Monday, July 24, 2006


In an era of job exportation, growing economic and social inequality, and political disillusion and disenfranchisement, Professor Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School has suggested in his book “The Second Bill of Rights” (2004), that it is time to resurrect an idea of FDR for a second bill of rights to promote educational opportunity, health and medical care for all, decent shelter, the right to work, and economic security. FDR presented the following economic bill of rights to Congress in March 1943:

1. The right to work, usefully and creatively through the productive years;

2. The right to fair play, adequate to command the necessities and amenities of life in exchange for work, ideas, thrift and other socially valuable service;

3. The right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care;

4. The right to security, with freedom from fear of old age, want, dependency, sickness, unemployment, and accident;

5. The right to live in a system of free enterprise, free from compulsory labor, irresponsible state power, arbitrary [and corrupt] public authority, and unregulated monopolies;

6. The right to come and go, to speak or to be silent, free from the spyings of secret political [or moral] police.

In this regard, the words of George Kennan, the architect of the policy of containment vis-à-vis communism, toll a dire warning:

The fact of the matter is that there is a little bit of totalitarian buried somewhere, way deep down, in each and everyone of us. It is only the cheerful light of confidence and security which keeps this evil genius down… If confidence and security were to disappear, don’t think that he would not be waiting to take their place.

7. The right to equality before the law, with equal access to justice in fact [regardless of your economic or political status];

8. The right to education, for work, for citizenship, and for personal growth and happiness; and

9. The right to rest, recreation, and adventure, the opportunity to enjoy life and take part in advancing civilization.

What an idea! All have equal rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Seems that I've read this somewhere...

As Sunstein suggests, freedom does not require only national defense but “a court system, an ample body of law to govern and enforce contracts and prevent civil wrongs, and to police. To provide for all these things, freedom requires taxation.” The issue is that we cannot continue to allow powerful corporate interests, their lobbyists, and their kangaroo politicians to escape their responsibilities to the nation.

As long as there are unemployed or underemployed citizens in the United States, jobs should not and must not be exported overseas. Our products will be competitive in any market because they are better and we wrote the book on competition. Further, as long as people do not have health care, corporations should not evade taxes through loop holes and other legal sieves. It is a fundamental economic right for people to have health care and any legal system that allows the richest individuals [as our legal system considers corporations to be “persons”] to violate our fundamental rights must be changed immediately.

This economic and social Second Bill of Rights is a natural follow on to our first Bill of Rights which provides for our political rights. We must provide for all Americans and not just the rich and the powerful who can afford to pay their way. It is not too much to ask that equality for all really mean equality for all.

We must not allow our confidence and security disappear, because as Kennan suggests, the result may be too horrible to bear. Consequently, it is our duty and responsibility to our country to increase the public weal and not diminish it; we must legislate the Second Bill of Rights. This will ensure our continuing confidence and security now and in the future, thereby staying the sceptre of totalitarianism.

This is an idea whose time has come and we can do it. SO DO IT!

The first step:



‘‘The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.’’
Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Friday, July 21, 2006

The Tragedy of John Doolittle, Prince of K Street. Elect Fighting Dem Charlie Brown in November

Friends, Californians, citizens, lend me your ears;
I come to objectively assess Charlie Brown, not to praise him.
The noble John Doolittle Hath told you Charlie Brown is a member of the ACLU:
If it were so, it is a grievous fault in the eyes of some,
And so hath Charlie answer'd it.
The ACLU protects the Constitution for all, even the
noble John Doolittle
For John Doolittle is an honorable man;
So are all of his pals: Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, all honorable men--
Come I to speak in Charlie Brown’s defense.
Charlie Brown is a brother veteran, honorable and of conviction to me:
But John Dolittle says Charlie is against the
values and traditions that made this country strong;
And John Doolittle is an honorable man.
John Doolittle claims to have brought many successes home to the 4th District
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill as well as his own pockets:
Did this in John Doolittle seem honorable? When that the poor Jack Abramoffs have cried for another scheme or favor, John Doolittle hath wept
All the way to the bank with his pal’s contributions:

honor should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet John Doolittle says Charlie is against values and traditions
That made this country strong;
And John Doolittle is an honourable man.
You all did see that Charlie’s believes that people should be free to pursue life, liberty
And happiness without interference from the government:
was this violation of values?
Yet John Doolittle says he is against the values
And traditions that made this country strong;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what John Doolittle spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all love our country, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to question Charlie’s
commitment to values and patriotism?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And people have lost their reason.
Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with truth, honor, respect and honesty,
And I must pause till it come back to me
in November when we say no to kleptocracy,
the honorable John Doolittle,
his honorable pals;
and elect Charlie Brown as our representative.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

We Will Not Lie, Cheat, or Steal: Say No to Kleptocracy in November; and Elect Charlie Brown

“We will not lie, cheat, or steal nor tolerate those who do.” This is the US Air Force Academy honor code and a central tenet of who Charlie Brown is and stands for. As one of his campaign flyers state:

“The Honor Code—it’s the foundation of the Air Force and of an officer’s character. It is the standard of integrity by which leaders are measured.”

Charlie Brown asks to be measured by this standard. What a refreshing breath of air: A politician of character, honor and conviction. However, we don’t ask that our political leaders be paragons of virtue; we all screw up every now and then. However, we only ask them to be fair and square with us, and not screw us at our expense. John Do Little has screwed us and Charlie won't -- the choice is as simple as that.

Charlie says that it is time to get our house in order.

Charlie says that it is time to restore honor to our leadership in Washington. We need an ethical and responsible leader who will fight to make sure that our fiscal house is in order, our children get a 21st century education, and our parents an grandparents get the retirement and healthcare they have earned.

I personally don’t think that it is too much to ask that:

  1. Our soldiers not be sent off into foreign lands for the benefit of private interests;
  2. Our workers get paid premium wages for the hard work that they do;
  3. Our lakes and rivers be clean so that people can fish in them and not glow in the dark;
  4. All of our kids be afforded a good education at the government’s expense. Heck, I got one so I am willing to put my money where my mouth is;
  5. Our jobs not be exported overseas to some hell-hole factory so some rich guy here can get richer and more Americans lose their jobs and/or work in jobs that are a poor substitute for the ones they lost. By the way, why can’t a kid get out of high school and earn a decent living in a good hands-on job? Not every one wants to go to “college” and I believe in the honor of any job. Why are our jobs being exported overseas? Why are corporations allowed to escape US taxes by incorporating in Bermuda—clearly a corporate paradise if I ever saw one—manufacturing in Vietnam and operating in the US and nevertheless escape taxes?

Look, whatever your political persuasion may be, you cannot ignore the fact America is getting screwed. While some people got tax breaks, the richest people got the most and the majority of major US corporations do not pay a single dollar in taxes. Now, I am not a fan of taxes but I don't mind paying them to benefit all of us--provided that others pay their share as well.

The bottom line is this:

We the people of California’s 4th District refuse to accept kleptocratic government. Accordingly, we will say No to Kleptocracy in November by electing Charlie Brown to represent our interests ethically and honorably.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Fighting Dem Charlie Brown vs. K Street Superstar Do Little

This is a good interview on who Charlie is and what he stands for.



Brown Says He'll Do More Than DoolittleAn interview with Charlie Brown, Democratic Candidate for US. House Seat CA-4

by Timothy D. Smith for ePluribus Media
10 June 2006

On June 10th, 2006, Timothy Smith interviewed Fighting Dem Charlie Brown at the first annual YearlyKos Convention. Brown is running for the House of Representatives seat from CA- Congressional District 4 against K Street superstar John Doolittle. [Appropriate name for Do Little as K Street in Wash DC is the headquarters of major lobbyist firms].

