi and Rep. John Doolittle, their colleagues say.

Doolittle, left the powerful House Appropriations Committee in April after FBI agents raided his Washington-area home. His wife, Julie, ran a business from the home in which she received commissions as a paid fundraiser for her husband's campaigns. Her clients included now-jailed GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Doolittle's fundraising also has slowed. The nine-term conservative reported raising $100,183 (â‚¬72,696) from April 1 through June 30, $50,000 (â‚¬36,282) less than in the same period during the last election cycle. He had legal fees of $30,000 (â‚¬21,769) regarding the Abramoff investigation, ending the quarter with $74,383 (â‚¬53,975) cash on hand and debts of $106,633 (â‚¬77,377).

Doolittle narrowly beat Democrat Charlie Brown last year, and Brown, who wants a rematch, is far ahead in the money race. Brown raised $193,238 (â‚¬140,221) from April 1-June 30, ending with $268,574 (â‚¬194,887) cash on hand and debts of just about $17,000 (â‚¬12,336). Doolittle says he intends to run for re-election.

Renzi has been shadowed by ethical questions for several years but held onto his seat. They came to a head in mid-April when federal officials, investigating a multimillion-dollar land deal that benefited a Renzi associate, raided a Sonoita, Arizona, insurance business owned by Renzi's wife, Roberta.

The status of the investigation is unclear. In past statements, Renzi has denied all wrongdoing.

On the day of the raid, he stepped down temporarily from the House Intelligence Committee. A few days later, he took a leave of absence from the House Financial Services and Natural Resources committees.

Since then, several Democrats, including state Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, have expressed interest in running for his seat in 2008.

While Renzi has insisted that he is not resigning his House seat, it is unclear whether he will seek re-election.

---

Associated Press Writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

2007-07-17T00:57:09Z

The Do Little Record

2007-07-03T08:46:00.000-07:00

Recent House Votes

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2008 - Vote Passed (272-155, 5 Not Voting)

The House passed this $27.6 billion bill that would fund the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, the Forest Service and the Indian Health Service for the 2008 fiscal year.

Rep. John Doolittle voted NO......THAT'S A SURPRISE... LOL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations, FY 2008 - Vote Passed (240-179, 13 Not Voting)

The House passed this $21.4 billion bill that would fund the Department of Treasury, the Executive office, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia and independent agencies for the 2008 fiscal year.

Rep. John Doolittle voted YES

The Do Little Record

2007-06-18T20:45:00.000-07:00

Recent House Votes -- Do Little's Record

June 18, 2007

Homeland Security Appropriations, FY2008 - Vote Passed (268-150, 14 Not Voting)

The House passed this $37.4 billion bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security for the 2008 fiscal year.

Rep. John Doolittle voted NO (I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE REASON ON THIS ONE!!!)

***************************************

June 9, 2007

Recent House Votes

Ethics Committee Investigations - Vote Passed (387-10, 15 Present, 20 Not Voting)

The House adopted this resolution directing the Ethics committee to begin an investigation within 30 days of a lawmaker's indictment.

Rep. John Doolittle voted NO (IS THAT A SURPRISE OR IS THAT A SURPRISE?--Gonzalo)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan Freedom and Security Support Act - Vote Passed (406-10, 16 Not Voting)

This $6.4 billion Afghanistan aid bill would cut off funds to local Afghani governments with ties to criminals, drug dealers or terrorists.

Rep. John Doolittle voted YES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act - Vote Passed (247-176, 10 Not Voting)

The House voted to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

Rep. John Doolittle voted NO

Doolittle Has Head in Sand--and Hands in our Pockets

2007-06-16T00:21:00.000-07:00

Well, Charlie is off and running and so should we ... it is a disgrace to have Do Little be our representative.

Gonzalo

It’s time you knew the truth: Your Congressman, John Doolittle, has his head in the sand when it comes to global warming and its impact on the survival of wildlife you and I treasure.

Tell your Representative to get his head out of the sand and get on board with a common-sense energy policy that protects our wildlife, environment and national security.

Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus and looming threat, Representative Doolittle continues to support the short-sighted head-in-the-sand energy policy favored by big-money lobbyists for polluting industries -- all at the expense of wildlife, future generations and our national security.

Why? Maybe it’s because Doolittle has taken $128,000 from the big oil companies making huge profits off high gas prices.

No surprise there. Doolittle has been named one of the 20 most corrupt Members of Congress by the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). John Doolittle is under federal investigation for his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Doolittle not only arranged a job for his wife with Abramoff, but also paid her more than $200,000 in a series of fundraising scams the Sacramento Bee called, “ethically bankrupt.”

And he’s continued to toe the line for his Big Oil contributors, voting to protect billions in tax breaks for oil and gas companies and against common-sense long-term clean energy solutions for the country.

Despite the urgency of global warming, Congressman Doolittle has marched lock-step with his Big Oil benefactors as our wildlife pays the price.

Polar bears are drowning or even resorting to cannibalism as the early effects of global warming rob them of needed habitat and they struggle to find enough to eat. The North Carolina home to some of the world’s only remaining red wolves is threatened by rising sea levels caused by global warming. And droughts in the northern prairie wetlands region could cut the region’s breeding duck populations in half.

It’s past time for your Representative to pull his head out of the sand! Urge him to stop denying the reality of global warming and start supporting common-sense, affordable solutions to deal with this crisis.

Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund is turning the spotlight on Congressman Doolittle and his Big Oil benefactors because they continue to push an agenda that includes more subsidies for companies that contribute to global warming, more dirty drilling that wrecks wildlife habitat and an environmentally reckless energy policy that sacrifices our natural treasures for the sake of windfall corporate profits.

Starting today, we're educating his constituents, running radio ads, launching a new website and urging wildlife supporters like you to hold him accountable for his head-in-the-sand approach to global warming.

Representative Doolittle has buried his head in the sand for far too long, but he can’t bury the truth about his efforts to block global warming solutions. Please help us hold him accountable... send your message now.
Sincerely,

Rodger Schlickeisen
PresidentDefenders of Wildlife Action Fund

John Doolittle: Prince of K Street Tell Us to Hire Lobbysts

2006-10-18T22:50:00.000-07:00

You Might Be A Republican If...

You think "proletariat" is a type of cheese.

You've named your kids "Deduction one" and "Deduction two"

You've tried to argue that poverty could be abolished if people were just allowed to keep more of their minimum wage.

You've ever referred to someone as "my (insert racial or ethnic minority here) friend"

You've ever tried to prove Jesus was a capitalist and opposed to welfare.

