Monthly Archives: April 2013

What To Do If Everyone You Know Used to Be a Democrat

1 Reply

At the Chairman’s debate over the weekend, there was some heckling because a candidate for a state party position voted for Obama in 2008. We hear this time and time again. It’s been going on for years. And as much as it rattles my nerves and makes my stomach churn, I know plenty of people who have ‘switched’ parties after an election.

Let’s recall a few ‘well-known’ Republican power players who used to be democrats.

  1. Ronald Reagan, the precious inspiration to many Republicans today
  2. Sam Olens
  3. Governor Deal
  4. Herman Cain
  5. Condoleezza Rice
  6. Sonny Perdue
  7. Half of the gosh darn Georgia legislature. Before the “turnover” not that long ago, many of them were moderate liberals.

Heck, handfuls of our elected officials who are supposed conservatives do liberal things all the time. Everyone is mad at Rubio, Paul, and just about every other Republican in D.C. right now for some reason or another.

I thought one of the goals of the GOP was to explain to members of the party why conservative principles are so important? Aren’t we in the time of ‘recruiting’ and reaching out? How can someone join our party if we set rules like ‘You need to be a volunteer republican for this long and then we will accept you’? If we ever want to attract anyone, we may possibly have to get over the fact that they may not have always been a bleeding red elephant. If we are looking for new party members, which by default means these people are either in another party or no party at all, and other party people are not acceptable, where are they going to come from? Why are we faulting people for ‘seeing the light’? How long are we going to shun them?

I’ve said time and time again that there is no perfect candidate…for any office. We are going to find faults in everyone. But is it really appropriate to annihilate someone who is dedicated to conservative principles and defending liberty now? In a time when there really are RINO’s, I don’t think we should be crucifying those who are beating the liberty drum. I think the GOP needs to take a long, hard look at how they are coming off to potential transferees. One thing’s for sure: they need to make moves sooner than later.

your note welcome

Baby Steps for Accountability: Asbestos Fund Fraud

2 Replies

Sent to me via a friend, and not something I usually write about, but interesting and worth knowing about nonetheless. Plus, I like to throw people off with not-so-common topics every now and again.

Congressmen Blake Farenthold (R-TX) and Jim Matheson (D-UT) are sponsoring bi-partisan legislation, the FACT Act (Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency).
Harold Kim wrote an article for Free Enterprise detailing the specifics of nonexistent people receiving funds from Asbestos trusts with the help of the best mesothelioma lawyers. Thousands and thousands of dollars intended for real victims being dispersed to faulty trusts and placed in undeserving hands. Imagine that.

Kim notes,

the trusts’ opaque operations open the door to abuse. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal revealed that an employee of a California law firm filed a claim with a trust in the name of someone who didn’t even exist.  Five weeks later, he received a $26,000 check from the trust. The same firm also filed trust claims on behalf of clients who were nurses. They allegedly were exposed to asbestos while chipping paint from boilers – not exactly a typical duty for nurses.

The Wall Street Journal also found that,

“In its analysis, the Journal found 2,689 [Johns Manville bankruptcy trust] applicants through 2005 who claimed to be working in various labor-intensive occupations while under the age of 12. Among them were 753 people who claimed their exposure to asbestos began while working in construction before turning 12; 356 people who said they were metal workers; and 184 chemical workers.”

The FACT Act requires more transparency by requiring quarterly reports to be filed for examination by courts and trusts. A small opportunity to demand more accountability, but certainly worthwhile. Baby steps when we can, right?

Let’s get this over with…

4 Replies

I’ll go ahead and say it. We all knew it was coming. Edward Lindsey has been announcing that he’s going to be ‘announcing something’ for about 3 weeks and now he’s officially in. But saying ‘no’ from the get-go.
You see, I used to be in his district. I wrote him an email voicing my concerns about students and campus carry and his office he sent me an ever-so-long and pretty painful, 6 page email about Sandy Hook, what some professors have said about mental health, some studies related to Newtown, “A quick look at the Constitution” (ironic, eh?), and then some ‘suggestions’ on where we should go. After tracking through the nonsense with my weed whacker, I was left with his propositions:
This is a direct copy-paste from his email regarding his stance on the 2nd amendment. Any bolding was done on my part.

  1. How do we strengthen the established public policy prohibiting individuals with dangerous mental disorders and criminal records from possessing firearms?
    1. Standardize and expand the screening of gun purchasers.  We have gaping holes in our screening process to identify individuals who are barred from owning guns either because of mental health problems or past criminal conduct.  An estimated 40% of gun purchases occur through private sales and 80% of criminal acts involving guns occur from a weapon procured in a private transaction.  Therefore, all sellers of firearms – including sellers at gun shows — should be required to screen purchasers.
    2. Gun manufacturers, who profit from the sale of their product, should bear greater responsibility for monitoring and insuring that retailers who sell their product are doing so in compliance with the law.
    3. Toughen laws against anyone who knowingly or negligently allows someone who is not permitted to possess a gun from obtaining one and committing a crime.  This includes going after so called “straw purchasers” and requiring that the lawful owner of a gun report any theft promptly to the police.
    4. Enforce existing gun laws.  Each year, thousands of individuals are found to be attempting to purchase a firearm who are barred under law from being allowed to so; however, only a tiny fraction are ever prosecuted.
    5. Reform our approach to mental health to better assist the sufferer, and protect society by identifying those individuals who should not be allowed to possess a firearm.
  1. How do you promote safe firearm use, possession, and storage?
    1. Require purchasers of semi-automatic rifles demonstrate an understanding on how to safely handle and store such rifles.  This can be done by demonstrating evidence of having completed an approved gun safety course, passing a gun proficiency and safety test, or being in the active or reserve military or law enforcement.
    2. Require that purchasers of ammunition and magazines for semi-automatic rifles to show identification and the above evidence when purchasing these items.  This requirement would ensure over time that already existing owners of these weapons also pass the safety course.
    3. Similarly, laws already granting permits to carry a concealed weapon should also include a requirement that applicants take and pass a gun safety course in which he/she demonstrates an understanding on how and when to safely use the weapon, and where a concealed weapon can legally and safely be carried.  A concealed weapon may be valid protection but before carrying one into a public place someone should demonstrate that they are proficient in handling the weapon – including when not to use it.  We require a showing of safe handling of automobiles before one can drive on public roads, carrying a weapon in public should be no different. There are also locations where a concealed weapon cannot be legally carried and the permit holder needs to be aware of those locations.

Bless your heart. All I see are a bunch of proposed regulations on a God-given right. I guess that ‘quick look at the Constitution’ was quicker than originally thought? And please don’t try the ‘well you have to get a driver’s license to drive a car!’ argument. Blah blah blah. Driving a car is a privilege. Owning and carrying a weapon is a fundamental right.

I’m sorry, sir. The correct response to my initial email should have said: “I support the 2nd amendment unconditionally.”