Where is Jethro Gibbs when you really need him?
Sometimes that's when justice must be served and I understand perfectly. Write or call and let the Navy know how you feel about this.
PLEASE, even if you cannot make it because it’s just too far or you have other commitments, invite everyone on your friend list and encourage them to do the same. We have one week to get the word out and we need this to reach the right people.
Voice your opinion by contacting the following:
To file a citizen complaint regarding the treatment of these Navy Seals, please call 813-828-4976 on Monday...
or send emails now to email@example.com
Judge Advocate General's Corps :
The Office of the JudgeAdvocate General :
Public Affairs :
1322 Patterson Ave., Suite 3000 :
Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066
Comm: (202) 685-5493 :
Phone Numbers: Washington Navy Yard: (202) 685-5190 :
Pentagon, Room 4C642:
(703) 614-7420 :
AJAG, Military Law :
1254 Charles Morris St., SE
Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5047
Comm: (202) 685-7053
30 November 2009
Where is Jethro Gibbs when you really need him?
29 November 2009
Uncle Jimbo does not like to repeat himself especially when its so efffing simple to figure out on your own, IF, you take five minutes and think about it BUT he has graciously provided us with the facts on what happened in Tora Bora. You don't believe it? Thats your problem, not mine.
Afghanistan? Tora Bora?
Bush's fault forever
I grow bored of rehashing something we have been rehashing so long that the links to where I did an exhaustive analysis of it at Madison.com are no longer even active.
So Tora Bora, let me make this simple.
1. We invade A-Stan with small number of Spec Ops guys and partner w. Northern Alliance and in amazingly successful operation kick Taliban and al Qaeda asses.
2. Many of them die, some run to Paktia province, some (incl. bin Laden) run toward Pakistan and stop in highly-fortified Tora Bora.
3. We do the math and since Tora Bora is way the hell up high in the mountains figger out we would have a wicked time resupplying any troops we managed to get up there w/ our limited helicopter support and also they would be ambush bait for bad guys
who are real good at that.
4. So we decide to try the same thing that worked to kick their asses already. We partnered with local tribes to provide the manpower while we sent Spec Ops support and massive air power.
5. We push up there and even the Spec Ops guys have a helluva time because of the terrain. The local tribes more or less screw us and take the money but don't fight
6. We still kills hundreds of Taliban and AQ but bin Laden slips off to become a ghost.
7. A talking point for the ignorant left, their enablers and military geniuses like F John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) is born.
8. Rinse and repeat whenever the left needs a club to try and lose a war.
Next freakin' slide.
If you want to get back in the weeds on this again, Greyhawk is doing his usual
excellent job of journalizing.
24 November 2009
23 November 2009
There are two options: fight or retreat. Half-stepping is what gets good men and women killed for no good reason. (You have no idea how much control I am exercising right now)
This is the result of lawyers and cowards being in charge. Zero is a do-nothing coward. A moozie loving, half brained lawyer twit with absolutely no business being in the position he is in.
New York Times -- In 3 Tacks for Afghan War, a Game of Trade-Offs
Another four American troops have been killed by enemy bombs in Afghanistan in the past 24 hours. That’s the backdrop as President Obama gets ready for his final decision-making push on his goals for the war after 12 weeks of reconsideration.
Writer Elisabeth Bumiller looks at the plusses and minuses of the three plans that apparently have survived the process. It’s a useful guide and clearly written. She also clearly is betting on the middle option.
“Should Mr. Obama send 20,000 troops, military analysts say, there would probably be no fourth brigade to use around the country, and parts of Helmand and the east would receive few if any additional troops. With this number, Mr. Obama would expect a greater contribution of troops from NATO allies (about 35,000 troops from other NATO countries are currently in Afghanistan). Much of the American mission would focus on training.
Administration officials estimate the cost of sending 30,000 more troops at $25 billion to $30 billion a year and the cost of sending 20,000 troops at $21 billion a year.”
