Organizing for America | Truth Matters

Community Blogs

Truth Matters

View Full Profile »

About The Author...

TJ (New York, New York)

« Hide Full Profile

User Profile

User:

Name:

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Voting machine problems

By TJ - Oct 23rd, 2008 at 8:08 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

I noticed in a news report that voters may be having problems using the touch screen ballot machines. From what I saw the candidates are listed in one column which can lead to mistakes if you are not careful.

If you separate the candidates by party into columns this would eliminate the accidental selection of candidates below or above the voters actual pick

Republican Democrat Independent Green Party

President John McCain Barack Obama Bob Barr Ron Paul

If anyone knows who to suggest this to please do

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Youtube clips in support of Obama

By TJ - Oct 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Battle of the Senators: McCain vs Obama Part 1

Battle of the Senators: McCain vs Obama Part 2

These videos compare Obama's and McCain's US Senate voting records on different issues. I only used 30 votes so far but I have more I would like to add. Any ideas or suggestions to make these videos more interesting and informative would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to spread these videos around.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Is anything being done about this?

By TJ - Oct 10th, 2008 at 11:11 am EDT

Also listed in: 9 groups

Elections officials deny illegally purging voters

Fri Oct 10, 12:22 AM ET

A newspaper report Thursday said tens of thousands of eligible voters have been removed from rolls or blocked from registering in at least six swing states. Election officials lined up to defend their registration procedures and said they had done nothing wrong.

The New York Times based its findings on reviews of state records and Social Security data, and said it had identified apparent problems in Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina.

Two states had purged voters, the Times said. Ohio and three other states were cited only for sending several requests for voter registration verifications to the Social Security Administration.

The Times said voters appear to have been purged by mistake and not because of any intentional violations by election officials or coordinated efforts by any party. It says that some states are improperly using Social Security data to verify new voters' registration applications, and that others might have broken rules that govern removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election.

Elections officials in several states disputed that any voters were illegally removed from rolls. Michigan elections director Chris Thomas said the state removed only people who have died, notified authorities of a move or who were declared unfit to vote, which is well within the parameters of the law. Thomas said only 11,000 voters were removed from Michigan rolls in August — not 33,000, the figure cited in the report.

"There is no illegal purging going on," Thomas told The Associated Press on Thursday.

The Times stood by its story. Spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the newspaper's reporting was based on voter registration data provided by the states themselves, and in Michigan's case compared an Aug. 5 snapshot of registered voters with a Sept. 5 snapshot.

She said the Times explained its methodology to Thomas on Thursday, "and he said he could not explain the discrepancy between our figures and Michigan's official numbers."

States have been trying to follow the Help America Vote Act of 2002 by removing the names of voters who should no longer be listed. But for every voter added to the rolls in the past two months in some states, election officials have removed two, the Times' review of the records found.

States appear to have violated federal law in one of two ways, according to the newspaper report. Some are removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election, which is not allowed except when voters die, notify the authorities that they have moved out of state or have been declared unfit to vote, The Times said.

And some of the states are improperly using Social Security data to verify registration applications for new voters, the newspaper reported.

Under the Help America Vote Act, many states have an agreement with the Social Security Administration requiring them to submit the last four digits of a new voter's Social Security number for verification if the person does not have a valid state-issued ID, such as a license.

Colorado said it would review its practices of "canceling" voters who had moved, died or were deemed otherwise ineligible. Secretary of State Mike Coffman said he asked lawyers to determine if the state's protocols violated a federal ban on "systematic" purging close to an election, but said because people, not computers, were doing the reviews, he believed they were sound. He said nearly 2,500 voters may be restored if the procedure is found to have violated the law.

Last week, amid concerns about an uptick in the number of requests for verification, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue sent a letter to officials in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina and Ohio seeking to verify that the checks were run only on new voters who don't have acceptable identification. States have said the increase in checks is due partly to a stream of new voters coming in to register.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's office released a copy of the letter in which Astrue notes that his agency had received more than 740,000 requests for verification from Ohio since Oct. 1, 2007.

"Such a volume appears to be much greater than one would expect, given that states of comparable or larger populations have a significantly lower number of verification requests," the letter said.

Brunner said Tuesday that roughly 666,000 new voters had registered in Ohio since the start of 2008.

Late Thursday, a federal judge ordered Brunner to not only verify the identity of newly registered voters in accordance with the Help America Vote Act, but to also establish a process by which Ohio's 88 county election boards can access the information.

Brunner has been doing the verification, but has not established that process. She said the Ohio attorney general's office is filing an immediate appeal of the judge's order.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Ohio Republican Party against Brunner, a Democrat.

In Georgia, federal officials say some 2 million checks have been completed, but only 406,000 new voters were registered. The Department of Justice has questioned the checks, and state officials say they are trying to determine how federal authorities arrived at that figure.

North Carolina elections watchdog Bob Hall, who heads the advocacy group Democracy North Carolina, defended the state's elections board and called the Times story "reprehensible."

Hall said he has found that many registration forms are incomplete or partly illegible and that many prospective voters provide Social Security numbers instead of driver's licenses. Because of that, he said it's not surprising that the state would need to run so many verifications.

Indiana also defended its procedures. "Using all available appropriate technology is our best way to combat voter fraud that we know exists in this state and across the country," Secretary of State Todd Rokita said in a statement Thursday.

Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller issued a statement calling the Times report misleading.

"I want to assure Nevadans that any suggestion that eligible voters will be denied their right to participate in this election on Nov. 4 is false," he said.

If voters were wrongfully removed from rolls, they could show up on Election Day and be challenged by political party officials or election workers. Any discrepancy could disproportionately affect Democrats, who have registered voters more aggressively.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Does Truth Matter? STOP THE SMEARS

By TJ - Oct 6th, 2008 at 12:41 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

To: The American Media

From: The American People

Subject: WE NEED TO HEAR THE TRUTH

1. We have just experienced financial drama, must we now endure the muck raking and smears of political campaigns. We need to know the facts, true, undeniable, verifiable facts. What America needs most at this time is unbiased truth to restore its faith in its elected leaders. The only way we are going to get the truth is through the media. We respectful ask the media to help make America stronger by reporting the truth to WE THE PEOPLE.