Kay Shepherd hosted the podcast interview for ePluribus Media, which can be heard at Charlie Brown 06-10-06 podcast interview

The index of earlier podcasts is at ePMedia Libsyn

Kay Shepherd for ePluribus Media: Greetings citizens and a big shout out to all you Kossacks. Welcome to the ePluribus Media podcast. It’s Saturday, June 10, 2006. I am your host, Kay Shepherd and you are listening to our third edition from the YearlyKos Convention in Las Vegas.Today at the booth, ePluribus Media correspondent Timothy D. Smith talked to retired Air Force officer and current congressional candidate, Charlie Brown. No, not that Charlie Brown. This Charlie Brown is running against Republican incumbent John Doolittle in California’s Fourth District. Now what you may know about Doolittle is that he’s been something of an overachiever in the current Republican scandals; to date he is the only congressman who has been swept up in both the Tom Delay-Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham-Brent Wilkes affairs. Tim talked to Charlie today about what he is running on and the difference he intends to make in congress. Let’s listen.

Timothy D. Smith for ePluribus Media: You have met a lot of people. What do you think about what is happening here?

Charlie Brown: I think the most exciting thing about this is the wide variety of people who are here. This is -- a lot of people when they think of blogging think of young college kids or computer geeks – and this is a group of all age ranges, all walks of life, all shapes, sizes, and to a large extent, a lot of different political backgrounds.

TDS: So tell us about the Fourth District. Describe the Fourth, if you would, for us.

CB: The Fourth Congressional District is the northeast corner of California. If you go just east of Sacramento, draw a line up to Lake Tahoe and move that line north to the Oregon border, you have the Fourth Congressional District. The whole California side of Lake Tahoe, the beautiful Sierras, it’s a beautiful area to be in.

TDS: What towns are in your district?

CB: The main population centers are the Sacramento suburbs of Roseville, Rocklin, Lincoln, then El Dorado Hills, Truckee, then the towns get smaller as we move up north, Quincy, Susanville, and a little gerrymandered loop that comes down and takes in Oroville.

TDS: So why are you running? Why should the folks living in that area choose you instead of the current inhabitant of that seat.

CB: John Doolittle, the current inhabitant of that seat, has said that I am the most liberal Democrat that he has run against. My response to that is that he is the most corrupt politician that I have ever run against. This is about We the People of the United States. Thirty-seven (37) years ago I took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and the constitution says that this is a country by and for the people and I am one of those people. And I want my country back, away from the lobbyists, away from the large corporations. [AMEN!!!]

TDS: You were in the Air Force.

CB: 26 years in the Air Force

TDS: You are a Lieutenant Colonel, retired. Were you a pilot?

CB: I was Air Force Rescue helicopter pilot; then I changed over to fixed wing aircraft. My wife is also an Air Force veteran; she was a nurse. And my son is currently an Air Force pilot.

TDS: Did he see action?

CB: My son has done three rotations in Iraq. He is a C-130 pilot.

TDS: What would you say is the most pressing issue that your district is facing right now, other than the fact that you have one of the most corrupt politicians in the Congress.

CB: The district needs a lot of infrastructure improvements. And John Doolittle consistently tells cities that ‘if you need something out of Congress, if you need something out of me. Hire a lobbyist.’ So the biggest problem the district has is a representative who is not representing the district. He wants them to hire a lobbyist.

TDS: What would be the first problem that you would address when elected? What is the first major plan of action that you have on your clipboard?

CB: The first major plan of action, once we get the 15 seats so that we have a Democratic majority in congress, is to take the Congress back to where congress passes laws and the president enforces them. Until we take Congress back, you can’t move onto the next step of doing the things that the people of country needs. First we take congress back, then we quit the large tax breaks for the corporations and the top 1% of the country and start taking care of the other 99% of the people.

Once we have done that, we start looking at things like improving the educational system, affordable health care, clean air, clean water, and real security for this country.
The Republicans have been so big on dividing us with wedge issues, things that don’t affect people on their day-to-day life.

I want to concentrate on the things that we should be able to unite on. Everybody should be able to agree that we need some form of affordable health care. Everybody ought be able to agree that when you step outside in the morning that you breathe the air without coughing and choking. Everybody ought to be able to agree that we need a good quality school system for our children and everybody ought to be able to agree that we should be able to keep this country secure from enemies.