You're a pro-lifer, but support the death penalty.

You think Huey Newton is a cookie.

The only union you support is the Baseball Players, because heck, they're richer than you.

You think you might remember laughing once as a kid.

You once broke loose at a party and removed your neck tie.

You call mall rent-a-cops "jack-booted thugs."

You've ever referred to the moral fiber of something.

You've ever uttered the phrase, "Why don't we just bomb the sons of bitches."

You've ever said, "I can't wait to get into business school."

You've ever called a secretary or waitress "Tootsie."

You answer to "The Man."

You don't think "The Simpsons" is all that funny, but you watch it because that

Flanders fellow makes a lot of sense.

You fax the FBI a list of "Commies in my Neighborhood."

You don't let your kids watch Sesame Street because you accuse Bert and Ernie
of "sexual deviance."

You scream "Dit-dit-ditto" while making love.

You've argued that art has a "moral foundation set in Western values."

When people say "Marx," you think "Groucho."

You've ever yelled, "Hey hippie, get a haircut."

You think Birkenstock was that radical rock concert in 1969.

You argue that you need 300 handguns, in case a bear ever attacks your home.

Vietnam makes a lot of sense to you.

You point to Hootie and the Blowfish as evidence of the end of racism in America.

You've ever said civil liberties, schmivil schmiberties.

You've ever said "Clean air? Looks clean to me."

You've ever called education a luxury.

You look down through a glass ceiling and chuckle.

You wonder if donations to the Pentagon are tax-deductable.

You came of age in the '60s and don't remember Bob Dylan.

You own a vehicle with an "Ollie North: American Hero" sticker.

You're afraid of the "liberal media."

You ever based an argument on the phrase, "Well, tradition dictates...."

You ever told a child that Oscar the Grouch "lives in a trash can because he is lazy and doesn't want to contribute to society."

You've ever urged someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, when they don't even have shoes.

You confuse Lenin with Lennon.

The Cost of the War: We Cannot Afford to Keep Doolittle and Friends

2006-10-03T20:40:00.000-07:00

Dear Voters:

We cannot afford to keep Doolittle and friends. On top of this, North Korea chose this day when W was out and about in our district diggning into pockets for John's troubled candidacy (and, of course, Julie's 15 % commission) to announce that in celebration they would light a nuke! "Yee Haw" and fundraising is not a foreign policy.

End Kleptocracy in November and Elect Charlie Brown.

GV

Cost of War: $550 Billion and Counting

InsideDefense.com NewsStand Jason Sherman September 27, 2006

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that the total price tag for U.S. military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as counterterrorism activities around the world, will significantly exceed the half-trillion-dollar mark over the next fiscal year.

This projection, spelled out in a new 36-page report, is based in part on a little-noticed White House Office of Management and Budget estimate in July that projects $110 billion in fiscal year 2007 war funding, $8 billion less than the Defense Department required in fiscal year 2006.
“Based on this OMB projection, cumulative war funding . . . would reach about $549 billion,” states the Sept. 22 CRS report, “The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11,” written by Amy Belasco, a defense budget expert.

The report also estimates that the monthly costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will move 20 percent higher to $9.5 billion in 2006. In FY-05, the Pentagon spent $6.4 billion each month, on average, for Iraqi operations; $1.3 billion for operations in Afghanistan; and $180 million for enhanced base operations; in FY-06, those figures are on track to increase to about $8 billion for Iraq and $1.5 billion for Afghanistan, according to the report.
Between fiscal years 2001 and 2006, Congress has appropriated roughly $437 billion to fund a range of activities related to countering Islamic extremists around the world, including military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs and veterans' health care, according to the report.

The Senate and House are slated to vote soon on a FY-07 defense appropriations conference bill that includes a $70 billion “bridge fund” to pay for war costs in the first part of the new fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1.

If enacted, this would fund the first few months of operational costs and bring total war appropriations to $507 billion. The July OMB projections estimated a total of $110 billion in FY-07 war costs, including the $70 billion bridge fund; this would leave the military in need of another emergency supplemental appropriations bill next spring for $40 billion to pay for continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

******
What the heck are we doing? Why do we the voters allow this to happen? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!

ELECT CHARLIE BROWN TO CONGRESS AND PASS THE SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS

2006-07-24T01:05:00.000-07:00

In an era of job exportation, growing economic and social inequality, and political disillusion and disenfranchisement, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School has suggested in his book “The Second Bill of Rights” (2004), that it is time to resurrect an idea of FDR for a second bill of rights to promote educational opportunity, health and medical care for all, decent shelter, the right to work, and economic security. FDR presented the following economic bill of rights to Congress in March 1943:

1. The right to work, usefully and creatively through the productive years;

2. The right to fair play, adequate to command the necessities and amenities of life in exchange for work, ideas, thrift and other socially valuable service;

3. The right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care;

4. The right to security, with freedom from fear of old age, want, dependency, sickness, unemployment, and accident;

5. The right to live in a system of free enterprise, free from compulsory labor, irresponsible state power, arbitrary [and corrupt] public authority, and unregulated monopolies;

6. The right to come and go, to speak or to be silent, free from the spyings of secret political [or moral] police.

In this regard, the words of George Kennan, the architect of the policy of containment vis-à-vis communism, toll a dire warning:

The fact of the matter is that there is a little bit of totalitarian buried somewhere, way deep down, in each and everyone of us. It is only the cheerful light of confidence and security which keeps this evil genius down… If confidence and security were to disappear, don’t think that he would not be waiting to take their place.

7. The right to equality before the law, with equal access to justice in fact [regardless of your economic or political status];

8. The right to education, for work, for citizenship, and for personal growth and happiness; and

9. The right to rest, recreation, and adventure, the opportunity to enjoy life and take part in advancing civilization.

What an idea! All have equal rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Seems that I've read this somewhere...

As Sunstein suggests, freedom does not require only national defense but “a court system, an ample body of law to govern and enforce contracts and prevent civil wrongs, and to police. To provide for all these things, freedom requires taxation.” The issue is that we cannot continue to allow powerful corporate interests, their lobbyists, and their kangaroo politicians to escape their responsibilities to the nation.

As long as there are unemployed or underemployed citizens in the United States, jobs should not and must not be exported overseas. Our products will be competitive in any market because they are better and we wrote the book on competition. Further, as long as people do not have health care, corporations should not evade taxes through loop holes and other legal sieves. It is a fundamental economic right for people to have health care and any legal system that allows the richest individuals [as our legal system considers corporations to be “persons”] to violate our fundamental rights must be changed immediately.