I ask my fellow Americans to send the above letter to as many members of the media as possible, our voices must be heard. Here are some media contacts you might want to start with:

ABC News http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3068843

MSNBC Email: letters@msnbc.com, Rachel@msnbc.com

NBC Email: Today@NBCUNI.com, Nightly@NBC.com, Dateline@NBCUNI.com

CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml

FOX http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html

CNN http://www.cnn.com/feedback/

New York Times nytnews@nytimes.com

New York Post letters@nypost.com

Washington Post letters@washpost.com

PLEASE TAKE ACTION

DON'T FORGET TO SEND TO THE LOCAL MEDIA IN YOUR STATE

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Videos That May be of Interest

By TJ - Oct 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1VkhiHXSug

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-af0O39_sE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEk80EhMW3Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFmlgm-mthU

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Why didn't McCain ring the alarm the first time?

By TJ - Oct 3rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

On May 6, 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, S.900, was passed by the United States Senate. 53 republicans and 1 democrat passed the bill. John McCain was one of the republicans that voted “YES” to pass the bill.Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

Section 101-A of the bill repeals section 20 of the Banking Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. 377) (commonly referred to as the `Glass-Steagall Act'). The title of section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act is CREDIT CONTROL. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act completely wipes out the credit control section of the law. Source: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=044198414213+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Section 101-B of the bill repeals section 32 of the Banking Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. 78). The title of section 32 of the Banking Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. 78) is DIRECTORS. The purpose of this section of the law was to define persons excluded from serving as officers, directors, or employees of member banks. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act completely eliminated the rules as to who could be on the board of directors of banks and work as employees.Source: http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=043024409680+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act played a major role in the deregulation of the banking industry.

SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE APPROVES DOLE LEGISLATION TO REFORM OVERSIGHT OF FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC

July 28th, 2005 - Washington, D.C. - The Senate Banking Committee today approved legislation introduced by U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole and her colleagues Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and John Sununu (R-NH) that would improve oversight of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). The bill, the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190), must now be considered by the full Senate.

“It is of the utmost importance that we enact legislation this year to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate under an effective, world-class regulator,” said Dole. “This bill sends a strong message to those employees at Fannie and Freddie who have cooked the books at these important institutions.

“It is unacceptable that such entities - that were designed with the sole purpose of lowering the cost of homeownership through a liquid secondary mortgage market - had become grossly mismanaged and must restate earnings. Why should these financial institutions, with debts that rival the federal government, have any less regulation than a bank? We cannot accept having a regulator that was intentionally made to be weak when the stakes are so high for the American people and our economy,” Dole added.

The legislation would:

· Create an independent world class regulator to oversee the safety and soundness of the housing enterprises;

· Give the new regulator the authority to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout;

· Give the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to prevent insolvency;

· Give the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE;

· Require the annual audits of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support the enterprises’ affordable housing mission;

· End presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected.

The above press release was given after the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Development approved the bill to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill went to a republican controlled US Senate where no action was taken; the bill was allowed to die.

Why didn’t John McCain hear the alarm the first time?

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

$700 Billion Bailout: An Alternative Plan

By TJ - Sep 25th, 2008 at 8:48 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

DO NOT LET THE GOVERNMENT GIVE OUR MONEY TO WALL STREET

The government says that this financial crisis is closely tied to the home/mortgage crisis. If this is so, wouldn't it be more prudent to:

1. Stop all lis pendens and foreclosure actions
2. Make payments on these lis pendens and foreclosures current (one time deal)
3. Have the government reset the interest rates on the mortgages in lis pendens and foreclosure status to fixed rates that would allow the home owners to have manageable mortgage payments (rates would vary depending on the financial means of home owners)

If this is done you will have essentially stopped the mortgage crisis, helped Americans save their homes, and bolstered the American/world economies.

Contact the US Senate to offer this alternative:
US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
http://banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Form
Phone# (202)224-7391, Fax# (202)224-5137

Also alert the media:
ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3068843
MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/
Email:
letters@msnbc.com
Rachel@msnbc.com
NBC
Email:
Today@NBCUNI.com, Nightly@NBC.com, Dateline@NBCUNI.com
CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Please send this to the press

By TJ - Sep 24th, 2008 at 5:55 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Why can't this be done with the $700 Billion.

1. Create jobs by starting needed infrastructure projects

2. Bring up to date the payments of all home owners who are in foreclosure or behind possiblly by 3 months. (One time action) If it happens again, too bad.

3. Set rates on all at risk mortgages to a level (fixed rate) that allows Americans to repay them.

4. Give to all Americans a one time debt reduction payment, no higher than $5,000.

These simple actions would do the following

Put money in the hands of Americans

Gets rid of the bad mortgages which seem to be at the base of the problem

Reduces Americans debt at the same time infusing lenders with cash

Press email addresses:

letters@newsweek.com, letters@time.com, conedit@ajc.com, letter@globe.com, newshour@pbs.org, letters@usnews.com, info@ap.org, special@foxnews.com, foxreport@foxnews.com, hannity@foxnews.com,colmes@foxnews.com,national@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com, letters@nytimes.com,Nightly@NBC.com,Dateline@NBCUNI.com,letters@msnbc.com,Rachel@msnbc.com,yourcomments@foxnews.com,letters@baltsun.com,gbulfin@sun-sentinel.com, dbanker@sun-sentinel.com, alrosenberg@sun-sentinel.com, afins@sun-sentinel.com,will.scheihing@mcall.com, paul.carpenter@mcall.com, ron.stumpf@mcall.com, marc.rosenberg@mcall.com, Lrhode@Altoonamirror.Com, Jvanderkolk@Altoonamirror.Com, Dhurst@Altoonamirror.Com, public.information@cnn.com,vcm@cnn.com

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Take Action People!!!!!!!