Yet these aren’t the things that Congress is debating. Congress wants to debate things that really don’t affect us in our day-to-day lives. They hold special sessions to interfere with individual rights and state’s rights. Congress needs to focus on the things that I just mentioned that unite us and bring us together to be united.

TDS: How do you feel about the Immigration question? That’s a tough issue that doesn’t go across the normal Republican/Democrat lines. Where do you stand, especially in California, in southern California it’s a huge issue, where do you stand, which side of the fence are you on?

CB: Well again, there’s really no sides to the fence here. Three-part solution to the problem. Obviously, the first we have to do is do a better job of securing our borders. They are a sieve, this is not something new. This is not a new problem, it has been going on for a lot of years. Nothing has been done in the past and suddenly it is a pressing issue.

We need to slow down and do this right instead of rushing into something we are going to regret but yes we need to secure the border and expanding the border patrol is the easiest first step we can take. There are some electronic sensor things we can do down there to get control of our borders and stop so many illegals coming across.

Then we move to the people who are coming across legally and we have better tracking of people coming in on visas. I have heard statistics as high as 30% of the people here illegally came in here legally on a visa and then overstayed. So we do something, electronic finger printing which I was involved in with the police department I worked at for seven and one-half years. You could do the electronic fingerprinting on everybody who comes across, good positive ID, easier tracking while they are in the country. So, tracking folks when they come in legally, so secure the borders.

Then we move to enforcement against the people who hire the illegals. That’s what is pulling the illegals into this country. It’s the jobs companies bring them in, pay them, it’s a cash economy, it’s under the table, and it’s not paying for the things that medical care, school systems, things that are hurting because of the illegal population. So we have some real enforcement against the corporations where they quit this cash economy thing in hiring the illegals. So, real enforcement is the second step.

Third step. Recognize that we have a large illegal population here. They are part of the work force. Again, it is physically possible to arrest 11-12 million people and deport them. They are here illegally, so identify them, fine them. $1,000 is the figure that the Kennedy-McCain bill is looking at right now, Okay folks, you are here. Misdemeanor fine, documentation; keep your record clean, then after you are here for five years, we will consider the next step which is a fine and the start of some sort of legal status. We have to give these people some basic rights, but once they have these rights, they can form unions and begin complaining against these employers who are hiring them illegally. So some basic rights, but again, tied with those rights, some responsibilities to be paying taxes, paying into the system, clean record. 3-Part system, take away any one part and it is not going to work. Gotta have all three together.

TDS: Where do you stand in terms of energy policy and what the government is doing right now in terms of our current energy problems?

CB: Well it would be nice to have an energy policy would be the starting point. Cheney held his commission shortly after this administration took office almost six years ago, there was no energy policy. There was a secret meeting. The oil people came in and they came up with something, nobody really knows what, but we have seen the results, higher oil prices, lower supplies, so we need a real energy policy for starters. Bush said, in his last state of the union message, that we needed more conservation, we need alternative fuels and then he goes and cuts 28 million dollars out of the research that would do some of that. So obviously we still don’t have an energy policy.

What we need is the start of research into alternative fuels to be looking toward the future to get off oil dependency. In the short term, we need to be looking more at alternative sources of energy: wind power, solar power, these things are out there right now. During the last part of the Carter administration, the last big energy crisis, we cut our dependency on foreign oil imports by about one-quarter.

With some minor changes, in habits, we could cut oil consumption, but people will have to get back into car pooling, merging trips together, taking a little care in what they do, we don’t have to lose our quality of life, if we just use a little common sense, get back to some common sense things. Use the existing technologies out there we could be having a lot better energy independency. Brazil has gone to Ethanol. We could be moving toward ethanol. The Air Force right now has a test program going on the B-52 to test alternative fuels on airplanes.

TDS: I didn’t know that. That’s an interesting point. Do you think they will go anywhere with it?

