Developing Issue:  Read the book BLACKWATER: "The World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" by Jeremy Scahill. Do the research on BLACKWATER.  See how they have grown, how they make their money, what their plans are (their own CIA), and that now in Iraq they answer to only the White House, the State Department, and their one single owner, Erik Prince.  Some interesting facts about Mr. Prince:

On October 2, 2007, he was subject to a congressional hearing conducted by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform following the controversy related to BLACKWATER'S conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When testifying before Congress on October 2, 2007, about their worldwide activities in Iraq, Mr. Prince complained about the lack of remedies his company has to deal with employee misdeeds. When asked why an employee involved in a fatal incident had been "whisked out of the country" he replied, "We can't flog him, we can't incarcerate him."

When asked by a member of Congress for financial information about his company, he declined to provide it. "We're a private company, and there's a key word there -- private," Prince answered. Later he stated that the company could provide it at a future date if questions were submitted in writing.

When the term "mercenaries" was used to describe Blackwater employees, Prince objected, characterizing them instead as "loyal Americans", notwithstanding the fact that Blackwater employees comprise many nationalities.

BLACKWATER needs further in-depth Congressional investigation, and in my view, they need to be shut down and no longer associated with the United States government in any capacity. They are unaccountable to the public, yet they are funded by the public via the State Department.

Even Congressional members called Jeremy Scahill (the author) and asked him how much money BLACKWATER was making since no one in government knew. Scahill said on PBS recently that they have made well over $1 billion in Iraq to date.

Upcoming Urgent Issue: Congress will soon vote on two "concurrent resolutions" (H. Con. Res. 362 (introduced May 22, 2008, and S. Res. 580 (introduced June 2, 2008). Both have a large number of co-sponsors - check and see if your Rep. or Senator is a co-sponsor.  My Rep., and the incumbent in this race, John M. McHugh, NY-23, signed on.

Experts in such matters have construed that these two non-binding resolutions are the first steps in a long set of steps leading to war in Iran. What does it all mean? Why war with Iran? Why now? Is Iran ready to hit the U.S., or are they ready to hit their neighbors in the region? Consider these key elements:

Congress will soon vote on two "concurrent resolutions" (one introduced on May 22, 2008, and one introduced on June 2, 2008). Both have a large number of co-sponsors. Check and see if your Rep. or Senator is a co-sponsor. My Rep, the incumbent in this race, signed on. Experts in such matters have construed that these two are the first steps in a long set of steps leading to war in Iran. What does it all mean? Why war with Iran? Why now? Is Iran ready to hit the U.S., or are they ready to hit their neighbors in the region? Consider these key elements:

1.  There are 13 neighbors around Iran.

2.  Seven of those countries share borders with Iran. 

3.  Of the 13, all but five (Oman, Saudi Arabia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan) have U.S. military bases. 

4.  Four of those neighbors receive huge amounts of U.S. aid. Recently $20 billion was for the Saudis.

5.  Afghanistan and Iraq are both now occupied by U.S. Forces engaged in combat.

6.  Israel, our strongest ally in the region and a huge foe of Iran, has nukes - Iran has no nukes.

7.  What are we up to with these two resolutions? What can we conclude by this statement in the pending resolutions? 

“Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran ...”

It seems to me that we have heard this kind of thing before [before we invaded Iraq]. Now is the time to speak out, and not while our troops are airborne and heading for Tehran. We must not have any more Iraq’s. We need to speak out now. 

Recent McHugh Votes:  H.R. 2642 - Emergency Supplemental funding for the war - it drew an interesting array of votes this way included in three major amendments:

Amendment 1:  Was for $163 billion more in war spending through the summer of 2009.  Mr. McHugh voted "present" which means he marked that he was present, but did not vote.  Democrats who have been against the war voted "No" out of their conviction.  John McHugh sat on his hands as a GOP partisan. The amendment failed by a vote of 141-149-132. 

Amendment 2:  Was for a troop withdrawal within 30 days, and December 2009 as the date for all combat troops to be out of Iraq [among other things].  One key provision of that amendment put a ban on torture by prohibiting harsh techniques not authorized by the Army Field Manual regarding detainees.  It passed 227-196. Mr. McHugh voted "No." (Note: In the past Mr. McHugh also supported sustained CIA "harsh techniques, or the so-called enhanced" interrogation techniques, which included  "water boarding" - which is torture and a crime under U.S.). 

Amendment 3:  Included the new GI bill, extended unemployment insurance for many, and gave more money to Louisiana for levees [and for other things}. It passed 256-166. Mr. McHugh voted "Yes." But, it is noted that he never was a co-signer of the new GI bill, and he should have been an early co-signer, but he was not.

Update (June 30, 2008):  President Bush signed the new Iraq war-funding bill, which includes the new GI Bill. It is now law.

