This Can't Be Coming from a Republican!

There's no other way to read this story from Politics Daily and the Denver Post than to read it as Colorado Republican Rep. Mike Coffman admitting that government-sponsored single-payer health care "works":

Coffman, a former Marine who keeps buff at age 54, was jogging on the golf course bordering his home in Aurora, Colo., when he stumbled on a rock or some other obstruction hidden in the snow. He fell, cracking his ankle. The congressman and his wife went to an urgent care clinic in a strip mall, where he paid $30 for a temporary cast and a prescription, and later he went to the famed Steadman Hawkins Clinic in Vail, where he paid $350 for an expert opinion, he told The Denver Post.

"I successfully tested our health care system," he said, with a laugh. "It works,"' he told the Post.

Of course the health care system worked for him, many Coloradans undoubtedly thought when they read the item in Saturday's Post. Coffman, a Republican member of Congress who voted against the health care reform bill in the House last year, is covered by the Cadillac of American health-care plans, the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Plan.

That's why his X-ray, temporary cast and prescription cost him only $30. But if he didn't have insurance -- like some 45 million Americans --- the tab most likely would be closer to $375 ($150 for the visit, $150 for the splint, and $75 for the X-ray, according to prices quoted at a popular downtown Denver urgent-care clinic).

The FEHB is a single-payer government-sponsored health care system. The federal government is the single payer in that system.* And as Coffman says very explicitly, "It works."

So why is Coffman, all Republican lawmakers, and a big chunk of Democratic lawmakers, so opposed to single payer that they ruled it "off the table" as part of the debate over national health care? Why aren't all Americans entitled to the very same health care system as members of Congress, if those members of Congress acknowledge their system "works"?

* NOTE: The FEHB is one form of single-payer - a form where the government is the single payer, but pays to insurance companies which administer benefits. There are other forms of single-payer where the government pays directly to health care providers (this is, for instance, the VA system). The point here is not to debate which of the forms are better - only to point out that the FEHB is a government-sponsored single-payer system - ie. the single payer is the government. It is exactly the kind of system that - if expanded to let everyone in - could be a single-payer system for the nation. And it's a system that Coffman says "works" - even as he rails on government health care.

Congrats to Steve Leeds (Former DPG Secretary)

According to an announcement on the GSA's website,

Stephen R. Leeds was designated Acting Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration on December 22, 2009.

Leeds is the former Secretary of the Democratic Party of Georgia. According to the GSA website, the government agency has a budget of over $16 billion dollars. Glad to see the Obama Administration appointed a Georgia Democrat to fill an important role.

Lynn Westmoreland Has High Hopes for GOP in 2010

S.A. Miller of the Washington Times

Conservative and Republican candidates who sat on the sidelines during the Democratic electoral surges of 2006 and 2008 are jumping into the 2010 midterm elections with renewed confidence after President Obama's first year in office.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, who heads the recruitment effort at the National Republican Congressional Committee, said he doesn't have to go looking for candidates anymore. He just has to answer the phone.

The class of new recruits, who run the gamut from legislative veterans hoping for comebacks to promising newcomers, has Republican officials eyeing significant gains in the House, Senate and governors' mansions after two disastrous election cycles.

In Tennessee's conservative-leaning 8th Congressional District, for example, farmer and gospel singer Stephen Fincher climbed down from his tractor last year to run against 11-term Rep. John S. Tanner, a Democrat who abruptly announced his retirement plans in early December.

The race is now considered wide open.

"My roots run deep in Tennessee, not politics," said Mr. Fincher, who raised an impressive $300,000 in the third quarter campaigning against the agenda of President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat.

Democratic officials say the Republican talk of recruiting prowess is false bravado to mask the party's persistent problems rebuilding credibility after what they describe as the excesses of President George W. Bush's tenure. Republicans, they say, have not raised enough funds for campaigns to recapture Congress and are competing with the conservative "tea party" movement that doesn't necessarily back the party's candidates.

"It's more quantity over quality," said Democratic political consultant Brian Smoot. "There still doesn't seem to be enthusiasm for the Republican brand."
With Democrats holding a 256-178 edge in the House with one current vacancy, Republicans would need a net gain of 40 seats to retake control of the chamber. In the Senate, Democrats hold a 58-40 edge, with two independents who caucus with the majority.

Still, Mr. Westmoreland, who said he once hoped for a 25-seat House gain, now says flipping as many as 45 seats isn't out of the question.

Paul: Tea parties won't rebuild GOP

The Politico:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Wednesday night that despite the groundswell of grass-roots conservative energy, the tea party movement is not likely to revive the Republican Party.

Says Paul: “I don't think you can talk about the tea party as a party,” Paul said during an interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. “It’s made up of a lot of different people. And I don't even see them as being Republicans.”