CB: Well the Air Force is definitely serious about it or they wouldn’t be doing the rewiring of the fuel system on the B-52s so that they can run a couple engines of an ethanol-based technology.
Simple things that we can do just for starters. Take Hoover Dam, not that far from where we sit here in Las Vegas today, generators, the wiring systems on Hoover Dam have not been upgraded since it was built. Some of the engineers I talked to today say that by upgrading the generators on our existing hydroelectric plants, upgrading the electrical systems there from belts and wheels to turbines, some of those dams you could almost double the electrical output. Some of them would be down around 20%. Some of them would go as high as doubling the electrical output. There are things that we can do now, without causing any more damage, if we just invest a little bit in the infrastructure that we have right now in this country for energy.

TDS: That’s another thing that I didn’t really know about. That’s great. I really only have one more question. Again we are talking with Charlie Brown who is running for Congress in California’s Fourth District. John Conyers in Michigan has already stated that if and when the Democrats regain the majority, that after the November elections, he would open hearings and he would get a special prosecutor to investigate the Weapons of Mass Destruction claims that the Administration used in bringing the United States into war with Iraq. With the obvious intent, then therefore if the proof is indeed in that pudding, that impeachment proceedings would likely follow. How do you stand on that?

CB: Well let me give you a two-part answer to that question. First on the Weapons of Mass Destruction and the intelligence that got us into Iraq. I was active duty Air Force for 26 years. In the 90's, I had two three-month rotations in Iraq, sat on the General's staff at Riyadh, capital of Saudi Arabia. I scheduled all the airborne reconnaissance that overflew Southern Iraq. Sat in on the General’s briefings every morning. Talked to the targeters that are planning what are we going to bomb tomorrow if we go to war. I personally knew, the people on the General’s staff knew, the General knew; there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by 1995 because those programs had been shut down.

So the real intelligence people knew in the mid-90s that Saddam’s WMD programs were shut down.

So I have been speaking out against the Iraq war Weapons of Mass Destruction excuse since the day Bush first started talking about it.

Now the other question here is Conyers talking about holding hearings and putting people under oath. The biggest problem we have in this government right now, this goes back to taking back our constitution and Congress is that we don’t know what’s been going on in this country the last six years. Go back to the starting point of Cheney’s secret energy commission, we don’t know what happened there. We don’t know what this government has been doing the last six years because they have kept everything secret from us.

We need real congressional hearings with people put under oath to find out what is going on. Certainly we need to be looking at what got us into this war. We could look at simple questions like “Hey, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, did your grandparents, excuse me, did your great-grandparents come into this country illegally?”

He won’t answer that question right now. You asked me about illegal immigration, let’s start with the Attorney General of the United States' great-grandparents and how they came into this country. So we need real hearings, with people under oath. The House of Representatives essentially serves as the investigative body for impeachment hearings until we have real hearings, we really don’t know what has been going on, whether there are grounds or not. But it needs to be looked at.

TDS: All right. Charlie, thank you very much. It has been a pleasure having you here, and good luck in your race.

CB: Thank you, Tim. I would just like to encourage everyone to go to the website, Take a look at things. Get the word out on what’s going on. We need to take back the House, no matter what district you are in.
This is national.

We need 15 seats to hold real hearings in Congress.

Tuesday, July 11, 2006


The following article appeared in the electronic Wash Post today.

This is an outrage! This is not government of the people, by the people and for the people. This is just plain CRAP!!! The crooks are running our house as we are governed by thieves. Every one should write to the editors of local news media to express their outrage.



Lawmaker Criticized for PAC Fees Paid to Wife

By Jonathan Weisman and Jeffrey H. BirnbaumWashington Post Staff WritersTuesday, July 11, 2006; Page A01

In the past two years, campaign and political action committees controlled by Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) paid ever-larger commissions to his wife's one-person company and spent tens of thousands of dollars on gifts at stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Tiffany & Co. and a Ritz-Carlton day spa.

The use of such committees, especially "leadership" PACs, for purposes other than electing politicians to Congress is a common and growing phenomenon, but campaign finance watchdogs say Doolittle has taken it to new heights.

