The video playing in the background and the lyrics tell it all.
Joe Knollenbeg thinks George W. Bush is great.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Now this is funny. Mike Brownfield (Joe's campaign manager)now playing at the Comedy Castle.
Mike Brownfield ought to try out at the comedy club. Joe Knollenberg standing up for American workers. Joe Knollenberg stands up for the CEO's, not the American workers. Did you know GM held a fundraiser for Joe Knollenberg? Joe raised over $50,000 from the high level executives while executives at Delphi, a GM subsidiary, cut the salary of workers in half for new hires at Delphi. Is that standing up for American workers? Joe Knollenberg's policies are ass backwards for the American worker. Did Joe Knollenberg lift one finger to protect the salaries of the workers at Delphi? Joe Knollenberg may protect the salaries of high level executives, but he doesn't give a damn about the salaries of the men and women that work hard every day at factories around Oakland county.
Mike, you might want to send the audition video into Last Comic Standing. I couldn't stop laughing.
Joe's Hormones must be getting to him
Joe might actually be listening to all the anti-war rhetoric lately. I guess he is now advocating peace in Iraq. Joe's new slogan, "Strength Through Peace." Wait. I think that one is taken.
Is Joe Confused About His Sexual Orientation?
With all the Republicans being outed lately, including a Federal prosecutor from Florida that flew to Michigan to have sex with a 5-year-old girl, it looks like Joe might be confused about his sexual orientation.
Joe bloviates on fuel economy standards
I did a little research of my own and again find Joe to be long on slogans and short on facts. In an article in the Eccentric Joe again makes the case that higher fuel economy standards are too costly. Guess what, Joe? You're wrong again.
This picture kind of says it all, Joe's ideas are ass backwards.
I found this little Q and A at http://www.cleanmyride.org/faq.php
Q: Can't people who want fuel efficient cars buy them? Why do we need a law?
The number of fuel efficient models is currently limited. Most automakers only offer no-frills small cars to drivers who want fuel-efficient vehicles, while pouring their advertising money into the bigger cars that make them more money. Yet fuel efficient technologies can work for all types of vehicles, from sub-compacts to SUVs. Saving fuel does not mean sacrificing performance.
Some automakers promised to manufacture more efficient vehicles across the board, but those commitments yielded only about a 5 percent increase in the fuel economy of each company's fleet by 2005. This paltry improvement barely keeps up with the growth in gasoline use, consumer costs, and environmental pollution. Only through federal fuel economy standards can we lock in fuel economy gains throughout the automotive industry.
We need more energy efficient fuel economy standards because car companies do not voluntarily employ cost effective technologies that add safety and protect the environment until they are forced to do so. The government had to step in to safeguard drivers by establishing safety, fuel economy, and emissions standards--requiring air bags in all new cars, for instance, because automakers resisted adding them even though they saved lives. And the government should step up again and set fuel economy standards.
Q: Won't new CAFE standards raise car prices and cost jobs?
An increase in fuel economy standards would raise the cost of a new car by $1,000-$2,000, but will save consumers $2,500-$5,000 in lower gasoline bills. The Senate bill alone would save consumers $25 billion in 2020.
And contrary to myth, stricter fuel economy standards would create jobs. The Union of Concerned Scientists just released a report that found that the 35 mpg standard would create nearly 24,000 auto industry jobs and over 200,000 new jobs economy-wide by 2020.
And here's a link to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientsts pointing out how we can have higher fuel economy and more jobs.
So, Joe, please stop the lies.
This picture kind of says it all, Joe's ideas are ass backwards.
I found this little Q and A at http://www.cleanmyride.org/faq.php
Q: Can't people who want fuel efficient cars buy them? Why do we need a law?
The number of fuel efficient models is currently limited. Most automakers only offer no-frills small cars to drivers who want fuel-efficient vehicles, while pouring their advertising money into the bigger cars that make them more money. Yet fuel efficient technologies can work for all types of vehicles, from sub-compacts to SUVs. Saving fuel does not mean sacrificing performance.
Some automakers promised to manufacture more efficient vehicles across the board, but those commitments yielded only about a 5 percent increase in the fuel economy of each company's fleet by 2005. This paltry improvement barely keeps up with the growth in gasoline use, consumer costs, and environmental pollution. Only through federal fuel economy standards can we lock in fuel economy gains throughout the automotive industry.
