Senators Burr and Coburn Press Conference, February 16, 2012, Plan to Save Medicare, Immediate and long term reforms based on choice and sustainability

Senators Burr and Coburn Press Conference, February 16, 2012, Plan to Save Medicare, Immediate and long term reforms based on choice and sustainability

From the office of NC Senator Richard Burr, February 15, 2012.

United States Senator ∙ North CarolinaRichard Burr

217 Russell Senate Office Bldg. ∙ Washington, D.C. 20510

(202) 224-3154 ∙ FAX (202) 228-2981

http://www.burr.senate.gov

 

MEDIA ADVISORY: Senators Burr and Coburn to Hold Press Conference Unveiling Plan to Save Medicare

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEWednesday, February 15, 2012 CONTACT:  David Ward (Burr) – (202) 228-1616John Hart (Coburn) – (202) 228-5357

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) will hold a press conference on Thursday, February 16th at 12:30 p.m. to introduce the “Seniors’ Choice Act”, a proposal to save Medicare from insolvency through immediate and long-term reforms based on choice and sustainability.

WHAT:                 Coburn-Burr Medicare Reform Proposal

 

WHERE:               Senate Radio/TV gallery S-325

 

WHEN:                 Thursday, February 16 at 12:30 p.m.

73 responses to “Senators Burr and Coburn Press Conference, February 16, 2012, Plan to Save Medicare, Immediate and long term reforms based on choice and sustainability

  1. coldwarvet | February 15, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=21496
    there are some very revealing facts consolidated here concerning the character of Larry Klayman with additional information concerning problems in Florida that have to do with his law license.
    Personally, I would be very cautious how often I hit my PayPal button
    when it comes to supporting this guy…

    coldwarvet | February 15, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
    I realize that for goodness sake is an Obot site but I’m not too particular where I get my info as long as it isn’t false. Further research has born this out. Klayman has been indicted in Ohio for criminal non-support of his two children to the tune of $78,000. He also has been sanctioned in Florida for fraudulent activity… appears to be problems also in California…and in the process of bankruptcy…just sayin’
    If anyone can refute this, please let me know

  2. I brought these posts over from the last thread as I thought they might be relevent. Sorry if they are OT…

  3. Interpol Becoming Sharia International Police

    OT, but this is a very important, but scary article we should know about. It seems that a Saudi newspaper reporter was arrested by Malaysian local police, acting on behalf of Interpol, and turned over to Saudi Arabia to face death charges, simply because he wrote something a bit critical on his Twitter page.

    Obama already signed by EO in 2009 that Interpol had free reign here in the US and is headquartered at none other than the DOJ.

    (quote)
    When you add all of this up, it basically means that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights will NOT supersede international laws enforced by Interpol on US citizens.  Our own military may be used to arrest Americans and turn them over to Interpol and the country issuing a red notice, without any due process of law here in the US.  It also means that once arrested, you will receive no help from the US government.

    Read more: Interpol Becoming Sharia International Police http://godfatherpolitics.com/3692/interpol-becoming-sharia-international-police/#ixzz1mTkrfTRz

  4. coldwarvet,
    I just checked out Klayman and the disgusting, biased site

    “Oh For Goodness Sake.”

    You owe Larry Klayman & Sam Sewell an apology.

    Sam Sewell is very knowledgeable regarding domestic & custody issues.
    As it turns out, so am I.
    For example, many years ago I prepared & filed a motion, opposed an attorney & got custody
    of my eldest child. A few years later, I got custody of the younger one.
    Furthermore, your quoting such a low level biased site brings into doubt your intentions.

  5. http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/02/15/obama-media-begin-the-faking-of-obama-poll-numbers/

    HOW MANY AMERICANS CAN SEE WHAT OBAMA’S ENABLERS ARE DOING?
    by Sher Zieve, ©2012

    Has Obama been installed as a dictator with the cooperation of Republicans and Democrats in Congress?
    (Feb. 15, 2012) — In order to sway the vast majority and growing number of Americans who have finally faced up to the fact that Obama is purposefully trying to destroy the United States of America, the Obama Media have begun their side of the Obama syndicate’s overall strategy of lying to us. Polls now show 50% of voters would vote for Obama. Intelligent people–even those few on the Left– know this is a lie. But, it’s what all third-world countries have done since their inception.

