Saturday, May 26, 2007

Support Wally. Or else...

If you didn't vote for Wally or don't like his positions, you're anti-American. At least, that how it is according to Donald Polzin. Dissent is wrong...who knew?

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Wally says More War Needed

Via the Chico ER.

"I firmly believe Congress must unconditionally fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq," Herger stated in a news release. "Regrettably, the new House leaders developed a plan mandating that our troops leave Iraq under fixed timelines -- even if our generals in charge believe such withdrawals are not in our national security interest.

"Our nation's mission in Iraq is too important to fall victim to congressional micromanagement. For this reason, I opposed this measure."

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Good for Workers, Bad for Business?

The Employee Free Choice Act (Wally voted no, of course, and the president has threatened to veto it) passed in the House by 50 votes. It will probably get stuck in the Senate so Bush wont have to veto it.

I am a member of CSEA, so I'm entirely biased on the subject, but I think anytime you can get conservatives to try and use the phrase "Orwellian" you're on to something.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Suicide Watch

Wally is going after people who help others commit suicide through the internets. It wouldn't be fair of me to single out Wally for using the "interstate commerce" clause to get this into law because it's really one of the few tricks that Congress has and it's equally abused by everyone.

I just don't understand how this will actually help anyone. The internets aren't just in the US, the tubes cover the globe. If this law passes, the online groups simply move to a server that isn't in the US.

Does this mean that actively talking people into suicide is okay? No. It's just something that the federal government isn't going to be able to regulate. I understand that Wally wants to bring attention to this and show people that depression is a very serious illness, but there are other ways. Personally I would suggest improving health care in this country. Public funds could be used for education campaigns. Resources could be provided to colleges where first year students often go through bouts of depression.

Just because you are in Congress doesn't mean the only thing you can do is make new laws, and in this case a new class of felons.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Helping Out Northern California

Wally has a point here.
“In my home state of California, close to half of the land area is owned by the federal government,” he said. “And in my district that number is considerably larger. In one of my counties nearly ninety percent of the land is under federal ownership. This large federal presence has placed the counties I represent at a severe economic disadvantage. Acreage that would normally be privately owned, and therefore generating tax revenue to help fund essential local services, is instead locked away by the federal government.”

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Hollywood Liberals

The relationship between D.C. and Hollywood is an odd one. Democrats are tops on the donor list as well as the list of bad "intellectual property" votes. But the GOP is certainly trying to make inroads, I mean really, why give up on such a huge chunk of potential campaign cash?

It's also striking that it's an area that would prompt Wally to criticize the White House, even in a relatively mild way, over how IP talks are going with China.


Thanks to True Majority for making this information easy to find for every rep.
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I hope we all can recognize the profound importance of our mission in Iraq. History surely will. The mission in Iraq will impact our national security for decades to come.

The United States seeks a region of stability and peace to create a more secure world for our children and grandchildren. Al Qaeda seeks a region of terror and bloodshed.

The President believes victory in Iraq is key to victory on the war on terror. Al Qaeda believes our defeat in Iraq is key to its vision of violent Islamic rule. Our security is clearly at risk.

Americans are frustrated by the current situation in Iraq. We have witnessed the removal of a historic dictator, yet our men and women in uniform remain at risk. We have witnessed historic democratic elections, yet those elected have not yet brought security. We have been told about the progress we have experienced in training Iraqi security forces, yet violence continues to rage.

With growing uneasiness, we have watched a back and forth tug of war between progress and setback, and we mourn the loss of every single brave American who has fallen during this mission.

Madam Speaker, I share this frustration and sorrow. Yet I believe we must not allow our frustrations to blind us to the need for victory over radical jihadists. This House must work together in addressing the challenges in Iraq, because the outcome will be closely linked to our own national security for years to come.

Regrettably, the resolution before us does nothing to enhance this security. It does not offer a solution to the challenges in Iraq. It does not recognize the magnitude of the failure. And it does not recognize the nature of our enemies. For these reasons I strongly oppose it.

Madam Speaker, we know terrorists friendly to bin Laden are among the enemy in Iraq. Even before the fall of Saddam's regime, the terrorist mastermind Zarqawi had sought refuge in Iraq. His network of terror grew rapidly. Bin Laden's top deputy applauded his actions and counseled him on achieving dominance in the region. Although Zarqawi himself can no longer do harm, al Qaeda in Iraq remains a threat to our security.

An American defeat in Iraq would embolden the terrorists like no event before, bolstering bin Laden's view that America is weak. Al Qaeda would enjoy more than just a morale boost; they would have a new operational base to plot attacks against Americans and train new recruits. An American defeat in Iraq would almost certainly bring forth a government that turns a blind eye towards terrorism. This, Madam Speaker, would be catastrophic to our national security.

An American defeat in Iraq would also generate unspeakable chaos in the Middle East. The dangerous regime in Iran is already seeking to capitalize on what it perceives as our weakness. Iran is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons, and its fanatical president has publicly said that he wishes to destroy America and Israel. Syria would also take advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq, further destabilizing the Middle East. What is good for hostile regimes like Iran and Syria can be devastating for America's security.

In closing, Iraq is a central front in the war on terrorism, and its future will greatly influence our future security. An American victory would foster stability in a volatile region and provide a resounding defeat for terror.

For these reasons, we must give the President's new plan in Iraq a chance to succeed. Our resolve must override our frustrations. Our support for the remarkable members of our Armed Forces must be unwavering. And our determination in fighting radical jihadists who want to kill us and our families must never run dry. Madam Speaker, that determination must never run dry

Local coverage was "brief."