We need more energy efficient fuel economy standards because car companies do not voluntarily employ cost effective technologies that add safety and protect the environment until they are forced to do so. The government had to step in to safeguard drivers by establishing safety, fuel economy, and emissions standards--requiring air bags in all new cars, for instance, because automakers resisted adding them even though they saved lives. And the government should step up again and set fuel economy standards.
Q: Won't new CAFE standards raise car prices and cost jobs?
An increase in fuel economy standards would raise the cost of a new car by $1,000-$2,000, but will save consumers $2,500-$5,000 in lower gasoline bills. The Senate bill alone would save consumers $25 billion in 2020.
And contrary to myth, stricter fuel economy standards would create jobs. The Union of Concerned Scientists just released a report that found that the 35 mpg standard would create nearly 24,000 auto industry jobs and over 200,000 new jobs economy-wide by 2020.
And here's a link to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientsts pointing out how we can have higher fuel economy and more jobs.
So, Joe, please stop the lies.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Joe ignores supboena in Duke Cunningham corruption case
Joe Knollenberg has been subpoenaed to testify in the case of Randal "Duke" Cunningham. What does he plan to do? He's planning on ignoring the legal document requiring him to testify in the case. Here's the item from the Detroit Free Press Politically Speaking column on Thursday, September 20.
Trent Wisecup says Cunningham is a crook and ought to go to jail, yet Joe and Trent obviously don't think George Bush and Dick Cheney are crooks in the way they've conducted foreign policy, ignoring subpoenas in the attorney firing case, the president issuing thousands of signing statements, saying he doesn't have to obey laws properly passed by the Congress. I guess what's good for the President is good for the Congressmen. The law means nothing to Joe Knollenberg.
Congressmen likely to ignore subpoenas
Don't expect Michigan congressmen Joe Knollenberg and Pete Hoekstra to come running to the defense of a military contractor accused of bribing former California Republican Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, even though they've been subpoenaed -- along with 12 other members of Congress -- to do so.
None of the 13 plans to show up at Brent Wilkes' Oct. 2 trial, as the House's legal counsel has told them not to do, apparently determining that the subpoenas are overly broad.
In case you're wondering why the two from Michigan would receive calls, here's the likely reason: Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Township, served on the Appropriations Committee with Cunningham and had an office next to his. Hoekstra, R-Holland, was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on which Cunningham also served.
Cunningham is serving an eight-year prison term following his guilty plea to taking millions of dollars in bribes from Wilkes and others for government contracts.
Said Knollenberg's chief of staff, Trent Wisecup, of Wilkes: "We think the guy's a crook and he ought to go to jail."
Trent Wisecup says Cunningham is a crook and ought to go to jail, yet Joe and Trent obviously don't think George Bush and Dick Cheney are crooks in the way they've conducted foreign policy, ignoring subpoenas in the attorney firing case, the president issuing thousands of signing statements, saying he doesn't have to obey laws properly passed by the Congress. I guess what's good for the President is good for the Congressmen. The law means nothing to Joe Knollenberg.
Congressmen likely to ignore subpoenas
Don't expect Michigan congressmen Joe Knollenberg and Pete Hoekstra to come running to the defense of a military contractor accused of bribing former California Republican Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, even though they've been subpoenaed -- along with 12 other members of Congress -- to do so.
None of the 13 plans to show up at Brent Wilkes' Oct. 2 trial, as the House's legal counsel has told them not to do, apparently determining that the subpoenas are overly broad.
In case you're wondering why the two from Michigan would receive calls, here's the likely reason: Knollenberg, R-Bloomfield Township, served on the Appropriations Committee with Cunningham and had an office next to his. Hoekstra, R-Holland, was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on which Cunningham also served.
Cunningham is serving an eight-year prison term following his guilty plea to taking millions of dollars in bribes from Wilkes and others for government contracts.
Said Knollenberg's chief of staff, Trent Wisecup, of Wilkes: "We think the guy's a crook and he ought to go to jail."