This economic and social Second Bill of Rights is a natural follow on to our first Bill of Rights which provides for our political rights. We must provide for all Americans and not just the rich and the powerful who can afford to pay their way. It is not too much to ask that equality for all really mean equality for all.

We must not allow our confidence and security disappear, because as Kennan suggests, the result may be too horrible to bear. Consequently, it is our duty and responsibility to our country to increase the public weal and not diminish it; we must legislate the Second Bill of Rights. This will ensure our continuing confidence and security now and in the future, thereby staying the sceptre of totalitarianism.

This is an idea whose time has come and we can do it. SO DO IT!

The first step:

SAY NO TO KLEPTOCRACY IN NOVEMEBER AND ELECT CHARLIE BROWN

Gonzalo

‘‘The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.’’
Edmund Burke 1729-1797

The Tragedy of John Doolittle, Prince of K Street. Elect Fighting Dem Charlie Brown in November

2006-07-21T23:23:00.000-07:00

Friends, Californians, citizens, lend me your ears;
I come to objectively assess Charlie Brown, not to praise him.
The noble John Doolittle Hath told you Charlie Brown is a member of the ACLU:
If it were so, it is a grievous fault in the eyes of some,
And so hath Charlie answer'd it.
The ACLU protects the Constitution for all, even the
noble John Doolittle--
For John Doolittle is an honorable man;
So are all of his pals: Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, all honorable men--
Come I to speak in Charlie Brown’s defense.
Charlie Brown is a brother veteran, honorable and of conviction to me:
But John Dolittle says Charlie is against the
values and traditions that made this country strong;
And John Doolittle is an honorable man.
John Doolittle claims to have brought many successes home to the 4th District
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill as well as his own pockets:
Did this in John Doolittle seem honorable? When that the poor Jack Abramoffs have cried for another scheme or favor, John Doolittle hath wept
All the way to the bank with his pal’s contributions:
honor should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet John Doolittle says Charlie is against values and traditions
That made this country strong;
And John Doolittle is an honourable man.
You all did see that Charlie’s believes that people should be free to pursue life, liberty
And happiness without interference from the government:
was this violation of values?
Yet John Doolittle says he is against the values
And traditions that made this country strong;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what John Doolittle spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all love our country, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to question Charlie’s
commitment to values and patriotism?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And people have lost their reason.
Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with truth, honor, respect and honesty,
And I must pause till it come back to me
in November when we say no to kleptocracy,
the honorable John Doolittle,
his honorable pals;
and elect Charlie Brown as our representative.

We Will Not Lie, Cheat, or Steal: Say No to Kleptocracy in November; and Elect Charlie Brown

2006-07-19T18:17:00.000-07:00

“We will not lie, cheat, or steal nor tolerate those who do.” This is the US Air Force Academy honor code and a central tenet of who Charlie Brown is and stands for. As one of his campaign flyers state:

“The Honor Code—it’s the foundation of the Air Force and of an officer’s character. It is the standard of integrity by which leaders are measured.”

Charlie Brown asks to be measured by this standard. What a refreshing breath of air: A politician of character, honor and conviction. However, we don’t ask that our political leaders be paragons of virtue; we all screw up every now and then. However, we only ask them to be fair and square with us, and not screw us at our expense. John Do Little has screwed us and Charlie won't -- the choice is as simple as that.

Charlie says that it is time to get our house in order.

Charlie says that it is time to restore honor to our leadership in Washington. We need an ethical and responsible leader who will fight to make sure that our fiscal house is in order, our children get a 21st century education, and our parents an grandparents get the retirement and healthcare they have earned.

I personally don’t think that it is too much to ask that:

Our soldiers not be sent off into foreign lands for the benefit of private interests;
Our workers get paid premium wages for the hard work that they do;
Our lakes and rivers be clean so that people can fish in them and not glow in the dark;
All of our kids be afforded a good education at the government’s expense. Heck, I got one so I am willing to put my money where my mouth is;
Our jobs not be exported overseas to some hell-hole factory so some rich guy here can get richer and more Americans lose their jobs and/or work in jobs that are a poor substitute for the ones they lost. By the way, why can’t a kid get out of high school and earn a decent living in a good hands-on job? Not every one wants to go to “college” and I believe in the honor of any job. Why are our jobs being exported overseas? Why are corporations allowed to escape US taxes by incorporating in Bermuda—clearly a corporate paradise if I ever saw one—manufacturing in Vietnam and operating in the US and nevertheless escape taxes?

Look, whatever your political persuasion may be, you cannot ignore the fact America is getting screwed. While some people got tax breaks, the richest people got the most and the majority of major US corporations do not pay a single dollar in taxes. Now, I am not a fan of taxes but I don't mind paying them to benefit all of us--provided that others pay their share as well.

The bottom line is this:

We the people of California’s 4th District refuse to accept kleptocratic government. Accordingly, we will say No to Kleptocracy in November by electing Charlie Brown to represent our interests ethically and honorably.

Fighting Dem Charlie Brown vs. K Street Superstar Do Little

2006-07-12T11:32:00.000-07:00

This is a good interview on who Charlie is and what he stands for.

END KLEPTOCRACY IN NOVEMBER:

ELECT CHARLIE BROWN.

Gonzalo

Brown Says He'll Do More Than DoolittleAn interview with Charlie Brown, Democratic Candidate for US. House Seat CA-4

by Timothy D. Smith for ePluribus Media
10 June 2006

On June 10th, 2006, Timothy Smith interviewed Fighting Dem Charlie Brown at the first annual YearlyKos Convention. Brown is running for the House of Representatives seat from CA- Congressional District 4 against K Street superstar John Doolittle. [Appropriate name for Do Little as K Street in Wash DC is the headquarters of major lobbyist firms].

Kay Shepherd hosted the podcast interview for ePluribus Media, which can be heard at Charlie Brown 06-10-06 podcast interview

The index of earlier podcasts is at ePMedia Libsyn

Kay Shepherd for ePluribus Media: Greetings citizens and a big shout out to all you Kossacks. Welcome to the ePluribus Media podcast. It’s Saturday, June 10, 2006. I am your host, Kay Shepherd and you are listening to our third edition from the YearlyKos Convention in Las Vegas.Today at the booth, ePluribus Media correspondent Timothy D. Smith talked to retired Air Force officer and current congressional candidate, Charlie Brown. No, not that Charlie Brown. This Charlie Brown is running against Republican incumbent John Doolittle in California’s Fourth District. Now what you may know about Doolittle is that he’s been something of an overachiever in the current Republican scandals; to date he is the only congressman who has been swept up in both the Tom Delay-Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham-Brent Wilkes affairs. Tim talked to Charlie today about what he is running on and the difference he intends to make in congress. Let’s listen.

