Delwin Jones, and Deceiving District 83

Republican Delwin Jones, incumbent District 83 State Representative, has campaigned hard against his challenger Joe Hnatek. Radio ads presenting Hnatek getting his funding from "down state" and as chosen "by the I-35 crowd" are effective. I've written about the District 83 race and Delwin Jones's non-conservative record before.

Now, from radio host Robert Pratt, I get an e-mail with this information:

* 77% of Delwin Jones contributions come from Austin ($35,056 of $45,381), or other "down state" addresses (I've been very generous and included all the way to San Angelo as West Texas.) http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/366264.pdf

* 78% of money spent by Delwin Jones came from "down state" ($45,020.28)
Hnatek had only 42% of his funding and spending from Austin, or "down state". Of that 42% of funds used that came from "down state", 100% of it was for in-kind campaign work - none was cash. Other spending was from Hnatek's own pocket. http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/366238.pdf

* 84% of Empower Texans PAC funding is from West Texas - NOT "down state" or from the I-35 crowd. This is the group, which includes donors from the district, helping Hnatek. http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/366028.pdf

"So we now see the truth: Delwin Jones is being funding primarily from Austin and Joe Hnatek from right here in West Texas.

By the way, Jack Bush, who is also the mayor of Idalou, and advertising man, and who appears in Jones' latest radio advertisement running down Hnatek and claiming he's pushed by the I-35 crowd, was paid $2250.00 in this filing by Delwin's campaign for "media production" - no kidding!"

My thanks to Robert Pratt for sharing this information. I cast my own vote for Joe Hnatek this afternoon in early voting.

The Agony and The Ecstasy

I probably care less about the NFL draft than any other guy in America. Nonetheless, I read an article from Yahoo's main page on NFL hopefuls who have either hurt or helped themselves during the NFL Scouting Combine in Indianapolis. During the course of my reading, one article led to another, and I finally discovered the "Lowsman Trophy." It's awarded to "Mr. Irrelevant," the last college football player chosen in the NFL draft.

It's a statuette of a player fumbling the ball.

Barack Obama Attacked by Zombie Horde

It turns out that the "fainting" spells were actually people dying and then rising from the dead.

I'll bet you won't hear about this in the mainstream media.

Thought-Struck

Should there even be such a thing as "a career in politics?"

Computer Models Fail to Predict Climate

This article is about -- aw, you know what it's about.

The Real Obama Scandal

Forget all those stupid e-mails you get about Barack Obama being a Muslim, refusing to swear on the Bible, and all that. They're not true.

Here's something that is true, and that you can e-mail to all your friends. Obama wants Americans to pay a global tax to the United Nations.

Obama sponsored a bill in the Senate (S.2433) called the "Global Poverty Act." The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Obama's Senate office sent out a release on the bill: "In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”

The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends on foreign aid.

Obama's bill would make it US policy to end "global poverty" by committing Americans to an extra tax to be paid to the United Nations, to be distributed (or stolen) at their pleasure.

While many rumors about Barack Obama are untrue, this one is documented. The House version of this bill (H.R.1302) has already passed the House, and at this time is close to being passed in the Senate.

Does the United States need to commit itself to pay a tax to the United Nations? Should Americans be forced to pay yet more in taxes? Should more American money -- nearly a trillion dollars more over the next 13 years -- go to countries that oppose and hate America, simply because they're poor?

Barack Obama thinks so.

They're Coming to Take Me Away

The Mississippi legislature recently introduced a bill that would make it illegal for restaurants to serve food to obese people. The bill reads in part:

"An Act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health; to direct the Department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the Department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act."

The bill proposes to revoke licenses of food establishments that violate the provisions of the act.

There are of course many comparisons to the campaign against tobacco users. The first phase explains that it's unhealthy, then it's immoral, and finally it's illegal. (Except in the case of tobacco taxes, which the government can't live without.) Remember how the campaign for seat belt use started out in the late 60's? It was all about safety. Then the message changed to "Parents shouldn't let their kids ride unbuckled." And now we have seatbelt laws.

We've had fifty years of various foods being labeled unhealthy. (The list changes frequently, with yesterday's "miracle food" today's killer, and vice versa.) Now the campaign has started to label obesity as "immoral." Charges of neglect have been levelled against parents for letting their children become obese. In any public discussion of the subject, watch the comments for the sneer and obvious distaste some people have for obese people. Obesity is now considered a character flaw.

Regrding the Mississippi legislation -- if they make it illegal for fat people to eat in restaurants, then fat people will eat at home. The only ones eating in restaurants will be thin people. (Guess what's just happened to the restaurants' business?) So if a legislator goes into a restaurant and sees only thin people, in his mind the legislation worked.

But did the fat people quit eating?

.

Lawmakers, like teachers, have very nebulous ideas of whether their efforts have been successful or not. Unfortunately, they have the power to control all aspects of our lives if we let them. If the Mississippi legislation had been successful -- it was not passed -- it would have spread to other states. And if it was tried once in Mississippi, it will for sure be tried and passed someplace like San Francisco or Berkeley.

.

How long before the fat police start working on supermarkets, and eventually make it illegal for you to have fatty foods in your refrigerator? "Raiding the icebox" takes on a whole new meaning.

Liberals Want You To Forget This

From Mitt Romney's concession speech at the CPAC conference Thursday, Feb 7:

[Israel's President] Simon Peres, in a visit to Boston, was asked what he thought about the war in Iraq. “First,” he said, “I must put something in context. America is unique in the history of the world. In the history of the world, whenever there has been conflict, the nation that wins takes land from the nation that loses. One nation in history, and this during the last century, laid down hundreds of thousands of lives and took no land. No land from Germany, no land from Japan, no land from Korea. America is unique in the sacrifice it has made for liberty, for itself and for freedom loving people around the world.”

The best ally peace has ever known, and will ever know, is a strong America.

Hell Freezes Over

Regarding a thought from my last post -- "McCain has little support among Conservative Republicans" -- Ann Coulter amplifies it in her trademark way:

The Liberal Endorsement

The New York Times recently endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in their respective primary races.

The New York Times is one of the most -- if not the most -- Liberal newspapers in the country. There is no way they will pick John McCain in the general election in November. So why do they pick him at all?

One possibility is that they believe McCain will be the easiest to defeat in November. Despite his recent wins in primaries (and a possible blowout today, "Super Tuesday,") McCain lacks support from a huge number of Conservative Republicans. [Sidenote: the Conservative vote has been split between Mike Huckabee, who has zero chance of winning, and Mitt Romney, who is running a close second to McCain in most races. It's the "Perot effect," the one that won Bill Clinton the election in 1992.]

With feeble support from Conservatives, if McCain wins the Republican nomination, he will be destroyed in November. The crushing victory for the Democrat will give Liberals the "mandate" chant again.

The New York Times knows all of this. Their stated reason for supporting McCain is that he is the most Liberal of the Republican candidates. With McCain's abridgement of free speech (McCain-Feingold,) his support of amnesty for illegal aliens (McCain-Kennedy,) and his embracement of the "governemnt should handle manmade global warming" concept (McCain-Lieberman,) McCain has shown that he is not only willing to compromise, but eager to appeal to Liberal sentiments.

A New York Times endorsement sends a pretty clear message.