Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

Murtha. Again. Looting our defense budget for the benefit of friends, family, and himself.

The headquarters of Murtech, in a low-slung, bland building in a Glen Burnie business park, has its blinds drawn tight and few signs of life. On several days of visits, a handful of cars sit in the parking lot, and no trucks arrive at the 10 loading bays at the back of the building.
Yet last year, Murtech received $4 million in Pentagon work, all of it without competition, for a variety of warehousing and engineering services. With its long corridor of sparsely occupied offices and an unmanned reception area, Murtech's most striking feature is its owner -- Robert C. Murtha Jr., 49. He is the nephew of Rep. John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has significant sway over the Defense Department's spending as chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

That John Murtha is corrupt is a given. We’ve known it since Abscam. And evidence of his steering defense funds to his own benefit and not that of the country. That Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats continue to protect him is a disgrace – and business as usual for the Donkey Party.

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

If these poll numbers are accurate, almost certainly.

Newly-minted Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter would whip old Republican rival Pat Toomey 53 - 33 percent if the 2010 Pennsylvania U.S. Senate race were held today, but if popular former Gov. Tom Ridge becomes the Republican candidate, he trails Specter by just 46 - 43 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Independent voters, who back Sen. Specter over Toomey 45 - 36 percent, switch to Ridge 47 - 37 percent if he becomes a candidate. The former Republican Governor also gets 14 percent of the Democratic vote, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.

In the Specter-Toomey matchup, Republicans back Toomey 74 - 18 percent while Democrats go with their new convert 85 - 4 percent. Men back Specter 47 - 41 percent, as do women 59 - 26 percent. Union households go Democratic 62 - 27 percent.

In a Specter-Ridge face-off, Republicans go with Ridge 82 - 10 percent, while Specter takes Democrats 78 - 14 percent. Men shift to Ridge 50 - 41 percent, while women remain Democratic 51 - 37 percent. Union households back Specter 57 - 34 percent.

Does the GOP want to keep that senate seat in Pennsylvania? If it does, then it needs to find a candidate who can beat Arlen Specter among more than the GOP faithful. Such a candidate exists in Tom Ridge – and Pat Toomey clearly does not have what it takes to get rid of the defective defector.

Posted by: Greg at 08:30 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

When you use campaign cash to support your baby mama, you are likely to be investigated.

The two-time Democratic presidential candidate acknowledged Sunday that investigators are assessing how he spent his campaign funds — a subject that could carry his extramarital affair from the tabloids to the courtroom. Edwards' political action committee paid more than $100,000 for video production to the firm of the woman with whom Edwards had an affair.
The former North Carolina senator said in a carefully worded statement that he is cooperating.
"I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly," Edwards said in the statement. "However, I know that it is the role of government to ensure that this is true. We have made available to the United States both the people and the information necessary to help them get the issue resolved efficiently and in a timely matter."
While Edwards focused his comment on campaign funds, he also had a range of other fundraising organizations — including two nonprofits and a poverty center at his alma mater — that have come under scrutiny.
Chief among them was the PAC that paid Rielle Hunter's company for several months in 2006 for Web videos that documented Edwards' travels and advocacy in the months leading up to his 2008 presidential campaign. The committee also paid her firm an additional $14,086.50 on April 1, 2007.
Edwards acknowledged the affair with Hunter last year, months after dropping his presidential bid.
At the time of the 2007 payment, the PAC only had $7,932.95 in cash on hand, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission. That day, according to the records, Edwards' presidential campaign paid the PAC $14,034.61 for what is listed as a "furniture purchase."

Well, Johnny, I hope you look good in orange. You ought to go away for a very long time.

Posted by: Greg at 08:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 315 words, total size 2 kb.

Jack Kemp died a matter of days after Arlen Specter defected from the GOP. Frankly, I donÂ’t know what the hero of my youth would have had to say about that move and the reasons for it. But I suspect he would be outraged over the defective defectorÂ’s outrageous claims over the weekend.

"If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine."

Frankly, that is reckless, ghoulish speculation. That he was not slapped down – and slapped down hard – by Bob Schieffer is but one more sign that in today’s America there is little decency left on the Left or in the media. And for all of Arlen Specter’s professed respect for Jack Kemp, his abuse of the memory of a man not yet dead a whole 24 hours speaks volumes about his lack of character – especially since the GOP increased spending for cancer research a full 46% beyond the rate of inflation while the GOP controlled Congress, almost the same rate at which defense spending was increased.

Posted by: Greg at 08:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 209 words, total size 2 kb.

If, at age 20, you had asked me what I thought the future of the GOP would be, I would have offered you a name – Jack Kemp. Kemp was a truly compassionate, big tent conservative whose vision encompassed all races and classes of Americans. Indeed, I have often felt that it was a great tragedy that the first President Bush did not pick him as his running mate in 1988 – such a choice would have invigorated the youth of the party while adding an intellectual heft to the GOP ticket that Dan Quayle lacked. Indeed, it would have likely led to Kemp seeking and winning the presidency in either 1996 or 2000, rather than being the vice presidential candidate on a doomed ticket with Bob Dole.

The hero of my youth passed this weekend.

Jack Kemp, the former tax-cutting Republican politician and American footballer, who ran for the White House in 1996 as Bob DoleÂ’s running mate, died of cancer on Saturday at the age of 73.
As a Republican congressman, Kemp latched on to supply-side economics and advocated sweeping tax cuts as a means to stimulate production and growth. Initially stymied in Congress, his legislation found a sympathetic supporter in Ronald Reagan, who put forward a fiscal revolution as a campaign pledge in 1980 before his victory in the presidential election.
Kemp’s influence on Republican politics reached its zenith with “Reaganomics” but his voice as a conservative libertarian, who aimed to broaden the party’s appeal among black voters, continued to be heard after Reagan’s presidency.

KempÂ’s vision was and is mine, though I at times took issue with his stance on illegal immigration. I admired him greatly, and regret that it was Newt Gingrich, not Kemp, who became the face and the voice of the GOP in the 1990s.

I have a particular memory of Jack Kemp, one which has stayed with me for over two decades. One of my college buddies was an intern in Kemp’s congressional office, and arranged to get a group of our fellow College Republicans a private meeting with the presidential candidate before he addressed a gathering of Republican activists at a presidential forum in the Chicago area. Being a rather arrogant college student, I confronted Kemp on his unwillingness to support right-to-work laws – and questioned how, as a conservative, he could fail to do so. His response is what has stayed with me for years – that it is unrealistic for conservatives to expect every candidate and every officeholder to check every box on what it means to be a conservative. In his own case, he noted that he represented a blue-collar district in the northeastern US with a high percentage of union members. While it might be more pure for him to take the right-to-work position, it would also doom his electability in that district – and the electability of any similar candidate in any similar district. It was therefore better to prioritize what was truly important and to elect candidates that would pursue those goals, and leave other, less important, principles and platform planks for another day. Failure to do that, he noted, would likely lead to the ultimate failure to accomplish even the goals that were important.

Posted by: Greg at 08:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 552 words, total size 4 kb.

Yeah -- and Obama seems to know it.

“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House….that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation”

Excuse me. I thought that dissent -- and opposition to White House policy -- was the highest form of patriotism. And I thought that the press was supposed to be an independent watchdog, not the lapdog of the regime in power. I could observe which twentieth century regimes were known for controlling the press and using it to vilify and destroy their opponents, but I wouldn't want to offend liberals by dumping on left-wing leaders from Russia, Germany, China and Cuba as I attack their spiritual heir.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 03:54 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

Over the years I've had a cordial relationship with Dan at Gone Mild, a liberal blog from Kansas City. We often disagree, but I respect the guy. One of his current posts includes a reasonably concise guide to influencing legislators that every person interested in public policy should print and keep. He makes a lot of references here to Missouri politics, but his points are dead on no matter where you live. Here are his points.

1. Make Sure You Stand a Chance: If you want to accomplish anything with a legislator (as opposed to simply voicing your opinion), make sure you're not far afield from the core constituencies and principles of the legislator you are hoping to influence. In other words, you don't stand a chance of convincing Jason Kander to abandon the Missouri Plan, and you're not going to get Jolie Justus to eliminate support for childcare. Go ahead and vent if you disagree, but don't think you're influencing change.

2. Visit Your Legislator: If there's an important issue pending, get in your car and visit Jefferson City, or find out where you can meet with the legislator during a break, and do it. Nothing is as influential as a face-to-face meeting. If you have written materials, bring a couple copies so the legislator can review them and give a copy to a staff person. Legislators listen to visitors, so, if you can find the time and the gas money, go visit our Capitol City, and treat yourself to some ice cream at Central Dairy on your way home.