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Joe's health care prescription deadly
In a recent edtion of The Oakland Press, Joe Knollenberg trots out the same old tired line about socialized medicine and "evil" trial lawyers. I issue a challenge to Joe Knollenberg, go with me to see Michael Moore's new documentary, Sicko, then say that universal, single-payer health care doesn't work and that private enterprise does it better. It is common knowledge that Medicare does work extremely efficiently and their administrative costs are 2-3%, compared to 25-30% for the private health insurance industry. Another problem with Joe's plan, there are 47 million uninsured people in the country and more joining the rolls every day. Over 50% of the bankruptcies in this country occur due to medical emergencies caused by medical bills of people who had insurance.
I recently interviewed Adrian Campbell on my community television show. Adrian is a 25-year old woman who contracted ovarian cancer and had to go to Canada to get treatment, because her health plan refused coverage, saying 22-year-olds (she was 22 when she was diagnosed) don't get ovarian cancer. Then, to make matters worse, because she was in the movie, she was fired by her employer.
If Joe Knollenberg thinks his plan to offer a tax credit to employers for offering a wellness program is the solution, I dare him to walk a mile in Adrian's shoes. Why don't you come on my show with Adrian, Joe, and tell her how well your plan for a tax credit for an employer wellness program will work for her? I dare you, Joe.
According to the web site National Priorities for the cost of what we have spent in the 9th Congressional District of Michigan in 2007 on the war in Iraq, we could have provided health care to 121,000 citizens.
According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175
Quit blowing smoke up our butts, Joe. Universal, single-payer health care does work and it's time for America to take care of its citizens instead of fighting an ill-conceived war that President Bush lied us into for profits from the Iraqi oil fields.
Yet this is all Joe can say on health care.
I recently interviewed Adrian Campbell on my community television show. Adrian is a 25-year old woman who contracted ovarian cancer and had to go to Canada to get treatment, because her health plan refused coverage, saying 22-year-olds (she was 22 when she was diagnosed) don't get ovarian cancer. Then, to make matters worse, because she was in the movie, she was fired by her employer.
If Joe Knollenberg thinks his plan to offer a tax credit to employers for offering a wellness program is the solution, I dare him to walk a mile in Adrian's shoes. Why don't you come on my show with Adrian, Joe, and tell her how well your plan for a tax credit for an employer wellness program will work for her? I dare you, Joe.
According to the web site National Priorities for the cost of what we have spent in the 9th Congressional District of Michigan in 2007 on the war in Iraq, we could have provided health care to 121,000 citizens.
According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004.
http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175
Quit blowing smoke up our butts, Joe. Universal, single-payer health care does work and it's time for America to take care of its citizens instead of fighting an ill-conceived war that President Bush lied us into for profits from the Iraqi oil fields.
Yet this is all Joe can say on health care.
In a shocking admission published in the Feburary 1, 2006 Detroit News, Congressman Joe Knollenberg is quoted as saying "Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare can't be sustained". Although many of us have always suspected that Knollenberg was out to destroy Social Security and Medicare, this is the first time he has been so blatant about his position.
"Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare can't be sustained."
Joe Knollenberg
February 1, 2005
Detroit News
Many have suspected that Joe Knollenberg has been wanting to completely disable important programs like Social Security and Medicare.
He and his fellow Republicans are still trying to dismantle Social Security by turning it into a privatized system, they just are not talking about it because they know the public disagrees.
Rather than try to convince the public, they are now trying to quietly change the program by sneaking some provisions into the budget bill.
Without any public statement warning voters that he and his evil henchmen (Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, JOE KNOLLENBERG, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, etc.) were again going to try to destroy the Social Security program, President Bush included the privatization of Social Security in the Budget Bill he sent to Congress on February 6, 2006.
Bush plans to not only privatize the program starting in 2010, but he is going to fund it by taking over $700 billion away from the current Social Security system.
Bush, Knollenberg, Cheney, etc. must truly be dedicated to the total destruction of Social Security if they are willing to take away a huge portion of the program’s funding, privatize the system so Wall Street Brokers can get richer, AND – in the interim, they are looking for ways to cut benefits for current recipients.
Shamefully, rather than tell the truth – that Bush and all the Republican’s in Congress plan to shutdown the Social Security program – the White House characterizes their position as “The President will also continue to promote comprehensive reform of Social Security to place the program’s finances on sustainable footing for future generations.”
