Housing Sales Fall by 16.7%

"Housing Sales Fall by 16.7%
by Justin Lahart
"Home saled plunged in December, raising fresh concerns about the housing market's ability to recover when government support winds down.
"Sales of previously owned homes fell 16.7% from November to a 5.45 million rate, the National Association of Realtors said Monday. . . . The drop brought the pace of sales down to the lowest level since August.
* * *
"Although economists expected Monday's report to show declining December home sales, few thought they would fall so sharply. The decline called into question the sector's ability to bounce back. * * * " Wall St. Journ. 1-26-2010, p. A4


No more of "stay the course". This time elect Kenneth Stepp to U.S. House KY-05.

Book Review by Ed Hiserodt

Book Review by Ed Hiserodt
"One might note that in this system [the Washington of Hal Rogers] the government and the special interests are not adversarial, but working together to fleece taxpayers. Lobbyists swing huge amounts of money from the government to their special interest, while the politicians enjoy the contributions from company PACs (individuals who are part of lobbying efforts), favorable publicity, and introductions to donors. Politicians needn't worry about bein caught with their hands in the till; there arre amazingly clever ways that someone with money can use to get it to a candidate for reelection needs--often through party coffers."
Ed Hiserodt in The New American 2-1-2010, p. 32.

Elect More Democrats!

Elect More Democrats!

We're in the Poor House Now!

We're in the poor house, now.

The War Crimes Indictment.

The War Crimes Indictment!

I'm Taking My Country Back!

I'm taking my Country Back!

"Mitch" McConnell and Bernie Sanders: which do you believe?

Which do you believe?

George W. Bush's Last Press Conference.

"Look Who's Talking, Three!"

This Report from WYMT:
"WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Congressman Harold "Hal" Rogers (KY-05) released the following statement today regarding President Barack Obama's State of the Union address:
“While I welcome President Obama’s efforts to reign in spending and reduce the deficit, I’m skeptical of his new-found rhetoric. This is, after all, the same President who has brought this country to the brink of bankruptcy with his irresponsible spending policies of the last year. His trillion dollar stimulus has been a total failure, with over 3 million jobs lost since its passage. His liberal allies in Congress have increased spending some 85% over the last 2 years, tried to steamroll a disastrous “Cap and Trade” and government run health care bill down our throats, and have proposed raising taxes on our hardworking families. The time for action has long since passed, and I’m disappointed the President is just now coming to the table. We need to focus on creating jobs and helping Americans get back on their feet. That comes with hard work, not another speech filled with empty promises.”

Suddenly the chameleon changes it's colors--or is its spots. When George W. Bush was running around spending your money like a drunken sailor, Hal Rogers never saw a Republican spending bill that he didn't like. During the George W. Bush reign, spending and deficits were increased as never before to record levels, and the national debt soared to record levels. Now that George W. Bush is out of office, suddenly Hal Rogers claims he is "Mr. Nice Guy" and "Mr. Frugal Pennypincher." Bah! Humbug! As soon as we see another Republican President Corporate-Welfare big spender in there, Hal Rogers will rubber-stamp all their big spending requests again, like he did for George W. Bush. Vote for Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House KY-5, the only candidate with the courage to say "NO" to big spending from whichever party, and the champion of the working poor--not the big corporations like the ones whose people fund the Hal Rogers' campaigns. Kenneth Stepp.

The State of the Union Address Jan. 2010.

State Of The Union 2010 (FULL TEXT): Read Obama's Speech
First Posted: 01-27-10 07:06 PM | Updated: 01-28-10 08:33 AM

digg Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us What's Your Reaction? .Important
Funny
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Innovative
Finally
Read More: Deficit Of Trust, Obama, State Of The Union, State Of The Union Excerpts, Politics News Get Breaking News Alerts
Share
Comments 1,345 The full text of President Barack Obama's State of the Union Address, as transcribed by the White House.

Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -- that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.

Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -- immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.

But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.

This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades -- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.

Story continues below So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -- asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -- what they deserve -- is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.

You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."

It's because of this spirit -- this great decency and great strength -- that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.

It begins with our economy.

Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)

But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -- I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.

To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)

Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.

That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.

Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)

I thought I'd get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)

As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)

Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.

The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right -- the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.

There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.

But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)

Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.

We should start where most new jobs do -- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.

So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit
-- one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)

Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.

Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information. (Applause.)

We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)

But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.

We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade -- what some call the "lost decade" -- where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.

From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.)

As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.

Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.

We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.

Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right. (Applause.)

Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -- (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -- in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -- because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)

Third, we need to export more of our goods. (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.)

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)

Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)

Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years -- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)

And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -- (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.

Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment -- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.

This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)

Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families -- even those with insurance -- who are just one illness away from financial ruin.

After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.

And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)

Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -- the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress -- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"

But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)

So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.

Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)

Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.

I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)

We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.)

Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand -- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -- all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.

From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -- that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.

To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)

That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -- for the first time in history -- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.

But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)

Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.

But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -- a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)

Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.

So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.

To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)

This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait. (Laughter.)

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)

That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.)

Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world -- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. (Applause.) That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last year. (Applause.) That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families. (Applause.)

Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -- the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)

Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions -- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)

That's the leadership that we are providing -- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -- a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.

As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)

Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)

We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -- so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -- to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)

In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -- our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government -- still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.

No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.

I campaigned on the promise of change -- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change -- or that I can deliver it.

But remember this -- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -- what keeps me fighting -- is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "...are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."

It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."

It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.

And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved.

The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

The Fourth Amendment and Warrantless Wiretaps

"As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wire tapping."
Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v.United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

Justice Louis Brandeis spoke for most Kentuckians when he wrote Olmstead v. United States for the United States Supreme Court in 1928. His observations are still true today.
We had the Bush-Cheney-Hal Rogers Republican Administration engaged in illegal and Unconstitutional warrantless telephone wiretapping. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Kentucky Fifth District, and I will help put an end to warrantless telephone wiretapping.
According to a report issued by the Administration Office of the United States Courts, state and federal courts authorized 1,710 interceptions of wire, oral and electronic communications in 2004, an increase of 19 percent over intercepts approved in 2003 and the greatest number ever authorized in a single year. Federal officials requested 730 intercept applications in 2004, a 26 percent increase over the number requested in 2003. No wiretap applications were denied last year.
Concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, of the 1,758 applications for Federal wiretaps made in 2004, no wiretap applications were denied.
So why does the Bush-Cheney-Hal Rogers team insist that we must have warrantless wiretapping? Isn't it enough that the Federal judges that decide on the wiretap applications are all appointed by the President? Isn't it enough that, in 2004, no wiretap applications were denied? Isn't it enough that the President's men can go ahead and install the wiretap, and then apply for a wiretap warrant later? The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that no American Citizen will be subject to unreasonable search and seizure. Warrantless wiretaps are unreasonable search and seizure. Is is necessary to trash the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in order to win the "War on Terror"? As Daniel Webster of Massachusetts noted over a hundred years ago, trashing part of the United States Constitution trashes all of it. Is it necessary to trash the United States Constitution in order to win the "War on Terror"? United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis from Kentucky explained and established the precedent of Court law limiting the use of telephone wiretapping in Olmstead. Is it necessary to trash the precedent of Court-explained Constitutional law explained by Kentucky's own United States Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis limiting the use of telephone wiretapping in Olmstead, in order to win the "War on Terror"? If your answer is "No" then, elect Kenneth Stepp to the United States House of Representatives for the Kentucky Fifth District and I will help end warrantless wiretaps.

Hal Rogers on the Issues.

Where does the Kentucky Fifth District U.S. Congressman Hal Rogers stand on the issues. His ratings by several organizations and many of his votes on the issues are summarized at http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:TnvwXh7-6FcJ:www.ontheissues.org/House/Hal_Rogers.htm+%22Hal+Rogers%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd= and you can put your pointer on that address and punch it, and your computer will take you there.

KENNETH STEPP CARRIED BATH COUNTY WITH 60.0% OF THE VOTE.

In the 2006 General Election, Kenneth Stepp, Democratic Candidate for U.S. House carried Bath County with 60% of the vote.

Polls.

People blame Republicans for America's problems
by Jed Lewison
Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 08:48:02 AM PST
Oh we all know the story about how Scott Brown won back the U.S. Senate for the Republican Party and how Republicans are now well on the way to retaking every single branch of government.

They are in great shape, more popular than ever. Right?

Um...not so much. When to the problems facing America, more people blame Republicans than any other group, according to the latest NBC/WSJ poll:

When it comes to dealing with the problems facing America, how much blame do you give [___] in not finding solutions to those problems--a great deal of blame, quite a bit of blame, just some blame, or very little blame?
Blame Not Blame
The Republicans in Congress 48% 50%
The Democrats in Congress 41% 56%
President Obama 27% 71%


The challenge for Dems is making sure these people vote. This was a poll of all adults -- not just people likely to turn out in November. But if there's one thing that these numbers make clear, it's that the more they can get people fired up to head to the polls, the better Democrats will do next November.

National Poll shows Obama favorable 54%, "Mitch" McConnell favorable 22%!

"Daily Kos Weekly State of the Nation Poll
Research 2000, Adults MoE 2%, Jan 18, 2010 - Jan 21, 2010 (last week's results in parentheses)
Full Crosstabs FAVORABLE UNFAVORABLE DON'T KNOW NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA 54 (55) 44 (42) 2 (3) -3

PELOSI: 40 (42) 50 (49) 10 (9) -3
REID: 28 (29) 62 (61) 10 (10) -2
McCONNELL: 22 (20) 61 (62) 17 (18) 3
BOEHNER: 21 (20) 60 (61) 19 (19) 2

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS: 38 (39) 58 (56) 4 (5) -3
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS: 21 (19) 62 (63) 17 (18) 3

DEMOCRATIC PARTY: 39 (41) 56 (55) 5 (4) -3
REPUBLICAN PARTY: 34 (32) 58 (59) 8 (9) 3"

Torture! A vote for Kenneth Stepp is a vote against torture!

