Dear friends at The Tampa Tribune, The Ledger,
and elsewhere –
You recall my email this past Nov. 30, I'm sure, where
I told you that my U.S. Congressman, Dennis A. Ross (R-Fla-12th) was acting
**very** bizarre and blocking a **whole** bunch of people from his Twitter,
Facebook, and basically most/all of his social media. (Hence the subject title
of this email: “Twittergate...,” a takeoff on Nixon's 'Watergate'
scandal.)
But, since I admitted that I had no proof to document
my claims he was also doing this to others, I'm sure I looked like a loony-tune:
In fact, one reporter I'm friends with asked me if I provoked the Congressman by
(for example) posting too much, which was not an unreasonable question: On
occasion I'm a bit talkative. (That was not the case here, though.)
However, since my last email, I did find ample evidence
of the Congressman blocking a BUNCH of people from ALL of his major social
mediæ—for no other reason than they disagree with him, including, of course, his
“public” Facebook, which is supposed to be open to all constituents to “hear our
views” and help him represent us—so, now armed with the ability to cite sources
& document my “wild claims,” I am notifying you of this, in case you too are
alarmed that a Congressman REFUSES to hear from his constituents when their
views slightly disagree or differ from his own:
1 ) >> Congressman Ross, when confronted by a large, angry
crowd, admitted that he blocked/banned
a bunch of “postal
employees” from his
public Facebook page (not to be confused with his
personal Facebook) allegedly “for abusive, vulgar, or personal attacks...because
their posts and messages were abusive or bordering on the
slanderous.”
Source:
www.GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Update-on-Ross-ban-block-situation.jpg
Mirror:
www.GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Update-on-Ross-ban-block-situation.jpg
* This seems mighty suspicious: How could a person slander the Congressman,
when all his votes are public record? (And, really, are we to believe that a LOT
of posters had to be deleted, blocked, & banned “because their posts and
messages were abusive or bordering on the slanderous.” Hmm...)
* QUESTION:
Did a bunch of postal employees really 'go postal' & slander the good
congressman? Probably not: It is common knowledge that USPS employees were
complaining that the 'prefunding' requirement of their retirement pension plans
was excessive, thereby becoming a financial burden. (Note: While many USPS
employees may not be in Ross' district, they are still is due representation
because Ross sat on a nationwide House Committee overseeing restructuring of the
U.S. Postal Service.)
1—ANALYIS: Many U.S. Postal Service employees were blocked/banned
for merely expressing a different opinion on whether the prefunded retirement
deductions were excessive. (Please note also that one USPS employee, 'Guy,'
mentioned in this screen shot—and discussed by a lot of people in several
threads—had a whole lot of witnesses come out of the woodwork, repeatedly
claiming they had carefully been monitoring his posts, and that NONE of his
comments were, in any way harassing, threatening, vulgar, or to that effect;
when many witnesses disagree with the Congressman here, I trust the 'many'
witnesses, not the 'one' who has motive to lie to cover a mistake.) In
Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503, 1969), the US Supreme Court
upheld the right of political speech in a public forum, of which the this
Congressional page is a part (distinguished from Ross' personal Facebook
page), so the Congressman is violating Free Speech.
2—ANALYIS: We don't know what happened, but if a “lot” of people are saying
Ross is blocking them for no good reason, and it quacks like a duck, maybe it
**is** a duck.
3—ANALYIS: The pattern here is obvious: If everybody's saying one thing and
Ross is saying another, who do you think we can safely believe here?
4) >> Virginia Hooper, a Google user, posted in Groups to the same
effect, where she writes: “Congressman Dennis Ross then blocked me from
Twitter...”
Source:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22dennis+ross%22+%22blocked+me%22&oq=%22dennis+ross%22+%22blocked+me%22&gs_l=hp.3...1337.4995.0.5268.26.25.0.0.0.0.226.3532.2j21j2.25.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.54f3tLWsYRE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355272958,d.eWU&fp=fb2052ffe7ba6357&bpcl=39942515&biw=1247&bih=804
Cache 1:
www.GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Virginia-Hooper-blocked-by-Congressman.JPG
Cache 2:
www.GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Virginia-Hooper-blocked-by-Congressman.JPG
Note: While she later admits not being in his district, he sits on
nationwide committees addressing her issues, so legally she should have been
able to ask for representation, however, unable to email him, she tried social
notworks: “Congressman Dennis Ross then blocked me from Twitter, which I used
because you CANNOT email a US Congressman anymore if you are not in said
government represtative's district, per regulations by Congressional legal
enforcment].”