3. Write a Real, Personalized Letter: If you can't visit Jefferson City, let the postal service do the work for you. Send a real, personalized letter expressing your thoughts and enclosing any supporting information. I'm not talking about signing your name to a pre-printed post card or a cut-and-paste from an action alert. Those are a waste of time, trees and postage. But a persuasive letter on real stationery signed by a constituent will make a legislator take notice.

4. Pick up the Phone and Call: At this point in the session, where action on bills is happening at a fast and furious pace, calling is probably more effective than writing. Even if you only get to talk to a legislative aide, your voice will be heard. A lot of legislators are pretty generous about sharing their cell phone numbers, and don't hesitate to use them. If you wind up in voice mail, be prepared to leave a clear and short message, including the fact (if true) that you reside in his/her district. Leave your number, and you may get a call back.

5. Send an Email: Email's easy, and that is the problem with it. With a few clicks of the mouse, you can contact every legislator in Jefferson City, and hundreds of others can do the same thing. The result is a deluge that simply drowns out even your well-crafted, reasonable missive. If you care enough to write, care enough to put it on real paper with a stamp, pick up the phone, or drive to Jefferson City. Email is a decent way to communicate with a legislator once a dialog is started through one of those means, but, especially at this time of the session, don't expect to accomplish anything by writing an email.

Well done, Dan! Here's hoping lots of folks use your suggestions -- and more importantly, that they use them to get conservative policies enacted.

Posted by: Greg at 03:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

And donÂ’t just show it to them, give it back if he is intent upon seeking office as a Democrat.

Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party is prompting his campaign donors large and small to demand their money back, including several Republican senators whose political action committees gave tens of thousands of dollars to the Pennsylvania lawmaker.
Sen. Johnny Isakson didn't waste any time putting himself at the front of the refund line. The Georgia Republican asked Mr. Specter for a return of his leadership political action committee's $5,000 contribution Tuesday on the Senate floor - just hours after Mr. Specter announced he was changing his political stripes.
"Senator Specter readily agreed to return the contribution," said Isakson spokeswoman Sheridan Watson, adding that the exchange was cordial.
While not legally bound to refund any legitimate campaign donation, Mr. Specter has pledged to honor requests for refunds - and the requests are pouring in.

It seems to me that this is the right thing for Republicans to do – they gave money in an effort to keep the seat Republican (a misguided idea, given that Specter was hardly a reliable Republican vote). And while Pat Toomey may or may not be the best candidate who can beat Specter, that money needs to go to a Republican who can.

Posted by: Greg at 02:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

It isn’t a cut – and you may yet end up having to pay some or all of it back.

Millions of Americans enjoying their small windfall from President Barack Obama's "Making Work Pay" tax credit are in for an unpleasant surprise next spring.

The government is going to want some of that money back.

The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month.

But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.

At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income.

The Internal Revenue Service acknowledges problems with the withholding tables but has done little to warn average taxpayers.

So that claim that 95% of us are getting a tax cut from Barry Hussein is nothing but a lie – and you should be expecting a hefty tax bill next year if you are one of those Americans who is legitimately classified as “productive”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

I remember, a couple of decades back, when William F. Buckley effectively expelled Joseph Sobran from the Conservative mainstream for his flirtations with anti-Semitism. It was a courageous move, and one that to this day should be applauded. When will we see leading conservatives step forward and do the same with Pat Buchanan – especially after this explicit appeal to the notion of Jews as “Christ-killers” in his current column on concentration camp guard and illegal immigrant John Demjanuk

The spirit behind this un-American persecution has never been that of justice tempered by mercy. It is the same satanic brew of hate and revenge that drove another innocent Man up Calvary that first Good Friday 2,000 years ago.

Excuse me? Trying this participant in one of the greatest crimes of world history with the Son of God? Not only is this anti-Semitic, it is explicitly anti-Christian. There is, dare I say it, no longer any legitimate place for this bigot on the right today, and has not been for a long time. He has had no serious constituency in the mainstream of conservatism for at least a decade.

Indeed, as pointed out by the guys at GayPatriot, it is the liberals at MSNBC that give him his largest media outlet – sort of fitting, given the type of hate we have seen regularly spewed by hosts like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow and others on that network. So maybe his presence is part of a policy of “all hate, all the time”.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.