    This is what we said would happen, at least a year ago. This is what is happening now. The polls are being used to convince the more uninformed amongst us that there is no real hope of regaining our country and we’d better get used to submitting to the dictator already in office. Obama does not intend to leave–under any circumstances–so we may as well accept our enslavement as the good sheeple Obama plans to herd off the cliff. Obama has told us via his actions over and over again that he will decimate our country and we can do nothing about it.

  6. CW
    I qualified the site as Obot before I posted.
    Specifically, what am I apologizing for?
    I don’t remember mentioning a custody issue.
    Information I post is easily obtainable on the internet. Individuals should always verify.
    I too have prevailed in a custody battle, although that was some years ago.
    Please see my final post on the previous thread.
    I do not feel a pressing need to post here, or anywhere for that matter. I thought that perhaps I had something to contribute and this seemed to be a site that was more interested in the truth than personal biases.
    I have a seething hatred for Obama, the DNC, communists, socialists,and any other political entity that threatens the sanctity of the Constitution of these United States. I also have a particular dislike for stealth enterprise, however I also believe in Caveat Emptor and try to protect myself through education but, additionally, intuitive thinking. Excuse me for attempting to pass that along.
    Finally, for what it’s worth, and I know probably not much;
    I am a 100% disabled veteran from the Vietnam era . !st Air Cavalry 1st Squadron 9th Cavalry . Look it up.
    served in Southern Rhodesia with the Selous Scouts 72-74 people should check to see how tha tuned out. then, look around you.
    I am college educated Cal ,with advanced degrees in political science, economics, and criminal justice.
    I have worked as an arson/fraud investigator in the insurance field.
    I have owned my own businesses.
    Whether or not you post this Wells, will tell me a lot about you, your site, and your character….

  7. just heard a guy on radio say obama is over 50 percent and the econ is doing better why does the right hate him!!!!. ughhhhhhh!!!!!!. hes a fruad and usurper and pretender thats why. no truth hes a professional liar and believes his own lies

  8. Truthbetold11……………….
    I would agree with you,and add………..AMONG OTHER THINGS AS WELL. Maybe I would suggest that you read “Mein Kampf”, if you need any additional pronouns. Have a goodday!

  9. Soetoro is NOT trying to destroy the US,he is trying to destroy the very foundations upon which our freedom is supported.

  10. Appears that I have now been relegated to the dustbin of moderation…maybe for good…we’ll see.

  11. Comment of 5:16pm stated by ANOTHER COLDWAR VET which includes the KOREAN WAR, and two years prior.

  12. thought so..

  13. Coldwarvet,
    You are smooth; but at this site, you have to be sincere. If you are sincere, do the right thing. Sam is an institution and the ever-present go to site for the real deal. Leave egos at the office chair before you even sign on. We have too much to do. I don’t say much here, but I am hell behind the scenes. My state officials know me and I am a precinct leader. It’s all I can do, but I am doing it. Bring good stuff to the table (AND you HAVE) but don’t poo poo any of the efforts of the rest of us. A cautious word about money donations is appreciated, but quite honestly, I don’t ever donate on line, so I tune out any of that. If you are genuine, do the right thing.