Why would torture be an issue in an Eastern Kentucky election? Kenneth Stepp is opposed to torture. Kenneth Stepp will vote against torture every time the question comes up for a vote.
"Demand politicans as effective as our coaches"
By Dave Cooper
CONTRIBUTING COLUMNIST
"* * *
Why do we good, hard-working Kentucky people continue to elect such mediocre politicians to represent us?
We don't accept poor performance from Tubby Smith or Rick Pitino: we demand excellence. Isn't the future of our commonwealth and our country more important than sports?
And it's not just Bunning. Rep. Hal Rogers of Somerset is currently receiving some rather unflattering national press coverage.
After Rogers voted against the December 2005 Murtha Amendment which banned torture -- even Bunning and Sen. Mitch McConnell joined the overwhelming majority to vote for McCain's Senate version of that bill, -- I called Rogers' D.C. office asking for an explanation why he thinks that America should be allowed to torture prisoners.
Maybe Rogers thinks that beating and torturing prisoners is good for America's reputation abroad. Maybe he thinks that it will make us safer. Or maybe he just didn't hear about Abu Ghraib.
I will never know the reasons because Rogers' office doesn't return my phone calls. He also apparently has a policy of ignoring the media's inquiries.
I've read too many times in the Herald-Leader: "Rogers' office did not respond to calls for comment." That is an unacceptable response from anyone who claims to represent the people.
It's one thing to believe that the media is biased. It's another to ignore the people they supposedly represent.
After the October 2000 coal sludge spill in Martin County -- "the worst environmental disaster ever in the southeast United States," according to the Environmental Protection Agency -- Rogers was nowhere to be found.
No one in Martin County that I have asked remembers Rogers personally coming to look at the spill, or coming to the public meetings about the catastrophe. Politicians usually love to show up at disaster scenes.
Maybe Rogers was busy taking one of his six trips to Hawaii, paid for by corporate donors. Maybe he didn't want to be seen at the site of a tragedy caused by one of his coal industry friends, Massey Energy. Or maybe he just doesn't care about the people living up a hollow in Martin County.
We'll never know the real reason. I called Rogers' press secretary to ask if she had any press releases or information about his visits to Martin County after the spill, but she never returned my call.
Well, I don't live in Rogers' district, so he can just ignore me.
Fine.
But I do live in Kentucky, so here is my challenge to Bunning:
Come to a free, open-to-the-public town meeting at the Kentucky Theater in Lexington and take unscreened questions from the audience. You can give a short speech.
I'll pay for renting the theater. All you have to do is tell me the dates that are convenient for you, and I will set it up.
Oh, and senator, this time you would have to show up."
Dave Cooper of Lexington is a community and environmental activist. Reach him at mtrroadshow@yahoo.com."

Vote against torture. Vote for Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House of Representative, Kentucky Fifth District, the Democratic candidate for U.S. House of Representatives for the Fifth District of Kentucky.

Kenneth Stepp speaks in Senate Race.

Hal Rogers gets a "zero" for Middle Class Values.

If you punch: http://capwiz.com/lcv/dbq/vote_info/?command=results&sort=District&lvl=C&bzip=&azip=40906&x=13&y=10 you will see that Hal Rogers has received a zero percentage rating for his votes on environmental matters. .If you want to hear my radio interview with QNN please punch:http://www.qualitynewsnetwork.com/2006intv.htm#Kentucky and then go toKentucky and then punch Kenneth Stepp. If you want to watch the Democratic Primary candidates debate between me and James Tapley, punch http://www.wkma.org/election/primary06_forums.htm and then punch Democrats Fifth District.To see the whole report on Hal Rogers' zero voting record on the middle class position on the important issues, punch http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/drum-major-voting-summary.php?name=Rogers&state=KY&database=house . On the HOUSE VOTING SUMMARY concerning Congressmen Hal Rogers [R–KY], the chart indicates that Congressman Hal Rogers, every time, voted AGAINST the middle-class position. To learn more about an individual bill and the middle-class position on it, click on the bill title below. To learn about the grading system and how the House, Senate, and major political parties did as a whole, please click on the above-stated web site.
Hal Rogers'Score: 0
Hal Rogers'Grade: F
The Bills
The Middle-Class Position
The Vote

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention And Consumer Protection Act Of 2005 [ S 256 ]
The middle class position is NO.
Hal Rogers voted Yes.

Border Protection, Antiterrorism, And Illegal Immigration Control Act [ Hr 4437 ]
The middle class position is NO.
Hal Rogers voted Yes.

Class Action Fairness Act [ S 5 ]
The middle class position is NO.
Hal Rogers voted Yes.

Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act [ Hr 8 ]
The middle class position is NO.
Hal Rogers voted Yes.

Deficit Reduction Act Of 2005 [ S 1932 / H.res. 653 ]
The middle class position is NO.
Hal Rogers voted Yes.

Dominican Republic-central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act [ Hr 3045 ]
The middle class position is NO.
Hal Rogers voted Yes.

Energy Policy Act Of 2005 [ Hr 6 ]
The middle class position is NO.
Hal Rogers voted Yes.

Small Business Health Fairness Act Of 2005 [ Hr 525 ]
The middle class position is NO.
Hal Rogers voted Yes.

