Joey's Take: A History Lesson

With every breath they take, every move they make and every vow they break, Congress and the president are proving how much they need a herding dog like me to police them – and keep them out of our pockets and the business of local government.

Last week, President Obama strayed out of the federal fence again when he weighed in on the fact that the Virginia governor’s traditional proclamation of April as Confederate History Month did not mention slavery, calling it “an unacceptable omission.” The incident serves as “a reminder that when we talk about issues like slavery that are so fraught with pain and emotion, that, you know, we'd better do so thinking through how this is going to affect a lot of people,” the president added (The Washington Times).

But Gov. McDonnell was not talking about slavery. He was talking about a war that started 150 years ago this month, that turned brother against brother and that almost destroyed this nation. Like it or not, that war – in and of itself – is a defining chapter in our country’s history. It is still the subject of college courses, movies, documentaries and books, many of which focus on personal narratives, military strategies and the politics at play, not on slavery. And here in Virginia, which is home to more than its share of Civil War battlefields and monuments, the war means business – and jobs. Real jobs, that is, for both black and white.

Contrary to what the president and media would have you believe, the proclamation is not a celebration of the war or slavery. Although it now includes an obligatory reference to slavery, the intent of the proclamation is that this part of “Virginia’s history should not be forgotten, but instead should be studied, understood and remembered by all Virginians, both in the context of the time in which it took place, but also in the context of the time in which we live.”

It’s a lesson the president and Congress should take to heart. By studying the years leading up to the war – years marked by an increasingly divided nation, a political battle for states’ rights and an onslaught of nullification efforts – they could take the steps necessary to ensure history doesn’t repeat itself.

I’m Joey. I’m running for Congress. And I approved this message.

Joey's Take: Fur's a Flying

I want the president and all of Congress to know I’m barking angry at the direction our country is going. And it's time for fur to fly. That’s why I’m running for office. Somebody has to nip the heels of this runaway government before it plunges the nation – and the American dream – over a steep cliff to absolute financial ruin.

I also want them to know that my anger has nothing to do with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and any “vitriol” that duo may or may not be fomenting. I think for myself, thank you. And I can see that cliff getting ever closer.

Speaking of vitriol, I’d like to remind our president of his own vitriolic hate speech. Remember the talk he made on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary – the one at a private fund-raiser in Pelosi’s San Francisco? The one in which he accused people in small towns in Pennsylvania and across the Midwest of being “bitter.” Because of that bitterness, he said, “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy.” (I guess if you're not bitter, you don't need God!)

He didn’t get it then – he and his campaign staff made “bitter” an internal code word for the middle-class (Game Change).

And he doesn’t get it now. In his comments to Harry Smith on CBS’ Early Show Friday, the president tried to minimalize and marginalize those who disagree with him. He also tried to frame "demonizing" as a conservative phenomenon, conveniently ignoring the hate speech – and the damnations of America – that spewed from behind the pulpit of his Chicago church, the vitriolic hatred that continues to flow from the left whenever Bush or Cheney is mentioned and the spiteful trash that is daily heaped on non-liberals in blogs, chat rooms and other social media sites. He also ignored that he fans the rhetoric with his own arrogance and dismissive attitude toward any view but his own.

On another note: The White House ripped into Israel for “embarrassing” Vice President Joe Biden by announcing a new settlement on the West Bank during his visit to Jerusalem last month. What Biden forgot is that in a land where history is measured in millennia rather than a few centuries, memories run long – very long. It was payback time for when then-Sen. Biden tried to belittle Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin who was testifying before the Senate Finance Committee in 1982 about Israeli settlements. Raising his voice and banging on the table with his fist, Biden demanded that Israel immediately end its settlement program or the U.S. would cut its aid to the country.

Begin’s response: “This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don’t threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the U.S. lends us money, it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats.”

Joey’s Take: Tone Deaf

My breed reportedly has the largest vocal range of any dog. Yes, I can whimper like a baby, whine like a 5-year-old, sass like an adolescent, growl like a 20-year-old and grumble like an old man. While all these skills will come in useful in Congress, I have an even greater talent: I listen.

That’s a talent our current leadership really should master. But alas, the POR Trio remains tone deaf. Instead of listening to the people, Pelosi insists on playing her own shrill melody while Reid belts out a very flat bass and Obama keeps changing the words while conducting the same old song.

But rather than admit it’s not in tune with the people, the trio – like any good prima donna – and its groupies insist that the discord is not theirs. Rather, all the missed notes are the fault of the previous conductor. Or the fault of the background singers. And the lack of appreciation is definitely the fault of an ignorant audience that just can’t understand the nuances of the music being performed.

