Saturday, December 12, 2009

Please Let This Be So......

From Lowry's blog post to God's ears...or something like that. Because really people, this is the only chance we have. So clap your hands and say "I believe in a Congress that won't pass this boondoogle!"

Rich Lowry at NRO:

The Reid bill is really tottering now. "If this thing falls apart, you can look back to today as the tipping point," says a Republican aide in the Senate, echoing what Lamar Alexander notes in the Costa post below. First, there was last night's CNN poll showing 61 percent opposition. Then, there was the devastating CMS report today. "Nobody went to the floor that I could see to defend it on the Democratic side," says the aide. The back-drop for all this is the non-deal that Reid hyped as a break-through earlier this week, only to have it unravel almost immediately. Even Bill Nelson says the Medicare buy-in is basically a "non-starter." "You're starting to see other Democrats nibbling around the edges," the aide says. He predicts that if one Democrat comes out clearly against the Reid bill, others will follow, in a dynamic like the unexpectedly decisive defeat of the amnesty bill a few years ago. Reid also has to worry about the clock. He needs everything to break exactly right—a CBO score coming in on Monday, a score that's good, no intervening, unexpected drama—to force a final showdown next weekend. If he goes to Christmas break without a bill, it gets much harder to pick up the pieces in January. Since the Senate debate began, the bill has only gotten more unpopular. It’s all still in flux obviously, but we just might be watching the bill fall apart before our eyes.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Who Needs Democracy Anyway? (Scroll For Update!)

A lefty friend of mine, dave bones, across the pond sent me to this lefty site about Copenhagen's Climate Change summit. I came across this interesting tidbit:

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Lisa Jackson appeared yesterday at the UN Climate Change Summit to assure the international community that the EPA will not let democracy get in the way of regulating the deadly toxic gas known as carbon dioxide at home. Her “endangerment” declaration means that CO2 will still be subject to intense regulation under the Clean Air Act, giving the White House executive power to limit CO2 emissions- even if Congress does not pass a definitive climate bill in 2010.

I could hardly believe that. She is saying that even if Cap and Trade doesn't pass, the Obama administration will implement these regulations anyway. So I looked it up on Yahoo News:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson, meanwhile, said her agency's decision that greenhouse gases should be regulated would be a dual path of action by the Obama administration and Congress.

The EPA determined Monday that scientific evidence clearly shows they are endangering the health of Americans, and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. That means the EPA could regulate those gases without congressional approval.

Who needs Democracy? Why even have Congress? Represent the people? Oh, come on. That's so old school. Now, with the Obama administration we no longer need that pesky Congress. We will just regulate the h*ll out of everyone and bypass this annoying thing called Democracy.


UPDATE: Newt Gingrich is paying attention:

But take a step back and consider what this ruling means in practice. According to the EPA, greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and a host of other gases that are emitted whenever people heat their homes, drive their cars, mow their lawns, tend their farms, or, for that matter, breath.

Without so much as a vote being cast, the EPA regulation suddenly micro-manages all of this. It makes all economic activity more expensive. It makes creating jobs more difficult. It puts government bureaucrats, not entrepreneurs, at the center of our economy.

The ruling is alarming in its breadth, but perhaps even more disturbing is what it reveals about the Obama administration's view of democratic and constitutional government.

The Obama administration seems to regard government of the people, by the people and for the people as an inconvenience rather than a blessing. If the peoples' representatives in Congress do what it wants, great. If not, they will use their power to get their way by any means necessary.

Apparently, that includes issuing open threats to another branch of government. Here's what an anonymous senior administration official told Congress, speaking through the New York Times:

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

The arrogance and totalitarianism of this statement are breathtaking. Not only does it reveal shocking contempt for the rule of law, but the official concedes that he or she will allow the EPA to further damage the struggling economy -- i.e. "generate even more uncertainty" -- in order to enact the administration's climate change agenda.


Its interest is in power, and there is a word for a government whose primary purpose is the accumulation and exercise of power over the citizenry -- totalitarian.

*note: My daughter is getting her wisdom teeth out today so I will publish comments tonight.

Michelle Bachmann Just Rocks

Palin Hits Back

In my post on climategate I referred to Al Gore sneering to Palin about her piece on climategate. She fired back yesterday and it's a doozy:

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”
Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science. Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

You gotta love this. How many times in the last eight years have you, as a Republican, said to yourself, "Why don't the Republicans fight back??? Why don't they answer their critics???" It was so frustrating for so long. Now we finally have someone willing to fight back.