Doolittle's wife, Julie, a professional fundraiser, has collected 15 percent of all contributions to Doolittle's leadership PAC and additional commissions on contributions to his campaign committee -- a total of nearly $140,000 since 2003, according to Federal Election Commission records. [if this doesn't make you throw up, I don't know what will]

"I don't know if there's anything comparable," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group that called last month for an investigation of Doolittle by the House ethics committee. "If this is okay, it is a road map for how to convert substantial sums of campaign money to personal use."

The committees have spent money they raised on friends and supporters, recording at least $40,000 in gifts, flowers, club memberships and stays at romantic inns. Doolittle's Superior California Federal Leadership Fund reported purchasing gifts from Bose Corp. worth $2,139, while his campaign committee has reimbursed him and his wife for nearly $5,000 in purchases from Best Buy Co. and a $1,000 trip to Saks Fifth Avenue in Baltimore. Campaign records do not list the beneficiaries of the gifts and trips financed by the committees. [THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS CONVERSION OF FUNDS FOR PRIVATE GAIN]

Doolittle aides said that the congressman has strictly complied with FEC regulations and never personally profited from the expenditures. Julie Doolittle and her company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, are paid a 15 percent commission on donations that she brings in, an arrangement that aides say helps her avoid the claim that she is being paid by her husband's campaign without doing any work. [The sign says "Dog" but we all know it's a pig]

In addition, the aides said that all of the expenditures by the leadership PAC were for staff members and supporters. John Doolittle's purchases at Saks Fifth Avenue were Christmas ornaments for attendees at a campaign dinner. Thousands of dollars were spent at Best Buy on Christmas gifts for the congressman's campaign and official staff. And nearly $800 that went to Julie Doolittle to pay the tabs at three romantic inns on California's Mendocino coast was an anniversary gift "to a couple who had volunteered tirelessly on the congressman's campaign for over 10 years," said Richard Robinson, John Doolittle's chief of staff. "The congressman has used his leadership PAC and his campaign committee in a legal, ethical and responsible manner, and there is no evidence whatsoever that he has used his committees for personal gain." [Sure! and I am Santa Claus]

Kenneth A. Gross, a campaign finance lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, said "personal use" restrictions that govern campaign committees do not apply to leadership PACs, which lawmakers set up largely to help other candidates fund their campaigns. Because of the lack of regulations, leadership PAC expenditures have regularly generated controversy.

The leadership PAC of Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.) lists $22,896 in hotel expenditures for donors and $320 worth of baseball tickets. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) received attention in February when the news media reported leadership PAC expenses at a Starbucks near his Virginia home that totaled $558 since 2001, as well as payments to Wal-Mart, Burger King bills totaling $50 and 11 meals at Arby's worth $118.

"Leadership PACs are the Wild West of campaign money; they are the political slush funds of this decade," said Meredith McGehee, policy director for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center.

In Doolittle's case, the gift expenditures from his campaign committee -- for which personal-use restrictions are tighter -- far outstrip the gift expenditures of his leadership PAC. Gift expenditures by Superior California have totaled $4,857 since 2003, according to FEC documents, while his campaign committee's gift expenses reached about $40,000, Robinson confirmed. The gift total was $20,000 if tokens for campaign donors, such as congressional directories and copies of House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's books, are not counted. Robinson said he considers such tokens fundraising expenses.

Still, campaign finance experts and congressional watchdogs deem highly unusual Doolittle's efforts, particularly the arrangement with his wife. Doolittle spokeswoman Laura Blackann said in an e-mail that Julie Doolittle receives her 15 percent commission only on money she is "directly involved in raising." [Oh, shucks. This clears it up completely]

That would mean Julie Doolittle has raised every dollar that has gone to the Superior California Fund since 2003, according to FEC reports compiled by the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. During the 2004 campaign cycle, Sierra Dominion received payments from the leadership PAC of $68,630, exactly 15 percent of the $457,533 the PAC raised. So far in this campaign cycle, Sierra Dominion has taken in $69,896, again exactly 15 percent of the $465,973 raised.