12 November 2009
There is much more to read after the jump. I encourage you, especially if you're an elected representative, to do so. The future of this Nation depends upon elected officials acting in the best interests of the people.
From Family Security Matters
The primary legitimate purpose of government is the protection of individual freedom, and conservatism, as a philosophy of freedom grounded in the ideas articulated as the basis of the founding of the nation, has, as its rationale, the preservation and enhancement of that great ideal. That is not just a general intellectual concept. It is a sacred, activist purpose.
Freedom to Work.
Conservatives should start the march to freedom by passing a national right to work law that applies, especially, to workers at all levels of government. In doing so, they will affirm the principle that no person should be limited in the work he does by the artificial imposition of involuntary membership in an organization of which he may not approve and whose message he does not support. Such legislation will recognize the unfairness of subjecting workers to the involuntary confiscation of their wages to underwrite a purely private organization pursuing purely private ends. It will unshackle millions of workers yearning for the freedom simply to do their jobs without, also, having to make a political statement. A national right to work law would enable workers to exercise their free choice and freedom must be conservatives’ mission.
If freedom is the agenda, conservative office holders must cancel any statute that limits individual freedom in the choice of health care. That includes anti-free market initiatives as well as coercive taxation. It includes legislation that forces individuals to purchase health insurance because such enactments violate the fundamental right of citizens to make their own choices. It includes any program that limits, through regulation, health care choices by making procedures and testing unavailable. It also means that any regulation that makes invidiously discriminatory rules limiting care based on immutable characteristics, such as age, should be prohibited to government.
Ours is supposed to be a free society that protects freedom of enterprise and prohibits government from forcing citizens or companies to provide goods or services without payment. Doing so constitutes the unconstitutional taking of private property without compensation and forced labor on the part of those who must, by government mandate, provide service for free. A conservative agenda must include legislation that repeals federal law requiring the extension of health care services to anyone who shows up, regardless of the emergency or his ability to pay for service received. It should dismantle any public program that competes with the private sector and any tax on people or companies used to fund coverage for those who do not want or cannot afford it. Wealth transfer is not a legitimate function of government. It is the immoral theft of private resources.
Unfunded national mandates are breaking state budgets across the nation. The federal government should not be in the unsavory business of extorting cooperation from the states by working its unconstitutional will by threatening to withhold federal funding available to cooperative states from those that want to maintain their sovereignty and constitutional prerogatives. If a state is otherwise entitled to highway funds, for example, they must not be tied to a surrender of state power to federal authority. Conservatives should pass legislation that prohibits extortive federal bribery that impinges on state prerogative and warps the original state/federal relationship.
11 November 2009
I heard about this yesterday on the way to Newport News.
My first reaction was:"Maybe they're investigating the Recruiter Station vandalism"
I thought that because IndyMedia is the site that promotes and encourages the SDS and Black Bloc to be pro-active in anti-military activities and allows the posting of articles and follow-up comments from the students.
IndyMedia is the site where I recieved my first threat of physical violence should I decide to exercise my 1st Amendment right to assembly in Washington DC. That threat came from the same commenter who accused me of defacing the Viet Nam Memorial in Washington DC.
Then I thought, "No...no way" This is about setting a precedent for the potential shutdown of conservative blogs and news sites. IndyMedia walks hand in hand with the various nutroots from DU, DailyKos, and several other far-left extremist sites.
Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists
Posted by Declan McCullagh
(AP / CBS)In a case that raises questions about online journalism and privacy rights, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a formal request to an independent news site ordering it to provide details of all reader visits on a certain day.
The grand jury subpoena also required the Philadelphia-based Indymedia.us Web site "not to disclose the existence of this request" unless authorized by the Justice Department, a gag order that presents an unusual quandary for any news organization.
Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of
unity and mission statement – work toward "promoting social and economic justice" and "social change.")
The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.