“I think they're unhappy. They're unhappy with the establishment party. And that's made up of the Republicans and the Democrats,” Paul said. “If the Republicans don't catch on to that, they can't build their party.”

Asked about a recent photo that has been widely circulated in the liberal blogosphere showing a prominent tea party organizer from Houston holding up a sign with incendiary racial language, Paul said the tea parties sometimes “act too angrily, and it doesn't come off well.”

“If they keep doing that, yes, it may not necessarily build the party,” Paul said.

Press Release from the Brandon for Athens Committee: Brandon Shinholser, Candidate for Mayor of Athens, Ga

The following information is the latest press release from the Brandon for
Athens Committee.

In his platform, Charlie Maddox says that he “seeks to be the Mayor of
Athens, not the manager,” and he goes on to say that “the
administration of this City’s core activities cannot ebb and flow with
the fad politics of the week.” We can all agree that elected officials
need to set the policies, and then let the departments carry them out, but
Charlie completely ignores a key part of governance. The city charter
requires Athens-Clarke County to have a manager and lays out what the
manager does, but charters can be changed and ours needs to be changed.

Charlie acts as if the manager simply carries out policy without having any
political interest of his own. This is patently false. The manager plays
politics on a daily basis, and this must stop. It is time that the mayor
and especially the commission reassert their authority as the elected
representatives of the people. Why should we turn even more power over to
an unelected bureaucrat with his own political motives, as Charlie suggests
we do? He talks about politicians micro-managing the activities of the
departments, but isn’t that what the manager (with his unaccountable
political motives) does on a daily basis? Why do we need that extra layer
of bureaucracy between the people’s elected representatives and the heads
of the departments? Is it to protect the departments from politics, or is
it to protect the power of a single, unelected individual to govern the
county as he sees fit? Under the current charter, the mayor and commission
are forbidden from giving any orders to the department heads. Charlie tells
us that this is a good thing, but I say that it is anything but.

If elected, I will work to restore the leadership of the mayor and
commission in the government of Athens-Clarke County. Strong leadership,
from strong leaders who represent the views of the citizens is needed now,
in these difficult times, more than ever. It’s time that the commission
had real oversight authority, the authority to remove department heads who
are mismanaging their resources, to the detriment of our citizens, and the
authority to directly question and challenge them, as well as issue them
binding orders. Charlie might say that this puts too much power in the
hands of one individual, but I say that that’s how it is now, and the
power should be dispersed to all, through their elected representatives.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address spoke of government of the people, by the
people, and for the people. Charlie would instead support government of the
elite, by a single unelected bureaucrat, and for himself and special
interests. The choice, therefore, is clear this November. As mayor, I will
lead the way to a more democratic and transparent government, a true
government of the people, elected by the people, and serving as advocates
for the people.





Brandon Shinholser, Candidate
Andrew Watts, Campaign Manager
staff@brandon2010.com
(706)-363-0242


Brandon Shinholser is a candidate in the race for Mayor of Athens-Clarke
County. His website can be found at http://www.brandon2010.com/.

Griffin Lotson to run for State Agriculture Commissioner in 2010

Griffin Lotson will run for State Agriculture Commissioner, he said in a message I received late last night. Lotson is the first democrat to jump into the race to succeed retiring incumbent Tommy Irvin (D) at the position. Lotson last ran for statewide office back in 2006 for Lt. Governor & previously ran for mayor of Darien back in 2003, only losing by a narrow margin. Lotson would be the first African-American to become Georgia's Agriculture Commissioner if elected.

Other possibilities for Ag Commissioner include: Deputy Commissioner Terry Coleman (D-Eastman), Rand Knight (D-Atlanta) & a new name mentioned on Georgia Politics Unfiltered, State Senator J.B. Powell (D-Blythe).

There are two republicans who have announced their intentions for Ag Commissioner & they are 2006 candidate Gary Black, president of Georgia Agribusiness Council & Darwin Carter, an ex-USDA Official.

Lotson is a Businessman & CEO of Sams Memorial Community Economic Development,Inc, a prominently Nationally Award winning Non-Profit Organization & served as a National White House Consultant on Faith-Based & Community Programs & worked as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In addition, he is a pastor at the Church of God in Christ in Darien, Ga

Why the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Important to You?

Across our nation a debate rages about "gun control". This euphemism glosses over the fact that what is being debated is one of the most precious guarantors of liberty, the right to keep and bear arms. At the heart of this debate is not whether the right to keep and bears arms is an individual right or not, but at its core the debate is over the primacy of the individual over the primacy of the government. This debate rages because many, too many, in this country have forgotten, or, worse, have never been educated in, the nature of our rights.

Government and liberty are natural adversaries. The founders of our nation understood this. With that understanding in mind they crafted a Constitution and a Bill of Rights designed to limit the power of government and guarantee the rights of the people. The rights that they intended to protect were those written about in the Declaration of Independence and other un-enumerated rights, e.g. the natural, inalienable rights of man.