Timothy D. Smith for ePluribus Media: You have met a lot of people. What do you think about what is happening here?

Charlie Brown: I think the most exciting thing about this is the wide variety of people who are here. This is -- a lot of people when they think of blogging think of young college kids or computer geeks – and this is a group of all age ranges, all walks of life, all shapes, sizes, and to a large extent, a lot of different political backgrounds.

TDS: So tell us about the Fourth District. Describe the Fourth, if you would, for us.

CB: The Fourth Congressional District is the northeast corner of California. If you go just east of Sacramento, draw a line up to Lake Tahoe and move that line north to the Oregon border, you have the Fourth Congressional District. The whole California side of Lake Tahoe, the beautiful Sierras, it’s a beautiful area to be in.

TDS: What towns are in your district?

CB: The main population centers are the Sacramento suburbs of Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, then El Dorado Hills, Truckee, then the towns get smaller as we move up north, Quincy, Susanville, and a little gerrymandered loop that comes down and takes in Oroville.

TDS: So why are you running? Why should the folks living in that area choose you instead of the current inhabitant of that seat.

CB: John Doolittle, the current inhabitant of that seat, has said that I am the most liberal Democrat that he has run against. My response to that is that he is the most corrupt politician that I have ever run against. This is about We the People of the United States. Thirty-seven (37) years ago I took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution says that this is a country by and for the people and I am one of those people. And I want my country back, away from the lobbyists, away from the large corporations. [AMEN!!!]

TDS: You were in the Air Force.

CB: 26 years in the Air Force

TDS: You are a Lieutenant Colonel, retired. Were you a pilot?

CB: I was Air Force Rescue helicopter pilot; then I changed over to fixed wing aircraft. My wife is also an Air Force veteran; she was a nurse. And my son is currently an Air Force pilot.

TDS: Did he see action?

CB: My son has done three rotations in Iraq. He is a C-130 pilot.

TDS: What would you say is the most pressing issue that your district is facing right now, other than the fact that you have one of the most corrupt politicians in the Congress.

CB: The district needs a lot of infrastructure improvements. And John Doolittle consistently tells cities that ‘if you need something out of Congress, if you need something out of me. Hire a lobbyist.’ So the biggest problem the district has is a representative who is not representing the district. He wants them to hire a lobbyist.

TDS: What would be the first problem that you would address when elected? What is the first major plan of action that you have on your clipboard?

CB: The first major plan of action, once we get the 15 seats so that we have a Democratic majority in congress, is to take the Congress back to where congress passes laws and the president enforces them. Until we take Congress back, you can’t move onto the next step of doing the things that the people of country needs. First we take congress back, then we quit the large tax breaks for the corporations and the top 1% of the country and start taking care of the other 99% of the people.

Once we have done that, we start looking at things like improving the educational system, affordable health care, clean air, clean water, and real security for this country.
The Republicans have been so big on dividing us with wedge issues, things that don’t affect people on their day-to-day life.

I want to concentrate on the things that we should be able to unite on. Everybody should be able to agree that we need some form of affordable health care. Everybody ought be able to agree that when you step outside in the morning that you breathe the air without coughing and choking. Everybody ought to be able to agree that we need a good quality school system for our children and everybody ought to be able to agree that we should be able to keep this country secure from enemies.

Yet these aren’t the things that Congress is debating. Congress wants to debate things that really don’t affect us in our day-to-day lives. They hold special sessions to interfere with individual rights and state’s rights. Congress needs to focus on the things that I just mentioned that unite us and bring us together to be united.

TDS: How do you feel about the Immigration question? That’s a tough issue that doesn’t go across the normal Republican/Democrat lines. Where do you stand, especially in California, in southern California it’s a huge issue, where do you stand, which side of the fence are you on?

CB: Well again, there’s really no sides to the fence here. Three-part solution to the problem. Obviously, the first we have to do is do a better job of securing our borders. They are a sieve, this is not something new. This is not a new problem, it has been going on for a lot of years. Nothing has been done in the past and suddenly it is a pressing issue.

We need to slow down and do this right instead of rushing into something we are going to regret but yes we need to secure the border and expanding the border patrol is the easiest first step we can take. There are some electronic sensor things we can do down there to get control of our borders and stop so many illegals coming across.

Then we move to the people who are coming across legally and we have better tracking of people coming in on visas. I have heard statistics as high as 30% of the people here illegally came in here legally on a visa and then overstayed. So we do something, electronic finger printing which I was involved in with the police department I worked at for seven and one-half years. You could do the electronic fingerprinting on everybody who comes across, good positive ID, easier tracking while they are in the country. So, tracking folks when they come in legally, so secure the borders.

Then we move to enforcement against the people who hire the illegals. That’s what is pulling the illegals into this country. It’s the jobs companies bring them in, pay them, it’s a cash economy, it’s under the table, and it’s not paying for the things that medical care, school systems, things that are hurting because of the illegal population. So we have some real enforcement against the corporations where they quit this cash economy thing in hiring the illegals. So, real enforcement is the second step.

Third step. Recognize that we have a large illegal population here. They are part of the work force. Again, it is physically possible to arrest 11-12 million people and deport them. They are here illegally, so identify them, fine them. $1,000 is the figure that the Kennedy-McCain bill is looking at right now, Okay folks, you are here. Misdemeanor fine, documentation; keep your record clean, then after you are here for five years, we will consider the next step which is a fine and the start of some sort of legal status. We have to give these people some basic rights, but once they have these rights, they can form unions and begin complaining against these employers who are hiring them illegally. So some basic rights, but again, tied with those rights, some responsibilities to be paying taxes, paying into the system, clean record. 3-Part system, take away any one part and it is not going to work. Gotta have all three together.

TDS: Where do you stand in terms of energy policy and what the government is doing right now in terms of our current energy problems?

CB: Well it would be nice to have an energy policy would be the starting point. Cheney held his commission shortly after this administration took office almost six years ago, there was no energy policy. There was a secret meeting. The oil people came in and they came up with something, nobody really knows what, but we have seen the results, higher oil prices, lower supplies, so we need a real energy policy for starters. Bush said, in his last state of the union message, that we needed more conservation, we need alternative fuels and then he goes and cuts 28 million dollars out of the research that would do some of that. So obviously we still don’t have an energy policy.

