The Patriot's Flag

Today I am flying the South Carolina State Flag, a flag I fly when politics are relatively quiet.  The 2010 Census is starting and the Better Business Bureau has put out a warning, that I share below;

This is my second post at The Patriot Flag about the 2010 Census. In my first post, I covered the following topics in detail. You can view the first post HERE (2010 Census FAQs). It covers these topics in detail:

• Short Form, its content and purpose
• Refusal to answer information
• Long Form, its content and purpose
• Precautions when working with Census Workers
• Snopes Rumors and discussions
• “White House Controlled” data … (which may be a problem)
• Discussions with Census Workers

---

WARNING:

2010 Census Cautions from the Better Business Bureau
by Susan Johnson – August 3, 2009 12:07 pm
Be Cautious About Giving Info to Census Workers

With the U.S. Census process beginning, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) advises people to be cooperative, but cautious, so as not to become a victim of fraud or identity theft. The first phase of the 2010 U.S.Census is under way as workers have begun verifying the addresses of households across the country. Eventually, more than 140,000 U.S. Census workers will count every person in the United States and will gather information about every person living at each address including name, age, gender, race, and other relevant data.

The big question is – how do you tell the difference between a U.S. Census worker and a con artist? BBB offers the following advice:

• If a U.S. Census worker knocks on your door, they will have a badge, a hand-held device, a Census Bureau canvas bag, and a confidentiality notice.
• Ask to see their identification and their badge before answering their questions. However, you should never invite anyone you don’t know into your home.
• Census workers are now only knocking on doors to verify address information. Do not give your Social Security number, credit card or banking information to anyone, even if they claim they need it for the U.S. Census. While the Census Bureau might ask for basic financial information, such as a salary range, the Census Bureau will not ask for Social Security, bank account, or credit card numbers nor will employees solicit donations.

Eventually, Census workers may contact you by telephone, mail, or in person at home. However, the Census Bureau will not contact you by Email, so be on the lookout for Email scams impersonating the Census. Never click on a link or open any attachments in an Email that are supposedly from the U.S. Census Bureau. For more advice on avoiding identity theft and fraud, visit http://www.bbb.org/us/article/10306

NOTE: This above information can be checked at SNOPES

---

The Bottom Line

---

You can never be too careful about giving personal information to a stranger.  Some basic rules from the BBB include:

• NEVER give personal information on a telephone.
• NEVER click on a link from a census bureau email (they don’t have links)
• NEVER give your Social Security Number
• NEVER give banking information (of any kind) to anyone, including Census Workers

Please look at the first post on this subject “2010 Census FAQs” for a great deal more information.

---

More Recent Posts

---

S.C. Flag - Relatively Calm

Today I’m flying the South Carolina Flag … a patriot flag I fly when politics are relatively quiet.  Today’s post is for people who are wondering what all the “noise” is about concerning the recent Supreme Court Decision on McCain-Feingold.  Here’s come background and commentary that will bring you up to speed.

McCain-Feingold … What is it? The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.  This week, the Supreme Court gave a ruling that “guts” many of the key parts of McCain-Feingold … and of course there is a controversy!

CATO Institute Explanation of McCain-Feingold

Here is a 5 minute video that will give you most of the information you need on this subject:

The Reasoning for McCain-Feingold

The McCain-Feingold legislation was designed to discuss two issues:

1. Control of Soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting groups from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits.
2. Prohibiting political ads that named a federal candidate with 30 days of a primary or 60 days before a general election. and also prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds. (Wikipedia)

Previous Rulings:

Never mind that the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) said “As long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they want to promote the candidate and his views.” The Supreme Court that had clearly warned Congress to stop toying with the First Amendment. (CATO)

The controversy

McCain-Feingold does nothing to reign in the huge sums of money extracted without consent from union members’ paychecks. Much of that money flows into union political action committees (PACs) that are not subject to any limits in two key areas. PACs are not bound by the limits on either independent expenditures.That’s OK, say McCain-Feingold supporters, because neither unions nor corporations are permitted to give to PACs, except to pay for administrative expenses. There was a difference between the treatment of corporate and union PACs. A corporate PAC may request voluntary contributions from executives and shareholders, but not from most other employees. Union PACs have greater flexibility because they can expropriate an involuntary part of their members’ dues for political purposes.  Advantage Unions! (CATO)

The law gave the government control over whether or not a statement was “political” and therefore subject to being banned.  This was in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States!