  14. Frankly, folks, I don’t see any venue for a legal suit against Obama going anywhere, esp. with the known history of such and the time limits now. There isn’t one judge/SoS/even the citizenry in the localities where such hearings could take place who will mount a strong enough attack. People are still too comfortable. We have soooo much ammo in just the Obamaspeak over the years that prove his lies…even before SCOTUS now attempting to say that Obamacare is based on a tax while his budget guy today stated just the opposite….the very basis of the defense of his health”care” bill argument before the Supremes. Yet because even that court is now stacked with liars and biased who refuse to morally recuse themselves…good luck even there. But we….or should I say our mouthpiece representatives still look like they’re too scared to get as loud as their opposing reps have been while they have the truth and the opposition only shouts lies. We’ve listened and accepted the Obamabots saying we’re the party of no….while EVERY plan (and the only offered ideas) offered by the Repubs has been voted down by the Senate Dems who are still in control…and zero says he’ll veto anything even before he reads it IF if comes from the opposition, yet nobody is doing the same screaming about the real party of NO. Why not? Where are the big marches now on Wash. by the Tea Party….they seem to have gone into meeting mode and havn’t come out recently. Big gatherings are again needed to stop this stuff…. to get in the public eye….like what motivated votes in 2010. How do we sit and accept this guy unilaterally disarming us of our nuclear arms…..how do we accept him literally inviting the terrorists in telling them they will be accommodated by our own fouled up legal system…..why do we accept even the hint of sharia law being recognized under our Constitution….why do accept the law now literally changed without legislation to accept illegals accompanied by drug cartels into our our own broken monetary system that can’t even take care now of our own elderly and sick….how do we accept the decimation of the Defense Dept while pouring money into vote getting by creating more voters on the dole who will simply vote for more filthy lucre gotten through sucking off of the contributors to this society….and esp. now how can we accept the very freedoms for life and now practice of faith and not call for impeachment? Where are the equal powers making their moves just as strongly as this one portion of gov.? And how will people put up with this crazy energy “policy” of windmills while gas prices rise to perhaps $5.00? The trouble with the good people is just that….they are the peace lovers; they don’t like to go public or get loud or make waves; they don’t like to become activists and also “threaten” the thugs, drawing lines in the sand….and where is that line in the sand for our very military sworn to protect us? Will they go along with more decimation of their numbers and the definition of what they’re fighting for? Will the “rights” of women “combatants” and “gays” continueto weaken our readiness and cohesion? Frankly, if all of this can take place now without an outcry in Wash., where will the outcry be at the time of voting which you know will be the only way Obama will make himself the continued dictator by using his useful idiot, Holder, to pass all voter fraud and not touch any real complaints. Thugs will be out then even moreso than now where they seem to have a network that connects courts, media, and the gullible igorant citizenry. They will get a very quick understanding what it’s like living in Cuba because there will be no money to even keep up our infrastructure. People don’t know how fast this will come to pass and how fast people will be carried off and hidden behind walls who, too late, will come to realize that “what could it hurt” philosophy of the past was the time to have acted. Ahhh, human nature…..nothing is sacred…..and we’re all guilty to come extent. There should be solidarity against these grave sins of our day….instead the so called conservatives compete more with each other than standing together against the real enemy. If nothing else…begin fasting for your country at least one day a week or offering some other kind of sacrifice. Sorry, but that cloud of dust in the distance is a sign of terrible forces coming closer each day, and luckily we have such places as this CW blog to get ourselves organized for the only kind of action that gets the message across.

  15. More evidence of the insane disproportionality in these out of touch ivory tower types:

    BIG SIS STOPS 13,000 ‘UNSAFE HAIR DRYERS’ AT BORDER

    President Obama’s border enforcement officials prevented over 13,000 dangerous hair dryers from entering the country, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) trumpeted today.

    “U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seized thousands of hair dryers recently that were determined to constitute a “substantial product hazard” under U.S. law, for failing to have adequate immersion protection,” DHS announced. “The potentially dangerous hair dryers were identified through a nationwide targeting operation by the CBP Import Safety Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center (CTAC).”

    CBP seized the hair dryers at the ports of Los Angeles (9,768 hair dryers) and Miami (3,614) because they “lacked shock protection for consumers” in the event of the hair dryers’ immersion in water.

    Allen Gina, CBP’s assistant commissioner for public trade, praised the CPB officers who helped seize the hair dryers. “The concerted targeting efforts of CTAC and the vigilance of CBP officers at our ports of entry will help ensure that products like hair dryers are safe for consumers and that substandard product from overseas does not reach store shelves,” he said.

  16. Just my thoughts…
    I encounter people daily that are not at all interested in politics. They don’t seem to care who is president or the direction our country is headed. It truly puzzles me.
    What percentage of the population actually votes?

  17. I agree with observer.

    Let’s all stand together and expose Rick Santorum the Statist that he is. He needs to come clean and stop lying to folks.