By TJ - Sep 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Why can't this be done with the $700 Billion.

1. Create jobs by starting needed infrastructure projects

2. Bring up to date the payments of all home owners who are in foreclosure or behind possiblly by 3 months. (One time action) If it happens again, too bad.

3. Set rates on all at risk mortgages to a level that allows Americans to repay them.

4. Give to all Americans a one time debt reduction payment, no higher than $5,000.

These simple actions would do the following

Put money in the hands of Americans

Gets rid of the bad mortgages which seem to be at the base of the problem

Reduces Americans debt at the same time infusing lenders with cash

Use the link below to send this to the

US Senate Committee On Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Alternate $700 Billion Bailout Plan

By TJ - Sep 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Why can't this be done with the $700 Billion.

1. Create jobs by starting needed infrastructure projects

2. Bring up to date the payments of all home owners who are in foreclosure or behind possiblly by 3 months. (One time action) If it happens again, too bad.

3. Set rates on all at risk mortgages to a level that allows Americans to repay them.

4. Give to all Americans a one time debt reduction payment, no higher than $5,000.

These simple actions would:

Put money in the hands of Americans
Gets rid of the bad mortgages which seem to be at the base of the problem
Reduces Americans debt at the same time infusing lenders with cash

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain: Veterans and Military

By TJ - Sep 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Before you read the following US Senate votes, in which McCain voted "NO" and Obama voted "YES", you should understand a few facts. Bills get signed into law by the President. Amendments are used to make changes to bills. They can be used to strike (remove things from), add, or modify a bill.
Motion to proceed to consider - A motion, usually offered by the Majority Leader to bring a bill or other measure up for consideration. The usual way of bringing a measure to the floor when unanimous consent to do so cannot be obtained. For legislative business, the motion is debatable under most circumstances, and therefore may be subject to filibuster.
If you don't want to consider something, you vote against it.

I only mention this because when McCain is questioned about his US Senate votes he often responds by saying, "The bill contained 'pork/earmarks' or tells the person asking the question that he doesn't know where he got that information from. Simply put if you vote against an amendment, you don't want to see it on the bill.

All of the bills that these amendments were for passed, these amendments did not make it on the bills.

US SENATE VOTES

McCain voted "NO" Obama voted "YES"

Veterans
McCain says he supports our veterans yet he votes against them when veteran issues come up in the US Senate.

Vote Number: 98 Vote Date: April 26, 2006, 05:55 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939 Statement of Purpose: To provide an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
Source: US Senate Vote 98

Vote Number: 63 Vote Date: March 16, 2006, 03:28 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3141 to S.Con.Res. 83
Statement of Purpose: To provide an assured stream of funding for veteran's health care that will take into account the annual changes in the veteran's population and inflation to be paid for by restoring the pre-2001 top rate for income over $1 million, closing corporate tax loopholes and delaying tax cuts for the wealthy.
Source: US Senate 63

Vote Number: 41 Vote Date: March 14, 2006, 04:22 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3007 to S.Con.Res. 83 Statement of Purpose: To increase Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
Source: US Senate Vote 41

Vote Number: 343 Vote Date: November 17, 2005, 10:41 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2634 to S. 2020
Statement of Purpose: To provide an additional $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010, to be used for readjustment counseling, related mental health services, and treatment and rehabilitative services for veterans with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance use disorder.
Source: US Senate Vote 343

Vote Number: 251 Vote Date: October 5, 2005, 09:43 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1937 to H.R. 2863
Statement of Purpose: To ensure that future funding for health care for former members of the Armed Forces takes into account changes in population and inflation.
Source:
US Senate Vote 251

Vote Number: 248 Vote Date: October 5, 2005, 08:30 PM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1933 to H.R. 2863 Statement of Purpose: To increase by $360,800,000 amounts appropriated by title IX for Other Procurement, Army, for the procurement of armored Tactical Wheeled Vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to increase by $5,000,000 amounts appropriated by title IX for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for industrial preparedness for the implementation of a ballistics engineering research center.
Source: US Senate Vote 248

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Send a message to the press

By TJ - Sep 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 am EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Again the press has not reported a fact that is relevant to the financial crisis we are experiencing, please email them and let them know the republican controlled senate did not act on this.

Source: http://dole.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=d692e1c0-224d-4109-ac5e-14a5cfee0af8&Month=7&Year=2005
SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE APPROVES DOLE LEGISLATION TO REFORM OVERSIGHT OF FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC

July 28th, 2005 -

Washington, D.C. - The Senate Banking Committee today approved legislation introduced by U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole and her colleagues Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and John Sununu (R-NH) that would improve oversight of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). The bill, the Federal Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act (S. 190), must now be considered by the full Senate.

"It is of the utmost importance that we enact legislation this year to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate under an effective, world-class regulator," said Dole. "This bill sends a strong message to those employees at Fannie and Freddie who have cooked the books at these important institutions.

"It is unacceptable that such entities - that were designed with the sole purpose of lowering the cost of homeownership through a liquid secondary mortgage market - had become grossly mismanaged and must restate earnings. Why should these financial institutions, with debts that rival the federal government, have any less regulation t han a bank? We cannot accept having a regulator that was intentionally made to be weak when the stakes are so high for the American people and our economy," Dole added.

The legislation would:

· Create an independent world class regulator to oversee the safety and soundness of the housing enterprises;

· Give the new regulator the authority to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout;

· Give the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to prevent insolvency;

· Give the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE;

· Require the annual audits of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support the enterprises’ affordable housing mission;

· End presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected.