Kenneth Stepp is a Second Amendment Democrat.

Kenneth Stepp is a Second Amendment Democrat. Kenneth Stepp is in favor of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes your God-given right to own firearms. On the other hand, big-government advocates oppose your right to own firearms. "We must not relax our efforts to combat the scourge of illicit small arms and light weapons, which continue to kill, maim and displace scores of thousands of innocent people every year," declared UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on July 11, 2005, at the conclusion of the UN's Second Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and light Weapons in All Its Aspects. That declaration of Mr. Annan's is now emblazoned like holy writ across the opening Web page of the UN's 2006 Small Arms Review Conference, scheduled for June 26-July 7 at the UN headquarters in New York City.
Eradicating the so called illicit firearms trade "in all its aspects" includes eradicating the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights. This has been made abundantly clear by previous UN meetings and documents on the subject, as well as by the statements and actions of IANSA (International Action Network on Small Arms), the UN's main non-governmental organization (NGO) coalition of anti-gun activists. Thus, the Republicans like Hal Rogers, who fund such organizations and conferences from your tax money are out of touch with the people of Eastern Kentucky. It is time to vote Hal Rogers and his budget-busting Republicans that use Federal money to fund such conferences as the UN's 2006 Small Arms Review Conference, out of office. We cannot afford to finance these conferences supporting the UN Global Gun Grab. Vote Hal Rogers out of office, because a vote for Kenneth Stepp is a vote for your God-given Second Amendment of the United States Constitution right to own firearms.

Who Stands With Republican President Coolidge on Iraq?

Who stands with the principles of Republican President Calvin Coolidge on Iraq?
President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Hal Rogers try to pin labels on themselves and on Kenneth Stepp. Who stands for the principles concerning American relations with Iraq, as stated by Republican President Calvin Coolidge? Let's look at the record.
In his inaugural address, President Coolidge said: "We have never any wish to interfere in the political conditions of any other countries. Especially are we determined not to become implicated in the political controversies of the Old World. With a great deal of hesitation, we have responded to appeals for help to maintain order, protect life and property, and establish responsible government in some of the small countries of the Western Hemisphere. Our private citizens have advanced large sums of money to assist in the necessary financing and relief of the Old World. We have not failed, nor shall we fail to respond, whenever necessary to mitigate human suffering and assist in the rehabilitation of distressed nations. These, too, are requirements which must be met by reason of our vast powers and the place we hold in the world. * * *
"It will be well not to be too much disturbed by the thought of either isolation or entanglement of pacifists and militarists. The physical configuration of the earth has separated us from all of the Old World, but the common brotherhood of man, the highest law of all our being, has united us by inseparable bonds with all humanity. Our country represents nothing but peaceful intentions toward all the earth, but it ought not to fail to maintain such a military force as comports with the dignity and security of a great people. It ought to be a balanced force, intensely modern, capable of defense by sea and land, beneath the surface and in the air. But it should be so conducted that all the world may see in it, not a menace, but an instrument of security and peace. * * *
"America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but with the cross. The higher state to which she seeks the allegiance of all mankind is not of human, but of divine origin. She cherishes no purpose save to merit the favor of Almighty God."
The America of Calvin Coolidge and of Kenneth Stepp "seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but with the cross."
The America of President Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and their rubber-stamp Hal Rogers is referred to as "the empire" by the President of Venezuela, has troops stationed in 130 nations, is engaged in a never-ending war--as recognized by the American Legion, and maintains an army of occupation in Iraq which has costed over 2,500 American servicemen's lives.
Which of these two philosophies is your philosophy?
Do you agree with the traditional American approach to foreign policy in Iraq of President Calvin Coolidge and Kenneth Stepp?
Do you agree with "the empire" approach to foreign policy in Iraq of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Hal Rogers that has costed over 2,500 American armed forces servicemen's (and women's) lives in Iraq.
Concerning U.S. military occupation of Iraq, please stand with the policies of President Calvin Coolidge and Kenneth Stepp. Bring the troops home in 2007; elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, Kentucky Fifth District in November.

Kenneth Stepp is a Free-Enterprise Democrat.

Kenneth Stepp is a Free-Enterprise Democrat. Kenneth Stepp is the owner and manager of a small business from 1978 through August 2002, and again from 2007 to now. While studying at Clemson University, Stepp majored in Industrial Management and had a minor in Economics. Stepp observes, "The trouble with Socialism, is that it does not work very well. Most of the citizens of the remaining Socialist countries (Cuba, Viet Nam, Cambodia, North Korea, and Communist China) have incomes of only a small fraction of the incomes of Americans. The free enterprise system leads the way in producing goods, and leads the way in better human rights also." Vote for a Free-Enterprise Democrat and elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Kentucky Fifth District in November.

It's the Neverending War.