Also, under McCain-Feingold, the NEWS MEDIA was EXEMPTED (by the First Amendment).  Now people like the New York Times and Huffington Post will not have the “high perch” of the bully pulpit … they must share it with the rest of us! (TheNewAmerican)

The Lawsuit:

Citizens United is a nonprofit corporation set up to engage in conservative advocacy — an assemblage of people working for a political agenda. As people, they have the right to spend money to spread their opinions. But when they form a corporation for that purpose, some people think the same activities should be illegal. But Citizens United claimed the rule violated its free speech rights. And last week, the Supreme Court agreed. (TownHall)

Assent:: “The text and purpose of the First Amendment point in the same direction: Congress may not prohibit political speech, even if the speaker is a corporation or union.” – Chief Justice John Roberts

Dissent: “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” – Justice John Paul Stevens, in the dissent.

The Fallout from the Decision:

By and large, Democrats were outraged at the decision and Republicans were pleased.  Although, there were a few interesting revelations.(Examiner). Most Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who fought the bill from the beginning, are celebrating.(Politico)

Feingold: (BigJournalism) The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections. In the coming weeks, I will work with my colleagues to pass legislation restoring as many of the critical restraints on corporate control of our elections as possible.

McCain, whose party leaders praised the court decision, wasn’t as tough as Feingold. “I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions,” he said. (Politico)

Obama (WashPost) “With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that martial their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. … We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision.” – President Barack Obama.

Corporate Campaign Flooding? Critics fear that freed from constraints, giant corporations will burn vast sums to help or hurt politicians. In reality, most business people are not about to plunge into divisive election campaigns, for fear of antagonizing customers. If Starbucks comes out “for” or “against” Obama, they will risk losing 47% of  their customers,  (according to Gallop’s Presidential Approval Poll). Corporations won’t take that risk.

---

The Bottom Line

---

First Amendment Upheld: After looking at all the information, this seems to me a rather clear case for First Amendment rights.  The government was in a position, with McCain-Feingold, to control what they deemed was or was not political in nature. They could have banned books because such a book mentioned a candidates name and was read within 60 days of a federal election.  As I look back at the original decision, it is easy once again to see McCain leaning far to the left … and he “blew it” on this bill which is clearly a socialist, government-control tactic. The 5 minute video above explains the entire controversy best.

Corporate Funding, I doubt it. I doubt (having worked at the top-level of a corporation) that a CEO today is going to risk profit because s/he wants to promote one candidate over another.  If you look at the sales for GM and Chrysler … they are far down and Ford is up. My reasoning?  People don’t want to buy a car from GM or Chrysler knowing they are supporting unions … so, personally, I would buy a Ford.  But where does Ford stand politically?  You don’t know, and they are not about to take a position … and neither will any other corporation, especially retail.  I wouldn’t taste a Ben and Jerry’s ice cream cone if it was free, I would never spend money for a Danny Glover movie, I refuse to buy tires at Goodyear (gun-free zone), and I tore up my AARP card!  Little (perhaps silly) buying decisions on my part.  But I will not support, with my personal money, people or corporations who do not believe what I believe.  A savvy CEO knows this … and stays “mum” on politics.  So I doubt there will be huge contributions from corporations.