Additional Background

On September 17, 2004, Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, released a report that, among other things, charged that through improper derivatives accounting, Fannie Mae manipulated earnings to hide volatility (as Freddie acknowledged in 2003) and to reach bonus targets for executives. Fannie Mae denied this but did not file third quarter earnings in November. On December 15, 2004, the SEC released its findings with re gard to only the underlying accounting questions. The SEC also determined that Fannie Mae violated underlying accounting questions. It determined that Fannie Mae violated underlying accounting rules and must restate its earnings for the last four years. This will force Fannie to recognize an estimated $11 billion of losses on derivatives used to hedge interest rate risks.

This legislation (S. 1508) was first introduced in 2003 by Senators Dole, Hagel and Sununu. Their bill served as the vehicle for GSE reform legislation passed last year by the Senate Banking Committee. The Senate did not act on the Committee-passed legislation last Congress.

SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE APPROVES DOLE LEGISLATION TO REFORM OVERSIGHT OF FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC Jul 28, 2005: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably. It was approved by the committee which had a majority democrat membership.There were 11 democrats and 10 republicans in that committee and it passed.OK,democrats didn't stop in committee in 2005, republicans had two year to take action since they controlled congress.The republicans had every chance to do something and they did nothing.

Here are email addres ses you can send it to:
letters@newsweek.com, letters@time.com, conedit@ajc.com, letter@globe.com, newshour@pbs.org, letters@usnews.com, info@ap.org, special@foxnews.com, foxreport@foxnews.com, hannity@foxnews.com,colmes@foxnews.com
New York Timesnational@nytimes.com, editorial@nytimes.com, letters@nytimes.com
ABC
World News with Charles Gibson http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=World%20News%20with%20Charles%20Gibson
NightLine http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3428117
This Week http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3428174
CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/feedback/fb_news_form.shtml
NBC
Nightly News with Brian Williams mailto:Nightly@NBC.com
Dateline NBC mailto:Dateline@NBCUNI.com
Meet the Press http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/
MSNBC letters@msnbc.comRachel@msnbc.com
Fox News yourcomments@foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html
USA Today http://feedbackforms.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18
Minnesota
http://wcco.com/contact
Maryland
letters@baltsun.com
Florida
mailto:gbulfin@sun-sentinel.com, mailto:dbanker@sun-sentinel.com, mailto:alrosenberg@sun-sentinel.com, mailto:afins@sun-sentinel.com
Pennsylvania
mailto:will.scheihing@mcall.com, mailto:paul.carpenter@mcall.com, mailto:ron.stumpf@mcall.com, mailto:marc.rosenberg@mcall.com, mailto:Lrhode@Altoonamirror.Com, mailto:Jvanderkolk@Altoonamirror.Com, mailto:Dhurst@Altoonamirror.Com, http://www.philly.com/philly/about/feedback/, http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/page?oid=14952

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain: No Protection for the People

By TJ - Sep 15th, 2008 at 6:09 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Link: Watch the video

Before you read the following US Senate votes, in which McCain voted "NO" and Obama voted "YES", you should understand a few facts. Bills get signed into law by the President. Amendments are used to make changes to bills. They can be used to strike (remove things from), add, or modify a bill.

I only mention this because when McCain is questioned about his US Senate votes he often responds by saying, "The bill contained 'pork/earmarks' or tells the person asking the question that he doesn't know where he got that information from. Simply put if you vote against an amendment, you don't want to see it on the bill.

Vote Number: 9 Vote Date: February 2, 2006, 09:19 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2705 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that protecting middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax should be a higher priority for Congress in 2006 than extending a tax cut that does not expire until the end of 2008.
Source: US Senate Vote 2006/9

Vote Number: 334 Vote Date: November 17, 2005, 04:57 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2612 to S. 2020
Statement of Purpose: To improve the Federal Trade Commission's ability to protect consumers from price-gouging during energy emergencies, and for other purposes.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/334

Vote Number: 261 Vote Date: October 20, 2005, 02:32 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2077 to H.R. 3058
Statement of Purpose: To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/261

Vote Number: 250 Vote Date: October 5, 2005, 09:18 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2033 to H.R. 2863
Statement of Purpose: To provide for appropriations for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/250

Vote Number: 36 Vote Date: March 10, 2005, 11:17 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 70 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by failure to receive alimony or child support, or both, from means testing.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/36

Vote Number: 34 Vote Date: March 9, 2005, 02:49 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 67 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To modify the bill to protect families, and for other purposes.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/34

Vote Number: 25 Vote Date: March 3, 2005, 06:28 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 49 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To protect employees and retirees from corporate practices that deprive them of their earnings and retirement savings when a business files for bankruptcy.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/25

Vote Number: 22 Vote Date: March 3, 2005, 03:27 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 38 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To discourage predatory lending practices.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/22

Vote Number: 21 Vote Date: March 3, 2005, 02:37 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 37 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To exempt debtors from means testing if their financial problems were caused by identity theft.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/21

Vote Number: 18 Vote Date: March 2, 2005, 05:55 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 32 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/18

Vote Number: 17 Vote Date: March 2, 2005, 05:31 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 29 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To provide protection for medical debt homeowners.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/17

Vote Number: 16 Vote Date: March 2, 2005, 04:56 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 28 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/16

Vote Number: 15 Vote Date: March 2, 2005, 11:48 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 15 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To require enhanced disclosure to consumers regarding the consequences of making only minimum required payments in the repayment of credit card debt, and for other purposes.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/15

Vote Number: 14 Vote Date: March 2, 2005, 11:14 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 17 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To provide a homestead floor for the elderly.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/14

Vote Number: 13 Vote Date: March 1, 2005, 06:07 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 16 to S. 256
Statement of Purpose: To protect servicemembers and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.
Source: US Senate Vote 2005/13

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain: Nuclear Accidents

By TJ - Sep 15th, 2008 at 5:48 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

John McCain Nuclear Energy

McCain says we have not had an accident involving nuclear energy. What are these? No nuclear explosions but how many near misses do we get?

The list is to long to post use the link to see the entire list.