What we need is the start of research into alternative fuels to be looking toward the future to get off oil dependency. In the short term, we need to be looking more at alternative sources of energy: wind power, solar power, these things are out there right now. During the last part of the Carter administration, the last big energy crisis, we cut our dependency on foreign oil imports by about one-quarter.

With some minor changes, in habits, we could cut oil consumption, but people will have to get back into car pooling, merging trips together, taking a little care in what they do, we don’t have to lose our quality of life, if we just use a little common sense, get back to some common sense things. Use the existing technologies out there we could be having a lot better energy independency. Brazil has gone to Ethanol. We could be moving toward ethanol. The Air Force right now has a test program going on the B-52 to test alternative fuels on airplanes.

TDS: I didn’t know that. That’s an interesting point. Do you think they will go anywhere with it?

CB: Well the Air Force is definitely serious about it or they wouldn’t be doing the rewiring of the fuel system on the B-52s so that they can run a couple engines of an ethanol-based technology.
Simple things that we can do just for starters. Take Hoover Dam, not that far from where we sit here in Las Vegas today, generators, the wiring systems on Hoover Dam have not been upgraded since it was built. Some of the engineers I talked to today say that by upgrading the generators on our existing hydroelectric plants, upgrading the electrical systems there from belts and wheels to turbines, some of those dams you could almost double the electrical output. Some of them would be down around 20%. Some of them would go as high as doubling the electrical output. There are things that we can do now, without causing any more damage, if we just invest a little bit in the infrastructure that we have right now in this country for energy.

TDS: That’s another thing that I didn’t really know about. That’s great. I really only have one more question. Again we are talking with Charlie Brown who is running for Congress in California’s Fourth District. John Conyers in Michigan has already stated that if and when the Democrats regain the majority, that after the November elections, he would open hearings and he would get a special prosecutor to investigate the Weapons of Mass Destruction claims that the Administration used in bringing the United States into war with Iraq. With the obvious intent, then therefore if the proof is indeed in that pudding, that impeachment proceedings would likely follow. How do you stand on that?

CB: Well let me give you a two-part answer to that question. First on the Weapons of Mass Destruction and the intelligence that got us into Iraq. I was active duty Air Force for 26 years. In the 90's, I had two three-month rotations in Iraq, sat on the General's staff at Riyadh, capital of Saudi Arabia. I scheduled all the airborne reconnaissance that overflew Southern Iraq. Sat in on the General’s briefings every morning. Talked to the targeters that are planning what are we going to bomb tomorrow if we go to war. I personally knew, the people on the General’s staff knew, the General knew; there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by 1995 because those programs had been shut down.

So the real intelligence people knew in the mid-90s that Saddam’s WMD programs were shut down.

So I have been speaking out against the Iraq war Weapons of Mass Destruction excuse since the day Bush first started talking about it.

Now the other question here is Conyers talking about holding hearings and putting people under oath. The biggest problem we have in this government right now, this goes back to taking back our constitution and Congress is that we don’t know what’s been going on in this country the last six years. Go back to the starting point of Cheney’s secret energy commission, we don’t know what happened there. We don’t know what this government has been doing the last six years because they have kept everything secret from us.

We need real congressional hearings with people put under oath to find out what is going on. Certainly we need to be looking at what got us into this war. We could look at simple questions like “Hey, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, did your grandparents, excuse me, did your great-grandparents come into this country illegally?”

He won’t answer that question right now. You asked me about illegal immigration, let’s start with the Attorney General of the United States' great-grandparents and how they came into this country. So we need real hearings, with people under oath. The House of Representatives essentially serves as the investigative body for impeachment hearings until we have real hearings, we really don’t know what has been going on, whether there are grounds or not. But it needs to be looked at.

TDS: All right. Charlie, thank you very much. It has been a pleasure having you here, and good luck in your race.

CB: Thank you, Tim. I would just like to encourage everyone to go to the website, CharlieBrownforCongress.org. Take a look at things. Get the word out on what’s going on. We need to take back the House, no matter what district you are in.
This is national.

We need 15 seats to hold real hearings in Congress.

OUTRAGEOUS: SAY NO TO KLEPTOCRACY IN NOVEMBER!!!

2006-07-11T11:27:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the electronic Wash Post today.

This is an outrage! This is not government of the people, by the people and for the people. This is just plain CRAP!!! The crooks are running our house as we are governed by thieves. Every one should write to the editors of local news media to express their outrage.

SAY NO TO KLEPTOCRACY IN NOVEMBER:

ELECT CHARLIE BROWN TO CONGRESS.

Gonzalo

*************

Lawmaker Criticized for PAC Fees Paid to Wife

By Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. BirnbaumWashington Post Staff WritersTuesday, July 11, 2006; Page A01

In the past two years, campaign and political action committees controlled by Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) paid ever-larger commissions to his wife's one-person company and spent tens of thousands of dollars on gifts at stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Tiffany & Co. and a Ritz-Carlton day spa.

The use of such committees, especially "leadership" PACs, for purposes other than electing politicians to Congress is a common and growing phenomenon, but campaign finance watchdogs say Doolittle has taken it to new heights.

Doolittle's wife, Julie, a professional fundraiser, has collected 15 percent of all contributions to Doolittle's leadership PAC and additional commissions on contributions to his campaign committee -- a total of nearly $140,000 since 2003, according to Federal Election Commission records. [if this doesn't make you throw up, I don't know what will]

"I don't know if there's anything comparable," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group that called last month for an investigation of Doolittle by the House ethics committee. "If this is okay, it is a road map for how to convert substantial sums of campaign money to personal use."

The committees have spent money they raised on friends and supporters, recording at least $40,000 in gifts, flowers, club memberships and stays at romantic inns. Doolittle's Superior California Federal Leadership Fund reported purchasing gifts from Bose Corp. worth $2,139, while his campaign committee has reimbursed him and his wife for nearly $5,000 in purchases from Best Buy Co. and a $1,000 trip to Saks Fifth Avenue in Baltimore. Campaign records do not list the beneficiaries of the gifts and trips financed by the committees. [THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS CONVERSION OF FUNDS FOR PRIVATE GAIN]

Doolittle aides said that the congressman has strictly complied with FEC regulations and never personally profited from the expenditures. Julie Doolittle and her company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, are paid a 15 percent commission on donations that she brings in, an arrangement that aides say helps her avoid the claim that she is being paid by her husband's campaign without doing any work. [The sign says "Dog" but we all know it's a pig]

In addition, the aides said that all of the expenditures by the leadership PAC were for staff members and supporters. John Doolittle's purchases at Saks Fifth Avenue were Christmas ornaments for attendees at a campaign dinner. Thousands of dollars were spent at Best Buy on Christmas gifts for the congressman's campaign and official staff. And nearly $800 that went to Julie Doolittle to pay the tabs at three romantic inns on California's Mendocino coast was an anniversary gift "to a couple who had volunteered tirelessly on the congressman's campaign for over 10 years," said Richard Robinson, John Doolittle's chief of staff. "The congressman has used his leadership PAC and his campaign committee in a legal, ethical and responsible manner, and there is no evidence whatsoever that he has used his committees for personal gain." [Sure! and I am Santa Claus]

Kenneth A. Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, said "personal use" restrictions that govern campaign committees do not apply to leadership PACs, which lawmakers set up largely to help other candidates fund their campaigns. Because of the lack of regulations, leadership PAC expenditures have regularly generated controversy.

