Saturday, June 6, 2009

Gen. Eisenhower’s D-Day Letter to the Troops

Today is the 65th anniversary of the invasion of Omaha Beach at Normandy. As we recall the sacrifice of the American troops that day, take the time to read the letter that General Dwight Eisenhower wrote to the troops just before the invasion.


SUPREME HEADQUARTERS ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE


Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force!

You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you. In company with our brave Allies and brothers-in-arms on other Fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world.

Your task will not be an easy one. Your enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle-hardened. He will fight savagely.

But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans great defeats, in open battle, man-to-rnan. Our air offensive has seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free men of the world are marching together to Victory!

I have full confidence in your courage, devotion to duty and skill in battle. We will accept nothing less than full Victory!

Good Luck! And let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Read more...

Thursday, June 4, 2009

I Wish You Well Andy!

As most of you have probably heard, Andy Horning is moving to Texas. Oddly, the Star has given greater coverage to his departure than they did any of his campaigns. The thing is, Indiana is losing one of the good guys.


Andy has been a constant defender of liberty and of limited government. Andy may have been a Libertarian, but his greatest success (if you can still call a loss a success) came as a Republican (lesson learned to Libertarians? Just saying). That election directly impacted the way two individuals looked at politics and the role of government. I’m talking about Chris Spangle and me (of course!). Now, I stayed with the party, whereas Chris has gone on to be quite the influencer in Indiana Libertarian politics.

But I have taken the lessons I learned on that ‘04 campaign for Congress and tried to bring them back to the Republican party in the hopes of making the change from the inside. For that, I’m very grateful for and to Andy. We may not agree on all the issues, but he challenged the way I thought and looked at government.

The ever present candidate, Andy has never been a politician. Sometimes he speaks over people’s heads, but he never quits educating people. And quite frankly, even more than a candidate, he was an educator on the campaign trail.

He may have never won many votes, but I know he challenged the way people thought and changed opened a few minds in the process. Let’s be honest, during the gubernatorial debates last year, it was more of a debate between Andy and Mitch. Jill Long Thompson was just along for the ride on a major party ticket.

So to you Andy, a man I consider a friend and a teacher to me, I wish you well in Texas. Indiana is losing a friend and one of the most reasoned voices for limited government.

By the way, there is a going away party for Andy tomorrow night at Rick’s Cafe Boatyard. Click here for more details.

Have any good Andy stories? Leave them in the comments section!

Read more...

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Weekly Republican Address Given By Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels #tcot

Read more...

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Obama Chooses Sonia Sotomayor As First SCOTUS Pick

Looks like Sonia Sotomayor was Obama’s true frontrunner after all.


More to come later.

(Via Obama’s Frontrunners)

Read more...

Friday, May 22, 2009

Maybe McGoff Should Have Read the Business Section Before Sending Out His Presser

While the Credit Card Reform bill that John McGoff lauded in a press release from earlier today is initially getting good reviews, some people, most notably the Associated Press, are beginning to see the forest for the trees and realizing that this bill really didn’t do enough to help consumers. And in the long run, this legislation could put them in a more difficult position.

Via MSNBC.com

Still, there are pitfalls to the legislation passed by both houses of Congress and being signed into law by President Obama on Friday, and some are likely to hurt consumers.

“People can start to feel a lot more comfortable about the rules of the game,” said Adam Levin, chairman and founder of Credit.com, a San Francisco-based company that provides education and information about credit products. “But there will be some fallout, and it might be a short-term negative.”

Here is a closer look at some unintended consequences of the new law that are likely to occur:

Higher rates

Issuers are considered certain to bump up annual percentage rates soon to compensate for the fact they can’t increase them on new customers for one year after the regulations take effect in late February. Not only are introductory rates likely to rise, APRs on existing accounts may well go up too - especially if you do anything to show that you are a greater credit risk.