    Why do so-called patriots, continue to cover for this phony?

    “Someone who is pro-life, but votes to expand the state and state spending, is in fact not a conservative, but a pro-life statist.”

    “Rick Santorum participated in raiding the federal treasury as an earmarxist, perfectly happy to pork away on Pennsylvania’s behalf. He did not join conservatives who fought against No Child Left Behind. He did not join conservatives who fought against the prescription drug benefit.

    Rick Santorum was part of the problem in Washington. He was one of the Republicans the public rejected in 2006. The voters in Pennsylvania rejected him in 2006 because of his and the Republicans’ profligate ways. Along with Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum led the K Street Project, which traded perks for lobbyists for money for the GOP funded with your tax dollars through earmarks and pork projects.

    Sure, you can say 2006 was a bad year for Republicans, but in 2006 Rick Santorum fell 18 percentage points behind his Democratic rival and his defeat and terrible campaign can be linked to the loss of four Pennsylvania house seats.

    That was not a defeat for Rick Santorum. It was punishment. He is a pro-life statist and I see nothing in his career since leaving Washington that shows he has changed his ways.”

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/29/rick-santorum-earmarxists-and-the-pro-life-statist/

  18. A Crazy Old Coot

    http://patriotstatesman.com/2011/06/ron-pauls-homosexual-surprise-causes-exodus-of-faithful-followers-of-christ/

    snip
    Now a recording of Ron Paul regarding his homosexual dilemma has loving followers of Christ abandoning his campaign. While Anthony Weiner can send out x-rated pornographic photographs of himself to girls of all ages via his twitter mobile and still keep 53% of his democratic party voters still in his camp, Ron Paul does not have such a luxury, since he touts himself as a “conservative Christian”.

  19. A Crazy Old Coot

    observer | February 15, 2012 at 5:48 pm |
    More evidence of the insane disproportionality in these out of touch ivory tower types:
    BIG SIS STOPS 13,000 ‘UNSAFE HAIR DRYERS’ AT BORDER
    ////////////////////////////////
    But, they can’t stop illegal aliens at the border??

  20. Katie..
    I’m in moderation but I wanted you to know, if I ever get out, that I didn’t ignore you. Everyone here is important.
    I have been following the political scene very closely since before the past election. I have watched as citizens brought their complaints to the halls of justice over and over. Having noted the same result over and over, I began to sense something is very wrong either with the system (making it a systemic problem) or just maybe the courts are rigged.
    I find after much research, that the problem is more systemic in nature. We need to fix or balloting system and allow for provisions for enforcement. To fix the immediate problem we simply need to proceed in the proper manner.
    These are inconvenient truths so-to -speak and so far the system has not worked any other way.
    The right thing? What might that be? If I hurt someones feelings because of an inconvenient truth then, by all means , I am sorry. It won’t, however change the way things are.

  21. All we have to know is:

    Polls lie. Especially polls the Dems put out. Voters beware.

  22. Pat 1789 | February 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    I agree with observer.
    ==========================
    Obviously you don’t so why the lies? That’s the Obamabot tactic….oh, and I guess slick Willy’s too.

    Just as the conservative movement finally has the first real chance since Ronald Reagan to see one of its own — a “full-spectrum conservative,” as Rick Santorum now calls himself, picking up the phrase from Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) — win the Republican presidential nomination, the purists emerge to say he’s somehow not conservative enough. The attempt to attach a “big-government conservative” label to Rick Santorum for some rare wanderings from the conservative reservation makes about as much sense as arguing that record-breaking Drew Brees of the Saints is a poor quarterback because he threw 14 interceptions this season.

    The reality is that Rick Santorum’s instincts and intellectual choices consistently tend toward freedom.

    On taxes, for instance, Santorum has always been superb. The Club for Growth’s white paper on Santorum, calling his tax stances “very strong,” confirms that “Santorum has consistently supported broad-based tax cuts and opposed tax increases either by sponsoring key legislation or by casting votes on relevant bills.”

    His record on a host of other conservative issues is as solid as that of any politician in the past two decades. He has been firmly and repeatedly against all sorts of regulatory abuse, against McCain-Feingold and other restrictions on political speech, for school choice, for tort reform, for a strong military, and for a balanced-budget amendment.

    Obviously he has been as stalwart a defender of social conservatism, for 20 full years, as any other public figure. And as virtually every conservative involved in the judicial wars during Santorum’s time in the Senate has confirmed, in person or in print, Santorum and his staff were the go-to people in the Senate when you needed to find tireless, committed advocates for conservative jurists. Santorum is, wrote Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, “the candidate in whom I have by far the greatest confidence” in terms of how likely he would be “to appoint excellent Supreme Court justices and lower-court judges and to work tenaciously to get them confirmed.”

    Meanwhile, as Santorum frequently (and entirely accurately) reminds anybody who will listen, his work on the single most important conservative policy reform of the past half century, the 1996 welfare-to-work effort that cut spending and poverty rates simultaneously, was seminal, indefatigable, and remarkably effective. Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley explained to the Des Moines Register a week ago that he was unconvinced about welfare reform until Santorum paid him an office call and “took a lot of time to convince me of his point of view. . . . The sincerity and effort that he has to get his point across in the presidential campaign is almost a total reflection of how he operated as a United States senator.” Grassley yielded and voted for reform.

    More broadly, until Rep. Paul Ryan’s recent prominence, nobody in Congress has been as passionate and fearless an advocate for entitlement reform as Santorum. Medicaid block grants. Investment accounts for Social Security. Medicare payments controlled by the beneficiaries rather than third-party payers. Choice rather than government mandates. Indeed, Santorum was the first candidate this year to fully embrace Ryan’s proposed reforms — with this exception, as he reminded me in a phone interview on Thursday: “I’ve criticized Ryan on one thing: waiting ten years [for many of the reforms to kick in]. We can’t afford to wait. We’ve got to start now.”

    It was his enthusiasm for entitlement reform (probably combined with pressures from being in the Senate leadership at the time, although he won’t say so) that, Santorum says, led him into the vote about which rightward critics most often carp: the creation in 2003 of the Medicare Part D prescription-drug program. As expensive as it was, Part D did embrace three conservative goals.

    “First was health savings accounts,” Santorum has said. “They were a passion of mine since 1992 when John Kasich and I introduced the first bill proposing them. This bill allowed them, for the first time. Second was the Medicare Advantage program: a precursor, I thought, to what Ryan is proposing now, a private-sector proposal for Medicare prescription drugs which we thought could be an example to transform the whole system. Third was competition among insurers [rather than service delivery through the government].”

    “What I tried to do is take lemons and make lemonade,” he said. “I said even at the time that it was a 51–49 decision for me.”

    Those features of the program worked, with individual premiums and the government tab both running as much as 40 percent below original projections. Most conservatives still will argue, rightly and convincingly, that the prescription-drug program wasn’t worth the cost unless it was part of broader Medicare reform. The good thing is, there is no doubt that a crusading President Santorum would try to accomplish just that.

    As for overall spending and his much-discussed history of support for “earmarks” (a position also shared by tightwad Ron Paul), conservative groups’ ratings show that Santorum was better than the average Republican, despite representing a state far bluer than those of most of his Republican colleagues. He demonstrated particular courage in his support for the Freedom to Farm Act and in frequent opposition to floor amendments that would have put additional spending in appropriations bills. Denizens of Capitol Hill in the 1990s fondly remember Santorum’s repeated use of a prop during floor debate called the “Spendometer,” which he used to make a persuasive (and entertaining) case against wasteful federal largesse.

    Out of office, he vociferously opposed TARP, the various “stimulus” packages, and the bailouts of car companies and of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. All those stances were perfectly in line with the voting record he had established in the House and Senate.

    AdvertisementA final criticism, emanating from Rick Perry’s camp, concerns Santorum’s votes in the mid-1990s against federal right-to-work (RTW) legislation. Santorum now says that as a senator representing a non-RTW state, he objected to national legislation on federalist grounds. He notes that federalism is not, in his mind, an all-encompassing consideration for individual states’ prerogatives, but one that should be the default position absent a sweeping moral imperative (such as the protection of unborn children). He has always supported RTW at the state level — and he has long since changed his position to favor it at the national level as well.

