Shaheen Vs. The Free Market

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen announced that she plans to step into a contract dispute between Direct TV and WHDH, the Boston affiliate of NBC.

WMUR quotes her as stating:

"Through no fault of their own, subscribers have become bargaining chips in these negotiations and are being denied access to the TV programming they've paid to receive," Shaheen said. "Blacking out the Super Bowl would be a disservice not only to Patriots fans, but also to sports bars and restaurants across Southern New Hampshire that are counting on the game for much-needed revenue."

Problem is the free market has already worked out a solution.  Direct TV has announced to their local customers that channel 392 is the national NBC station and that too will cover the big game.

Shaheen called on the Federal Communications Commission to try to broker an agreement to ensure that the channel is restored by the time the Super Bowl airs.

What Shaheen has done is ensured the waste of tax dollars in a dispute that the government has no business being part of.

If Direct TV didn't offer an alternative station and wasn't able to resolve the problem they would lose customers who would most likely switch to either Comcast or an alternative satellite provider.

And Depending on how the government resolves the dispute, they may end up forcing Direct TV to have to push unnecessary rate increases down to their customers in order to pay higher costs involved in carrying that station.

If Shaheen wants to but her nose in a disagreement then why not focus on why her boss has squashed the Keystone pipeline and killed the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs.

One More Example of Obama Harming This Country

If you were told there was a possibility to create tens of thousands of permanent jobs tomorrow would you think it's a good thing?  I certainly would.

Now what if you were told that it had bi-partisan support of both Republican and Democrats?  Sounds even better right.

What if on top of both of those if I told you it would also give the ability for us to create a product we export to other countries for profit?

And now what if I told you it would also give our country the ability to lessen our dependency on oil from the Middle East and lower our costs for fuel and heating oil?

Who in their right mind would ever say no to that?

Obama would.

The Keystone XL Project would do all of those things but ignoring his own party's support Obama instead used this as an opportunity to play politics and claim Republicans want dirty air and dirty water.

What makes matters even worse is now Canada's Priminister has stated that he will instead pursue plans to instead to sell that oil to China.

The Washington Times wrote the following in an article you can read in full HERE:

the Obama administration Wednesday rejected the proposed route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline that would provide up to 20,000 jobs on a project stretching from Canada to the Texas coast.

The pipeline, which would have been the largest infrastructure project in the country, has been a political nightmare for President Obama, with top business groups, Republican presidential candidates, the Canadian government, unions and even some of Mr. Obama’s fellow Democrats all slamming Wednesday’s rejection.

After Obama was first elected didn't we hear time and time again from Democrats that their increased spending was necessary because we needed to build up a better infrastructure in this country?  Yet here we have one of the largest ever that would bring great benefit to our country and Obama shoots it down.

“This political decision offers hard evidence that creating jobs is not a high priority for this administration,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce head Tom Donohue said. “The president’s decision sends a strong message to the business community and to investors: Keep your money on the sidelines, America is not open for business.”

Hard to argue with that.  When unemployment continues to hover close to 10% (many argue that true unemployment is well over 10%) how do you not look for ways to make a project work that will bring tens of thousands of permanent new jobs to this country?

The application has been under review by the government for three years, and Mr. Obama unsuccessfully tried to put off a final decision until after the November elections.

This quote is what worries me the most.  Obama is clearly playing politics pushing off things like this as much as he can so not to tick off too many people before his re-election but if he is re-elected and doesn't have to worry about coming off popular enough to keep independent voters on his side what more will he do?  How many other things like this that he knows will outrage voters has he been successful at pushing off under after the November elections?

Mr. Obama issued a statement Wednesday afternoon saying he agreed with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s decision to reject the project that would carry oil from tar sands in Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast, saying the project as proposed “would not serve the national interest.”

Really?  It would not serve the national interest?  New jobs, less dependent on Middle Eastern oil?  Our ability to refine the oil we bring in into gas which we then export for profit?

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.”

Ah the old green pipe dream.  Problem is our country runs on oil and there is no current alternative.  So instead of living in the here and now and moving forward with a project that would help produce jobs and lower the cost of oil he instead pushes a political agenda.

Oh and did I mention that oil is also needed for things like plastics?  By shooting this project down, Obama has approved the continued rise in the cost of oil to our nation increase costs not just of fuel and heating oil but also increases costs of every day items.  That plastic lawn chair for instance that you sit in during the summer, or the plastics that make your children's toys, the casing for your computer mouse and keyboard and so on.  This is increasing the costs of living on the poor of this country.

Don't just take my word on it, here are the statements from other Democrats on this project:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA): “Landrieu says she’d support Keystone in payroll/ui/doc fix bill. Says ‘good deal’of D & R support for it.” (Trish Turner, Twitter, 12/15/11)

Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK): “Another sticking point is that Republicans inserted in their bill language that would fast-track the proposed Keystone X-L oil pipeline extension from Canada down to the Lower 48.  …Senator Begich is supportive of moving the project forward and his office says that’s not a problem.” (Alaska Public Radio, 12/14/11)

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND): “I personally think the pipeline is absolutely in the national interest.  It’ll help us reduce our dependence on foreign energy, at least foreign sources that are hostile to our interests… I, for one, on this side would hope that this could be part of a final package…” (Floor remarks, 12/14/11)

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO): “Well, let’s hope we can negotiate something like that… if states’ rights are being protected and if this is going to be something maybe that we can try to jumpstart the approval process, make it go more quickly.” (MSNBC, 12/14/11)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): “I am for the Keystone pipeline. …  everyone’s for it, it creates thousands of jobs!” (Fox News, 12/12/11)

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT): “I am proud to again offer my support for the Keystone XL pipeline and the jobs it will create. We need a quicker decision, based on the merits of this project.” (Floor Remarks, 12/13/11)

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC): “I’m very much for the pipeline. There is no question about that.”  (MSNBC, 12/14/11)

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “I commend the Speaker for including the construction of the Keystone XL pipelinethat is supported by business and labor.” (Release, 12/12/11)

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA): “‘I think the president’s wrong on this,’ said Cardoza, who is retiring after this Congress.  ‘He can veto whatever he wants, but those are both policies I support.’” (POLITICO, 12/7/11)

Rep. Gene Green (D-TX): “Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he’s not swayed by Obama’s veiled veto pledge. … ‘The Keystone is awfully important,’ Green said.” (POLITICO, 12/8/11)

Votes of the Living Dead

The New Hampshire voting scene has caught fire with discussions regarding the renegade reporting showing how easy it is to walk into a NH polling site, give the name of a deceased voter and get a ballot to vote.  In fact they were able to pull this off 5 out of 6 times with the last exception only due to the fact the person had just recently died and one of the people working the polls knew them.  Even then they were able to walk out of the polling site and able to continue their attempts at other locations.

The only reason they were "caught" is because their video has been posted online for all to see.

What I find most amusing in this is that the very group who scream the loudest in opposition to voter ID bills are the same ones pushing to have charges filed in this case despite the fact this case proves how easy it is to get away with voting illegally.

Personally I would have like to have seen two addition examples shown in the videos.

Example 1: Walk into a polling location and state you are between addresses, offer to show your valid out of state license and state you are "staying" in that current town and would like to be allowed to vote.  Make sure you point out you just arrived in town that morning too.

Example 2: Walk into a polling location and give a completely bogus name and address.  If you really want to push the envelope offer the name of a street that doesn't even exist or use house numbers that don't exist but are between two valid numbers that do.

Before attempting either of these, I should advise you the 2nd example is clearly illegal under current NH laws but since a poll worker can't ask for ID how would they know you are giving a fake name?  The address they may be able to catch just as the worker in Manchester caught the name of the deceased by chance of knowing the person, likewise you may find a worker who knows the streets well enough to catch a bogus address.  The first example however wouldn't fall under any NH laws.  Geoff Wetrosky is living proof of that, he came here working on a national campaign, walked into a polling site and registered with the address of the Democratic Party's Chairs home and voted.  He then turned around and left for his home state.  Even though he was stopped by police after voting here for stealing political signs and gave his valid out of state address as his legal address proving he never lived here no charges were ever filed for his voting here.