Recently, Mr. McHugh called for lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling, commencement of drilling in the ANWR national wildlife refuge, for a $500 tax credit for expected winter heating bill increases, and a proposal to suspend the federal gas tax when prices reach a certain level. (Note: The GOP does not mention what level that should be, therefore we must surmise that $5.00 or more a gallon is the level they find acceptable).

(It should be noted that I have called for a complete moratorium on all levels gas taxation until gas goes back to $2.00 or less a gallon - see my Press Release link).

As far as the offshore drilling is concerned, it will not add one barrel of oil to the supply for years. Additionally, over 65 million of acres already have been leased for new drilling but the oil giants want new sources and not those set aside acres. The offshore ban was implemented by the first President Bush and supported by then FL Gov. Jeb Bush. Both were both against any new offshore drilling.

Mr. McHugh says he has long supported these new initiatives, but it is hard to see why he would support them now except for short-term political gain. ANWR drilling by all estimates for example would take 10 years to produce any oil inventory.  The real problem today are the oil speculators on Wall Street who use all sorts of pension plans and the millions to make more millions without owning one single gallon of oil or gas – their only aim is to make money and drive up oil prices and they are succeeding. Mr. McHugh avoids that topic completely.

I encourage all voters to research Mr. McHugh's current and past voting record and get answers for themselves and to see if he has /or has not served your best interests and that of the district.  A good place to start that research is at the House homepage (for McHugh), or here for both McHugh and Oot and their money (note the lawyers/lobbyist money for Mr. Oot - he learned fast).

ISSUE: Congressional Earmarks (member items).  A number of members of congress and their families — including former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert — have personally profited from earmarks that they slipped into federal legislation. The story comes from a FOX News documentary . This story is timely, very accurate, and the contents should concern everyone.  This from MSNBC - the same subject.  Both networks did a very good job on this subject. The practice must stop - lining their pockets at your expense is criminal in my thinking.  For those who doubt FOX or MSNBC, try this official government site offered by the Office of Management and Budget - from that site, click on "Transparency Link" for more proof.  

ISSUE:  Help America Vote Act (HAVA).  Thanks to Jennifer Keller, Fulton, NY - this subject was bought up at a meeting in her home recently. She wanted to know the status of HAVA (Help America Vote Act). Funny, not many people are discussing it; we should, I think.

Help America Vote Act (HAVA) - official government site.  Thanks to Jennifer Keller, Fulton, NY - this subject was bought up at a meeting in her home recently. She wanted to know the status of HAVA (Help America Vote Act). Funny, not many people are discussing it; we should, I think.

Key Question from that Report: Are HAVA provisional ballot provisions working?

The Short Answer:  Yes, and in terms of whether provisional ballots served as a real safeguard for many voters who would previously have been turned away from the polls like millions were in 2000 – the answer is also yes.

Brennan Center Report Conclusion:  Despite the significant problems with provisional ballot administration and certain state counting rules, on balance, provisional voting has been a positive innovation. For many voters who would previously have been turned away from the polls, it has provided a true fail-safe. Where it has not worked, it has at least created a public record of election administration problems that can be used to improve elections in the future. Nonetheless, there is still a danger that states will not rectify the problems — especially the placebo ballot problems — discussed in this paper before the next election. If states do not do so, voter confidence will suffer.

The most-logical solution in 2008? Get more trained volunteers ready now to man the polls and help provide security and reporting of all voters to help identify glitches. We must not have any more 2000’s like in Florida, or 2004’s like in Ohio.  With that thought in mind, here’s a good place to start - HAVA partners.  

Again, thanks to Jennifer Keller for refocusing on this critical and timely topic.

ISSUE: International Joint Commission (IJC) on the "Review of the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Order of Approval."  My comments along with other dignified speakers in the U.S. and Canada are posted.

ISSUE: Coverage of the Candidates. From Democracywise - at Syracuse University.

Credit:  Heath D. Williams (SU Newspaper Major).  

1.    Introduction to the 23rd CD race (McHugh, Oot, and Francis)
2.   McHugh, Oot, and Francis on the issues

ISSUE: Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act.  Credit: Mr. Bob Balick, Rome, NY, April 26, 2008. The story has a lot of details [click here].

The Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. sect 1408, et seq. included as a "rider" to the 1983 Defense Appropriations Bill, often called the USFSPA, effectively invalidates the United States Supreme Court's ruling McCARTY v. McCARTY, 453 U.S. 210 (1981) that military retirement/retainer is not subject to division in divorce proceedings.  It is an important story because it impacts our military retirees.  Listen carefully to the voices of the service members in the video testimonials. They tell us how bad this piece of legislation really is and how it will negatively impact them and their lives after they retire from the service. Their testimony is compelling – it’s a bit dated now that Mr. Rumsfeld is gone, but their message resonates now as it did when they first spoke to Mr. Rumsfeld.  This needs to be repealed and I would work to do that.