    Spokesman Matt Beynon said the switch was sincere, growing in part from discussions Santorum had with tea-party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. However the switch came about, Santorum answered all nine questions on a recent survey from the National Right to Work Committee in ways that should thrill any conservative. He pledged to oppose compulsory union dues, support repeal of mandatory union representation for federal workers, oppose “card check” union elections, oppose “project labor agreements” requiring union wages even for non-unionized federal work, and took the RTW position on all five other issues in the questionnaire as well.

    Because friend and foe alike agree that Santorum’s word is his bond, there is every reason to trust each of those pledges.

    Perhaps, though, the wisest way for conservatives to assess Santorum is not with exhaustive issue-purity tests, but rather by considering the man’s overarching values. For anybody who has watched Santorum’s career since his first upset victory in 1990, the idea of him as anything other than a solid conservative on economics, defense, or social issues is patently absurd.

    Conservative-movement leader Colin Hanna, president of the Let Freedom Ring public-policy organization, is a Pennsylvanian who has followed Santorum’s career closely since his first Senate race in 1994. Hanna says he has come to know Santorum fairly well; he has played golf with him and otherwise shared time with him on private occasions, where a person’s character and beliefs are often easier to discern than on the public stage. Hanna, nobody’s idea of a squishy moderate, blasted the “big-government conservative” label as a “canard that is designed to ensnare Rick — an unfair and genuinely deceptive charge.”

    “I think Rick was sounding the themes of the Tea Party long before the Tea Party came along,” Hanna told me. “He talks and acts like a freedom-agenda, Reagan guy. He has a deep passion and you see that in every aspect of his personality. He truly believes that most government programs, particularly social programs, trap rather than empower the people they are designed to serve. . . . His attitude was to make these programs work by liberating their beneficiaries rather than enslaving their beneficiaries. Therefore the solution to big-government social programs is in fact their restructuring, and perhaps their outright elimination. Ipso facto, that leads to smaller, not bigger, government.”

    Or, as conservative talk-radio host Mark Levin asked me rhetorically Thursday night, “If Rick Santorum is not a consistent, principled conservative, certainly in the 90 percent category, then who is?”

    Of one thing conservatives can be absolutely sure: Unlike politicians who lack the courage of conservative convictions, Rick Santorum will fight for his causes and not be scared off by “establishment” criticism. In four uphill elections and in legislative skirmishes for conservative ends too numerous to count, Santorum has won a decidedly impressive number of his fights.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287441/rick-santorum-conservative-stalwart-quin-hillyer

    So, once again you make another uninformed broad back handed slap while apparently learning nothing from your former similar negative generalization against one of Santorum’s supporters who in reality is one of the best conservatives of the day. Perhaps you’re just unappy that there is actually someone who goes beyond the “I’m personally opposed but won’t force my beliefs upon others” pro-life reformer….and that’s the bottom line for this country’s survival if it expects God’s help.

  23. I’m in moderation here:
    February 15, 2012 at 6:45 pm |
    Perhaps because it’s rather long but good stuff (good link) nonetheless. Help please, CW….and thanks.

  24. A Crazy Old Coot | February 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm |

    I’m not sure where you are going with this audio of Ron Paul. Are you condemning him or praising him? Are you saying “Don’t ask don’t tell” was a bad idea? It sure beats what is in place now. Are you saying that homosexual acts are worse than adulterous acts or fornication? I think God condemns them all, does he not? Didn’t Jesus say that if you look upon a women with lust in your heart you have committed adultery? What man can say he hasn’t? Where are you going with this? I’m not pro homosexual, but if you want a sin free military, you will have to recruit angels.

  25. GORDO and coldwarvet, although I have been very busy lately and cannot check in as often as before; I want to thank you for mentioning those radio interviews on Revolution Radio. People have told me, they were able to learn more about ‘how things work’ by hearing me, than by reading me. And they have assured me, the 1 1/2 hours fly by. (At first, I was concerned that I would be unable to fill the whole time myself but, as I discovered, there was never enough time to discuss everything, anyway!)

