Ken Vaughn and Service to America

Those who have been reading for a while have seen me blog about Ken Vaughn. Ken is running for Congress in Virginia’s 11th district.  Ken is a friend, as is his wife Julie and her sister Cindy and their awesome little dog Jazzy.  Ken is not a politician and not part of the GOP establishment. He spent his life in the private sector. He and Julie are the epitome of self-made people. They are kind. They are charitable. They truly care about this country and the direction in which it’s headed.

They’re religious, but they wouldn’t dream of imposing their beliefs on anyone else. They freely offer good thoughts and prayers to those who need them – not as a way to convert anyone, but as an act of kindness. They believe in freedom and achievement, and live those principles every day.

I found it interesting and instructive that in a recent article about Ken, several supporters of his opponent in the primary – Chris Perkins – have attacked Ken as someone less likely to defeat Connolly this year, citing this as the reason they wouldn’t give him their support. Not that Ken’s ideas are bad. Not that Ken is incompetent.  But he’s not as bombastic as Perkins.

A patriotic, passionate leader who dedicated over 20 years of his life defending this country, Colonel Perkins is the only GOP candidate with a legitimate chance of removing lifetime politician Gerry Connolly from office. If Vaughn were to be nominated, I fear that Connolly would walk away with this election, wasting a golden opportunity to unseat a Congressman who prides himself in working alongside the President to advance the big government, high spending agenda of the Obama administration.

[...]

I think Chris Perkins is the best-positioned candidate to usher Gerry Connolly into a well-deserved retirement, or at least usher him off to K Street where career politicians go to cash in.

[...]

Vaughn doesn’t care about beating Connolly he cares about himself, a few months ago he was running against Frank Wolf

Here’s the thing, folks. This “electability” issue is how we wound up with McCain in 2008, and why we will wind up with Mittens in the general this year. Somehow this country has stopped voting for quality people who share their ideals, but instead vote for the lesser of two evils who will beat the greater of the two evils.

Why?

Why is a man who wants to serve his nation in Congress – a man who sacrificed many of his own resources for the opportunity to serve – who lives by his values – who wants to help fix what’s wrong with this country – considered somehow selfish and wrong?

Why is simply beating Connolly more important than defeating him AND electing the best man to public office?

Ken is running, because he wants to serve this country!  He’s not running against a specific person, although by the very nature of the thing, that is what he will wind up doing.  He’s running because he honestly wants to be part of the solution to this nation’s problems.  He could just stay in the private sector and enjoy his time with his family, but he wants to serve the people of his county and the people of America.

As a military veteran, I respect that, and I see nothing wrong with it, despite what the Chris Perkins’ apparatchiks seem to think.

I prefer a man who spent his life in the private sector – who knows how to run his own business and manage his own finances – who respects this country and wants to help improve it, no matter who is running against him.

I am a veteran, and I respect and support other veterans. What I won’t do is support other veterans at the expense of actual quality.

I do believe Ken Vaughn is the better candidate for Virginia’s 11th district.

I do believe in his values, his integrity and his intelligence.

I’m glad he decided to run – no matter who his opponent is – because I think he’s the best man for the job.

We need to stop voting for the candidate who is most “electable,” and start voting for the candidate who is the best.

Period.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Here’s a laugh: the Justice Department is investigating Sheldon Adelson, Newt Gingrich’s biggest backer, for corruption.

The billionaire casino mogul who has breathed new life into Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign with millions of dollars in donations is facing a federal investigation over whether his company violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribing foreign officials.

The investigation stems from a lawsuit filed by a former executive at the Sands Macau in China, the company has said. Steven C. Jacobs claims he was told the keep quiet about investigations of local officials and the possible presence of the triads – Chinese organized crime – in the casino.

Sheldon Adelson, who founded and runs Las Vegas Sands Corp — one of the largest casino and resort companies in the world, has denied the allegations in the lawsuit and said the company is cooperating with federal investigators.

At this point, Zero’s DOJ investigating anyone is a joke that tells itself.

Nuff said.

There are Times We All Share That Sentiment

A penguin pooped on the Kentucky State Senate floor Tuesday.

Well, Isn’t This a Coincidence!

You know that Keystone XL project that Zero rejected recently? The project that would have created thousands of jobs and reduced our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil? The one that David Sassoon whined would give lots of eeeeevil profits to the eeeeevil Koch brothers?

Well, care to guess who benefits from the cancellation of the Keystone XL project?

Warren Buffett, whom President Obama likes to cite as a fair-minded billionaire while arguing for higher taxes on the wealthy, stands to benefit from the president’s decision to reject the Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.