However: The only exception I could see would be CitiBank or Bank of America contributing a few dollars to Obama’s defeat in 2010 … keep picking on them and they just might react!   Obama has decided corporations are “the enemy” … he keeps up his attack on them, he might cause it to be true.  Would I buy from a corporation that was trying to ensure his defeat? 

You betcha’.

---

More Recent Posts

1. Townhall.Chapman: Free Speech for Corporations
2. Wikipedia: BiPartyisan Campaign Reform Act
3. HotAir: Supreme court Strikes Down McCain-Feingold
4. NewAmerican: The Coming Small Biz revolution 01.25.10
5. ContraCostaTimes: Supreme Court Decision a Victory for Free Speech 01.25.10
6. YouTube: Americans Sign Petition to Repeal the First Amendment 01.25.10 (Amazing!)

---

S.C. Flag - Relatively Calm

Today I am flying the South Carolina Flag … a patriot flag I fly when politics are rather quiet. Waking up this morning, I expected “Gitmo” to be a relic of the past. It was “ordered” to be closed by Obama yesterday! But alas, nothing has changed in spite of an executive order by a naive President a year ago.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Promising to return America to the “moral high ground” in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year. The date was January 22, 2009.

During a signing ceremony at the White House, Obama reaffirmed his inauguration pledge that the United States does not have “to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals.” The president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism.”

And lest we forget … (McCain and Graham)

Time: “We support President Obama’s decision to close the prison at Guantanamo, reaffirm America’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees,” said Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham. “The executive orders issued today constitute an important step in the right direction but leave several major issues unaddressed.”

---

The Bottom Line

---

What have we learned? He looked so “presidential” … so “in control of the situation.”  The News Media was raving about the strength and bravado of this new “historical” president. He also had strong “across-the-isle” support from the likes of McCain and Graham.  But it is now one year later … what have we learned since that day a year ago?

• We learned Obama’s “image” which seemed “presidential” was actually bravado growing out of naivety, we now know that Obama was wrong and could not accomplish what he ordered.
• We have learned our safety was not increased … by restoring our American “ideals” and by restoring the “moral high ground” … the terrorists, one year later, are still trying to kill us… Obama was wrong.
  • There have been 2 terrorists attack during this past year … peace and love didn’t alter the terrorists determination to kill us, apologies are a demonstration of weakness and we became more vulnerable … Obama was wrong.
• We learned the Bush system for Gitmo was probably the most efficient way to handle the problem, the inability of Obama to close Gitmo speaks for the integrity of the system in place … also that Obama now moves toward the Bush position on Gitmo is proof that this was the best system for this situation … Obama was wrong.
• We see our government giving “USA rights” to terrorists, allowing them to “lawyer up” within hours of trying to kill hundreds of people on an airplane over Detroit.  When the next terrorist hits us, and it could have been prevented by interrogating the Underwear Bomber … then Obama will again be proven wrong … and this time should be held liable and fully accountable for a decision that will have killed innocent Americans.
• We find out a year later that our intelligence agencies had no means of interrogating a terrorist caught in the act on our own soil … A YEAR LATER!  Obama’s leadership of his administration didn’t work … so he was wrong again. (Powerline)
• And now we are going to try the mastermind of 911 in New York City in a civil proceeding … giving him full rights and protection under the United States Constitution. This is morally wrong and a slap in the face of any United States citizen. Obama is making another bad decision (don’t tell me it is Holder, Obama appointed Holder!) … so he was wrong, in appointing Holder or by taking this position on terrorists.(Krauthammer’s take here).
• This president has apologized to the world for the bad behavior of the United States … in a hope the world would love us and we would be more secure as a result. Quite the opposite has happened, the world now sees us as weak and our allied friends do not know if they can trust us to stand beside them in a crisis. Obama didn’t gain the respect of the world, he lost it … in his naivety, he again was wrong.