If you are late on a payment, exceed your credit limit or even use too much of your limit, you could see an immediate increase in your rate, according to Bill Hardekopf, CEO of LowCards.com, which tracks credit card offers. He recommends consumers pay their bills early, send in more than the minimum and not use more than a third of their credit limit.

Even that may not save them. The law does not put a cap on the interest rate that can be charged. Issuers will still have the ability to raise rates at any time for any reason, although that won’t apply to existing balances unless a customer is 60 days overdue with a payment.

The banking industry itself hints at the possibility of across-the-board rate hikes. “The business model has changed,” said spokesman Peter Garuccio of the American Bankers Association. “With that there will be ramifications, some not so good for the consumer.”

Annual fees


The free ride is likely to end for many who use their credit cards as a convenience and pay off their balances in full every month. Squeezed by the economy and further by this law, banks will now target people who have avoided paying an interest charge or an annual fee - until now.

Unlike in many other countries where free cards are rare, only about 20 percent of U.S. credit cards currently carry annual fees, according to LowCards.com. But that figure is expected to climb as more follow the lead of American Express with its green, gold and platinum cards. Expect to pay at least $50 to $100 a year.

Lost grace periods


Trying to make up for lost revenue, banks are considering charging interest from the date of a purchase instead of allowing a grace period, now typically 20 to 25 days. The best that cardholders may be able to hope for is an option from their issuer, according to credit card expert Ben Woolsey: Either pay an annual fee or lose your grace period.

“They’ve got to change the pricing structure of these cards,” said Woolsey, director of marketing and consumer research for CreditCards.com, a privately held company that offers consumers comparisons on credit cards. “They can’t let such a huge portion of their portfolio not contribute any profit any more.”

Other fees and penalties


The new regulations put no restrictions on fees for balance transfer, cash advance or late payment. All are likely to rise, as foreshadowed by Bank of America’s and Discover’s plans to boost their balance transfer fees to 4 percent from 3 percent on June 1.

Being 60 days late could be especially costly for consumers. Currently card companies impose penalty rates averaging about 28 percent, or double the average standard rate. But that could rise to 30 or 35 percent as the companies scramble to make money where they can, said Nick Bourke, manager of the Safe Credit Cards Project at the Pew Health Group.

Tighter credit


Consumers with lower credit scores will find it harder to persuade strapped card issuers to give them credit because of the new regulations. Even those with respectable credit histories may have difficulty getting approved for new cards or find their credit limits lower than in the past. That means more people may resort to payday lenders and pawn shops, said Greg McBride, senior analyst with Bankrate.com.

Cutback in rewards programs


Card companies have long used reward programs to retain customers’
loyalty, giving them cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks. Now they won’t be able to subsidize those programs when they are not making as much from finance charges and penalty fees under the new regulations.

Industry officials’ threats during the lobbying process to cut them back sharply could prove to have been a bluff, but analysts and consumer experts still expect them to be trimmed to some extent.

Smaller card issuers may vanish


Six mega-companies issue 80 percent of all credit cards: American Express Co., Bank of America Corp., Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Discover Financial Services. They are unlikely to pull back from the business because of the new law.

But some of the smaller banks and issuers that make up the other 20 percent are likely to stop issuing cards. That’s because of both the administrative costs of implementing the required changes and the inability to raise rates in some cases, according to Mike Brauneis, managing director for Protiviti Inc., a business consulting and auditing firm.

The bottom line of the whole reform effort is that despite the big strides forward taken by the new law, it doesn’t abrogate consumers’ responsibility to handle credit card debt cautiously and read the fine print of their monthly statements. “Certainly it’s not a silver bullet,” Brauneis said, “to keep consumers from getting in over their heads with credit card debt.”

Dan Burton may not have sided with many of his colleagues on this bill, but it looks like he came down on the right side of this legislation. While McGoff, certainly with the best of intentions, would rather see 5th District voters thrown under the proverbial bus.

Dick Morris also has a writeup over at TownHall.com calling the Credit Card Reform Act a “fraud”!

Read more...