I just love it.

via Ace

Thursday, December 10, 2009

There Is Always A Silver Lining

Who said great news can't come out of a bad economy? As The New York Times reported yesterday, the ACLU this year, largely without warning, lost its single largest source of funding as a result of the financial crisis. The loss of that individual donor, who had been contributing $20 million per year, was a major blow to the organization, "punching a 25 percent hole in its annual operating budget and forcing cutbacks in operations." That loss came on top of substantial fundraising losses last year from the financial crisis and the Madoff fraud, which had already forced the group to lay-off numerous employees and cut back substantially on its activities. The lost donor made clear yesterday that he continues to support the ACLU's work emphatically but is simply now financially unable to continue his support.

Of course Mr. Glenn Greenwald is practically weeping over this. He believes the ACLU has done so much for liberty. But the truth is that the ACLU has done more to harm this country than probably any other leftwing organization. The American Civil Liberties Union is based upon a noble purpose. But it's radical interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is antithetical to the United States. It is today perpetuated by socialists (and, yes, communists) and is an arm of the radical left. Their claim of being non-partisan is a joke. The ACLU has done nothing but attempt to reform American society according to the ideals of liberalism. They have thrown in a few token conservative cases so they can say they are impartial, but it's laughable. We are all aware of who they are and what they want to accomplish.

Maybe now with this, their goals will diminish. We can only hope.

The Voices of Evil

Ever wonder what evil sounds like?

You can hear it here.

Defined By Color or Celebrate Color?

MaryKatharine Ham (who I adore) has a post at the Weekly Standard Blog called "NYT Creates Separate But Equal Holiday Gift Guide for People of Color." Here she says:

Here's the link to the original, in case you'd like to offend one of your friends or relatives by proclaiming via painfully stereotypical gift idea that the only thing you know about them is their skin color, and you assume that it defines them at the exclusion of all else.

From a hip-hop and rhythm-based toy line to black designer clothes, this section is for those "of color." I'm afraid I didn't have the same reaction to it as MaryKatharine. I don't think it's about giving a gift that says the only thing you know about them is their color. I think it is a gift that says you celebrate their color.

When I shop I am always on the lookout for unique gifts that suit my friends or family. If I find something perfect 6 months before their birthday, I buy it. I admit when I am looking at black art or sculpture and I see something wonderful, I think about which black friend would like it. Recently a black girlfriend of mine renewed her marriage vows with her husband. I wanted to find some sort of wedding sculpture. I found a few, but they were obviously of white people. I never did find one that looked specifically like a black couple, but I did find one that couldn't be distinguished white or black. It was a woman and man embraced in a wedding dance. It was beautiful and perfect, so I bought it. I wanted something that reflected who they were, and their skin color is certainly a part of who they are. A sculpture that was obviously of white people wouldn't have seemed right at all.

I know that some people are put off by blacks celebrating their heritage. Wearing African dress or naming their children African names. But I have never understood why. I love the dresses I see at my church. We have a diverse congregation. Many Indian families wear their traditional dress. Some African Americans wear theirs. It's all lovely to me.

MLK asked us not to judge someone by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. But he never said not to celebrate the color. Why should we be offended that some gifts are geared toward people with color?

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Why can't we question?

One of the things I cannot stand about the left is how they answer an argument that was never made.

Case in point. Sarah Palin has a thoughtful informed piece at the WaPo today about climategate, her own personal experience with climate change, and what we need to do to move forward.

"But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs."

What drives the left insane is when you question them on WHY the earth is warming or cooling. I'm old enough to remember the scary sensational media coverage in the '70's of the scientific papers that discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future. Afterwards scientists realized that they had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling.

You see what happened there? Scientist were willing to re-address their studies. That is really all we want done today before we radically change the way we live and spend trillions of dollars doing so.

Read Sarah's entire article. Howard Kurtz tweeted that the Washington Post is getting pure h*ll for printing Sarah's piece. I can never get over the left's willingness to silence anything they don't agree with. They bring a whole new meaning to censorship.

Al Gore rebuts Plain in an interview to air Wednesday by asking a ridiculous question:

"The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes ... what do they think is happening?"

This is what I was talking about when I said they answer an argument that was never made. No one is denying a warming of the earth. So this question is absurd. But he did it on purpose, because the left wants everyone to think that those who question man made global warming are questioning global warming in itself. So they answer questions as if people on the other side don't believe in global warming at all. Which is completely false. The only thing many people and many scientists are asking is can we be sure it isn't just the natural changes of the earth, and if man is contributing, is it enough to really make a difference?