This tone deafness spoils any piece the POR Trio tries to deliver and makes the group misread its own press. Trained in arrogance, the POR Trio hears the shouts of the audience as applause while ignoring any negative reviews.

Take the Massachusetts Senate race. While the audience hears Scott Brown’s victory as a countermelody rising across the nation, the PORs will pass it off as simply a lack of talent on Martha Coakley’s part. Meanwhile, the PORs drone on – off beat and out of tune.

I’m Joey. I’m a howling rock star. And I’m running for Congress. I approved every note of this message.

Stuck in Campaign Mode

Even though the presidential campaign is so yesterday, I don't think anyone has informed the president yet. He's still doing campaign speak -- you know, the kumbaya calls for common ground, the sweeping promises scant on detail, the uplifting rhetoric held down by lack of substance.

Consider Obama's speech yesterday at Notre Dame. According to the Associated Press, the president called for an effort to “honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

This is the same man who has promised to change the Bush-era “conscience clause.” Under Bush, this clause forced hospitals and health plans to respect the rights of doctors and other healthcare workers to refuse to deliver "treatments" that conflicted with their personal or moral beliefs. But with Obama's proposed revisions "based on sound science," these medical professionals will be forced to perform abortions if they want to stay in practice. So much for honoring conscience or finding the common ground he stressed at Notre Dame.

(I think the president missed the memo on the Gallup poll last week that showed the majority of Americans are now pro-life. Or perhaps, a la Pelosi, he wasn't listening at the briefing.)

Obama is good at delivering speeches. Anytime things heated up during the campaign, he made a speech, re-focusing media attention. But the campaign is over. Speechmaking and empty rhetoric will not solve the problems our nation is facing. If he truly wants to find common ground, he needs to start walking in our direction.

Fuzzy Math

I guess President Obama and much of Congress bought into the "fuzzy math" they used to -- and probably still do -- teach in school. In releasing his budget figures today for fiscal 2010, the president acknowledged that "all across this country, Americans are responding to difficult economic times by tightening their belts and making tough decisions about where they need to spend and where they need to save." He added that Washington was prepared to act with the same sense of responsibility.

Then he unveiled the details of just how responsible Washington would be under his watch. He said he had charged his staff with "looking for areas where we can save taxpayer dollars," adding that his budget office, for starters, has come up with "a list of more than 100 programs slated to be reduced or eliminated altogether" as part of his effort to slash the deficit by the end of "my first term in office." (He's pretty confident he'll have a second term and is already making plans for it.)

"These savings, large and small, add up," the president says in a White House statement. "The 121 budget cuts we are announcing today will save taxpayers nearly $17 billion next year alone. And even by Washington standards, that should be considered real money."

But here's where the fuzzy math begins. Immediately after saying these cuts will save taxpayers money, Obama introduces his plans to SPEND that money: "To put this in perspective, the $17 billion is more than enough savings to pay for a $2,500 tuition tax credit for millions of students as well as a larger Pell Grant -- with enough money left over to pay for everything we do to pay for [sic] -- to protect the national parks."

No matter how you calculate it, you can't move $10 from your checking account to a savings account, then transfer $15 from savings to checking so you can write a check for $20 and claim you're saving money -- unless you're drinking the Kool-Aid and doing the fuzzy math.

Importance of the Secret Ballot -- Then & Now

If the rally we attended this past weekend is any indication, we will be hearing a lot in state and national campaigns about "card check" -- the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. This bill, introduced last month in both the House and the Senate, strips workers of the secret ballot process when it comes to unionizing. Instead of a secret ballot, union organizers would need only produce cards allegedly signed by a mere majority of the workers to turn an open shop into an airtight union shop. This bill has many people who value their freedom and their right to a secret ballot fighting mad.

Rep. George Miller of California is one of the House sponsors of card check. In introducing the bill, he said: "The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order to form a union.... Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power.... The Employee Free Choice Act would add some fairness to the system ."

But a few years ago, Miller was one of 16 congressmen who lectured union organizers in Mexico on the importance of the secret ballot: "As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections. We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose" (emphasis added).

I'll let you draw your own conclusions. But suffice it to say that President Obama, who first introduced this legislation two years ago when he was a senator, owes a heavy campaign debt to the unions -- as do many of the sponsors of this misguided legislation.

Mexico, by the way, now requires a secret ballot.

Source: Congressional Record, March 1, 2009