Mr. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC, which is among the railroads that would transport oil produced in western Canada if the pipeline isn’t built.

“Whatever people bring to us, we’re ready to haul,” Krista York-Wooley, a spokeswoman for Burlington Northern, a unit of Buffett’s Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., told Bloomberg News. If Keystone XL “doesn’t happen, we’re here to haul,” she said.

Yeah, I bet you’re ready to haul it.

Interesting that the administration would nix a project that would create jobs and provide a much better alternative to the energy sources we’re currently using on environmental grounds, while the existing alternative (conveniently belonging to an important supporter) is actually much less environmentally sound.

Things that make you say, “hmmmmmmmmmm.”

Time For That Asshole to English Translation Service Again

I’m nothing if not helpful.  I figure you all need my superior intellect (granted, it takes the intellect of a flea to be superior to hoplophobic idiots)  to translate what they’re really trying to tell you as they work to disarm you.

Starbucks’ “Pro-Gun” Policy Prompts Gun Victims’ Advocate Group to Launch Nationwide Boycott on Valentine’s Day 2012:

Translation: Starbucks’ abiding by state laws prompts us to throw a histrionic hissy fit, because they’re not actively joining us in undermining customers’ rights.

A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine’s Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.

Translation: A few panty-shitting hipsters will go without their venti mocha lattes, because  20,000 laws are just not enough to make us stop soiling ourselves at the thought of law-abiding citizens exercising their rights.

This boycott is being called by the National Gun Victim’s Action Council (NGAC), a network of 14 million gun victims, the faith community including the: Episcopal Peace Fellowship, United Church of Christ, Fellowship of Reconciliation (46 peace fellowships and 43 affiliate fellowships), secular groups working to reduce gun violence and many of the organizations that support passing sane gun laws.  WHY STARBUCKS?  Currently, Starbucks allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states) (See Photos). Starbucks’ compliance with the National Rifle Association’s Pro-Gun Agenda was exposed in 2010 when members of the “open carry” movement began meeting in popular chains, such as California Pizza Kitchen, Peets, IKEA, Disney and Starbucks openly carrying their handguns and assault rifles. (Types of Guns)

Translation: Assault weapon = any gun;  NRA’s pro-gun agenda = state laws.

To protect their customers and employees, all of the retail chains—except for Starbucks— banned guns from being carried in their stores.

Translation: Major retail chains have been harassed and excoriated by us, and all of them (except Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Home Depot, Barnes and Noble and Starbucks) have toed the line and disarmed their customers despite state laws protecting their rights.

“Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone’s risk of being a victim of gun violence,” says Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGAC. “Open and conceal and carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S.  If we had England’s gun laws we would expect 375 gun homicides each year—97% less than we have. England’s gun laws are based on protecting public safety, ours on maximizing sales for the gun industry.”

Translation: Despite our lack of evidence that concealed and open carry cause 12,000 gun homicides each year, despite the verifiable fact that states that have passed concealed carry laws either saw a decrease in crime, or saw no appreciable increase in crime, despite the fact that the FBI’s UCRs confirm that states without right-to-carry laws have much higher violent crime rates than national averages, we will use any disingenuous tactic to fear monger our way.  If we had England’s gun laws, we’d have 375 homicides each year, even though our population is five times the size of theirs and our demographics are much different.

Starbucks has the legal right to ban guns but despite having been petitioned by thousands, asked at a shareholder meeting, and a direct appeal made to their Board, Starbucks clings to this policy that puts millions of Americans at risk every day and encourages the spread of guns being carried in public.

Translation: Starbucks has not bowed to our pressure and fear tactics, even though it has the legal right to allow guns on its premises, and is complying with state laws.

IMPACT OF STARBUCKS BOYCOTT:  Fineman says, “Starbucks steadfast support of the NRA’s lethal pro-gun agenda damages its ‘socially conscious company’ brand. Further,” adds Fineman, “Monte Carlo Simulation risk analysis indicates that 90% of the time, our boycott will reduce Starbucks stock price by an amount no rational company would allow.” 

According to NGAC, the boycott will end when Starbucks rejects the NRA’s Pro-Gun agenda by banning all guns from their stores and committing to be an Aggressive Corporate Advocate for sane gun laws.

Translation:  We’re delusional, but we’ll keep our dirty leftist hippies out of Starbucks, so that the rest of the population can enjoy a cup of coffee without worrying that they’ll be accosted by filthy whiners.

You’re welcome.

I like Starbucks quite a bit, and will ensure I get coffee there every chance I get. I would encourage everyone who values fundamental rights to do the same.