Link: Watch the video

Link to report: Read the full report

From the report:
EXPLOSION, BURNING OR OTHER SPREAD OF FISSILE MATERIAL
(in chronological order)
August 5, 1950, Suisun Air Force Base, Fairfield, California
A B-29 bomber carrying a nuclear weapon without its fissile core crashed and burned near a trailer park occupied by 200 families. The crew experienced difficulty with the aircraft's propellers and with retracting its landing gear immediately after takeoff from Fairfield-Suisun Air Force Base (now Travis Air Force Base), eventually crashing while attempting an emergency landing.
The bomber was carrying 10-12 500 lb. conventional explosive bombs, which detonated 15 minutes after the crash. The ensuing blast was felt as far as 30 miles away and created a crater 20 yards across and six feet deep. The crash and subsequent detonation killed eighteen personnel, including Air Force General Travis, and injured 60 others.
May 22, 1957, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico
A nuclear weapon without its fissile core fell from the bomb bay of a B-36 at an altitude of 1,700 feet and exploded upon impact. The bomber was transporting both the weapon and its fissile core, which had been removed for safety, from Biggs Air Force Base in Texas to Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. Although parachutes attached to the weapon were deployed during its descent, they did not function properly.
The nuclear weapon was completely destroyed in the detonation which occurred approximately 4.5 miles south of the Kirtland control tower and 0.3 miles west of the Sandia Base reservation, creating a blast crater approximately 25 feet in diameter and 12 feet deep. Fragments of the bomb and debris were scattered over a one mile area. A radiological survey of the area was conducted, but revealed no radioactive contamination beyond the lip of the crater.
January 31, 1958, Unidentified Overseas Base
A B-47 bomber with one nuclear weapon in strike configuration was making a simulated takeoff during an exercise when the left rear wheel casting failed, causing the tail to strike the runway and rupturing the fuel tank. The aircraft caught fire and burned for seven hours. Although the weapon's high explosives did not detonate, there was some contamination in the area immediately surrounding the crash. Following the accident, exercise alerts were temporarily suspended.
The crash may have taken place at a U.S. airbase in Sidi Slimane, French Morocco. An earlier Air Force document reported that "contamination of the wreckage was high, but that of the surrounding area was low." A June 8, 1960, New York Times report mentions a nuclear weapon accident having occurred "at a United States field near Tripoli, Libya," but provides no further details.
*February 1958, Greenham Common Airbase, England
A B-47 bomber experiencing engine trouble during takeoff jettisoned two full 1,700 gallon fuel tanks from an altitude of 8,000 feet, which missed a designated safe impact area and exploded 65 feet behind a parked B-47 loaded with nuclear weapons. The resulting fire burned for 16 hours and caused the high explosives package of at least one weapon to explode. The explosion released radioactive material, including powdered uranium and plutonium oxides, at least 10 to 20 grams of which were found off base. An adjacent hangar was also severely damaged, and other planes nearby had to be hosed down to prevent their ignition by the intense heat fueled by the jet propellant and magnesium in the B-47. The fire killed two people, injured eight others, and destroyed the bomber.
The Air Force has never officially admitted that nuclear weapons were involved in this accident. The Air Force and British Ministry of Defence agreed in 1956 to deny the existence of nuclear weapons in any accident involving U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in England. In 1985, the British government reported that the accident involved a parked B-47 that was struck by a taxiing B-47 on a training exercise, omitting any mention of the ensuing fire.
"Activists Claim Proof of Nuclear Accident," San Francisco Examiner, July 15, 1996, p. A-11; Shaun Gregory, The Hidden Cost of Deterrence: Nuclear Weapons Accidents, Brassey's UK, London, 1990, p.152; From a report on Greenham Common Accident, "Broken Arrow," Center for Nuclear Disarmament, London, England, July 1996, http://www.cnduk.org/brokenarrow/index.html.
November 26, 1958, Chennault Air Force Base, Lake Charles, Louisiana
A B-47 bomber caught fire on the ground, destroying the single nuclear weapon onboard. Contamination was limited to the immediate vicinity of the aircraft wreckage.
July 6, 1959, Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, Louisiana
A C-124 aircraft transporting a nuclear weapon without its fissile core crashed during takeoff, completely destroying the aircraft and nuclear weapon. There was a limited amount of contamination immediately below the destroyed weapon, but not enough to hamper rescue or firefighting operations.
June 7, 1960, McGuire Air Force Base, near Trenton, New Jersey
A BOMARC* air defense missile being stored in a ready state that permitted its launch in two minutes was destroyed after a high pressure helium tank exploded and ruptured the missile's fuel tanks. Although the warhead was also destroyed by the fire, the safety devices acted properly and prevented the weapon's high explosives from detonating. A New York Times article described a near nuclear disaster, noting that the missile "melted under an intense blaze fed by its 100-pound detonator TNT...The atomic warhead apparently dropped into the molten mass that was left of the missile, which burned for forty-five minutes." The ensuing radiation "had been caused when thoriated magnesium metal which forms part of the weapon, caught fire." The Pentagon report said that only the area immediately beneath the weapon and an adjacent elongated area approximately 100 feet long were contaminated by water runoff from fighting the fire.
* "BO" for Boeing and "MARC" for Michigan Aeronautical Research Center.
November 13, 1963, Atomic Energy Commission Storage Igloo, Medina Base, San Antonio, Texas
While three employees were dismantling the high explosive (HE) components of a nuclear bomb, they began burning spontaneously, triggering a large blast involving 120 pounds of HE. The explosion caused little contamination.
New York University's Dr. Joel Larus, who investigated the incident, was provided details of three similar incidents by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) on January 13, 1966. They are as follows:
Hamburg, New York (January 4, 1958)...An eastbound Nickel Plate railroad freight train derailed. Five cars carrying "AEC classified material" were involved in the accident. According to the report there was no damage to the material and no injury to AEC personnel escorting the shipment.
Winslow, Arizona (November 4, 1961)...A trailer truck caught fire while carrying a small amount of radioactive material. There was no contamination resulting from the fire.
Marietta, Georgia (December 2, 1962)...A Louisville and Nashville train derailed while carrying nuclear weapons components. The material was not damaged, but three couriers were injured.
As these accounts demonstrate, accidents of this nature probably happen more frequently than reported. For instance, a Department of Energy trailer carrying plutonium from Richland, Washington, to New Mexico overturned on icy roads on Interstate 25 near Fort Collins, Colorado, in December 1980.
December 8, 1964, Bunker Hill (now Grissom) Air Force Base, Peru, Indiana
A B-58 bomber lost control and slid off a runway during taxi, causing portions of the five nuclear weapons onboard to burn in an ensuing fire. There were no detonations and contamination was limited to the immediate area of the crash.
October 11, 1965, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton, Ohio
A C-124 transport aircraft containing nuclear weapons components and a dummy training unit caught fire while being refueled. The fire started at the aft end of the refueling trailer and destroyed the aircraft's fuselage. There were no casualties and the resultant radiation hazard was minimal.
January 17, 1966, Palomares, Spain
A B-52 bomber carrying four hydrogen bombs collided in midair with a KC-135 tanker near Palomares, Spain. Of the four H-bombs aboard, two weapons' high explosive material exploded on ground impact, releasing radioactive materials, including plutonium, over the fields of Palomares. Approximately 1,400 tons of slightly contaminated soil and vegetation were later taken to the United States for storage at an approved site. A third nuclear weapon fell to earth but remained relatively intact; the last one fell into the ocean.
The weapon that sank in the Mediterranean set off one of the largest search and recovery operations in history. The search took about eighty days and employed 3,000 Navy personnel and 33 Navy vessels, not including ships, planes, and people used to move equipment to the site. Although the midget sub "Alvin" located the bomb after two weeks, it was not recovered until April 7. Wreckage from the accident fell across approximately 100 square miles of land and water.
The accident occurred during a routine high altitude air refueling operation as the B-52 was returning to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, North Carolina, after flying the southern route of the Strategic Air Command air alert mission code named "Chrome Dome." The bomber was attempting its third refueling with a KC-135 tanker from the American base at Moron, when the nozzle of the tanker's boom struck the bomber. The boom ripped open the B-52 along its spine, snapping the bomber into pieces. The KC-135's 40,000 gallons of jet fuel ignited, killing seven crewmen.
January 21, 1968, Thule, Greenland
Four nuclear bombs were destroyed in a fire after the B-52 bomber carrying them crashed approximately seven miles southwest of the runway at Thule Air Force Base in Greenland. The B-52, from Plattsburgh Air Force Base in New York, crashed after a fire broke out in the navigator's compartment. The pilot was en route to Thule AFB to attempt an emergency landing. Upon impact with the ground, the plane burst into flames, igniting the high explosive outer coverings of at least one of the bombs. The explosive then detonated, scattering plutonium and other radioactive materials over an area about 300 yards on either side of the plane's path, much of it in "cigarette box-sized" pieces.
The bomber had been flying the Arctic Circle route as part of the Strategic Air Command's continuous airborne alert operation, code-name "Chrome Dome." One crew member was killed in the crash.
The government of Denmark, which owns Greenland and prohibits nuclear weapons on or over its territory, issued a strong protest following large demonstrations in that country. A few days after the crash, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ordered the removal of nuclear weapons from airborne alert. The alerts themselves were later curtailed and then suspended altogether.
September 19, 1980, Damascus, Arkansas
Fuel vapors from a Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) exploded in the missile's silo, blowing off the 740-ton silo door of reinforced concrete and steel and catapulting the missile's nuclear warhead 600 feet. The accident occurred when an Air Force repairman dropped a heavy wrench socket that struck the missile, causing a leak in the missile's pressurized fuel tank. The fuel caught fire and exploded approximately 8 ½ hours later, killing one person and injuring twenty-one others. The missile's reentry vehicle, which contained a nuclear warhead, was recovered intact.
WEAPONS LOST/MISSING
March 10, 1956, Over the Mediterranean Sea
A B-47 bomber carrying two nuclear weapon cores in their carrying cases disappeared over the Mediterranean Sea. The aircraft, on a nonstop flight from MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, to an undisclosed overseas airbase, was lost with its crew. After takeoff the B-47 was scheduled for two in-flight-refuelings before reaching its final destination. The first refueling was successfully completed, but the aircraft never made contact with the second refueling tanker over the Mediterranean Sea. Despite an extensive search, no trace of the aircraft, the nuclear weapon cores, or crew, were ever found.
July 28, 1957, Over the Atlantic Ocean
A C-124 transport aircraft that was having mechanical problems jettisoned two nuclear weapons without their fissile cores off the east coast of the United States. The C-124 was en route from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware when it lost power to its number one and two engines. The crew determined that level flight could not be maintained with the weight of the weapons onboard and decided to jettison the cargo. Although neither weapon detonated, both are presumed to have been damaged from impact with the ocean surface and to have sunk almost instantly. Neither the weapons nor debris were ever found. The C-124 safely landed at an airfield near Atlantic City, New Jersey, with the remaining weapon and nuclear warhead aboard.
February 5, 1958, Savannah River, Georgia
A nuclear weapon without a fissile core was lost following a mid-air collision. A B-47 bomber carrying a nuclear weapon without its fissile core collided with a F-86 aircraft near Savannah, Georgia. Following three unsuccessful attempts to land the plane at Hunter Air Force Base in Georgia, the weapon was jettisoned to avoid the risk of a high explosive detonation at the base. The weapon was jettisoned into the water several miles from the mouth of Savannah River in Wassaw Sound off Tybee Beach, but the precise point of impact is unknown. The weapon's high explosives did not detonate on impact. A subsequent search covering three square miles used divers and sonar devices, but failed to find the weapon. The search was ended on April 16, 1958, and the weapon was considered to be irretrievably lost.
Some accounts of nuclear weapon accidents list a February 12, 1958, accident involving a B-47 near Savannah, Georgia. "The best estimate" of the weapon's location, an earlier DoD narrative noted, "was determined to be 31 degrees 54' 15" North, 80 degrees 54' 45" West." The B-47 was on a simulated combat mission from Florida's Homestead Air Force Base.
September 25, 1959, Off Whidbey Island, Washington
A U.S. Navy P-5M aircraft carrying an unarmed nuclear depth charge without its fissile core crashed into Puget Sound near Whidbey Island, Washington. The weapon was never recovered.
January 24, 1961, Goldsboro, North Carolina
In what nearly became a nuclear catastrophe, a B-52 bomber on airborne alert carrying two nuclear weapons broke apart in midair. The B-52 experienced structural failure in its right wing and the aircraft's resulting breakup released the two weapons from a height of 2,000-10,000 feet. One of the bomb's parachutes deployed properly and that weapon's damage was minimal. However, the second bomb's parachute malfunctioned and the weapon broke apart upon impact, scattering its components over a wide area. According to Daniel Ellsberg, the weapon could have accidentally fired because "five of the six safety devices had failed." Nuclear physicist Ralph E. Lapp supported this assertion, saying that "only a single switch" had "prevented the bomb from detonating and spreading fire and destruction over a wide area."
Despite an extensive search of the waterlogged farmland where the weapon was believed to have landed, the bomb's highly enriched uranium core was never recovered. In order to prevent any discovery of the lost portion of the weapon, the Air Force purchased an easement which required that permission be obtained before any construction or digging could begin in the area. Three crew members were killed in the crash.
The accident was apparently so serious that it was reported to newly-elected President John F. Kennedy. According to Newsweek, President Kennedy was informed after the accident that "there had been more than 60 accidents involving nuclear weapons" since World War II, "including two cases in which nuclear-tipped anti-aircraft missiles were actually launched by inadvertence." As a result of the Goldsboro accident, the U.S. placed many new safety devices on its nuclear arsenal and the Soviet Union was encouraged to do the same.
December 5, 1965, Aboard the USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) in the Pacific Ocean
An A-4E Skyhawk strike aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon rolled off an elevator on the U.S. aircraft carrier Ticonderoga and fell into the sea. Because the bomb was lost at a depth of approximately 16,000 feet, Pentagon officials feared that intense water pressure could have caused the B-43 hydrogen bomb to explode. It is still unknown whether an explosion did occur. The pilot, aircraft, and weapon were lost.
The Pentagon claimed that the bomb was lost "500 miles away from land." However, it was later revealed that the aircraft and nuclear weapon sank only miles from the Japanese island chain of Ryukyu. Several factors contributed to the Pentagon's secretiveness. The USS Ticonderoga was returning from a mission off North Vietnam; confirming that the carrier had nuclear weapons aboard would document their introduction into the Vietnam War. Furthermore, Japan's anti-nuclear law prohibited the introduction of atomic weapons into its territory, and U.S. military bases in Japan are not exempt from this law. Thus, confirming that the USS Ticonderoga carried nuclear weapons would signify U.S. violation of its military agreements with Japan. The carrier was headed to Yokosuka, Japan, and disclosure of the accident in the mid-1980s caused a strain in U.S.-Japanese relations.
Spring 1968, Aboard the USS Scorpion (SSN-589) in the Atlantic Ocean
Although the Pentagon has not publicly released details of the accident, it probably refers to the nuclear powered attack submarine USS Scorpion that was lost at sea. The sub, carrying unidentified nuclear weapons, was last heard from on May 21, 1968, while returning to Norfolk, Virginia, after a three month training exercise in the Mediterranean Sea. The USS Scorpion sank 400-500 miles southwest of the Azores.
The U.S. initially suspected that the Soviet Union was somehow involved. The suspicions were allayed when the research ship Mizar (T-AK-272) photographed the wreckage lying on the sea floor at 10,000 feet. A Navy court of inquiry found "no evidence of any kind to suggest foul play or sabotage," and found that the "certain cause of the loss of the Scorpion cannot be ascertained from evidence now available."

Link:
http://www.radiationworks.com/sl1reactor.htm
SL-1 Accident
A small, 3MW experimental BWR called SL-1 (Stationary Low-Power Plant No. 1) in Idaho was destroyed on January 3, 1961, when a control rod was removed manually.
At 9:01pm, alarms sounded at the fire stations and security headquarters of the U.S. National Reactor Testing Station where the reactor was located. Investigation found two operators dead (third died later), and detected high radiation levels in the building.
A careful examination of the remains of the core and the vessel concluded that the control rod was manually withdrawn by about 50 centimeters (40 centimeters would have been enough to make the reactor critical), largely increasing the reactivity. The resulting power surge caused the reactor power to reach 20,000MW in about .01 seconds, causing the plate-type fuel to melt. The molten fuel interacted with the water in the vessel, producing an explosive formation of steam that caused the water above the core to rise with such force that when it hit the lid of the pressure vessel, the vessel itself rose 3 meters in the air before dropping back down.
The SL-1 accident was the first fatal nuclear accident in the United States. The men killed in the incident were two Army Specialists, John Byrnes, age 25 and Richard McKinley, age 22, and Richard Legg, a 25 year old Navy Electricians Mate. Richard McKinley was interred in Arlington National Cemetery. John Byrnes and Richard Legg were buried in their hometowns in New York and Michigan.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain: No Support for Katrina

By TJ - Sep 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain: Children's Healthcare

By TJ - Sep 15th, 2008 at 5:33 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

Link: Watch the video

Before you read the following US Senate votes, in which McCain voted "NO" and Obama voted "YES", you should understand a few facts. Bills get signed into law by the President. Amendments are used to make changes to bills. They can be used to strike (remove things from), add, or modify a bill.