    I have been posting here since 2008. That some of you would still question my motives, which are to empower citizens to control our government; speaks ill of you, and not me.

    As for funding anyone mounting a ballot challenge in a state whose citizens have not yet enacted a law requiring candidate eligibility for office to be on the ballot; well, that’s just throwing good money after bad. Whoever you are.

  26. jbjd,
    Are you referring to challenges in the state of FL?

    102.168 Contest of election.–

    (1) Except as provided in s. 102.171, the certification of election or nomination of any person to office, or of the result on any question submitted by referendum, may be contested in the circuit court by any unsuccessful candidate for such office or nomination thereto or by any elector qualified to vote in the election related to such candidacy, or by any taxpayer, respectively.

    (2) Such contestant shall file a complaint, together with the fees prescribed in chapter 28, with the clerk of the circuit court within 10 days after midnight of the date the last board responsible for certifying the results officially certifies the results of the election being contested.

    (3) The complaint shall set forth the grounds on which the contestant intends to establish his or her right to such office or set aside the result of the election on a submitted referendum. The grounds for contesting an election under this section are:

    (a) Misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of any election official or any member of the canvassing board sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

    (b) Ineligibility of the successful candidate for the nomination or office in dispute.

    (c) Receipt of a number of illegal votes or rejection of a number of legal votes sufficient to change or place in doubt the result of the election.

    (4) The county canvassing board is an indispensable and proper party defendant in county and local elections; the Elections Canvassing Commission is an indispensable and proper party defendant in federal, state, and multicounty races; and the successful candidate is an indispensable party to any action brought to contest the election or nomination of a candidate.

    (5) A statement of the grounds of contest may not be rejected, nor the proceedings dismissed, by the court for any want of form if the grounds of contest provided in the statement are sufficient to clearly inform the defendant of the particular proceeding or cause for which the nomination or election is contested.

    (6) A copy of the complaint shall be served upon the defendant and any other person named therein in the same manner as in other civil cases under the laws of this state. Within 10 days after the complaint has been served, the defendant must file an answer admitting or denying the allegations on which the contestant relies or stating that the defendant has no knowledge or information concerning the allegations, which shall be deemed a denial of the allegations, and must state any other defenses, in law or fact, on which the defendant relies. If an answer is not filed within the time prescribed, the defendant may not be granted a hearing in court to assert any claim or objection that is required by this subsection to be stated in an answer.

    (7) Any candidate, qualified elector, or taxpayer presenting such a contest to a circuit judge is entitled to an immediate hearing. However, the court in its discretion may limit the time to be consumed in taking testimony, with a view therein to the circumstances of the matter and to the proximity of any succeeding election

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0102/Sections/0102.168.html

  27. http://www.scribd.com/doc/81593614/Voeltz-Contest-of-Election-pleading-21

    Florida filing delivered. Well done. Supported by arguments we have seen from many others including Leo and Mario. On the merits this looks very strong. How FL will weasel out of it will be interesting to see.

  28. Ok Wells,
    I see your position in this. ..and that’s not your personal position I’m talking about.
    Albeit against my nature, I will agree not to post anything further concerning Sewell’s enterprise or his partner/partners. On this site.
    An apology or a retraction puts me in a tenuous position and I don’t trust Sewell even a little bit., and I for sure don’t trust his partner.
    Sewell must agree to the same.

  29. Something I mentioned earlier, hearing Rush make a point of it too:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/wh-budget-director-contradicts-administration-admits-obamacare-fees-not-taxes/

    WH Budget Director Contradicts Administration, Admits ObamaCare ‘Fees’ Not Taxes
    February 15, 2012 at 3:06 pm – C-SPAN

    Dateline: Washington, D.C.
    White House Budget Director Jeff Zients was cornered once again this week when Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) got him to admit that the ObamaCare fine for individuals making less than $200,000 who don’t carry health insurance is not actually a “tax.” The problem is, the Obama administration has been defending the fine to the Supreme Court by calling it a “tax.”