The leadership PAC of Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.) lists $22,896 in hotel expenditures for donors and $320 worth of baseball tickets. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) received attention in February when the news media reported leadership PAC expenses at a Starbucks near his Virginia home that totaled $558 since 2001, as well as payments to Wal-Mart, Burger King bills totaling $50 and 11 meals at Arby's worth $118.

"Leadership PACs are the Wild West of campaign money; they are the political slush funds of this decade," said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

In Doolittle's case, the gift expenditures from his campaign committee -- for which personal-use restrictions are tighter -- far outstrip the gift expenditures of his leadership PAC. Gift expenditures by Superior California have totaled $4,857 since 2003, according to FEC documents, while his campaign committee's gift expenses reached about $40,000, Robinson confirmed. The gift total was $20,000 if tokens for campaign donors, such as congressional directories and copies of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's books, are not counted. Robinson said he considers such tokens fundraising expenses.

Still, campaign finance experts and congressional watchdogs deem highly unusual Doolittle's efforts, particularly the arrangement with his wife. Doolittle spokeswoman Laura Blackann said in an e-mail that Julie Doolittle receives her 15 percent commission only on money she is "directly involved in raising." [Oh, shucks. This clears it up completely]

That would mean Julie Doolittle has raised every dollar that has gone to the Superior California Fund since 2003, according to FEC reports compiled by the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. During the 2004 campaign cycle, Sierra Dominion received payments from the leadership PAC of $68,630, exactly 15 percent of the $457,533 the PAC raised. So far in this campaign cycle, Sierra Dominion has taken in $69,896, again exactly 15 percent of the $465,973 raised.

Yet Doolittle's leadership PAC lists payments for fundraising consultations not connected to Sierra Dominion -- one to Brian Jensen, a Doolittle staff member at the time of the payment, and another to a firm called Enburg Consulting of Washington, which received $3,000 in March.
Doolittle aides said Julie Doolittle was entitled to 15 percent of all money the PAC brought in because those donations were raised at events she helped organize. All told, Julie Doolittle's firm -- run out of the couple's home in Oakton with no phone listing or Web site and no other known employee -- has received commissions totaling $169,146 since its founding in March 2001, according to FEC records and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

And John Doolittle's committees have been generous with the money they have raised. The campaign committee has reported gifts to volunteers, staff members and supporters totaling $55,679 since 2001. Flower expenses were $2,983. Purchases of See's Candies, a California favorite, were $10,737. Dues for the Capitol Hill Club, the Lincoln Club of Sacramento Valley, the Sutter Club of Sacramento and other membership organizations have totaled $12,275.

Robinson said that the gift total is somewhat inflated by duplicate expenditures and that the real total is about $40,000.

The campaign committee has listed John Doolittle as the recipient of $5,536 for 10 gift expenditures. His wife received payments of $4,309 for six gifts.

In each of those instances, the Doolittles were being reimbursed for gifts they had financed out of pocket, Robinson said.

******

This is garbage pure and simple!!! This cannot be legal because, as far as I know, fraud and conversion is not legal.

You can Hang a Sign on a Pig...

2006-07-10T11:26:00.000-07:00

While I am not against giving my kids a few extra dollars out of my own pocket every now and then (and I do not call them commissions), this 6/27/06 story by Sac Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub shows that Doolittle, Inc. "commissions" go that extra mile--right to their private bank account; at the public's (our) expense.

Daniel Weintraub: California's power brokers serving narrow interests

By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B7

California's politicians chronically complain that the state is getting shortchanged by the power brokers in the nation's Capitol. But if the influential Republicans who represent the Golden State in Washington, D.C., would spend as much time working for their constituents as they do lining the pockets of their friends and relatives, California might be getting a better shake in the national budget.

....

Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, was a top lieutenant to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a key player in the congressional leadership. Doolittle's wife, Julie, started a political events firm several years ago, a one-woman operation that Julie Doolittle runs out of the couple's suburban Virginia home.

The company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, was paid more than $66,000 by the lobbying firm of Jack Abramoff for work Julie Doolittle did on behalf of Abramoff's personal charity before the high-flying lobbyist pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

But Julie Doolittle's most lucrative client appears to be her husband. Since 2003, The Bee has reported, the congressman's campaign committees have paid his wife about $180,000 as compensation for raising campaign money for the lawmaker.

For every dollar Mrs. Doolittle raises for Mr. Doolittle's campaign, she pockets 15 cents. That means that every time Julie Doolittle approaches an individual or an interest group for a contribution to her husband's campaign, those donors know that a chunk of the money they give is going directly into the congressman's personal bank account.

It is illegal to use political campaign funds for personal purposes, and it's easy to see why: We don't want our congressmen relying on private interests for personal financial support. But there is no law against diverting a portion of those political contributions to pay a commission to a family member, even though the end result is the same. And the Doolittles have aggressively taken advantage of that loophole.

...

[That is sleazy no matter what your views may be]

To put things in perspective, consider what these power brokers could do for California if they used their influence to fix just one glaring inequity in federal law.

The matching funds the feds budget to reimburse states for providing health care to the poor are distributed through a formula based on the per capita income of each state's residents, rather than the number of poor people. This shortchanges California, because while the state has a lot of people in poverty who need health care, it also has a lot of wealthy people, which leads to a lower distribution of federal funds.

If the Medicaid formulas were based on the number of people in poverty, California's distribution would be $4 billion bigger than it is today -- enough to pretty much erase the state's chronic budget shortfall.

The nation's voters might elect enough Democrats this fall to end Republican control of Congress. If that happens, a lot of California congressmen will lose their powerful positions in control of the public purse. But California won't lose much.

Because those lawmakers have not been doing much to help the people they were elected to represent. [Why Not?]