These are legitimate questions. but they are brushed off with snotty comments like Al Gore saying "It's a principle in physics, It's like gravity, it exists." Yes, but the questions are why it exists. What people are questioning are the REASONS the earth is warming or why it has been cooling for the last 11 years.

Recently White House Press Secretary Robert Gibss was asked about climategate, in his usual snotty manner he answered, "I think that this notion that there's some debate...on the science is kind of silly." Oh really? Because there are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles supporting skepticism of man made global warming. More than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. to reject the Kyoto treaty. So it is hardly unanimous and it certainly isn't "silly."

Given the e-mails that recently surfaced between scientists determined to prove it is man made, it is clear that data was dumped and data was manipulated. It is also clear that these scientist wanted any data that seemed to contradict their findings to be squashed. That isn't science. That is politics.

And that is what is the saddest thing about this. Once money and politics enter the picture, then the science comes into question.

Years ago I read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." Crichton was a doctor as well as a writer and he was a "man made" global warming skeptic. His book blended well researched scientific fact with amazing fiction. He footnoted all his scientific information. His book illustrated how this sacred cow of the environmental movement, man made global warming, is motivated as much by money and politics and fear as it is science. He shows us how political leaders (Al gore, I'm looking at you) promote their agenda with slanted, inaccurate portrayals of what the science i saying. And now we know that some of the science was indeed manipulated.

I think given everything we know, to say it's "settled science" is just false. What we need is reputable scientists that don't have a political agenda and can be funded by non partisan grants. The fact is that we understand very little about the nature and extent of any effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We need much more research. And this research needs to be conducted on a level playing fired. I know we have done tons of research, but since there seems to be a taint to it and the fact that the e-mails from climategate came from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report from the University of East Anglia, whose data we have relied on for man made global warming, it wouldn't hurt to do more. Considering all the money going into this, I don't think it's too much to ask.

From Fox News:

The three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report came from the University of East Anglia, NASA, and the British Met Office. As noted in my previous piece for the Fox Forum, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the University of East Anglia. NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia (ocean temperatures were collected separately), though there are signs that things might be speeded up.

People like Paln and myself aren't denying global warming. We aren't even really denying man made global warming. We just know that the science has been poisoned and we need to start over. We are relying on tainted data and data that these scientists refuse to allow others to evaluate. It's that simple.

In the end, science is about questioning. That is the ironic thing about climategate. They clearly wanted to shut down questioning. That isn't science. That is the opposite of it.

If the left isn't afraid of the answers then they wouldn't mind the questions.

Studying The Sex Lives of College Students

You thought you were done with that when you graduated, right? Well, this is just one of the many boondoggles that our stimulus dollars went to. I'm thinking that maybe somewhere along the line someone got confused on what the word "stimulus" actually means. Perhaps they took it to mean the human body and not the economy.

Let's see, what else did we waste our money on while unemployment is over 10%? Sen. McCain and Sen. Coburn issued a 55 page report on wasteful stimulus spending and the sex lives of students just being one of many. Politico reports "4.7 million for Lockheed Martin to study supersonic corporate jet travel." and "roughly $233,000 for California college students to conduct exit polls in Africa about voting patterns." The CBS evening news reports "$221,000 for a study on why young men don't like condoms." No, really? You have to STUDY that? Is there anyone who doesn't know the answer to that?? Good grief. Also, $5 million to provide geothermal heat for a Tennessee mall that's all but empty, and $950,000 for studying ant behavior at two Arizona universities" because God knows we want to know what those ants are thinking as they crawl up the wall in our Kitchen.

via NRO

I think there should be a new law. A law criminalizing wasting our money with inane studies and sneaking them into ginormous spending bills figuring no one will notice. Just to make sure this is never done again. I recommend execution as punishment. Because, really, I don't see HOW we could otherwise stop it.

All kidding aside, surely there is a way to stop this? Because it just makes my blood boil to think of the hardworking men and women in this country trying to make ends meet and THIS is what our leaders do with the money they take from us???


Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The Whiny President

I can't get over how Pres. Obama cannot seem to take the smallest of criticism. Does he every realize how whiny he seems?

President Barack Obama recently called Rep. John Conyers Jr. to express his frustrations with the Judiciary Committee chairman’s criticism.

In an interview with The Hill, Conyers said his opinions of Obama’s policies on healthcare reform and the war in Afghanistan have not sat well with the president.