Yet Doolittle's leadership PAC lists payments for fundraising consultations not connected to Sierra Dominion -- one to Brian Jensen, a Doolittle staff member at the time of the payment, and another to a firm called Enburg Consulting of Washington, which received $3,000 in March.
Doolittle aides said Julie Doolittle was entitled to 15 percent of all money the PAC brought in because those donations were raised at events she helped organize. All told, Julie Doolittle's firm -- run out of the couple's home in Oakton with no phone listing or Web site and no other known employee -- has received commissions totaling $169,146 since its founding in March 2001, according to FEC records and Taxpayers for Common Sense.

And John Doolittle's committees have been generous with the money they have raised. The campaign committee has reported gifts to volunteers, staff members and supporters totaling $55,679 since 2001. Flower expenses were $2,983. Purchases of See's Candies, a California favorite, were $10,737. Dues for the Capitol Hill Club, the Lincoln Club of Sacramento Valley, the Sutter Club of Sacramento and other membership organizations have totaled $12,275.

Robinson said that the gift total is somewhat inflated by duplicate expenditures and that the real total is about $40,000.

The campaign committee has listed John Doolittle as the recipient of $5,536 for 10 gift expenditures. His wife received payments of $4,309 for six gifts.

In each of those instances, the Doolittles were being reimbursed for gifts they had financed out of pocket, Robinson said.


This is garbage pure and simple!!! This cannot be legal because, as far as I know, fraud and conversion is not legal.

Monday, July 10, 2006

You can Hang a Sign on a Pig...

While I am not against giving my kids a few extra dollars out of my own pocket every now and then (and I do not call them commissions), this 6/27/06 story by Sac Bee Columnist Daniel Weintraub shows that Doolittle, Inc. "commissions" go that extra mile--right to their private bank account; at the public's (our) expense.

Daniel Weintraub: California's power brokers serving narrow interests

By Daniel Weintraub -- Bee Columnist
Published 12:01 am PDT Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B7

California's politicians chronically complain that the state is getting shortchanged by the power brokers in the nation's Capitol. But if the influential Republicans who represent the Golden State in Washington, D.C., would spend as much time working for their constituents as they do lining the pockets of their friends and relatives, California might be getting a better shake in the national budget.


Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, was a top lieutenant to former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a key player in the congressional leadership. Doolittle's wife, Julie, started a political events firm several years ago, a one-woman operation that Julie Doolittle runs out of the couple's suburban Virginia home.

The company, Sierra Dominion Financial Solutions, was paid more than $66,000 by the lobbying firm of Jack Abramoff for work Julie Doolittle did on behalf of Abramoff's personal charity before the high-flying lobbyist pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

But Julie Doolittle's most lucrative client appears to be her husband. Since 2003, The Bee has reported, the congressman's campaign committees have paid his wife about $180,000 as compensation for raising campaign money for the lawmaker.

For every dollar Mrs. Doolittle raises for Mr. Doolittle's campaign, she pockets 15 cents. That means that every time Julie Doolittle approaches an individual or an interest group for a contribution to her husband's campaign, those donors know that a chunk of the money they give is going directly into the congressman's personal bank account.

It is illegal to use political campaign funds for personal purposes, and it's easy to see why: We don't want our congressmen relying on private interests for personal financial support. But there is no law against diverting a portion of those political contributions to pay a commission to a family member, even though the end result is the same. And the Doolittles have aggressively taken advantage of that loophole.


[That is sleazy no matter what your views may be]

To put things in perspective, consider what these power brokers could do for California if they used their influence to fix just one glaring inequity in federal law.

The matching funds the feds budget to reimburse states for providing health care to the poor are distributed through a formula based on the per capita income of each state's residents, rather than the number of poor people. This shortchanges California, because while the state has a lot of people in poverty who need health care, it also has a lot of wealthy people, which leads to a lower distribution of federal funds.

If the Medicaid formulas were based on the number of people in poverty, California's distribution would be $4 billion bigger than it is today -- enough to pretty much erase the state's chronic budget shortfall.