4—ANALYIS: Virginia probably did nothing to justify getting blocked/banned.
At the very least, it seems VERY unlikely that all these people would
simultaneously threaten, harass, or slander the congressman—or use vulgar
language.
5) >> Someone else has a similar complaint:
5—ANALYIS: The pattern is obvious—it seems unlikely that this guy did
nothing more than express his opinion, protected under the First Amendment. Even
strong opinions (Free Speech) are protected under the 1st Am. And, since this is
a “public” page of the Congressman (not his private/personal page), First
Amendment “Redress” is invoked (and Equal Protection, as well, for those of you
legal eagles, keeping track).
6) >> Steve Phillips, a Winter Haven, Fla. Resident, and one of Ross'
constituents, had problems posting, and his was one of the many complaints I had
not been able to document, until I did more research, and was able to access a
Google cache of Ross' previously-deleted Facebook page. Steve posted on Ross'
old 'public' Facebook fan page (before Ross deleted it & started over anew)
that “FYI,Ross has blocked me on all of his social network,except this
one,apparently he doesn't read this one or I would probably be blocked here
too,Ross can't handle the truth,he must go,vote him out.”
* Google cache by
search on this
term:
cache:www.facebook.com/repdennisross/posts/485639681460366
*
Google cache link:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Awww.facebook.com%2Frepdennisross%2Fposts%2F485639681460366
* Off-site cache 1:
www.GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/StevePhillips-blocked-by-Congressman-too.JPG
* Off-site cache 2:
www.GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/StevePhillips-blocked-by-Congressman-too.JPG
This video claims that a bunch of retired generals and admirals went to
work for defense contractors and defense consultants, whom they previously
oversaw, but now making much more than when they were in the military, which
might be a conflict of interest, since the contractors got money from the
government—and then turned around and used these tax dollars to hire the former
military at inflated salaries—and had credibility, as it featured Bryan Bender,
a National Security Correspondent for the Boston Globe:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/staff/bender
6—ANALYIS: Therefore, Steve's post, here, is not slanderous, and neither
vulgar, nor threatening, nor harassing, and his concern about misappropriation
of tax dollars to over-paid “consultants” is a legitimate gripe for his Federal
Lawmaker, Dennis Ross—one not justifying Ross delete his posts and block/ban him
from posting on his public Congressional page.
7—ANALYIS: The pattern holds: It's not “just Gordon,” who is a lone voice
“crying wolf.”
8—ANALYIS: “Lots more complaints” about Congressman Dennis A. Ross
(R-Fla.-12th), including myself, make five.
9) Ross surely doesn't want to hear disagreement, and deletes as many
people as he can without drawing attention to himself. Brett Upthagrove, one of
his constituents, who lives here in Lakeland, posted in my defense, seeking to
argue that Ross was wrong to refuse to hear constituents' views; however,
Brett's comment was deleted too. Take a 2nd look at Jennifer's comment, and
notice Brett's comment is gone:
For Rep. Ross, who claims to be 'Conservative,' it is embarrassing to have
people like Upthagrove (a liberal Democrat) saying Ross and his party are too
liberal in how they over-spend. (That's like the time Communist Cuba offered to
send poll observers to Florida: It was an insult that Florida had more voting
problems than a Communist country!) So, Ross deletes all his posts.
UPDATE: (Tuesday, May 21,2013)
Here is a screenshot that Mr. Upthagrove sent me verifying his claims that he was blocked:
Cache 1: www.GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Brett-Still-Blocked.jpg
Cache 2: www.GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Brett-Still-Blocked.jpg
Notice that there is no dialogue box to enter your comment, or 'comment' link.
That was back around Thursday, April 04, 2013, the day Rep. Ross had a Towh Hall Meeting in Plant City, Fla., as documented by the following screenshot:
Cache 1: www.GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/time-stamped-TownHall-post.JPG
Cache 1: www.GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/time-stamped-TownHall-post.JPG
(Note: The THM was actually on Thr. Apr. 04, 2013, as shown by the bottom half of this screenshot, but the top half, which has a Facebook post,
apparently was posted the next day. Also, as stated in the inception of this blog entry, there was a major update: Ross' staff unblocked me, and later,
unblocked Upthagrove, who we think were blocked by an over-zealous staff member no longer with Ross' office. So, Ross and his staff deserve credit here
for unblocking us -and for allowing us to post unfettered on his Facebook fan page. In short, Ross' staff's unblocking of me was a genuine, honest action,
not a 'reaction' to news media pressure, which had not manifested until about 12 hours *after* their action. END OF UPDATE ~G.W.)