Fresh Out of the Box, McGoff Eager to Go on the Attack #tcot

Well, it didn’t take long for at least one challenger to Congressman Burton to go negative…at least with a presser. While Brose McVey has been pitching hissy fits against Burton on his Facebook Page, Dr. John McGoff went straight to the press, clearly in an effort to make a splash in a suddenly crowded field of talented challengers who also happen to be gifted fundraisers.

McGoff’s newest attack on Burton, chides the Congressman for voted against the Credit Card Reform Act.

“At a time when Indiana has seen record number of Hoosiers lose their jobs, how can the Congressman not protect those most vulnerable. So many low income families have been forced to use their credit cards to get by each month and they are being preyed upon by credit card companies charging usury rates of 18%, sometimes 30% on their balances. The voters of Indiana’s 5th District need to ask Dan Burton how he can justify retroactive interest rate increases, double-cycle billing, and the credit card companies’ ruse of paying lowest-interest balances first,” said McGoff. “After 27 years in Washington, it appears that Congressman Burton has lost touch with the people back home and their struggles.”

I will say that McGoff makes a good argument on its face. But he thinks that voters like you and me won’t contact Congressman Burton’s office to find out why he voted against this legislation and will just take his word for it that this legislation was a brilliant idea.

When I contacted Burton’s office, this is what they told me:

He obviously supports curtailing some of the industry’s more egregious practices (which is why he voted for the bill when it left the House) but he grew increasingly concerned about how the industry intended to respond to the bill – such as reinstating annual fees, restricting rewards programs and charging interest from day of purchase instead of the current practice of charging interest only if you carry a balance for more then 30 days. In the end he became convinced that the bill – while very well intentioned – would have the unintended consequence of restricting access to credit for the very people the bill is intended to help and at the same time penalize people who manage their credit cards wisely.

One thing that McGoff conveniently left out of his presser was that this bill is redundant legislation. In December 2008, the Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration jointly approved a host of regulatory changes designed to better protect credit card users by prohibiting certain unfair acts or practices. It will also improve the disclosures consumers receive in connection with credit card accounts and other revolving credit plans. Which is exactly with the Credit Card Reform Act does. For example, the rules approved in December will:

  • Protect consumers from unexpected interest charges, including increases in the rate during the first year after account opening and increases in the rate charged on pre-existing credit card balances;
  • Forbid banks from imposing interest charges using the “two-cycle” billing method;
  • Require that consumers receive a reasonable amount of time to make their credit card payments;
  • Prohibit the use of payment allocation methods that unfairly maximize interest charges; and
  • Address subprime credit cards by limiting the fees that reduce the amount of available credit.

Of course, what McGoff chides, is exactly what has been wrong with Republican party over the last eight years, and that’s big government so-called “conservatism”. Meaning, this is another step toward government intervention in private business with negative side effects, which has been a staple of the Obama Administration.

I hope that the “Good Doctor” is looking forward to the higher fees he’s going to pay, which I’m sure responsible Hoosiers will castigate Congress for when they realize what this bill has imposed on them.

Read more...

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Burton Challeges Pelosi On CIA Allegations

Just a heads up, there seems to be some audio kinks. Can’t tell if it’s Fox News or the Youtube clip itself.


Read more...

“Is There Anyone Here Not Running in the Fifth District?”

Last night, Indy Star Columnist Matt Tully addressed the Hancock County Young Republicans group. He received (in my humble opinion) an unfortunate chilly reception, but he did throw out one line I thought was pretty funny. In a room that included two 5th CD primary challengers in Luke Messer and Brose McVey to incumbent (and regular Tully punching bag) Dan Burton, Tully jokingly asked the group, “Is there anyone here not running for the 5th District?” He followed up those comments by mentioning that the man who lost to Burton last year, John McGoff, would be formally announcing this morning he was running again.

And so it was…(Via the Indy Star)

Dr. John McGoff, who came close to beating U.S. Rep. Dan Burton in the 2008 primary election, will make a second try at unseating the long-time Republican incumbent.