"I didn't think anything we were doing was worthy of any (federal) attention," Clair said in a telephone interview with CBSNews.com on Monday. After talking to other Indymedia volunteers, Clair ended up calling the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, which represented her at no cost.
Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" – that would be current attorney general Eric Holder – and subpoenas should be "directed at material information regarding a limited subject matter."
Still unclear is what criminal investigation U.S. Attorney Morrison was pursuing. Last Friday, a spokeswoman initially promised a response, but Morrison sent e-mail on Monday evening saying: "We have no comment."
The Justice Department in Washington, D.C. also declined to respond.
Kevin Bankston, a senior staff attorney at the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, replied to the Justice Department on behalf of his client in a February 2009 letter (PDF) outlining what he described as a series of problems with the subpoena, including that it was not personally served, that a judge-issued court order would be required for the full logs, and that Indymedia did not store logs in the first place.
Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn.
Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison's office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena -- claiming it "may endanger someone's health" and would have a "human cost."
Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of The Press, said a gag order to a news organization wouldn't stand up in court: "If you get a subpoena and you're a journalist, they can't gag you." Dalglish said that a subpoena being issued and withdrawn is not unprecedented.
"I have seen any number of these things withdrawn when counsel for someone who is claiming a reporter's privilege says, 'Can you tell me the date you got approval from the attorney general's office'... I'm willing to chalk this up to bad lawyering on the part of the DOJ, or just not thinking."
Making this investigation more mysterious is that Indymedia.us is an aggregation site, meaning articles that appear on it were published somewhere else first, and there's no hint about what sparked the criminal probe.
Clair, the system administrator, says that no IP (Internet Protocol) addresses are recorded for Indymedia.us, and non-IP address logs are kept for a few weeks and then discarded. EFF's Bankston wrote a second letter to the government saying that, if it needed to muzzle Indymedia, it should apply for a gag order under the section of federal law that clearly permits such an order to be issued.
Bankston's plan: To challenge that law on First Amendment grounds. But the Justice Department never replied. "This is the first time we've seen them try to get the IP address of everyone who visited a particular site," Bankston said.
"That it was a news organization was an additional troubling fact that implicates First Amendment rights."
This is not, however, the first time that the Feds have focused on Indymedia -- a Web site whose authors sometimes blur the line between journalism, advocacy, and on-the-streets activism.
In 2004, the Justice Department sent a grand jury subpoena asking for information about who posted lists of Republican delegates while urging they be given an unwelcome reception at the party's convention in New York City that year.
A Indymedia hosting service in Texas once received a subpoena asking for server logs in relation to an investigation of an attempted murder in Italy. Bankston has written a longer description of the exchange of letters with the Justice Department, which he hopes will raise awareness of how others should respond to similar legal demands for Web logs, customer records, and compulsory silence.
"Our fear is that this kind of bogus gag order is much more common than one would hope, considering they're legally baseless," Bankston says. "We're telling this story in hopes that more providers will press back and go public when the government demands their silence."
Update 1:59pm E.T.: A Justice Department official familiar with this subpoena just told me that the attorney general's office never saw it and that it had not been submitted to the department's headquarters in Washington, D.C. for review. If that's correct, it suggests that U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison and Assistant U.S. Attorney Doris Pryor did not follow department regulations requiring the "express authorization of the attorney general" for media subpoenas -- and it means that neither Attorney General Eric Holder nor Acting Attorney General Mark Filip were involved. I wouldn't be surprised to see an internal investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility; my source would not confirm or deny that.
09 November 2009
Patriot Post on Liberty
"Can Washington Make You Buy Health Insurance?"
--William Murchison, senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation
Yes, yes, says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
Congress has the power to make everyone buy health insurance.
'I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity' of comments to the contrary.
Thank you, Mr. Justice Gibbs. We'll see about all that when -- if -- the matter of Congress' power over private commercial judgments of this nature gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile the knock-down, drag-out over health insurance 'reform' shouldn't be allowed to fuzz up another immensely vital question; to wit, how in James Madison's name have we reached the point that Congress can so much as contemplate telling you, and you, and you, and all of us that we'll buy health insurance, like it or not, Buster?