I recently sent in my 2006 membership application to The American Legion. To be eligible, you have to have been in the United States Armed Services during wartime. "Wartime" for the United States is defined by them as Apr. 6, 1917-Nov. 11, 1918, Dec. 7, 1941-Dec. 31, 1946, June 25, 1950-Jan. 31, 1955, Feb. 28, 1961-May 7, 1975, Aug. 24, 1982-Jul. 31, 1984, Dec. 20, 1989-Jan. 31, 1990, Aug. 2, 1990-OPEN. So, according to the American Legion we are in something like The Neverending War, or the Thirty Years War (in the sixteenth year of it). Hal Rogers has voted to keep the U.S. in the current war; Kenneth Stepp will vote to bring home the American troops, and vote against any war powers resolutions. Vote for Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House, Kentucky Fifth District, and that is a vote to end The Neverending War, and to bring the U.S. Troops home from Iraq.

Why the United States invaded Iraq.

"Why are we in Iraq?" That is a favorite question I ask a Democratic crowd. Then I shrug my shoulders and say, "I don't know." That usually draws a lot of cheers, claps and laughs.
I try to get news information from a lot of diverse sources. The New American magazine, considered a right-wing publication, has maintained that the Bush Administration planned the latest U.S. military invasion of Iraq before the 9/11 terrorist attacks; that magazine has claimed that the 9/11 terrorist attacks finally created widespread public support for the subsequent U.S. military invasion of Iraq that had been previously planned. A Democratic-supporting campaign book Crashing the Gate, by Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (2006, Green Publishing) explains the same conclusion, as follows:
"The Project for a New American Century [PNAC] bills itself as a 'nonprofit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.' Established in 1997, PNAC is also the place, under the tutelage of neocon heavyweights William Kristol and Robert Kagan, where Bush's disastrous war in Iraq was hatched. In fact, Iraq was an obsession of the PNAC crew, which included Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Richard Perle, all of them high-profile members of the Bush administration. Dick Cheney was a founder. In all, sixteen members of PNAC were whisked into the Bush administration, bringing with them their collective body of 'research' and conclusions demanding a more aggressive use of military force abroad and the outright rejection of the United Nations as a mechanism of U.S. foreign policy. Taking out Saddam Hussein and taking over Iraq was a top priority. And the 9/11 attacks gave the PNAC gang their excuse to launch the Iraq War." at page 112.
The Bush/Cheney/Hal Rogers Iraq war has already costed over 4,000 American soldiers' lives--both men and women. A vote for Kenneth Stepp is a vote to withdraw American troops from the Bush/Cheney/Hal Rogers Iraq war by January 8, 2011. A vote for Hal Rogers is a vote to uphold the policy of keeping a United States' army of occupation in Iraq. Vote for Kenneth Stepp, KY-05 Democratic Party candidate for United States House of Representatives.

College for Everyone!

What does Kenneth Stepp think of education?
The key to prosperity, individual or national, is through education. Education improves the national defense, and as such is a proper area for federal funding through increased Pell grants, and revenue sharing. The federal government should give special tax credits to classroom teachers, and help Americans get better educations. We should have free college for all, phased in gradually.

College for All.

Kenneth Stepp supports " College for All." Anyone who chooses to should be able to attend 2 years post-high school, via the existing community college system or better. Those who elect not to go to college or go to a 4-year institution can get tax credits applied to professional training or their full tuition. Those who elect to not go to college nor take any professional training would not qualify. Ten hours a week work at a job would be required." Sure, it's just two years of college for everyone with heavy State and Federal subsidies, but it is a beginning. A vote for Kenneth Stepp is a vote for College for All. Berea College, Kentucky is a prototype of what could be done for expanding college education with a work-study program on a national scale.

Radio spot

The following is the text of a sixty-second radio spot that the candidate ran:

"This is Kenneth Stepp, the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House, and Wilma Stepp, and I’d like to read a statement to you, said by a great American:
"We have never any wish to interfere in the political conditions of any other countries. Especially are we determined not to become implicated in the political controversies of the Old World. With a great deal of hesitation, we have responded to appeals for help to maintain order, protect life and property, and establish responsible government in some of the small countries of the Western Hemisphere. * * *"America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions.”
"That was all said by Calvin Coolidge, Republican President of the United States in his Inaugural Address in 1925. Kenneth Stepp agrees with those words. Republican Hal Rogers votes to keep an American Army of military occupation in Iraq, which was a country at peace when we invaded it. Vote for Democrat Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House of Representatives Kentucky Fifth District. Paid Political Ad, paid for by the Stepp Committee."

More on the Project for a New America Century and Iraq.

Internet sources claim that the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) planned the United States' military invasion of Iraq years before the 9/11 attack on the United States, and used that as an excuse for the United States military invasion and military occupation of Iraq all after the 9/11 attacks. I can't swear this is true, but I'm passing it on to you for what it's worth. You can read the article yourself on the internet by punching: http://www.pnacinfo.us/doc/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=219&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=5717e8b711f3ea3ef894798afc2c57a6