According to the lawmaker, the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to find out why Conyers was “demeaning” him.

You whine about Rush Limbaugh. You whine about Fox News. Now you whine when your own party is critical? Seriously? Man up Obama. I would think your poll numbers yesterday would have you in a fetal position crying in the presidential pillow.

Leading isn't about worrying what everyone is saying about you, because it isn't about you. It's about the country. It's time you came to understand that Mr. President.

Monday, December 07, 2009

Mr. Reid, please learn American history.

Hard to imagine but the United State's own Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) doesn't know his own country's history. Today he compared the GOP's call for starting over on Health Care reform to those opposed to ending slavery.

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

Here is a history question for Mr. Reid. How many Democrats in Congress voted for the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery?

That would be only four.

.."although passed in April 1864 by the Senate, with a vote of 38 to 6, the required two-thirds majority was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 93 to 65. Abolishing slavery was almost exclusively a Republican party effort--only four Democrats voted for it."

source: Great American History

Reid also mentions that Republicans were on the wrong side of history with civil rights as well.

Republicans have consistently been on the right side of history. The GOP long fought against Democrats who favored slavery, backed Jim Crow laws, and fought tooth-and-nail against the enactment of civil rights legislation.

Mr. Reid, I know you are trying to make history, but that doesn't mean you get to re-write it.

The War on Fair and Balanced

One thing that has been a surprise about this White House is it's pettiness. We all thought it strange when the President of the United States took on a popular radio talk host. While it pleased Rush, it seemed beneath the President. Then came the war on Fox News. Now we understood that the White House was determined to undermine opposing voices by using it's own power to do so. Pretty chilling.

Back in October the White House called on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox. It started with communications director Anita Dunn branding Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news" in an interview. Then White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." Obama senior adviser David Axelrod also urged media outlets to join the administration and said that Fox is "not a news organization."

It was a strong not so subtle message to other media outlets to not follow Fox News on stories. From the look of the "climategate" story, where e-mails between climate change scientists reveal an effort to "trick" the data into saying what they wanted it to say, it seemed the msm was following orders and not following Fox News on this story. It took ABC two weeks to mention it and the report did not quote any of the emails that suggested manipulation of data on global warming by scientists at the UK's University of East Anglia. NBC and CBS sooned followed. The problem here is, just as in the green jobs czar Van Jones and ACORN controversy, when they are finally forced to follow the story because the story had evolved into a bigger story, they end up looking ridiculous for not reporting on it previously.

When it seemed clear that this tactic wasn't working with the American viewer, Obama backed down. Fox News Channel's Major Garrett sat down with the President during his visit to China for an interview. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shows up on Fox News in November.

Obama may have backed down, but that doesn't mean that the mainstream and liberal media didn't get the message and seems to be obeying. Consider, for example, that executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News. they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network. She did and reported back to them that she didn't see the problem and would continuing appearing on the network. Journalist Juan Williams, who is a political analyst for the radio network of NPR was asked to no longer identify himself as such when appearing on Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor.

As cited in the article, NPR says that Fox "uses" Mara and Juan as "cover” to defuse arguments that the TV network is distinctly right-wing. Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate wrote in an Oct. 17th Newsweek column that “by appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations,” Respectable journalists — I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson — should stop appearing on its programs.”

Hmmm...let's think about this. Fox News "uses" liberal pundits to project a bi- partisan image? I'm pretty sure that's what "fair and balanced" is all about. You have a conservative voice and you have a liberal voice. Then you get both sides. How this is "using" I have no idea. This is a good thing. This is why Fox News is a ratings bonanza.

Let's just be honest here Mr. Weisberg. Your problem is not with worrying about the state of legitimate news. Your problem is that Fox News presents the conservative side that no other mainstream media outlet does, and you HATE that view being represented. This is about nothing more than censorship.

In all the years that we conservatives have had to put up with the liberal bias of CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, I have never heard one peep from my side that they should NOT be on the air or should not be reporting. We may disagree, but we also understand the freedom of the press. Some of you on the left are becoming the people you hate. The kind of people who would censor an opinion because it's doesn't agree with yours. Weisberg, you should be ashamed.

And of course the greatest irony is that NPR is about as leftwing as you get and they complain about bias? Please.

This isn't the end of it. Obama may keep appearing on Fox News and the White House "boycott" of Fox News will soon be forgotten. But make no mistake about it, the MSM got the message and they are following orders as best they can.