Point 1: Government does not grant rights. If we were to assign to government the authority to grant rights, then we would also have to acknowledge the government's power to take rights away. Surely, we can all see the dangers of allowing governments formed by men being in the position of assigning our rights to us. Today's right would be tomorrow's crime. Such is the quixotic nature of mankind. The reason we have a Republic and not a pure democracy is because the founders of this country understood the tyrannical nature of a pure democracy. Rather than trusting the wisdom of men, our founders looked to another source as the basis of our rights… the Creator of the Universe.


Point 2: The Constitution is a Limitation on the Power of Government and the Bill of Rights is not an inclusive listing of personal rights. While the Bill of Rights enumerates certain rights, the oft-overlooked 9th Amendment to the Constitution states:

Point 3: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an Inviolable Personal Right. It is clear from the words of the men who founded this country that the right to "keep and bear arms" is an inviolable personal right and that there are good reasons for it to exist and to be protected by the Second Amendment. This is not a subject for debate, except for those ignorant of our history or those that purposely wish to debase the American citizenry under the tyranny of government and ultimately into subjugation. Anyone who holds the position that the American people do not possess an individual right to keep and bear arms, or that it may be legislated away through gun control laws, is ignorant of the basis upon which this country was founded; including the means by which the founders intended for us to maintain our personal liberties.


Point 4: The Arms of a Free People. The arms referred to by the Second Amendment and the founders of this country are the arms necessary for the free people of America to be able to hold their governments unbridled appetite for power in check and to resist invaders when called upon to serve in the militia in defense of our country, state or community. If the arms of the soldiers of this era are automatic rifles, machine guns and sub-machine guns then it is the right, in fact the obligation, for the citizens of this country to possess such arms themselves. It is laughable on its face, as some have stated, that the Second Amendment would grant to us the right to only have flintlocks or muskets, such weapons as were in use at the time of our countries founding, to defend ourselves against an armed force raised by the government to oppress us, or to defend against an invading enemy. This would be the same as saying, concerning the First Amendment, that the press could only use the printing technology that existed at the time of the Revolution while the government could use movies, television, radio, modern printing presses, the Internet and any other means of communications that it desired. A ridiculous thought isn't it? If it's ridiculous for the First Amendment, why is it any less ridiculous for the Second Amendment? Our rights are not "frozen in a moment of time", they are eternal rights and we are free to use our ingenuity to advance the technology to ensure those rights. If anything, we have the rights to limit the governments use of technology, not the other way around.

If you are in doubt about whether the Second Amendment is still valid and important to you, even if you choose not to own a gun, consider this:

If the government were to pass legislation to limit your First Amendment right to criticize the government in any form, would you be upset? Would you consider your rights had been unconstitutionally infringed? Would you still feel free? Of course you would be upset and, no, you wouldn’t still be free, because one of the bedrock's of our freedom is the ability to freely speak our minds on any subject, particularly criticizing those we have elected to govern us. It is the basis upon which this country was founded, and when we lose that right, we stop being citizens and become subjects.

While you may not have considered it in the same light, the Second Amendment is just as important as the First Amendment. We must support the Second Amendment, with the same fervor that we support the First Amendment. Why? Because our liberties were won at the point of a gun, and the sad reality of this world is that ultimately they can only be maintained at the point of a gun.

Let me ask you this? When the government outlaws free speech, what will you do to oppose it? Write letters of protest? No, that's now against the law. Protest in the streets? No, that's now against the law too. When speech is suppressed and tyranny reigns, only the sound of the gun will be heard. This seems extreme to today's pampered, cowed society, but in the end it will be the only means left to protect the First Amendment when the government finds it inconvenient for us to exercise our right of free speech and religion. However, if our guns have been confiscated, or simply limited to weapons ineffective against an oppressing government, then how will we restore our liberties? The answer, of course, is we won't be able to.

When the government attempts to limit the freedom of the free press through censorship, the press, the people, and the courts properly repulse it. When the government limits the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is engaging in another form of censorship, referred to the by the euphemism of "gun control". Let us call gun control what it is, an infringement of one of our natural and enumerated rights. Just as we correctly withstand government censorship of the press, so should we also resist the government’s attempt to control the right to keep and bear arms. Examples of such governmental tyranny on our right to keep and bear arms abound. We should not accept any limitation on any of our rights. One lesson we have learned from history is that when one right is infringed it emboldens the tyrant to attempt to infringe upon other rights as well.

As far as the candidates go, I'm not familiar with all of them, but these men right here are Pro-Gun Advocates & staunch supporters:

State Rep. DuBose Porter of Dublin, candidate for governor in 2010 (in Blue Shirt)

And

General David Poythress, candidate for governor in 2010

And

Thurbert Baker, Attorney General & candidate for governor in 2010. Baker has gotten A+ ratings & endorsements from Gun groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA).