Thanks goes to Glenn Caroline and Greg Stone for the reminder that we have a volunteer kick-off event coming up for the NRA-ILA. From their Grassroots Alerts section:
VIRGINIA: ANOTHER VOLUNTEER KICK-OFF MEETING SCHEDULED! This November, Virginia’s elections will be ground zero for the enemies of freedom to try and turn the tide against our gun rights in the Commonwealth, and serve as a launching pad for their national gun ban crusade. Our opponents will be pulling out all the stops as a run-up to the 2010 elections. All eyes will be on Virginia! To ensure we are prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities we will face this election season, NRA-ILA is hosting a free volunteer kick-off meeting in Leesburg, on Sept. 16th! At this meeting, we will lay out our plans for our grassroots election activities in your area and show you how you can help. You will also get to meet and begin working with your NRA-ILA Campaign Field Representative–an NRA-ILA staff person who will be living in your area, coordinating our volunteer activities right through election Day, Nov. 3! This meeting is absolutely free and beverages and light snacks will be served. The event will run only about 60-90 minutes. NRA-ILA Grassroots Director Glen Caroline will also be in attendance.
Here are the details for the Leesburg meeting on Sept. 16th:
Wednesday, September 16th
7:00 p.m.
Holiday Inn Leesburg at Carradoc Hall
1500 East Market Street
Leesburg, VA 20176
703-771-9200 http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/hi/1/en/hotel/WASLE/transportation?start=1
To register for this free event, please click here, or call the NRA-ILA Grassroots Division at (800) 392-VOTE (8683).
Should be good!
September 3rd, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
2nd Amendment, Politics, Virginia Politics |
one comment
Another of President Obama’s advisors is in trouble, this time twice in 1 week. Van Jones, the “Special Advisor for Green Jobs”, was shown earlier this week on video calling Republicans who oppose the President’s policies “assholes.” Well, I’ve been called worse but if he’s going to go on record saying that, he needs to be prepared for the consequences that come, which include getting held up for public scrutiny and having his actions reflect on his boss. Jones has already issued the “if I offended anyone I’m sorry” kind of apology but I’m not getting the regret vibe from him.
The more damaging tidbit that surfaced was the fact that Jones put his name to a petition calling for Congressional hearings and investigations by the New York Attorney General into the notion that the 9/11 attacks were either orchestrated by or permitted by Bush administration officials. He is, it would appear, a so-called “Truther.” From ABC’s Jake Tapper:
A top environmental official of the Obama administration issued a statement Thursday apologizing for past incendiary statement and denying that he ever agreed with a 2004 petition on which his name appears, a petition calling for congressional hearings and an investigation by the New York Attorney General into “evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.”
Van Jones, the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is Number 46 of the petitioners from the so-called “Truther” movement which suggests that people in the administration of President George W. Bush “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”
In a statement issued Thursday evening Jones said of “the petition that was circulated today, I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever.”
He did not explain how his name came to be on the petition.
Well, I’m glad that he’s explicit about not agreeing with the statement – now that such an agreement is political poison for both himself and his boss – but the signature on that petition would seems to argue that he’s not telling the truth. If the petition doesn’t reflect his views, “now or ever”, then why did he sign it? An apology isn’t going to cut it this time. Now he needs to explain what his name is doing on that petition and it had better be convincing. Otherwise, he’s done.
September 3rd, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Politics |
no comments
Thanks to the Loudoun Scoop I was directed to this story over at the Loudoun Times-Mirror:
Inova Health System has asked state health regulators to suspend for 61 days their consideration of its application to build an 80-bed hospital on U.S 50. That will allow time, Inova’s Donald Harris wrote, for the health commissioner “to resolve all outstanding questions” relating to HCA’s request to move its 164-bed Broadlands hospital to the same stretch of U.S. 50.
Inova has stated publicly that they would not oppose HCA’s project were it located at the US 50 site proposed. It appears they are willing to put action to those words. Excellent. Let us see how this plays out after the questions referenced are resolved. For now, however, Inova is keeping their word.
September 3rd, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Medicine, Politics, Virginia Politics |
2 comments
Next Tuesday, September 8, 2009, President Obama will address the nation’s school students via television link (presumably on some education-only channel). This action has been greeted with suspicion by many folks generally opposed to the President’s policies as they consider any attempt to direct political persuasion at school children – particularly when they’re literally a captive audience – to be a Bad Thing™. Given the President’s penchant for turning every phone call and meeting into a “get behind my universal health care proposal” marketing pitch, I have to say I’m a bit wary of it, too. Not so much that I would join the calls to keep the kids out of school next Tuesday, however. If he’s going to keep his legislative push completely out of the speech, then there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a President addressing the students. I applaud it, in fact.
However, it’s not completely a mystery where people might get the wrong idea about this whole event. The Department of Education put out an agenda and some suggestions to teachers about how they could capitalize (if you’ll pardon the expression) on the event. One of the exercises they suggest giving to the kids was to have them “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” Help him do what? And that’s the problem with this suggestion: what is the President going to be asking them to help him with?
Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller with ABC took note of the controversy and – surprise! – noted that the Dept of Ed changed the text of their suggested lesson plan.
In an acknowledgment that the Department of Education provided lesson plans written somewhat inartfully, surrounding the President Obama’s speech to students next Tuesday, the White House today announced that it had rewritten one of the sections in question.
President Obama will talk to students from Pre K thru 12th grade about personal responsibility and the importance of staying in school, White House aides said.
As one of the preparatory materials for teachers provided by the Department of Education, students had been asked to, “Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. “
Today, after Republicans accused the White House of trying to indoctrinate school children with liberal propaganda the White House and the Department of Education changed the section to now read, “Write letters to themselves about how they can achieve their short‐term and long‐term education goals.”
“We changed it to clarify the language so the intent is clear,” said White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor.
Sidebar: isn’t it amazing how fast this administration’s efforts have added the term “inartful” to our political language? Makes a blaring gaffe sound positively benign, doesn’t it?
Here’s the thing about “inartful” wording – it’s a matter of saying something such that it sounds worse than it could have. Suggesting that a woman possessed of “stern features” is “a homely hag” is an inartfully-worded comment. But there’s no serious changing of the assessment of this hypothetical woman. The speaker clearly thinks she’s not pleasant to behold. It’s just that the 2nd wording is… well… a bit blunt for what you’d call a politically-correct assertion.
That’s not at all what happened here. The change in language used didn’t “clarify” anything. It changed the entire meaning of the passage. For what purpose were the letters by the students to be written in the 1st suggestion? To express what they could do to help the president. And in the 2nd? To express what they could do to help them achieve their short-term and long-term education goals.
“…to help the president” is equal to “…to help them achieve their short-term and long-term education goals”? In what foreign language? Those 2 statements are nowhere near similar and you cannot assert that replacing the former with the latter was merely a clarification. It was an out-and-out change of direction and it was done because the Dept of Ed understands that they either overstepped their bounds in pushing an indoctrination approach, embarrassing the White House, or that they were just a bit too obvious about the White House’s intent, embarrassing the White House. Either way, if they’re suggesting to the American people that the 2 suggestions are just the same thing, only better worded, then they think you and I are pretty stupid. Of seriously lacking English language skills, one of the 2.
September 3rd, 2009
Posted by
ricjames |
Academia, Politics, The Media |
one comment
Search the web:
RSS Feed
Ric's Twitter