Either we need to agree illegal voting is wrong and seek the necessary changes to prevent it or those unwilling to make the changes need to accept that what happened here can happen and admit they are ok with it.

We Need Vermin Supreme

While discussing the results of the New Hampshire primary someone I was speaking to commented about the guy wearing a boot on his head and rambling on about giving everyone a "free pony".  Having seen a YouTube video recently I knew exactly who they were talking about, a "fringe" candidate Vermin Supreme.

Vermin is most often referred to as a joke candidate and considering he claims he'd like to harness the power of zombies to solve the worlds energy problems its hard to argue he should be taken seriously.

The person who mentioned him was upset that such people were allowed to participate in our primary stating it's far too easy for people to get their name on the ballot here.

I disagree.

In the primary unlike the general election we have many choices.  Even Democrats this year who know Obama will be the choice for their ticket in 2012 had several choices (Vermin being one of them).  What this offers people are options that general elections don't have.  In a general election you have the Democrat and the Republican and once in a rare while a 3rd party candidate but not in a primary.  In the primary, even on an uncontested ballot such as Obama's running this year on the Democratic Party ticket, you have choices.

Some are like Vermin who make outrageous statements and mock on some of the more well known candidates.  Others are people running on a specific issue in hopes to bring some attention to their causes.

This gives voters the benefit to vote for what's really important to them or at least send a strong signal protest vote.

When I look at a primary I don't focus on which candidate has the best chance of winning or which one has the best chance to beat the other party.  Instead I look for which candidate truly matches my own views or in some cases when a sitting president is running for re-election that you clearly do not agree with but you still view him (or her) as a better choice then anyone on the opposing ticket, it gives you the chance to vote for someone ridiculous to show your displeased with the sitting president.

No other candidate says ridiculous more then Vermin.

Happy 2012

Happy 2012 to everyone out there in cyber-land!

What an upcoming year we have ahead.  With this being a major election year where even the presidency up for grabs, the lumping Democrats took in 2010's elections and the fact they have nothing positive about their record to run against, Democrats are not holding back at all with their punches.  Just look at the editorials of the major NH papers, all the Democratic regulars are pushing letters out on a weekly basis attacking anything and everything they can find.  Our friends at Blue Hampshire and MoveOn.org  can't write about their parties accomplishments so they too have gone into full attack mode.

One problem the Republican party has in the upcoming year is the fact it has standards.  An example of this is the primary.  Just look at how Republicans are willing to point out the faults of others in their own party.  Democrats had a flawed candidate with very little overall experience, no foreign experience, who had ties to very questionable candidates including a known cop killer and who even launched his political career in that same cop killers own living room.  Not only did they not see fault in any of this they went on to elect that man president.

How many people recall all the hype the Democrats claimed would happen if they won in 2006 and 2008?

Since they took over the house and senate the economy has grown worse, unemployment has gotten worse, the situation in the Middle East has grown worse, the deficit spending has hit record highs... and so on.

All the things they blasted Bush for they've done worse.  Gitmo is still open, the patriot act was extended and expanded to give the government even more control to spy, we've gotten involved in additional conflicts in the Middle East, Obama's spending levels makes Bush's look responsible and so on.

Do they rail their own party for their failures?  Of course not.  Instead they focus on Mitt Romney's not bothering to campain in NH since he's leading polls for the primary by 40%.

I guess they'd rather focus on that than discuss how after Obama said Iraq's war is over that country is now slowly failing into civil unrest.  Or debating how much of other peoples things should be taken away by force and handed over to those who choose not to work (ie the occupy groups).

Sit back and enjoy all you political junkies, it's going to be a fun year!