Why do we have to? Because the government says so, isn't that reason enough? For Mr. Justice Gibbs, and the people who employ him, it is. Just about anything Congress decides to do in the name of uplift seems to be constitutional: In other words, in accord with written stipulations as to what the national government may and may not do.
Several problems arise concerning this fine theory:
-- It's nonsense. It contravenes the whole constitutional concept of divided powers: particular functions reserved to particular branches of government. And other powers divided between states and the national government.
-- It threatens liberty. A government that knows no limits to its power can be counted on to step more and more heavily on citizens' rights and privileges. All for the 'general good' naturally!
-- It divides the citizens. On the one hand, those who want particular favors from government; on the other hand, those who deny that government has the right to dispense such favors.
The Obama administration, which desperately wants health care to pass, brushes off such concerns as cranky and relevant mainly to wild-eyed Limbaugh and Palin fans, when in fact concerns about the rightful exercise of government power should inform every legislative debate. Those it doesn't inform are likely to end badly. Majority support of this or that initiative doesn't legitimize the initiative."
06 November 2009
The idiot has never been in combat. He should never have been in the Army.
Naw. I ain't buying that for a minute.
PRE-Traumatic Stress Disorder my butt.
Another legal tactic to get this murderer a reduced sentence.
Try him and fry him.
05 November 2009
Zero was elected because he is black. That is the only reason he was elected, because when enough people who don't care about anything but skin color, decide to vote for the "brother", the deal was done and I get it. They wanted to be the ones who put the first black American in office, and nothing else mattered.
The extreme left in this country, the really dangerous ultra-liberal extremists, knew this would happen. They knew they could put this man in office, because they knew that most of the people who would be voting for him do not read newspapers, do not listen to news program, or understand the concept of socialism and how evil it is, and the ones who do read, listen and pay attention, didn't care, because it was more important to put a black Amercian in the White House.
The Brushfires of Freedom
In November 2008, it was difficult to accept that a majority of our countrymen had fallen into such a stupor that they could be lulled by the dullard droll of "hope 'n' change"; that they could be conned into electing an inexperienced charlatan, an unapologetic socialist, to the office of president.
At the time, Obama's politically moderate supporters scoffed at the charges of socialism, but unlike Bill Clinton, who ran to the center after being elected, Obama has run as fast and far to the left as possible, just short of publicly declaring our Constitution null and void.
Too many Americans have been complacent about liberty, believing it to be their birthright and the birthright of generations to come. They have enjoyed the fruit of liberty defended by others, taking rights for granted and knowing nothing of the obligations for maintaining that blessing. Most Americans have never had to fight for liberty and, thus, have little concept of its value or any sense of gratitude for its
accumulated cost -- a cost paid by generations of Patriots who have pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their Sacred Honor.
I encourage you to take heart, though, because change is coming, and not the variety proffered by Obama and his ilk.
There is a groundswell of conservative activism rising up across our great nation, as citizens are awakening to this ominous threat of constitutional adulteration and tyranny. Citizens are speaking out for liberty at public forums, attending grassroots "Tea Parties," making a stand for Liberty.
The first real political results of that uprising were manifest in the elections of Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie to the executive branches of the states of Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. Each of these men vanquished a Democrat opponent for whom Barack Obama had extensively campaigned, and each had done so in a state that Obama had easily carried a year earlier. McDonnell's 18-point victory in Virginia, for example, represented a 25-point turnabout from Obama's 7-point margin in 2008.
Lets get a few things out of the way:
It is not conservative Americans who want to control your life...its liberals.
It is not conservative Americans who want to come into your bedroom...its liberals.
It is not conservative Americans who want to run every aspect of government and the economy...its liberals.
I am a consevative American. I don't care what you do or where you do it, as long as you extend me the same courtesey, and don't force me to accept or acknowledge that what you're doing is any more correct than what I'm doing, because that is not the way I think.
Like I said, I DON'T CARE!!! unless you restrict what I can do. That is when we will have issues.
Once you accept that it is conservative Americans that want everyone to be free to succeed or fail, you will be more inclined to understand that liberals are the problem.
Cap And Trade’s Mandates And Subsidies Are Wrong
Following major defeats at the ballot box on Tuesday, the left’s legislative agenda suffered another huge setback yesterday when once wavering Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) all signed a letter supporting Sen. George Voinovich’s (R-OH) demand that the Environmental Protection Agency provide a thorough analysis of how the Kerry-Boxer cap and trade legislation will impact the U.S. economy. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) had been pressing for swift passage of her cap and tax legislation, but conservatives on the Environment and Public Works Committee thwarted her efforts by boycotting a vote on the legislation Tuesday.
An EPA analysis on the economic costs of cap and trade is no small issue. If Tuesday’s elections proved anything, it is that jobs and economic growth are the top concern on Americans’ minds. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has found that cap and tax legislation would cost the average family-of-four almost $3,000 per year, cause 2.5 million net job losses by 2035, and a produce a cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) loss of $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035. The EPA has issued preliminary reports reaching different conclusions; including an October 23 report on Kerry-Boxer that found it would only cost the average American family $80 to $111 dollars per year.
There are many fundamental problems with that EPA report, none more glaring than their fanciful assumption that nuclear power generation will nearly double in the next 25 years. This is the equivalent of about 100 additional nuclear power plants. The reality is that in the past 30 years, not one new nuclear power plant has been licensed. More importantly, the Kerry-Boxer approach to reviving the nuclear energy relies on the same failed policies that have crippled the U.S. nuclear energy for the past 30 years. Heritage fellows Jack Spencer and Nick Loris explain:
Instead of handing out more government subsidies to compensate for increased government regulation, Congress should be heading in the exact opposite direction. What the nuclear industry really needs is an end to market distorting loan guarantees, a streamlined permit process for new plants and reactor designs, market reforms for nuclear waste management, and the ability to recycle spent fuel. America can create thousands of new jobs through an expansion of the energy sector. But just as with oil, coal, and natural gas, the less government intervention in the market, the better.
Washington has a role to play in reducing financial barriers, but not by funding projects with taxpayer dollars. The regulatory costs and uncertainty posed by the federal bureaucracy represent significant risk to the success of the nuclear industry, just as regulatory uncertainty significantly affected the timing and budget of past nuclear plant construction. Indeed, this risk and uncertainty results in the higher prices that are most often used to justify government subsidies for nuclear projects. Efforts to reduce that risk by reforming the most obvious areas, such as the regulatory process and waste management, are nowhere to be found in the bill.
Instead, the bill attempts to reduce the financial risk caused by regulatory delays and technological development by expanding the federal government’s responsibility — and authority — on the technical side. It promotes government intervention into areas that are either unnecessary or that should reside solely in the private sector. For example, the Boxer-Kerry bill creates a research and development program to assess plant aging, improve plant performance, engineer safer fuels, and lower overall costs. These are all areas currently being addressed by the private sector and already supported by public institutions and funds.
02 November 2009
No big surprise. The ballerina told her to dance and she did the two-step.
'Republican' Scozzafava endorses Democrat against Conservative Party's Hoffman
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
11/01/09 2:49 PM EST
Only hours after suspending her campaign for the good of the Republican Party, liberal Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava has now endorsed Democrat Bill Owens for in Tuesday's special election to fill the upstate New York congressional seat vacated by Rep. John McHugh, R-NY.
In a statement published by the Watertown Daily Times and linked at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee web site, Scozzafava encouraged voters to support her former Democratic opponent instead of Conservative Party of New York nominee Doug Hoffman, who is in a dead heat with Owens, according to polls.
"I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same," Scozzafava said. "In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first."