UPDATE: (Thr. 17 July 2014)
It is also worth noting that Rep. Ross has allowed me way more than my fair share of questions in many, probably most, of all his
subsequent Town Hall Meetings, be they in person _or_ be they Tele-THM's via the telephone. Also, when meeting him in person at one THM, for the first
time I had seen him in person in years, he remembered me by name, was repspectful, and has always shown the highest regard for me, whether anyone in
the news media was looking or not. Therefore, it all adds up to convince me: I am sure that Dennis and his staff, though human, have the highest honour
and moral integrity. -- End of update.
But, were Upthagrove's other posts slanderous, harassing, threatening?
Let's see:
Meta-Analysis: Here we see far more than nine (9)
people being blocked (some of these bullet-points dealt with several people, so
the total number is > 9) —and those are only the ones I could document.
Refusing to hear from constituents, and making (or implying) false claims
that they were vulgar, harassing, slanderous, threatening, or otherwise
'abusive'—when there was a clear written record to refute it is questionable and
makes me feel uncomfortable.
If this Congressman would do that when there is a clear written record, how
much more would he do if I called his office, and there were no witnesses to
refute a false claim I was somehow harassing him or his staff?
This is a clear violation of my First Amendment rights of 'Redress' to my
government (Lawmakers in this case), as well as another First Amendment right to
Free Speech (posting on a public, as opposed to private, social network), not to
mention a denial of Equal Protection vis-à-viz 'special' or 'privileged' big
donor constituents who can legally “buy” his vote—and his listening ear—by
(legal but morally reprehensible) huge “Campaign Contribution$.” Example: more
informally, this is proof of his desire to only listen to rich-money interests,
such as the banks and/or higher ed interests—big campaign contributors—that
would be hurt if they were forced to stop illegal predatory lending practiced I
document in my research, & posted online—but not care about those whom he
actually represents. (If he doesn't even want to hear opposing views, then,
obviously, he does not care about his constituents.)
** CLARIFICATION ** I must address one point that was not clear in my
previous email, where I said “(And, I'm genuinely *very* frightened, as I
described below; please take a moment to check this out.)...I'm honestly very
concerned, since other whistle-blowers in my position have turned up
missing...”
Some feedback have asked if I am paranoid of disappearing. While it is true
that bankers would stand to lose billions of dollars if Standard Consumer
Protections (such as bankruptcy) were returned to College Loans, as they are
still available for Credit Card loans, if legislation were passed to this
effect, I did not mean to suggest I feared for my life at this juncture—I was
merely making a statement to illustrate a comparison. However, I meant every
word where I said: “If he's intimidated that I've outed him as a 'Big
Government' liberal...then what other bizarre things will he do? Will he try to
do character assassination against me, trumping up false charges of some sort or
another?” – As I've shown above, Congressman Ross has taken to making false
statements about people, even when there is a clear 'paper trail' that says
otherwise: It is unreasonable to think that all those people (including myself)
caused trouble and had to be banned (in Ross' own words) “for abusive, vulgar,
or personal attacks...because their posts and messages were abusive or bordering
on the slanderous.”
Source:
www.GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Update-on-Ross-ban-block-situation.jpg
Mirror:
www.GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Update-on-Ross-ban-block-situation.jpg
Additionally, several Facebook users with whom I have spoken privately have
said they feared retaliation if they come out and publicly speak out about Ross'
mistreatment of people. One of them feared his job with the Federal Government
would be lost in an attempt to appease Ross. Another feared his application for
certain Federal benefits would be denied, in retaliation for speaking out. Of
course, you have to take my word, as I shall NOT name them, to protect them, and
out of respect (due to my religious beliefs). A third person (myself) is
genuinely afraid that if I have direct contact with Ross' office in some way
that can not be documented or recorded (such as a visit or a phone call), there
will be trumped up charges, so my fear is not alone. Two other friends (for a
total of five), one a political consultant and the other, a reverend, have both
advised me that the Congressman might seek retaliation in the form of false
charges if I give him the chance, and to not make contact with the congressman
without other witnesses present. Thus, with five (5) plus people, saying the
same thing, I do not think my fears are paranoid, but rather, based on rational
reason.