A 2010 Match To Watch

Keep an eye out for the most interesting of races in the Senate primary in Connecticut. Republicans actually have a shot at winning this seat, which is occupied than none other than Chris Dodd, a powerful five-term Democratic incumbent. 2010 looks like the year he can be beat. Dodd’s association with controversial AIG bonuses, his Countrywide VIP sweetheart mortgage loan has hurt him badly. Congressman Rob Simmons on the Republican side leads Dodd in the polls.

Looks pretty simple, right? Except there is a fly in the ointment, and her name is Linda McMahon. If the name sounds familiar, it should. She is the wife of Vince McMahon of the World Wrestling Entertainment. Linda recently resigned as CEO of the WWE to run for Dodd's Senate seat. The problem here is that she has a vast fortune and is willing to spend it to get this seat. I don't see her as the kind of Republican we want in the Senate. While many people enjoy WWE for it's entertainment value, I have some problems with it's mix of sex, drugs, and entertainment geared towards kids. The WWE themselves say that every week more than 2.6 million fans ages 6-14 tune into WWE's top rated television programs. They reach more kids than the Disney Channel, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon combined.

Why is that a problem? Let's consider first the "bra and pantie matches" where the girls strip each other down to their underwear. Then there are the girls they present, like 2008 Playboy Magazine Model of the Year, Jillian Beyor. Many of the girls at WWE are soft porn models. But it gets worse. Back in June Mackenzie Montgomery was fired. Could the reason be that Linda was running for the Senate and Mackenzie had appeared in over 60 hardcore porn films (specializing in bondage films) before and during her time as a WWE Diva? After McMahon announced her candidacy in Sept three immediate changes were made. The girls are no longer posing in Playboy, the men are no longer cutting themselves with razor blades to bleed during the match, and the "bra and pantie" matches have ceased.

Did Linda imagine that that would clean up her image? Did she think that what she had run in the past wouldn't matter?

Let's not forget the drugs involved here either. Things were not always like this with wrestling. Living Legend Bruno Sammartino explains here what changed:

I got very appalled with the direction Vince McMahon Jr. took wrestling. I was concerned from the time I retired to the time I came back as a color commentator. After McMahon's father passed away, and he took over.

I was appalled with the drugs going on and the steroids. I became very disillusioned. Then I started seeing other changes. The language started getting loose and had all this vulgarity. There was the beautiful looking girls but always wearing these skimpy things. I just became angered and saddened to see the business I spent 22 years in take this direction.

Especially the drug part of it. I just felt there had already been a couple of deaths and that as long as it continued, it was going to get worse and worse. I just thought I didn't want to be a part of it. I thought I got to get out of it, and I did.''

Look, I don't care what you watch if you are an adult. If you want to watch this trash, more power to you, but when they are marketing their "product" to children and portraying themselves as "family friendly" and this is what they are producing, then I have a problem with that. A big problem. Don't think for a moment things won't go back to where they were after she loses.

Wrestling superstar Billy Graham is also speaking out against Linda McMahon:

Superstar Billy Graham is speaking out against the woman he says made millions from the violence, sexual exploitation, blood and excesses of professional wrestling. What outrages him particularly, he says, are recent attempts to sanitize the wrestling mega-enterprise whose sexy women wrestlers once performed in "lingerie matches" and were still posing nude in Playboy as recently as 2008. He views this toning down as a huge act of hypocrisy — an attempt to graft a family-friendly face onto a business that has been anything but. (via Hugging Harold Reynolds)

In other words the WWE is trying to scrub it's image for Linda McMahon's Senate run.

This is the last kind of candidate we need in the GOP.

What we need is someone like Rob Simmons. Contrast and Compare.

Rob Simmons served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war and won two Bronze Star Medals. He continued as a Reserve Military Intelligence Officer for 37 years before retiring at the rank of Colonel. In 1998, Rob was recognized by for his contributions to the Military Intelligence Corps with the Knowlton Award for "Integrity, Moral Character, Professional Competence and Selflessness. Following his active duty service in the Army, Rob joined the Central Intelligence Agency, working as an Operations Officer for a decade. He was awarded the Agency Seal Medallion (it's highest civilian award) in 1985. In Congress, Simmons served on the Armed Services, Transportation, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committees. Rep. Simmons also served as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment and Veterans' Health Subcommittee.

What Simmons doesn't have is gazillions of dollars made off WWE "entertainment." let's not let money be the measure of our candidates in the GOP. Let's let character be the measure. Because if it is, then Simmons wins hands down.