"The PNAC Paper Trail
"Posted by: jade on Sunday, May 07, 2006 - 06:44 PM
"Jeff HuberMay 2, 2006
"The longer the fiasco in Iraq drags on, the more we hear the folks who cooked up the idea of invading that sand dune republic denying that they had anything to do with it. Crooks and Liars provided this John Bolton quote from a press conference televised last week on CNN.We did not violate the UN charter in the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and that plan was not drawn...at the Project for the New American Century.John's memory must be slipping, what with all those responsibilities he has as Ambassador to the United Nations now.
"Maybe it's time to help him refresh it. Under the fold: a stroll down Selective Memory Lane...June 3, 1997: PNAC issues its Statement of Principles. 'American foreign and defense policy is adrift,' it states at the beginning, and goes on to criticize the Clinton administration. This document contains no specific mention of Iraq, but does admonish that, 'America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East,' and that 'we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future[.]'Among the signatories are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, as well as PNAC co-founders Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan. January 19, 1998: John Bolton publishes 'Congress Versus Iraq' in Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard. He slams President Clinton for being soft on Iraq, and exhorts Congress to force Clinton into taking more aggressive action against Saddam Hussein. January 26, 1998: PNAC sends a letter to President Clinton urging military action to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power. A key passage states that if America continues its containment policy, '...the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard.' Keep that in mind the next time young Mister Bush says invading Iraq wasn't about Israel or oil. (Please note that I have no problem with America keeping Israel under its protective umbrella. But we didn't need to invade Iraq to do it.) And, oh, one of the signatures on that letter belongs to a guy named John Bolton. A copy of the letter appears in the Washington Post on January 27.
" January 30, 1998: PNAC founders Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan publish 'Bombing is not Enough' in the New York Times. 'Saddam Hussein must go,' it says. 'If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the gulf. Four heavy divisions and two airborne divisions are available for deployment. The President should act, and Congress should support him in the only policy that can succeed.'
"There's no question: PNAC was specifically calling for an armed invasion of Iraq by ground forces. How many teams of lawyers do they need to talk their way around that?
"February 2, 1998: Robert Kagan publishes 'Saddam's Impending Victory' in Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard. Kagan again calls for removal of Hussein by force and compares him to Hitler.
"February 26, 1998: Kristol and Kagan publish "A 'Great Victory' for Iraq" in the Washington Post. 'Unless we are willing to live in a world where everyone has to 'do business' with Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction, we need to be willing to use U.S. air power and ground troops to get rid of him.'
"March 9, 1998: Bolton publishes 'Kofi Hour' in the Weekly Standard and criticizes the Clinton administration for working through the UN to deal with Hussein.
"September 18, 1998: PNAC's Paul Wolfowitz testifies before the House National Security Committee on Iraq during which he condemns the Clinton's Iraq policy. 'The Clinton Administration repeatedly makes excuses for its own weakness..."
"September 28, 1998: Robert Kagan's 'A Way to Oust Saddam' appears in the Weekly Standard. 'It has long been clear that the only way to rid the world of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is to rid Iraq of Saddam.'
"November 16, 1998: An non-attributed editorial in the Weekly Standard titled 'How to Attack Iraq' says, 'It now seems fairly certain that some time in the next few weeks the Clinton administration will have to strike Iraq. There really are no acceptable alternatives.'
"January 4, 1999: Robert Kagan's 'Saddam Wins-Again' appears in the Weekly Standard. More castigation of UN and Clinton administration efforts to contain Saddam Hussein. There's much more. You can read the entire PNAC literature on Iraq at the group's website, starting here: http://www.newamericancentury.org. But let's take a close look at two key PNAC documents from the 21st century.
"Rebuilding America's Defenses was published in September 2000, just before the presidential election that brought George W. Bush into power. This neoconservative manifesto revealed that the PNAC's ambitions in the Middle East were only obliquely related to Saddam Hussein. The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. (Page 14.)
"In other words, Hussein was merely the convenient excuse for establishing permanent military bases in the heart of the Middle East and controlling the flow of the region's oil.But the PNACers realized that the road to achieving their dream of a global American empire was '...likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor.' (Page 51.)
"On September 11, 2001 PNAC got its Pearl Harbor, and a significant portion of its membership held key policy making posts in the Bush administration, some of the most notable among them being Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bolton.
"On September 20, nine days after the 9/11 attacks, PNAC wrote a letter to Mister Bush that said, '...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.'
"#DNA evidence couldn't provide better proof that the PNAC formulated the Bush administration's Iraq policy than the paper trail the PNAC itself provides. For Bolton to deny that the PNAC 'planned' the Iraq invasion goes beyond irony, beyond the absurd, beyond the Orwellian. There's a temptation to shrug one's shoulders and say, 'Why dwell on this? It's in the past.' But it's not in the past. We're living with the neoconservative nightmare today and there's no telling how long it will take to undo their damage, partly because they're still in power and they're still doing damage.
"#Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) writes from Virginia Beach, Virginia.
"Read his weekday commentaries at ePluribus Media and Pen and Sword. Source: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m23024&l=i&size=1&hd=0
The United States has already lost over 4,000 American men and women troops in the latest war and military occupation in Iraq. A vote for Republican Representative Hal Rogers is a vote to keep American troops in Iraq; a vote for Democratic candidate Kenneth Stepp is a vote to bring the American troops home from Iraq January 8, 2011. Vote for an end to the Bush/Cheney/Hal Rogers war in Iraq; vote for Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House of Representatives for the Kentucky Fifth District in November.