McGoff, an Indianapolis physician and former Marion County coroner, announced his candidacy this morning. Unlike two years, ago, though, he’s got plenty of competition.

At least two other Republicans also are challenging Burton — Brose McVey of Carmel, who ran against Democrat Julia Carson for Congress in 2002, and Luke Messer of Shelbyville, a former state representative and former executive director of the Indiana Republican Party. In addition, State Rep. Mike Murphy of Indianapolis has said he will enter the race.

That is a pretty deep and well qualified field, but let’s be honest. The more people jump into the race, the better the chances are that Burton wins another term. Especially if the contenders come from the areas where Burton in not exactly well liked. And right now, that’s where all the contenders are coming from. That’s not to say this race won’t be interesting. It will be. It will also be very very brutal. Make no mistake, the 5th CD race will show just how deep the divide in the party really is as state establishment Republicans take on a Congressman not well like by the State Party. Think I’m joking, just read Frugal Hoosiers. The guys at FH and us get along on most issues, but with the 5th CD race, they practically fall over themselves at the prospect of anyone with a pulse running against the Dean of the Indiana Congressional Delegation. So it should be no surprise they were quick to support John McGoff last year and no doubt will be trumpeting Luke Messer, with his direct ties to the State Party as the former Executive Director, as their candidate of choice should the field narrow.

But for political junkies with little to no ties to the 5th CD race, it will be one heck of a fight. Let’s just hope there aren’t many political casualties of this congressional war.

Read more...

Monday, May 18, 2009

Dumping SoCons A Bad Idea According to Gallup

For the last few years, the argument in the GOP (and from the left) has been been that social conservatives should be abandoned. The moderate to liberal talking points have been that the views of SoCons are outdated and are losing issues if the GOP ever wants to get back to prominence. But a recent Gallup Poll shows some of that logic to be flawed, especially when it comes to the issue of Abortion.

Via Powerline
:

In a survey published today, Gallup finds that more Americans now consider themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice,” by a 51 percent-42 percent margin:

GallupPro-Life03.jpg


Gallup says this trend has been documented in multiple surveys. Interestingly, the shift is all among Republicans and Republican-leaners. Democrats and Democrat-leaners continue to be “pro-choice” in the same numbers.

Every time Republicans lose an election, would-be sophisticates in the party write op-eds to the effect that the party needs to dump social conservatism. Whatever your views on the social issues of the day–they have never been a significant focus of this site or of my own political involvement–Gallup’s survey supplies more evidence that this approach is wrong-headed.

While I take a different approach to certain social issues than some of my fellow SoCons do, I maintain that it is foolish to castigate an entire voting block. Centrist Republicans finally got their candidate of choice last year and the GOP suffered its worst defeats since the post Watergate Era of the 1970’s. That said, I think the momentum of the Obama campaign would have lambasted any GOP candidate last year, be they fiscal, social or both kinds of conservative.

All that said, I believe that the party, should it return to it’s winning ways needs to read the tea leaves better. And at this time, to quote the Clinton Campaign circa 1992, “It’s the economy stupid!” Republicans need to rally around sound fiscal policy at a time when fiscal policy is on most voters minds. Does this mean abandoning SoCons and what they believe and stand for? Absolutely not! But it does mean that some issues need to take a back seat.

But as this poll shows, abortion is not an issue that should be expunged from Republican victory strategies. Should other social issues, at the very least, be set aside? At this time, I would say that should be up for debate.

Read more...

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

According to Specter He’s No Longer a National Asset

Big ole tip of the hat to Red State on this one:

Just over a month ago, Specter told The Hill “I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role — a more important role — to play there. I think the United States desperately needs a two party system. It is the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican Senators, in a sense, and I don’t want to overstate this, is a national asset, because if one was gone you would only have 40. The Democrats would have 60 and they would control all of the mechanisms of government.”


Read more...