We must conclude that this president, on this signature and now an example issue, was simply catering to his radical left base rather than doing what was right for the safety and security of the country. Politics were placed ahead of national security.  How often is this happening … is he putting politics and himself above the security of the United States? This president is demonstrating his naivety and his inability to lead and keep us safe.   The FACT that he is unable to close the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility with the promised year is all the proof we need that this man, far from being “in control” … he has no control. He is demonstrating he is all “talk” (still giving speeches from the teleprompters daily on TV) but doesn’t understand the “walk” that a president must demonstrate to keep us secure. This requires TOUGH decisions putting the Constitution and US Security above his political aspirations.  That jis why, a year later, he continues to be a “campaigner” and has not fulfilled his promise to be a strong and historical president…. and he never will. He is what he is, an agitator and  [community] organizer not a leader. (He is still following Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals).  (See LINK)

And lets not forget McCain and Graham. It is easy to maintain focus on President Obama and forget  about the moderates (Republicans!?) who were also supporting his ideas at the time. McCain and Graham both supported this president’s decision on the closing of Gitmo, making them complicit in jeopardizing our national security and stance in the world.  We should not forget that these two “moderate Republicans” were also NAIVE and WRONG and are therefore still dangerous to our national security regardless of what they may say now.  We must judge by action, not by words.

President Obama’s signature, like his campaign promises, defies credibility …

… it is the Signature of his Naivety and His Inability to Lead!

This signature carries the same weight as his Campaign Promises!

Why would you have a “zero” in your signature anyway?

---

More Recent Posts

1. Sweetness and Light: Obama on organizing after Saul Alinsky (Obama’s agitator roots)
2. Washington Post: Charles Karuthammer, Travesty in New York
3. Free Republic: Why would you have a zero in your signature?

---

S.C. Flag - Relatively Calm

Today I am flying the South Carolina flag. This is a Patriot Flag I fly when politics are quiet. Political Correctness is a form of media censorship resulting in media bias that protects our enemies and endangers our country.

George HW Bush (#1) “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred it replaces old prejudices with new one. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expressions off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship.”

Herb Denenburg of The Bulletin has published an interesting article entitled: How to KillPolitical Correctness before it Kills Us! This is a fascinating read describing how the media, by applying political correctness, is actually censoring the news in favor of our sworn enemies.

Here is an excerpt from Deneberg’s post:

Herb Denenberg: Here’s a perfect illustration of what that mean in practice. One of the strongest supporters of Islāmic terrorism is our mainstream media. That’s because its political correctness means that the mainstream media doesn’t give the public the truth about the threat of radical Islam (or whatever you want to call it – Islāmic extremism, Islamic terrorism, hijacked Islam, jihadism, etc.). In other words, if we don’t kill political correctness, it will kill us by making us unaware of the ongoing war fought by radical Islam against the U.S. and the West. If you can’t even identify your enemy and be honest in describing your enemy, you are a dead duck. President Obama and his administration are among the foremost practitioners of political correctness, and that’s one of many reasons the Obama administration is a threat to the survival of America. The infection of political correctness is as widespread as it is dangerous, but this column will focus on political correctness in the mainstream media.

Citizens Media Monitoring Guide from American from American Congress for Truth (ACT)

---

The Bottom Line

---

Denial? If you do not know you have an enemy, if you  are not informed of their intentions, you cannot defend yourself or your country.  By being “politically correct” the media  is keeping strategic and tactical information from us … (this to protect the “feelings” of those who are committed to kill us) . This is information we are  denied  is the same we could  use to protect ourselves and our country.  By denying something is going on does not keep it from happening. This makes the media complicit in the desire of our enemies to destroy us.

---

Relevant Posts after this Post

---

S.C. Flag - Relatively Calm

Today I am flying the South Carolina flag, a patriot flag I fly when politics are mostly calm.   Troubled about Senator Lindsey Graham’s (my senator) position of conferring with John Kerry on climate change legislation, I wrote a letter to the Senator expressing my concern for his position and asking for an explanation.  I added the numbers for the paragraphs to help with discussion, otherwise the “body” of my post below is the exact wording I received from Senator Graham:

---

[Letter from Lindsey Graham]
[December 22, 2009]

Dear XXXX

(1) Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on climate change legislation. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you.