Republican President Herbert Hoover stood for peace.

Republican President Herbert Hoover stood for peace. He explained in his inaugural address: "
"Those who have a true understanding of America know that we have no desire for territorial expansion, for economic or other domination of other peoples. Such purposes are repugnant to our ideals of human freedom. Our form of government is ill adapted to the responsibilities which inevitably follow permanent limitation of the independence of other peoples. Superficial observers seem to find no destiny for our abounding increase in population, in wealth and power except that of imperialism. They fail to see that the American people are engrossed in the building for themselves of a new economic system, a new social system, a new political system all of which are characterized by aspirations of freedom of opportunity and thereby are the negation of imperialism. They fail to realize that because of our abounding prosperity our youth are pressing more and more into our institutions of learning; that our people are seeking a larger vision through art, literature, science, and travel; that they are moving toward stronger moral and spiritual life—that from these things our sympathies are broadening beyond the bounds of our Nation and race toward their true expression in a real brotherhood of man. They fail to see that the idealism of America will lead it to no narrow or selfish channel, but inspire it to do its full share as a nation toward the advancement of civilization. It will do that not by mere declaration but by taking a practical part in supporting all useful international undertakings. We not only desire peace with the world, but to see peace maintained throughout the world. We wish to advance the reign of justice and reason toward the extinction of force.
"The recent treaty for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy sets an advanced standard in our conception of the relations of nations. Its acceptance should pave the way to greater limitation of armament, the offer of which we sincerely extend to the world. But its full realization also implies a greater and greater perfection in the instrumentalities for pacific settlement of controversies between nations. * * *
"Our people have determined that we should make no political engagements such as membership in the League of Nations, which may commit us in advance as a nation to become involved in the settlements of controversies between other countries. They adhere to the belief that the independence of America from such obligations increases its ability and availability for service in all fields of human progress. * * *
"It is impossible, my countrymen, to speak of peace without profound emotion. In thousands of homes in America, in millions of homes around the world, there are vacant chairs. It would be a shameful confession of our unworthiness if it should develop that we have abandoned the hope for which all these men died. Surely civilization is old enough, surely mankind is mature enough so that we ought in our own lifetime to find a way to permanent peace. Abroad, to west and east, are nations whose sons mingled their blood with the blood of our sons on the battlefields. Most of these nations have contributed to our race, to our culture, our knowledge, and our progress. From one of them we derive our very language and from many of them much of the genius of our institutions. Their desire for peace is as deep and sincere as our own.
"Peace can be contributed to by respect for our ability in defense. Peace can be promoted by the limitation of arms and by the creation of the instrumentalities for peaceful settlement of controversies. But it will become a reality only through self-restraint and active effort in friendliness and helpfulness. I covet for this administration a record of having further contributed to advance the cause of peace."
Herbert Hoover was a man of peace, and not a "wartime President". The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Hal Rogers administration had American soldiers in 130 countries, attacked Iraq while it was at peace with its neighbors, has lost over 2,500 American military service personnel's lives in Iraq, and maintained an American Army of occupation in Iraq. Yes, compared to President George W. Bush, President Herbert Hoover looks better and better. There are those today who would denounce the foreign policy of President Herbert Hoover as "extremist", "leftist", and "liberal". Do you want to stand with the morally bankrupt foreign policy of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Hal Rogers in supporting the continued American military occupation of Iraq, a nation that was at peace up until we invaded? Or would you prefer to stand with the foreign policy in Iraq principles of Republican President Herbert Hoover and Democrat Kenneth Stepp? Herbert Hoover ended the American military occupations of the small Latin American countries maintained by his predecessors; Herbert Hoover was the type of President that ended American military occupations, not the type of President that invaded weaker countries and started military occupations. The principles of Herbert Hoover and of Kenneth Stepp require ending American military occupations of other nations. Let's bring the troops home. Let's end the American military occupation of Iraq by January 8, 2011. Vote for Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House of Representatives for the Kentucky Fifth District.

"Conservatives" like Hal Rogers attack your liberty.