The nation's voters might elect enough Democrats this fall to end Republican control of Congress. If that happens, a lot of California congressmen will lose their powerful positions in control of the public purse. But California won't lose much.

Because those lawmakers have not been doing much to help the people they were elected to represent. [Why Not?]


My message to Congressman Doolittle:

You can hang a sign on a pig that says "Dog", but we all know it is still a pig.


Thursday, July 06, 2006

Happy Birthday, GOP: Why Am I paying $3.27 per Gallon for Gas?

According to the American Book of Days, on July 6, 1854 the Republican Party was founded at Jackson, Michigan; it was here that the party selected its first statewide slate of candidates. Happy Birthday, GOP!!! I hope that the North Koreans don't launch some missiles in celebration--that's why I am writing this late at night on July 6 so as to not give them any ideas.

Regardless, being the festive fellow that I am and in the spirit of celebration--in reality, to prevent my car from running out of gas in the freeway--I promptly drove to the pump. Now, my wife and I are members of Sam's Club and get a 5-cent per gallon discount at the Roseville store. Even still, I paid $3.27/gal. Okay, I admit it: It was 91 octane gasoline. As I watched my dollars go down the fuel drain on the GOP's birthday, I wondered (nice word for cursed):

1. Why the heck am I paying $3.27/gal. for gas? Clearly, I'm not better off than I was two years ago.

2. If we liberated Iraq, why is gas not cheaper?

3. If we didn't liberate Iraq, then what the heck are we doing there?

4. Has Congressman Do Little told W and the Bushistas that $3.27/gallon for gas (even 91 octane) is a bit much? In fact, what has Do Little done to help us in this regard?

5. Is Congressman Do Little billing his campaing for the gas he uses? The gas his wife uses? The gas his pal Jack Abramoff used? Can I bill Do Little's campaign $46.43 for the gas that I pumped into my car today?




Why is North Korea Launching Missiles on July 4th?

Good question. The answer is that President Bush said it would be unacceptable if North Korea launched missiles at any time--this caused the North Koreans to quiver in their boots. However, being the jolly fellows that they are, the North Koreans decided to put on a fireworks display for us on our 230th birthday: North Korea launched not only one but six missiles on July 4th--talk about excessive fireworks. Guys, we would have settled for a few burgers, french fries and ... oh what the heck ... some Kimchi (Korean pickled cabbage) would have been okay too.

Naturally, and as the North Koreans expected, they quickly gained center stage on our birthday, and--more importantly for them--the Bush Administration accepted what it previously said it considered unacceptable. Bush and company are going to seek allies in the UN to chastise North Korea. That ought to really frighten the North Koreans into issuing a statement expressing their profound apologies and promising never to do this again [again].

What is particularly troublesome is that for the past three years the Bushistas have touted the six-party talks between North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the US as the centerpiece of its foreign policy in dealing with the issue of North Korean nuclear ambitions. As expected, nothing has been accomplished. Moreover, two of the partners the Bushistas have enlisted to help solve the Korean nuclear dilemma--China and Russia--have threatened to veto any initiative in the United Nations that seeks to impose sanctions on North Korea for launching the missiles. The Russians and the Chinese even threatened to veto a Bushista sponsored resolution asking the UN to demand that North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il stop eating chives on Wednesdays as an act of contrition.

In my view, the Bushista foreign policy towards North Korea is essentially this: We will engage in a series of interminable talks which will resolve nothing and two of the parties will ensure that you, Kim Jong Il and company, suffer no repercussions for whatever irresponsible and provocative act you engage in. So much for a visionary foreign policy.

As expected, Bushista Congressman John Do Little is a key supporter of this Do Little Foreign fiasco which they call a policy. I wonder if Kim Jong Il was a client of Do Little's pal, Jack Abramoff? Did Ms. Doolittle also get commissions from North Korea through John's pal, Jack? Did Kim Jong Il pay for the Doolittle's nanny also? Does anyone want to vote for Doolittle in November? If so, why?