As further proof that I am not “abusive, vulgar, slanderous” or make
“personal attacks,” please see this email I got from a Rachel East-Pniewski,
apparently a liberal poster to the Lakeland Ledger's forums, and with different
political/religious views:
“gordon-
although we
obviously have differing religious views, i want to thank you for keeping our
recent conversation in the ledger friendly. so many times when religious views (
or non views) are brought up, things get ugly. the ugliness only adds fuel to
each side's fire. it was a pleasure to have the debate with
you.
rachel pniewski”
CONCLUSION: Dennis Ross is an absolute fruit-loop
–and hasn't had enough attention from press coverage regarding his absolutely
bizarre behaviour towards constituents, blocking, deleting, and banning them off
ALL social media, and also NOT hearing their views, even when they communicate
through more 'conventional' means such as phoning, writing, visiting, and/or
emailing him—the 'conventional' methods of getting representation: Pres. Nixon
and Watergate, move over—Mission Control, we now have 'Twittergate'
liftoff.
|
Additional Updates:
|
|
(Sunday, 16 December 2012) -- Since I sent this email, I continue to find victims of Dennis' illegal
block/ban, and so I shall continue to update this section of the web-based copy of my email to the local news media:
Kenneth Bucklin, one local poster, is a constituent of Congressman Dennis Ross (R-Fla.-12th), and was wrongly blocked from Ross' public Twitter account,
as well. (Note: Bucklin forgot to update his Facebook profile to reflect his Lakeland, Fla. residency, but he is, indeed, a local Lakeland resident, and
thus a constituent of Ross, as public records will show. Ross is free to block people off his personal Facebook or Twitter accounts, but these are his
public Congressional pages, which, by law, are supposed to be accessible/open to the public -especially constituents, such as Bucklin.)
Bucklin wrote: "I am a constitute [sic - he meant: "a 'constituent' of the Congressman"] who asked the congressman on twitter about subsidies for the
fossil fuel industry, the congressman's answer was to block me from asking anymore questions. Way to go mr ross there's just
one small problem: I VOTE........"
LINK:
http://www.facebook.com/dennis.ross.376/posts/479813648723411 (In case this post, too, is deleted, here is a cached screenshot.)
Cache 1:
http://gordonwatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Ken-Bucklin-also-blocked-by-Dennis-Ross.JPG
Cache 2:
http://gordonwaynewatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Ken-Bucklin-also-blocked-by-Dennis-Ross.JPG
|
(Friday, 21 December 2012) -- Yet another victim - this time, a 'Twitter' account (as opposed to a Facebook account) was blocked,
not only from comments, but even from following the Congressman? LOL:
Cache 1:
http://GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Another-victim-Twittergate-1-of-3.JPG
Cache 2:
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Another-victim-Twittergate-1-of-3.JPG
CONSERVATIVE -- This guy is a conservative, as shown by who Twitter suggests he follow, so if he has issues with Ross, perhaps
the Congressman is not a true conservative:
Cache 1:
http://GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Another-victim-Twittergate-2-of-3.JPG
Cache 2:
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Another-victim-Twittergate-2-of-3.JPG
ACADEMIC -- This guy is also of academia, and thus no dummy:
Link: http://Twitter.com/Gordon_W_Watts
Cache 1:
http://GordonWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Another-victim-Twittergate-3-of-3.JPG
Cache 2:
http://GordonWayneWatts.com/FannyDeregulation/Another-victim-Twittergate-3-of-3.JPG
|
|
(Friday, 25 January 2013) -- Some resolution to this issue; still unanswered questions.
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013, at 11:59am, I got a phone call from Congressman Dennis Ross' DC office, informing me that they had gotten my email about
this situation, and unblocked me, so that I could post on Facebook. It still remains unclear why I, or so many others, were blocked.
Then, on Thursday, 24 January
2013, this letter to the
editor of The Lakeland Ledger
(Cache 1: -
Cache 2:) printed.
Here is my statement about this:
My Christian faith says that I must 'do the right thing' -and give Congressman Dennis Ross credit where it is due regarding this newly-learned
information. Congressman Dennis Ross' staff unblocked me, so that I am now able to post:
(cache 1
cache 2) Additionally, however, I
must add this:
Since it might appear as if Ross acted 'in reaction' to my letter, I wanted to point out that my letter published AFTER the fact, thus he couldn't have
reacted to it. While the actual reasons for blocking me & others still remain unclear, I give Ross and his staff credit where credit is due: Congressman
Ross has no doubt seen my posts on his Facebook
page, http://www.facebook.com/dennis.ross.376 but not objected or blocked me
subsequently, so he's indeed open to hearing other views.