"Conservatives" like Hal Rogers attack your Liberty. The following Article is about how "Conservatives" like Hal Rogers attack the Fourth Amendment Protections that you have in the United States Constitution:
Fourth Amendment Protections Under Attack by "Conservatives" by William F. Jasper August 19, 2006
Email this article Printer friendly page
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor safety." That sentiment, which animated our Founding Fathers, is almost never expressed today. Just the opposite in fact. Consider the words of Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, who on his O'Reilly Factor broadcast of August 10 repeatedly cited the apparently successful efforts of British police to foil a massive terror plot as proof that America should chuck the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
“No question, Great Britain gives its police more room to contain terrorism than we do here,” O’Reilly noted. “In Britain it is ‘reasonable suspicion,’ here it’s ‘probable cause’ — huge difference.” Then he asked his guest, Larry Walters, an attorney and civil libertarian, “Why shouldn’t we have reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause,” like the British do?
When Mr. Walters tried to explain the importance of our constitutional protections against warrantless searches without probable cause, the Fox commentator retorted: “You can argue theory and constitutional rights all day long, but as you know, laws can be changed, the Constitution can be changed, and sometimes they have to be.”
The Fourth Amendment of our Bill of Rights states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
That is all well and good, according to Mr. O’Reilly, but the fact that we have terrorism in the “real world,” he says, is a clincher argument against the “theoretical” importance of constitutional restrictions on police powers. He scoffed at concerns that sweeping aside constitutional barriers might lead America toward a police state. “I’m not a terrorist!” he exclaimed, inferring that only terrorists need fear an omnipotent, unrestricted government. When Mr. Walters asked whatever happened to the Patrick Henry spirit of “give me liberty or give me death,” O’Reilly responded: “I’m free! I don’t want to die!”'
Congressman Hal Rogers has voted to uphold the warrantless wiretaps of the Bush Republicans, because he is a Bush Republican. Hal Rogers is a "Conservative" like Bill O'Reilly, not a Conservative. "Conservatives" like Hal Rogers have lifted the Federal debt to almost nine trillion dollars ($9,000,000,000,000) with nothing but wealthy cronies to show for it. Where are the new schools and new houses that could have been built with that $9,000,000,000,000? It's all been dumped overseas, and gone to line the pockets of the insiders' cronies. In the history of America, an American always expected to live at double the living standard his father had enjoyed--until now. Under Hal Rogers' watch, Americans can expect stable or declining real, take-home incomes because of the wasteful and extravagant government spending of Hal Rogers and his Republican cronies. It is time to put an end to wasteful and extravagant cronyism in government. Oust Hal Rogers. Elect Kenneth Stepp to the U.S. House, KY-05. You can help.

Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the Project for a New American Century

Why do we have troops in Iraq? Why did we invade Iraq? Who was advocating American troops in Iraq before 9/11? The answer to all three questions is "The PNAC".
The following is portions of an article published on the internet concerning the PNAC, why we invaded Iraq, and why we maintain an army of military occupation in Iraq. The article can be accessed by going to Google, typing "Project for the New American Century" and punching "Search". Much of the article is the following:
"Project for the New American Century (PNAC):
" Cheney's Monstrous Scheme
"By Mary Louise
"The blueprint for our current foreign policy was being written back in 1992 by then-Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney. His writings set out a new doctrine that called for U.S. power in the twentieth century, to be that of an aggressive and unilateral approach that would secure American dominance of world affairs by force if necessary. This "peace through strength" policy has been unfolding from the day Bush, Jr. took office; the strategic planning of it was done during the Clinton administration with funding from the military-industrial complex, energy companies, and right-wing foundations. Over time, those working on these new plans evolved into PNAC, established in 1997 with members Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz at the helm. . . . In September 2000, the PNAC updated and refined Cheney's original version into a new report entitled: "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources for a New Century" calling for unprecedented hikes in military spending, American military bases in Central Asia and Middle East, toppling of non-complying regimes, abrogation of international treaties, control of the world's energy sources, militarization of outer space, total control of cyberspace, and the willingness to use nuclear weapons to achieve "American" goals. This plan by the neo-conservative or neo-con think tank, PNAC, shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power and says the U.S. for decades has sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security, revealing that a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure a regime change was planned even before Bush took power in January, 2001. The lengthy blueprint for U.S. global domination can be accessed at http://cryptome.org/rad.htm. In order to truly understand how despicable and repulsive Cheney and his schemes actually are, we must revisit the past before we continue. A CFR member; Cheney was Chief of Staff to Gerald Ford, Secretary of Defense to George Herbert Bush, and Wyoming's only Congressman. . . . We must diligently question and resist the immorality of this new policy of endless war with an endless budget, provided for by putting the squeeze on hardworking taxpayers who are also expected to sacrifice their own cherished offspring as toy soldiers in their end wargame, on the altar of bloody sacrifices. World politics are a chessboard upon which tyrants insanely intoxicated with power, play people like pawns of the game. . . . This strategy of permanent war abroad, will result in a permanent domestic state of emergency which means a permanent state of siege for all Americans. In this devilish pursuit of world conquest in the name of U.S. interests, Bush is acting under strategic policy that demands the continuous demonstration of a universal American "right" to impose its will on Planet Earth. . . . The Bush administration has brazenly launched an all-out assault against our civil liberties using fear tactics while trying to hide the fact that weapons were supplied by the U.S. to our "enemies". Tam Dalywell of the House of Commons had this to say, 'This is garbage from right-wing think tanks stuffed with chickenhawks, men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war.' . . ."
You have a choice. You can vote to re-elect Hal Rogers who rubberstamps all of the Bush-Cheney PNAC resolutions calling for U.S. troops remaining in Iraq, or you can vote to elect Democrat Kenneth Stepp who will vote "NO" on the Bush-Cheney-Hal Rogers PNAC resolutions calling for the sacrificing of American lives in Iraq and in the Middle East, and who will vote "NO" on calling for continued American participation in this never-ending war. Vote for Kenneth Stepp for U.S. House of Representatives, Kentucky Fifth District in the Democratic Primary and in November.