(2) While there is still debate about the causes and impact of climate change, there is no question we have an obligation to reduce carbon pollution. The time has come to address this issue in a responsible way that creates jobs and ends our dependence on foreign oil.

(3) As you know, in recent months there has been a lot of talk surrounding various climate bills.  While I oppose the climate measure passed in the House of Representatives earlier this year, the so-called Waxman-Markey bill, and the bill introduced in the Senate by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, I do support drafting legislation that expands the role of nuclear power, opens access to outer continental shelf  drilling and reduces carbon pollution.

(4) For too long our nation has been dependent on oil and energy from foreign regimes who are not friendly to our national interests. We are more dependent on foreign oil now than at any point in our history. Our growing appetite for energy has also become a various serious national security issue.

(5) By including nuclear power and increased drilling offshore oil and gas is a reasonable climate change bill, we can dramatically improve our energy security and stop sending nearly $1 billion overseas everyday to purchase foreign oil.  In addition, offshore drilling provisions can result in hundreds of millions of dollars per year coming into South Carolina through revenue sharing. This money can be used to create private sector jobs, improve our school, repair our states [spelling error is author’s] transportation infrastructure, and pay down our state’s growing debts.

(6) As the largest source of clean energy, nuclear power must be included in the formula to address climate change. Nuclear power represents an efficient, economic and environmentally a conscientious energy source. We must begin to focus on developing new nuclear power plants, creating safe options to minimize nuclear waste, and establishing incentives for low carbon power usage.  I believe that leaving nuclear power out of the solution is attempting to solve a problem without utilizing all of our options.

(7) One of the issues that looms large in the climat3e debate and could be potentially devastating to the economy is aggressive Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) action.  Without legislation by Congress, the EPA is required to regulate greenhouse gases, an outcome of the 2007 US Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency.  This means unelected bureaucrats at the EPA will issue regulations that could cripple our economy.  In fact, the EPA took their first step in December when an endangerment finding determined that greenhouse gases are hazardous to human health. My proposal would include preempting EPA action, expanding o0ffshore drilling and jump starting our nuclear energy program. If Congress does not act soon, EPA regulations alone could result in annual cost to our economy that exceeds $600,000.

(8) With successful legislation, South Carolina has a golden opportunity to lead the pack in a new clean energy economy. Our state, which trails in many areas, is uniquely positioned to0 be one of the states to benefit the most from clean energy legislation. Further, South Carolina manufacturers and farmers already creating wind turbines, hydrogen techn90logies, biomass, and other new technologies will prosper under my plan.  Investing in new energy technologies will create millions of new jobs and benefit our struggling economy.  I have been on the forefront of climate change legislation because I am hopeful that a cleaner, safer and stronger America can become a reality.

(9) Thank you again for taking time to write.  If I can be of service to you or your family in the future, please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely

Lindsey O. Graham
United States Senator
LOG/cf

---

The Bottom Line

---

This is a well-written and well-thought-out response from Senator Graham. (Senator Graham’s comments are in italics).  Here are my thoughts, and I would be interested in yours if you care to comment:

Paragraph #2:

• While there is still debate about the causes and impact of climate change, there is no question we have an obligation to reduce carbon pollution. Senator Graham has accepted the premise that there is carbon pollution and that it is harmful.  There is simply no proof of this, and as he says “there is still debate” … although by making his statement, in his mind the debate is closed. It is upon this accepted premise that are the basis the rest of Senator Graham’s remarks. (If he KNEW Man-Made Global Warming was a hoax, this letter could not have been written this way).

Paragraph #3:

• I do support drafting legislation that expands the role of nuclear power, opens access to outer continental shelf for drilling and reduces carbon pollution.  Reduces carbon pollution … there’s the accepted premise again.