Dr. Jay Dennis, the pastor at my church (1st Baptist Church at the Mall, Lakeland) has said it's our duty to not only speak against bad actions of
leaders but also to praise them for good works; I concur. While I'm still very troubled at Ross' 'yea' votes on 4 of 6 of the appropriations votes I could
locate (there may be more?), I can honestly say that, after attending both of his Town Hall Meetings yesterday (Thr 24 Jan 2013), I was impressed that he
seems genuinely concerned, a very good listener, and very-well educated (with specific facts) on many issues.
Moving forward, I'm hopeful that Ross' staff will work with constituents who were erroneously blocked from Facebook or Twitter, that constituents would be
patient –and that Ross would simply become 'Dr. No' on ANY and ALL new spending bills. Additionally, I hope Ross considers the various proposed changes in
Federal Law that would protect college students from lack of notice, illegal monopoly, predatory lending, and such.
GORDON WAYNE WATTS
Lakeland, Fla., U.S.A.
|
** SUBJECT 2: Even more bizarre
behaviour from Congressman Ross **
I realise that it's not usual convention to include “more than one” subject
in an email, because it usually just gets too long and confusing, but this is
too good to pass up...
It is well-known that America keeps adding to its National Debt, which
devalues the U.S. Dollar, and pushes us more towards a 3rd-world banana
republic, or towards economic collapse, like modern Greece, or like how ancient
Rome fell... As both the conservative GOPusa and the liberal CBS report,
National Debt has been growing non-stop for many years now, putting us on
the brink of financial disaster:
Since Congressman Dennis Ross (R-Fla.-12th) had been acting bizarre, and
taking 'liberal' stances (e.g., his big govt over-reach in Higher Ed, including
deep loans, which create a Higher Ed 'soaring tuition' bubble, and his refusal
to keep his word to end the Dept of Education), I suspected he may be
ultra-liberal, hiding behind a 'Conservative' persona, so I personally looked at
his votes on the last four (4) appropriations bills, and I confirmed my
suspicion:
Since it is our “runaway spending” that keep
driving up the Federal Debt, nonstop, then whomever votes “yea” on said
appropriations bills is directly responsible, so let's see how Dennis Ross
(R-Fla.) voted, shall we?
*** On H.R. 1473, “BILL TITLE: Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011,” Dennis Ross voted “no” on 14-Apr-2011, but
the bill still passed in the House by a vote of 260-167, with 6 “no votes.”
(Note: That only adds up to 433, not 435. Hmm...?) It had more Republican
support than Democratic support, but not exactly on a party-line vote. (Rep
voting 179-59 in support, but Dems voting 81-108, not in support.)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll268.xml
(TRANSLATION: Ross was conservative in his freshman vote.)
*** But: On H.R. 2055, “BILL TITLE: Making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes,” aka: “Latest
Title: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR02055:@@@D&summ2=m&
Rep. Dennis Ross voted “yea,” and the bill passed on 14-Jun-2011, by a vote of
411-5, with 16 “no votes.” (Note: That only adds up to 432, not 435. Hmm...?) It
only had 5 votes against it, and all 5 were Republican congresspersons,
including Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll418.xml
(TRANSLATION: Ross was liberal in this vote: He drove up the Federal
Debt.)
*** AND also: On “H.R. 5856: Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2013” (19-Jul-2012) Rep. Dennis Ross voted “yea” here too. The bill passed
326-90, with 15 “no votes,” and: with support from both Republicans (225-11) and
Democrats (101-79). The 326 + 90 + 15 only add up to 431. Hmm...?