I only mention this because when McCain is questioned about his US Senate votes he often responds by saying, "The bill contained 'pork/earmarks' or tells the person asking the question that he doesn't know where he got that information from. Simply put if you vote against an amendment, you don't want to see it on the bill.

McCain says he is for children but his US Senate votes don't say that, here are some of the votes:

US SENATE VOTES

McCain voted "NO" Obama voted "YES"

Children

This is a BILL it passed McCain voted "NO"

Vote Number: 307 Vote Date: August 2, 2007, 10:18 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: H.R. 976 (Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007 )
Measure Title: A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.
Source: US Senate Vote 307

This amendment established a 1% tax on adjusted gross incomes of $500,000 or greater to help end child poverty. Basically if you had deductions that lowered your gross salary below $500,000 you did not pay the tax.

Vote Number: 338 Vote Date: November 17, 2005, 08:42 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2588 to S. 2020
Statement of Purpose: To eliminate child poverty.
Source: US Senate Vote 338

Vote Number: 337 Vote Date: November 17, 2005, 08:23 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2596 to S. 2020
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate concerning the provision of health care for children before providing tax cuts for the wealthy.

This is what the sense of the senate was, what McCain voted "NO" to and Obama voted "YES" to:

Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Senate should not vote to extend the capital gains and dividend tax cuts, a majority of the benefits of which go to households with incomes over $1,000,000, until Congress has taken steps to ensure that all children in America have access to affordable, quality health insurance;
(2) the Senate should vote instead to use the funds generated by the expiration of the capital gains and dividend tax cuts to further the goal of ensuring that children have access to health insurance coverage by--
(A) awarding grants to States, faith-based organizations, safety net providers, schools, and other community and non-profit organizations to facilitate the enrollment of the 6,800,000 children who are currently eligible for enrollment in the State Children's Health Insurance Program but who are not enrolled;
(B) paying to each State with an approved State Children's Health Insurance Program or Medicaid plan, an amount equal to 90 percent of the sums expended for the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of enrollment systems determined likely to provide more efficient and effective administration of the plan's enrollment and retention C) establishing a grant program under which a State may apply under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to provide medical assistance under the State Children's Health Insurance of eligible children; and
(Program to all children in their State.
Source: US Senate Vote 337

The Bill for these amendments passed, theses amendments did not make it

Vote Number: 279 Vote Date: October 27, 2005, 05:01 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2287 to H.R. 3010
Statement of Purpose: To increase appropriations for after-school programs through 21st century community learning centers.
Source: US Senate Vote 279

Vote Number: 272 Vote Date: October 26, 2005, 05:03 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2254 to H.R. 3010
Statement of Purpose: To increase appropriations for Head Start programs.
Source: US Senate Vote 272

Vote Number: 269 Vote Date: October 26, 2005, 11:44 AM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2275 to H.R. 3010
Statement of Purpose: To provide additional funding for title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
Source: US Senate 269

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Please review these blogs

By TJ - Sep 4th, 2008 at 12:10 pm EDT

Also listed in: 10 groups

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=406770600

http://truth24x7.spaces.live.com/

What can I add to help advance the cause?

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain by Philip Butler

By TJ - Aug 29th, 2008 at 1:24 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

Military.com

Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008

As some of you might know, John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.

When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!

John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John's treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case - new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor - 8, Service Crosses - 42, Silver Stars - 590, Bronze Stars - 958 and Purple Hearts - 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many - not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.
John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.
I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.
I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he... Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

McCain Follies

By TJ - Aug 29th, 2008 at 1:03 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

Check out this blog:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=406770600

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Energy Diversification Plan

By TJ - Aug 24th, 2008 at 12:18 am EDT

Also listed in: 4 groups

Energy Diversification

The US Department of Energy currently lists the following as energy sources:

Bioenergy, Coal, Geothermal, Hydrogen, Natural gas, Nuclear, Oil, Solar, Wind, Hydropower

We have 10 sources of energy that may be utilized, move our energy consumption to a point where it is evenly distributed amongst these sources. This would result in each source having a 10% share in the energy supply. If the goal is to eliminate oil consumption the share would increase to 11.12% for the remaining 9 energy sources. If the goal is to eliminate consumption of coal, oil, and nuclear the share would increase to 14.3% for the remaining 7 energy sources

The ultimate goal is to get away from coal, oil, and nuclear but that is not going to happen overnight. If we could eliminate coal, oil, and nuclear quickly the other 7 sources left would each have to make up 14.3% of our energy supply (7x14.3=100.1)

For a moment I would like you to look at a hypothetical situation.

Let's say today the only sources of energy we use are coal, oil, and nuclear.

Coal, oil, nuclear 100% consumption

The first year we shift consumption as follows:
1.4% to hydropower
1.4% to bioenergy
1.4% to solar
1.4% to wind
1.4% to hydrogen
1.4% to geothermal
1.4% to natural gas

This results in (2009):

coal, oil, nuclear 90.2% consumption
other sources 9.8% consumption

Do the same thing a second year, the result is (2010):

coal, oil, nuclear 86% consumption
other sources 19.6% consumption

Try it again for a third year, the result is (2011):

coal, oil, nuclear 70.6% consumption
other sources 29.4% consumption

A fourth year, the result is (2012):

coal, oil, nuclear 60.8% consumption
other sources 39.2% consumption

Year 5, the result is (2013):

coal, oil, nuclear 51% consumption
other sources 49% consumption

Year 6, the result is (2014):

coal, oil, nuclear 41.2% consumption
other sources 58.8% consumption

Year 7, the result is (2015):

coal, oil, nuclear 31.4% consumption
other sources 68.6% consumption

Year 8, level consumption to (2016):
coal, oil, nuclear to 30% consumption
other sources to 70% consumption

By reducing energy consumption of coal, oil, and nuclear to 30% and raising the other sources to 70% you will have created a situation where all 10 sources have a 10% share. Making small shifts annually allows for the development and refinement of new technologies.

Mail to a Friend | Link | Comments (0) | Report Objectionable Content

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posts

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.