Paragraph #4:

• Yes, and if we “drill here-drill now” … which is a separate legislative issue, this would not be a problem. Supporting Climate Change legislation may include offshore drilling and nuclear power. However along with gaining those, we give up our country to Cap and Trade which will ruin this country.  If Senator Graham would simply support drilling and nuclear power but stay away from any and all negotiations which could result in any semblance of Cap and Trade, I would support his position.  But to have nuclear power and offshore drilling a “part of” Cap and Trade is not acceptable.

Paragraph #5:

• By including nuclear power and increased drilling offshore oil and gas is a reasonable climate change bill…. Senator Graham we do not need a “climate change bill” the climate is “changed” by the SUN not by “carbon pollution” … again, he has accepted the premise of “man made global warming.”

Paragraph #6:

• …and establishing incentives for low carbon power usage. We all agree, (any sane person would) that nuclear power is the way to go …  but there’s the “low carbon” statement again … again he has accepted a false premise. Why not spend time on the “Lindsey Graham Safe Nuclear Power Now” bill?  Maybe he could get John Kerry to co-sponsor it with him? [sarc]

Paragraph #7:

• Agree, the EPA is a problem and not only “can” but “is” causing a problem for the economy in many ways.  How about legislation that takes this power away from them and puts it back into the hands of congress where the people will will have a say in the process.  Signing a Cap and Trade legislation bill to get rid of the EPA rulings is simply acceding to a Democrat threat.  Signing Cap and Trade to rein in the EPA is a poor trade off and only adds to the problem.

Paragraph #8:

• We have a struggling economy because the government has interfered with the free market.  From the manipulation of the housing market to the takeover of GM.  MORE government is NOT what we need to bring  jobs to South Carolina. We need less taxes for business and private taxpayers … this will cause the economy to grow just as it did under Reagan. The “how” to fix a struggling economy is firmly fixed in our history, Senator Graham has forgotten those free market principals.

My Summary:

Senator Lindsey Graham believes in the man-made global warming theory and is willing to sign legislation that he believes would stop it. If he doesn’t believe in man made global warming, then he is willing to give in to the global warmists to sign Cap and Trade for the promise of “jobs” for South Carolina. (That sounds a little like a Ben Nelson position to me!). And there are better ways to stimulate jobs … we’ve proven “government stimulus dollars” are about as valuable as Confederate currency here in South Carlina.  We’ve received 1 billion dollars in stimulus and 480 million of it went to “social services” … only $73 million went for highways … and that will probably include the cost of the “shovel ready” signs that show up across the country.  No jobs have been “stimulated” … and if it didn’t work THIS time, why should we expect it to work in the future?

That he has fallen for the global warming hoax causes me personally to doubt his overall intelligence.  Has he noticed that it gets cooler when the sun goes down and warms up when the sun comes up? Perhaps he has missed this rather disturbing phenomenon.

He is using is “believe” in man made global warming to drive his solution. He believes that by signing on with the likes of John Kerry to a Cap and Trade piece of legislation will get us nuclear energy, will get us drilling and will get us more jobs in South Carolina.  So …

1. Start legislation for having nuclear energy the “Lindsey Graham Safe Nuclear Power Now” bill … and he should see if John Kerry would be a co-signer of it with him.
2. Start legislation that would allow for “drill now-drill here” … I’m sure John Kerry would also agree to be a co-sponsor on this bill.
3. Reduce taxes for corporations, small businesses and private taxpayers. Stimulate the economy with the American spirit for entrepreneurialism and a free market economy. (History has PROVED this works).
4. Sponsor legislation to curb the EPA … if you know they are dangerous then go after them!

---

Relevant Posts after this Post

1. Independent Mail: Graham backs off Cap and Trade, Wants weatherproofing of houses for “energy conservation” and thinks we should bomb Iran. 01/13/10

---

S.C. Flag - Relatively Calm