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll498.xml
(TRANSLATION: Ross was liberal in this vote too: He drove up the Federal Debt;
I'm wondering if House leaders pulled Ross aside and made some sort of threats
to him—if he didn't keep driving up the Nat'l Debt? Ross is liberal, but not
stupid. “Things that make you go 'hmm...'.”)
|
Update:
|
|
(Saturday, 22 December 2012) -- Since I sent this email, I found another 2013 Military appropriations bill in which Ross
participated:
In his own press release, he stated that: "U.S. Congressman Dennis Ross (FL-12) supported the Conference Report on H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. This bill provides funding for the military for the 2013 fiscal year." ("Ross Votes to Fund Troops" (Press
Releases), Washington, Dec 20, 2012)
http://DennisRoss.House.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=315880
This was confirmed by the Library of Congress: "5/16/2012 6:20pm: [line-break] The Speaker designated the Honorable Dennis Ross to act as Chairman of the
Committee." (Bill Summary & Status, 112th Congress (2011 - 2012), H.R.4310, All Congressional Actions, Library of Congress)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR04310:@@@X
So, I went looking for more information on this, and confirmed my suspicion that Ross, again, is bent on spending us into the poor house:
"According to the Administration, the FY2013 DOD budget request is consistent with the initial spending caps set by the BCA. However, both H.R. 4310, the
version of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization passed by the House on May 18, 2012, and H.R. 5856, the companion DOD appropriations bill for FY2013,
reported by the House Appropriations Committee on May 25, 2012, would exceed the Administration request—by $3.7 billion in the case of the authorization
bill and by $3.1 billion in the case of the appropriation bill."
* http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42607.pdf
* ("Defense: FY2013 Authorization and Appropriations," by Pat Towell, Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget, and Daniel H. Else, Specialist
in National Defense, Congressional Research Service, September 5, 2012; paragraph 3, page 2, Summary)
Even the Conservative Tampa Tribune (normally an advocate of a strong national defense) agrees that Congress is spending
too much on military. Here is a small 'Fair Use' excerpt:
"We believe those threatened cuts of $600 billion over 10 years are too deep. They would weaken the military, including MacDill Air Force
Base.
But some cuts are necessary, given the size of the budget deficit. And even with the so-called sequester cuts, military spending would remain far above
pre-2001 levels.
Including the costs of current foreign engagements and adjusting for inflation, the U.S. military is spending far more than at any time since World
War II, and almost as much as then. Military spending has grown 48 percent in the past 10 years.
The United States is spending about five times what China spends on its military and almost 10 times what Russia spends each year.
Let's remember Pearl Harbor, and also remember that times and threats do change."
*
http://www2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2012/dec/07/naopino1-forgetting-pearl-harbor-ar-579832
* ("Forgetting Pearl Harbor," by Staff at the Tampa Tribune and TBO.com, December 07, 2012; emphasis in italics added for style; not in original)
CONCLUSION: Ross is a tax-and-spend liberal, and his votes on the appropriations bills are directly responsible for "excess spending" and our
soaring National Debt; I show elsewhere that tuition, a form of tax, is increasing on the middle class, and that Ross opposes measures to reign in this
excessive tax (though he claims differently on his web page, his actions are what clue me in to his true intents and motives here).
|
|
(Saturday, 05 January 2013) -- Update re Ross' fiscal cliff appropriations bill vote
participated:
Congressman Ross claimed that he voted against the recent 'Fiscal Cliff' bill (H.R.8, American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012,
introduced 7/24/2012 and voted on and passed on January 01, 2013, in the 112th Congress), which we all know did not address the spending problem.
Oddly enough, the government's own
website, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.00008:
does NOT show the roll call vote, but
both http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h659
and http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2013/h/659 verify Ross' claim here.
So, while I am a vocal opponent of Ross, I will thank him (privately and publicly) for opposing this pork-laden bill; however, since he's voted for
4 of the 6 appropriations bills that have come before him, and the National Debt keeps rising, HE (and many other guilty spendthrifts in both the
Democrat and Republican party) is at fault: Remember, even with all of his other 'good' fiscal votes, they are dwarfed by the annual military & domestic
appropriations bills, and thus Ross is, on balance, 2/3rds fiscally liberal, when you look at the actual votes (the facts that matter).
|
*** LASTLY: H.R. 5882: Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2013 – Passed
House (Jun 8, 2012)
This bill passed in the House on June 8, 2012 and goes to
the Senate next for consideration.
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr5882
confirmed: On H.R. 5882 (8-Jun-2012), BILL TITLE: “Making appropriations
for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and
for other purposes” passed 307-102, with 22 “no votes.” (This accounts for 431
members, not the full 435.) Republicans supported it 211-19, and Democrats
narrowly supported it 96-83. Rep. Dennis Ross voted for this bill as well.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll377.xml
(TRANSLATION: Ross was liberal in this vote, a well: He drove up the Federal
Debt, assuming this passed the Senate as well & passed into law, but I can't
quite confirm that; However, for the reasons immediately below, this is still an
otherwise “very bad” bill.)