**********************

My message to Congressman Doolittle:

You can hang a sign on a pig that says "Dog", but we all know it is still a pig.

Gonzalo

Happy Birthday, GOP: Why Am I paying $3.27 per Gallon for Gas?

2006-07-06T22:52:00.000-07:00

According to the American Book of Days, on July 6, 1854 the Republican Party was founded at Jackson, Michigan; it was here that the party selected its first statewide slate of candidates. Happy Birthday, GOP!!! I hope that the North Koreans don't launch some missiles in celebration--that's why I am writing this late at night on July 6 so as to not give them any ideas.

Regardless, being the festive fellow that I am and in the spirit of celebration--in reality, to prevent my car from running out of gas in the freeway--I promptly drove to the pump. Now, my wife and I are members of Sam's Club and get a 5-cent per gallon discount at the Roseville store. Even still, I paid $3.27/gal. Okay, I admit it: It was 91 octane gasoline. As I watched my dollars go down the fuel drain on the GOP's birthday, I wondered (nice word for cursed):

1. Why the heck am I paying $3.27/gal. for gas? Clearly, I'm not better off than I was two years ago.

2. If we liberated Iraq, why is gas not cheaper?

3. If we didn't liberate Iraq, then what the heck are we doing there?

4. Has Congressman Do Little told W and the Bushistas that $3.27/gallon for gas (even 91 octane) is a bit much? In fact, what has Do Little done to help us in this regard?

5. Is Congressman Do Little billing his campaing for the gas he uses? The gas his wife uses? The gas his pal Jack Abramoff used? Can I bill Do Little's campaign $46.43 for the gas that I pumped into my car today?

WE NEED CHARLIE BROWN!

Regards,

Gonzalo

Why is North Korea Launching Missiles on July 4th?

2006-07-06T22:08:00.000-07:00

Good question. The answer is that President Bush said it would be unacceptable if North Korea launched missiles at any time--this caused the North Koreans to quiver in their boots. However, being the jolly fellows that they are, the North Koreans decided to put on a fireworks display for us on our 230th birthday: North Korea launched not only one but six missiles on July 4th--talk about excessive fireworks. Guys, we would have settled for a few burgers, french fries and ... oh what the heck ... some Kimchi (Korean pickled cabbage) would have been okay too.

Naturally, and as the North Koreans expected, they quickly gained center stage on our birthday, and--more importantly for them--the Bush Administration accepted what it previously said it considered unacceptable. Bush and company are going to seek allies in the UN to chastise North Korea. That ought to really frighten the North Koreans into issuing a statement expressing their profound apologies and promising never to do this again [again].

What is particularly troublesome is that for the past three years the Bushistas have touted the six-party talks between North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the US as the centerpiece of its foreign policy in dealing with the issue of North Korean nuclear ambitions. As expected, nothing has been accomplished. Moreover, two of the partners the Bushistas have enlisted to help solve the Korean nuclear dilemma--China and Russia--have threatened to veto any initiative in the United Nations that seeks to impose sanctions on North Korea for launching the missiles. The Russians and the Chinese even threatened to veto a Bushista sponsored resolution asking the UN to demand that North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il stop eating chives on Wednesdays as an act of contrition.

In my view, the Bushista foreign policy towards North Korea is essentially this: We will engage in a series of interminable talks which will resolve nothing and two of the parties will ensure that you, Kim Jong Il and company, suffer no repercussions for whatever irresponsible and provocative act you engage in. So much for a visionary foreign policy.

As expected, Bushista Congressman John Do Little is a key supporter of this Do Little Foreign fiasco which they call a policy. I wonder if Kim Jong Il was a client of Do Little's pal, Jack Abramoff? Did Ms. Doolittle also get commissions from North Korea through John's pal, Jack? Did Kim Jong Il pay for the Doolittle's nanny also? Does anyone want to vote for Doolittle in November? If so, why?

Regards,

Gonzalo

Just Pals: John Doolittle and Jack Abramoff

2006-06-30T21:45:00.000-07:00

The immediate cause of all the mischief of misrule is, that the men and women acting as the representatives of the people have a private and sinister interest, producing a constant sacrifice of the interest of the people. William Leggett

Here is an interesting story about Do Little and his pals, written by the Associated Press and reported in the Washington Post on 6/20/2006. After reading it, I would like to know:

1. What did Doolittle give his pal Jack in return for the sports box?

2. Why did Doolittle not report this "gift" from his pal?

3. When did Ms. Doolittle work for John's pal, Jack Abramoff?

a. For how long?

b. What did she do?

c. How much was she paid?

4. What did Doolittle give his pal, Jack Abramoff in return for giving Ms. Dolittle work?

5. What influence does Ms. Doolittle's employment by John's pal, Jack Abramoff have over Congressman Doolittle's decisions regarding the public interest?

6. If I do not provide Doolittle with luxury sports seating, corporate jets, nannies and employment opportunities for Ms. Doolittle, will Congressman Doolittle give me the same opportunity to be heard and my interests cared for just as his pal, Jack, receives?

Something to think about...

GET RID OF DO LITTLE AND ALL OF HIS PALS. VOTE FOR CHARLIE BROWN IN NOVEMBER

Gonzalo

*************

Lobbyist Probe Glance

By The Associated PressThe Associated PressTuesday, June 20, 2006; 6:30 PM

-- Former Bush administration official David Safavian is the fifth person to be convicted or plead guilty to charges in a public corruption investigation that began with lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Those convicted so far are:
_ Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in January to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges in connection with his lobbying work.

_ Tony Rudy, lobbyist and one-time aide to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who pleaded guilty in March to conspiring with Abramoff.

_ Safavian, who was found guilty Tuesday of covering up his dealings with Abramoff while a General Services Administration official.

_ Michael Scanlon, a former Abramoff business partner and DeLay aide, who pleaded guilty in November to conspiring to bribe public officials in connection with his lobbying work on behalf of Indian tribes and casino issues.

_ Neil Volz, an Abramoff partner who pleaded guilty in May to conspiring to corrupt his former boss, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and others with trips and other aid.

Among other government officials _ all of whom have denied any wrongdoing _ under scrutiny for their ties to Abramoff are:

...
_ DeLay, who is under indictment in Texas on charges of campaign finance improprieties. Prosecutors are looking at whether DeLay, R-Texas, who resigned from Congress on June 9, filed false public reports to disguise the source and size of political donations, travel and other gifts he received from special interests, including some with ties to Abramoff.