Wow. That is a fancy sentence. Let me translate it into the truth:
The President will also continue to promote comprehensive reform try to sneak language into law that will eliminate the current Social Security program as we know it of Social Security and instead force Senior Citizens to invest their money in risky stocks – possibly losing all their retirement benefits – while making wealthy stock brokers and greedy Corporate Executives wealthier. to place the program’s finances on sustainable footing for future generations. Meanwhile, Bush and the Republican’s will try to cut benefits as much as possible to Senior Citizens making it even harder for them to pay their rent and buy their medications.
Please do not just take my word for it, look at p. 321 of Bush’s Budget proposal. It is all just plain as day. The White House estimates it will cost:
* $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010,
* $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and
* $630.533 billion for the five years after that
for a total of $712.144 billion.
For additional information, check out this site: www.socsec.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1216
This is what Joe says now:
"Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare can't be sustained."
Joe Knollenberg
February 1, 2005
Detroit News
Many have suspected that Joe Knollenberg has been wanting to completely disable important programs like Social Security and Medicare.
He and his fellow Republicans are still trying to dismantle Social Security by turning it into a privatized system, they just are not talking about it because they know the public disagrees.
Rather than try to convince the public, they are now trying to quietly change the program by sneaking some provisions into the budget bill.
Without any public statement warning voters that he and his evil henchmen (Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, JOE KNOLLENBERG, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, etc.) were again going to try to destroy the Social Security program, President Bush included the privatization of Social Security in the Budget Bill he sent to Congress on February 6, 2006.
Bush plans to not only privatize the program starting in 2010, but he is going to fund it by taking over $700 billion away from the current Social Security system.
Bush, Knollenberg, Cheney, etc. must truly be dedicated to the total destruction of Social Security if they are willing to take away a huge portion of the program’s funding, privatize the system so Wall Street Brokers can get richer, AND – in the interim, they are looking for ways to cut benefits for current recipients.
Shamefully, rather than tell the truth – that Bush and all the Republican’s in Congress plan to shutdown the Social Security program – the White House characterizes their position as “The President will also continue to promote comprehensive reform of Social Security to place the program’s finances on sustainable footing for future generations.”
Wow. That is a fancy sentence. Let me translate it into the truth:
The President will also continue to promote comprehensive reform try to sneak language into law that will eliminate the current Social Security program as we know it of Social Security and instead force Senior Citizens to invest their money in risky stocks – possibly losing all their retirement benefits – while making wealthy stock brokers and greedy Corporate Executives wealthier. to place the program’s finances on sustainable footing for future generations. Meanwhile, Bush and the Republican’s will try to cut benefits as much as possible to Senior Citizens making it even harder for them to pay their rent and buy their medications.
Please do not just take my word for it, look at p. 321 of Bush’s Budget proposal. It is all just plain as day. The White House estimates it will cost:
* $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010,
* $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and
* $630.533 billion for the five years after that
for a total of $712.144 billion.
For additional information, check out this site: www.socsec.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1216
This is what Joe says now:
Joe Knollenberg an enviornmentalist? Please.
Knollenberg's Anti-Environmental Record: Part 2
Joe Knollenberg must think the voters of the 9th District are stupid -- otherwise why would he tell us that he is an "environmentalist", when it is so clear from his voting record that he is really one of the most anti-environmental Congressman in history.
In a previous post we pointed out some of Knollenberg's anti-environmental votes and noted that we were unable to find even a single pro-environmental vote by Knollenberg.
Here is some more evidence of just how strongly anti-environmental Joe Knollenberg really is:
* Knollenberg added a rider to an appropriations bill prohibiting EPA from funding efforts to reduce greenhouse gases under programs like the Kyoto Protocol
* Knollenberg's biggest priority for years was to make certain that toilets could WASTE MORE WATER - rather than conserve water like a true environmentalist would propose
* Knollenberg supported a measure that prohibited EPA from tightening air pollution laws -- and even prohibited them from using their monitoring data to determine which areas of the country were meeting health based air pollution standards
* Knollenberg opposed EPA's efforts to use equal protection guarantees to assure that all Americans have clean air and clean water
In fact, Knollenberg is so anti-environmental, the Lana Pollack from the Michigan Environmental Council once gave Knollenberg an "award" consisting of a Ken doll with his head buried in a bucket of sand. It was a great metaphor for how Knollenberg treats most issues -- he hides from them -- but it is particularly appropriate for environmental issues because Knollenberg votes on them like a dummy with his head in a pile of sand.