In her statement Friday announcing suspension of her campaign Scozzafava said "I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger ..."
UPDATE: No surprise, says CP head Mike Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York is not surprised to hear of Scozzafava's endorsement of Democrat Bill Owens: "We always said Assemblywoman Scozzafava and Bill Owens were a pair of liberals. Doug Hoffman remains the only alternative to giving Nancy Pelosi another vote for her liberal agenda in Congress."
Similarly, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which has been among the most aggressive and effective national organizations working for Hoffman, had this to say about Scozzafava's latest decision:
“By her actions today Dede Scozzafava has confirmed why it was so important for conservatives and people who care about the GOP to get involved in this race." Doug Hoffman's candidacy is based upon the core principles of limited government, lower taxes and strong family values."
When a GOP candidacy is not based on fundamental conservative values, the party and the principles are inevitably betrayed at critical moments."In this race and in future races, we will stand for the candidates who firmly believe in these fundamental American ideals. These principles are not only right, they are the path to electoral victory."
UPDATE II: Why can't moderates play nice with conservatives?
RedState.com's Erick Erickson notes multiple examples of moderate GOPers losing primary battles with more conservative challengers, then either endorsing the Democrat or doing little or nothing to help the Republican candidate.
Playing nice has to go both ways, Erickson writes: "All the time we hear conservatives can’t win the general' and 'conservatives should play nice with moderates.' The record shows that the moderates cannot take losing and conservatives don’t win the general because the moderate GOP stabs them in the back. If we are a team, it can’t just be the conservative players in trouble for not passing the ball."
UPDATE III: White House, Schumer moved Scozzafava
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, lobbied Scozzafava to endorse Owens, according to the Watertown Daily News, quoting Schumer's spokesman.
01 November 2009
Like a Prom Queen who just got dumped? Like an FNG in the prison shower? Like a gambler who just lost on the Trifecta? When will the Republican Party learn they are not running things any longer?
From Michelle via Twitter:
Hey, how did that six-figure RNC donation to the NRCC plus $85,000 to the New York GOP plus nearly half-million-dollar investment in advertising and other independent expenditures on behalf of radical leftis Dede Scozzafava work out?
She repaid the GOP by endorsing Democrat candidate Bill Owens.
Some gratitude, eh?
“Since beginning my campaign, I have told you that this election is not about me; it’s about the people of this District,” Scozzafava wrote in an e-mail sent to supporters this afternoon.
“It is in this spirit that I am writing to let you know I am supporting Bill Owens for Congress and urge you to do the same.”
I repeat: One thing is guaranteed at the conclusion of the NY-23 special congressional election: The Beltway Republicans who endorsed radical leftist Dede Scozzafava are going to have indelible egg stains on their faces. And GOP establishment fund-raising organizations will be the poorer for it.
TCOT Report: “The NRCC and RNC Just Spent $1 Million on Dede Scozzafava. This is their reward.”
The shadow of Big Labor looms:
At 10 p.m. last night – right in the middle of the Halloween festivities – Scozzafava’s husband, Ron McDougall, president of the Jefferson/Lewis/St. Lawrence Central Labor Council issued a statement through the AFL-CIO that he is endorsing Owens against Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman.
According to his statement, it basically all comes down to support of the labor movement’s top priority, the Employee Free Choice Act and its controversial card-check provision, which Owens and Scozzafava supported – much to the chagrin of the right – and Hoffman pointedly does not.
“This has been a difficult day for my family. But the needs and concerns of the men and women of the 23rd Congressional District remain paramount,” McDougall said. “As such, I wholeheartedly and without reservation endorse the candidacy of Bill Owens.”
“As a life-long labor activist, I know that Bill Owens understands the issues important to working people. On the other hand, Doug Hoffman has little regard for the interests of workers.”
“Hoffman’s opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, coupled with his support for the failed policies of the Bush Administration make him a poor choice to serve the citizens of the 23rd Congressional District.”