...
_ Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., who accepted campaign money from Abramoff and used the lobbyist's luxury sports box for a fundraiser without initially reporting it. Doolittle's wife and one of his former aides also worked for the lobbyist.

****************

Do Little's "Nannygate" and Spousal Commissions

2006-06-29T17:44:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting editorial published by the Washington Post on Do Little's child care "expenses" and commissions received by his wife. While I am not the smartest voter in California, I know a pig when I see one.

Congressional Child Care
Most parents pay the sitter. Rep. John Doolittle has his campaign write a check.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006; Page A16

CHILD CARE, most any parent knows, can be a huge expense. Some members of Congress, though, have found an innovative -- and brazen -- way to defray the cost: Their campaign funds pick up the tab when child care is needed because the candidate is out campaigning. A leader in this creative billing is Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.), who has had his campaign reelection committee and his leadership PAC pay $5,881 in child-care costs since 2001 for his daughter, now 14. This election alone, Mr. Doolittle's campaign committees have paid almost $975 in child-care bills to a woman who lives near his family's Oakton home.

An electronic search of campaign spending records from 2001 on shows only a handful of members who billed their campaigns for baby-sitting services. Other than former representative J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), whose campaign paid $3,530 for "baby-sitting services" during the 2002 campaign, none had his or her political committees pick up the tab to the extent that the Doolittles have.

The legal foundation for dipping into campaign funds for child care was laid a decade ago, when the Federal Election Commission allowed Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.) to use campaign funds to pay for a babysitter while his wife joined him at receptions, cocktail parties and news conferences. Mr. McCrery argued that his wife "is an integral part of my campaign team, and her presence at these events is vital." Thus, he said, the baby-sitting expense "is directly related to my candidacy." The commission staff didn't buy it. "Providing for child care when a parent is unavailable for business travel reasons is a concern for most families, regardless of profession," the staff said in its draft opinion. "The expenses for such care cannot be said to be specially related to your campaign." But the FEC, in its wisdom, disagreed with its staff, opening the door for Mr. Doolittle.

The lawmaker's spokesman, Richard Robinson, said in an e-mail that he is "one of a handful of members of Congress who has a child who lives and attends school in Virginia. Congressman Doolittle regularly travels home to California to attend official and campaign-related events. Because Mrs. Doolittle's attendance is often vital to these events, she frequently accompanies Congressman Doolittle, requiring that child care be provided to their daughter, who cannot be taken out of school to attend with them. These expenses are directly related to Congressman Doolittle's candidacy and his duties as an officeholder and would not exist otherwise."

This may be permissible under the lax guidance of the congressional enablers at the FEC. That doesn't make it right. It's the attitude of congressional entitlement to a subsidized lifestyle -- cut-rate private jets, lavish private travel -- that drives public disdain for Congress. Mr. Doolittle makes $165,200 a year as a member of Congress. His wife has already taken in close to $100,000 in commissions this election as his fundraiser. They should just pay the sitter, as other working parents do.

Dolittle Lives Up To His Name

2006-06-28T14:15:00.000-07:00

Here is a letter that I sent on behalf of a friend to Congressman Doolittle. He lived up to his name 'Do Little' by doing nothing.

March 2, 2005

Representative John T. Doolittle
United States House of Representatives
2410 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Request for Help
[Military Retiree]
[Address]
Antelope, CA 95843
(916) XXX-XXX

Dear Congressman Doolittle:

My name is Gonzalo Vergara, I am retired from the US Air Force ... I am writing this letter to you on behalf of my friend, __, who also retired from the Air Force after honorably serving the United States some 20-plus years. He is a good man, devoted to God, family and country, who always played by the rules and who would be the first one to lend a hand to anyone who was in need. On September 18, 2004, while sitting his daughter’s dogs in San Francisco, he was almost killed by a hit-an-run driver. His pelvis and internal organs were crushed as was one of his arms, and he suffered major trauma to his head. He was in a comma and on life support systems for over two months, the doctor recommending at one point that they be removed, as there was no hope for him. His wife of 30 years, [his wife] refused.

__ finally came out of his comma about a month-and-a-half ago but his mind is that of a one-year old. Due to his injuries he is unable to walk, sit, and must be fed and cleaned; he is completely unable to do anything for himself. Moreover, he goes into convulsions and his body becomes contorted, and he screams incoherently. Two weeks ago, the doctors at the San Jose hospital where he was convalescing told [his wife] that there was nothing more that they could do and he would be discharged to a long-term care facility.

__ and [his wife] cannot afford the $2,400 per month that it would cost to put him in a long-term care facility. The problem is that because of __’s military retirement he does not qualify for MediCal; [his wife] called MediCal and they told her that given these circumstances there was nothing they could do. Further, __’s military health insurance provider, TRICARE, told [his wife] that the coverage did not provide for such long-term care. Given that the driver who hit __ has never been found, the San Francisco District Attorney’s office told her that nothing could be done in terms of getting money for __'s medical needs. The San Francisco County Victims of Crimes Compensation Program only provides for short-term care costs, over and above those paid by the medical insurance provider. Given that TRICARE is unwilling to provide for his long-term care needs, [his wife] is left without the ability to provide for __’s long-term care needs. Thus, she is caring for him at home.

My wife and I visited __ this past Sunday; I was shocked at his state. He mumbles incoherently, goes into contortions and is otherwise completely dependent on [his wife]. However much she loves him, it was obvious to me that she could not handle the situation for long. When [his wife] told me the circumstances that I have told in this letter, I was outraged! This is a man who honorably served his country when others were running away to Canada and were refusing to serve; yet now in his hour of need he is left without recourse. THIS IS NOT RIGHT!

Congressman Doolittle, you have been in public service a long time and have the power to make things happen or know who does. I ask you on behalf of __ and [his wife] that you do whatever it takes to get ___ the long-term care that he requires. The United States and California owe __ no less

If you would like to speak to me, my telephone number is (916) XXX-XXXX. Please help ___!

I look forward to hearing from your office soon.

Sincerely,

Gonzalo I. Vergara

Lincoln, California

[address]

I Support Charlie Brown for Congress

2006-06-28T10:06:00.000-07:00

In an era of uncertainty and change, it is good to know that a true patriot is running for Congress. Charlie Brown retired from the US Air Force after 30 years of service to his country. He now is seeking to serve us as a Congressman from California's 4th District.

Our present Congressman John Doolittle supported the turning over of our major ports to an Arab company. This act alone is enough to fire him from his job whatever your political views may be. I for one will give Congressman Doolittle his Pink Slip in November and elect someone with the integrity and judgment to not make similar mistakes. That person is Charlie Brown.