It is easy to do a search online and find hundreds of articles about how anti-environmental Joe Knollenberg is -- but can anyone find an article about Joe doing ANYTHING positive and proactive for the environment?
Joe Knollenberg must think the voters of the 9th District are stupid -- otherwise why would he tell us that he is an "environmentalist", when it is so clear from his voting record that he is really one of the most anti-environmental Congressman in history.
In a previous post we pointed out some of Knollenberg's anti-environmental votes and noted that we were unable to find even a single pro-environmental vote by Knollenberg.
Here is some more evidence of just how strongly anti-environmental Joe Knollenberg really is:
* Knollenberg added a rider to an appropriations bill prohibiting EPA from funding efforts to reduce greenhouse gases under programs like the Kyoto Protocol
* Knollenberg's biggest priority for years was to make certain that toilets could WASTE MORE WATER - rather than conserve water like a true environmentalist would propose
* Knollenberg supported a measure that prohibited EPA from tightening air pollution laws -- and even prohibited them from using their monitoring data to determine which areas of the country were meeting health based air pollution standards
* Knollenberg opposed EPA's efforts to use equal protection guarantees to assure that all Americans have clean air and clean water
In fact, Knollenberg is so anti-environmental, the Lana Pollack from the Michigan Environmental Council once gave Knollenberg an "award" consisting of a Ken doll with his head buried in a bucket of sand. It was a great metaphor for how Knollenberg treats most issues -- he hides from them -- but it is particularly appropriate for environmental issues because Knollenberg votes on them like a dummy with his head in a pile of sand.
It is easy to do a search online and find hundreds of articles about how anti-environmental Joe Knollenberg is -- but can anyone find an article about Joe doing ANYTHING positive and proactive for the environment?
Read what Joe says compared to what he does
Joe says he supports our veterans, yet his record is abysmal.
Joe Knollenberg says he supports the troops, but when given the chance put some money where his mouth is, he doesn't support them, he slashes their funding.
In fact, the Disabled American Veterans give him a ranking of 0.
* Voted against fully funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, guaranteeing them training and appropriate armor. [HR 1591, RollCall Vote 126, 4/25/07]
* Voted to continue awarding contracts to Halliburton even if the Pentagon's own audit processes found that more than $100 million of their contractor's costs in Iraq were unreasonable. [HR 4939, RollCall Vote 60, 3/16/06]
* Opposed expanding access to the military's TRICARE health insurance program to thousands of Reservist and National Guard members, even though 20 percent of all Reservists do not have health insurance, and 40 percent of Reservists aged 19 to 35 lack health coverage. [HR 1815 , Roll Call Vote #221, 5/25/2005]
* Voted against granting a bonus to grant a $1,500 bonus to every American service member serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, including National Guard and Reserve forces. [HR 3289, Roll Call Vote #554, 10/17/2003]
Joe Knollenberg says he supports the troops, but when given the chance put some money where his mouth is, he doesn't support them, he slashes their funding.
In fact, the Disabled American Veterans give him a ranking of 0.
* Voted against fully funding the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, guaranteeing them training and appropriate armor. [HR 1591, RollCall Vote 126, 4/25/07]
* Voted to continue awarding contracts to Halliburton even if the Pentagon's own audit processes found that more than $100 million of their contractor's costs in Iraq were unreasonable. [HR 4939, RollCall Vote 60, 3/16/06]
* Opposed expanding access to the military's TRICARE health insurance program to thousands of Reservist and National Guard members, even though 20 percent of all Reservists do not have health insurance, and 40 percent of Reservists aged 19 to 35 lack health coverage. [HR 1815 , Roll Call Vote #221, 5/25/2005]
* Voted against granting a bonus to grant a $1,500 bonus to every American service member serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, including National Guard and Reserve forces. [HR 3289, Roll Call Vote #554, 10/17/2003]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