“VERY IMPORTANT” >> Some of those “other purposes” include
restrictions on Legislative date being published to the public and thus, this
bill takes steps backwards for basic transparency & public information
access. This bill does that by making it illegal for the electronic records of
“bulk data” (machine-processable electronic records) to be be shared with 3rd
party organizations.
Sources:
“The government data that makes GovTrack go has been the center of what
looks like a failed political power play over the last week. Rep. Crenshaw,
whose appropriations subcommittee issued a draft report last week that nearly
halted access to “bulk data downloads,” now “agree[s] to free legislative
information” according to a statement written jointly with House leaders
yesterday.”
(“Rep. Crenshaw backs down, loses control over bulk data issue,”
June 7, 2012, by Josh Tauberer, GovTrack.us)
**
http://www.govtrack.us/blog/2012/06/07/rep-crenshaw-backs-down-loses-control-over-bulk-data-issue/
Even with all these liberal actions in a “very conservative” Polk, Fla.
district, voters still overwhelmingly voted in Dennis Ross, but they were a
clueless electorate, and the same thing happened when Adam Putnam, a VERY
liberal Republican, voted for both the T.A.R.P. And Stimulus bailouts, both very
unpopular in Polk County—because “the redneck vote” turned out and voted for
him—without first inspecting his voting record. Observe:
POINT: While it may (or may
not?) be argued that Putnam was a little bit prejudiced with his comments
here, it is indisputable that the “rednecks” vote in high numbers for the
Republican, who claims to be 'Conservative' whether OR NOT he/she is actually
conservative, and this “voting down party lines” (both parties are guilty here)
is what contributes to continually sending spend-thrift morons back into
Congress, continually rack up a larger-and-larger National Debt each
year—including, as I've shown, Dennis Ross—who is (as I've shown elsewhere) also
liberal in other areas besides budget, namely in regard to higher education
issues.
That is probably why Gene Roberts, a legendary Republican from Lakeland,
just recently left the Republican Party:
“Former Polk County Republican Party Chairman Gene Roberts, "Mr.
Republican," to many in the Polk GOP, will leave the Republican Party this week
[line-break] "It has gotten away from the basic Ronald Reagan Republican beliefs
of family, education economics and budget," he said of the national party
structure. [line-break] "It has left its values. I don't think we are taking
stands on the issues that we should and I don't think Reagan would recognize the
party in some respects," Roberts said. [line-break] Roberts said he intends to
change his party registration to "no party affiliation" this
week.”
(“Roberts: Republican Party Has Left Its Ideals,” by Bill Rufty,
POLITICS reporter, The Ledger, November 12, 2012,
http://www.theledger.com/article/20121112/COLUMNISTS0502/121119853)
CONCLUSION: Putnam, Ross, and a long
litany of R.I.N.O.'s have kept driving up the National Debt, and refusing to get
the “big hand” of government meddling out of things like Higher Education (see
where that's got us now LOL), and have made 'true' Republicans (like myself and
Gene Roberts) fed up—and these spend thrift morons and bullies (Ross) deserve to
be outed and exposed by the news media.
(Yes, these are
web-trackers, here -- quite harmless, I add: I merely wanted to make sure
you got my email here.)
(-://
BS, The Florida State University, Biological
& Chemical Sciences
AS, United Electronics Institute
821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FL
33801-2113
Home:(863)688-9880 Work: (863)686-3411
Voice&FAX:(863)687-6141
See also: http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html
Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
Truth is the
strongest, most stable force in the Universe
Truth
doesn't change because you disbelieve it
TRUTH doesn't bend to the
will of tyrantshttp://GordonWayneWatts.com / http://GordonWatts.com
Get
Truth
"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was
not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a
Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a
trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for
me."(Martin Niemöller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and
Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper(New York: Harper
&Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17,of Religious Cleansing in the
American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier,Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and
Family Publications.
Some versions have Mr. Niemöller saying:
"Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a
Protestant"; other versions have him saying that they came for Socialists,
Industrialists, schools, the press,and/or the Church; however, it's certain he
DID say SOMETHING like this. Actually, they may not have come for the Jews
first, as it's more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped,
&other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us-so they could get
"practiced up"; however, they did come for them -due to the silence of their
neighbors -and due in part to their own silence. So: "Speak up now or
forever hold your peace!"-
GWW