  30. Santorum: Obama White House Full Of ‘Elite Snobs’
    February 15, 2012 at 1:06 pm – CNN

    http://www.breitbart.tv/santorum-obama-white-house-full-of-elite-snobs/

    Dateline: Idaho
    “They need to makes these decisions for you because if you were left to make decisions you will obviously jump off a cliff. Don’t you see how they see you? How they look down their nose at the average American — these elite snobs.”

  31. coldwarvet,
    What is my position in this?

  32. Wells,
    I really didn’t think you would post it. You have come up 10 notches on my character ladder. This is not a personal thing, but it is a 1st Amendment thing on however small a scale. You have my respect. You additionally have shown an innate sense of fairness in allowing both sides of an issue to be heard no matter how inconvenient. That is a tough thing to do my friend and I hope all here take notice of that fact.
    My apologies to all offended in the regular blog roll. I promise to behave myself from here on. I really do try to play nice.

  33. CW, any challenge the basis of which is this law involves only the candidate chosen by primary based on the certification of the votes. The Presidential candidate is not chosen by primary but by nominating convention.

    If these people are basing their challenge on this law then, they have no idea what they are doing.

    I couldn’t say which is worse; basing a challenge on the wrong law or the wrong facts. I suppose, if the challenge is brought by an attorney, I would have to say, it is worse to launch a baseless challenge using the wrong law.

  34. Wells,
    You are inherently between members on this blog both in the personal sense and in the legal sense. You also do a particularly good job of moderation.

  35. excellent brief filed by this so called fake……didn’t look fake to me….in state of Florida which BTW has some very snakey non existance election laws on the books. Maybe they want Castro to run there some time in the future.

    let’s see how obama pays off florida……..

  36. I have been asking why the Marxist media and Fox news has been spinning Rick Santorum as a Conservative when in fact he is not, he is a pro life statist.
    .
    Now we know why.

    ” Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas has launched a campaign to make life difficult for Mitt Romney, by encouraging Democrats to vote for Rick Santorum in open primary and caucus states.

    Moulitsas argues that the longer the primary drags on, the better it’s getting for Democrats — noting that Rick Santorum will inevitably follow the path of Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich and see his poll numbers fall.

    It’s a no-brainer! The following states have completely open contests coming up:

    2/28: Michigan (Primary)
    3/6: North Dakota (caucus)
    3/6: Tennessee (primary)
    3/6: Vermont (primary)

    If you live in one of those states, pledge to participate in Operation Hilarity by voting or caucusing for Rick Santorum.”

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/daily-kos-to-make-mischief-in-republican-primary

  37. Katie…
    To hopefully put your mind at rest…I was sincere when I took the oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. I was sincere when I rode the tip of the spear into SoutheastAsia 3 times and nearly died…for who…for you people here who sent me there. I still own that oath, by the way, and I will till I join the dirt people. I still deal every day with the effects of the Agent Orange they sprayed us with and will probably have a severely shortened life because of it. That oath is all that I have left when I face what I see happening to my country, so I come here……to be sincere.

  38. observer | February 15, 2012 at 6:45 pm |

    Pat 1789 | February 15, 2012 at 6:08 pm |
    I agree with observer.
    ==========================
    Obviously you don’t so why the lies? That’s the Obamabot tactic….oh, and I guess slick Willy’s too.
    ———————————————————————————————–

    I don’t have to lie like Statist Cabby.
    Santorum’s record speaks for itself.
    Statist who hides behind the Pro Life movement.

    And FYI, I am pro life

    As for your little fluff peice by whoever.

    I will adress the most glaring problem.

    “AdvertisementA final criticism, emanating from Rick Perry’s camp, concerns Santorum’s votes in the mid-1990s against federal right-to-work (RTW) legislation. Santorum now says that as a senator representing a non-RTW state, he objected to national legislation on federalist grounds. He notes that federalism is not, in his mind, an all-encompassing consideration for individual states’ prerogatives, but one that should be the default position absent a sweeping moral imperative (such as the protection of unborn children). He has always supported RTW at the state level — and he has long since changed his position to favor it at the national level as well.”

    WTF ??? ( Palin speak )

    So when he had a chance to change things whlie a Senator he voted DRAT , and now he’s out of office.

    Presto he’s a Conservative for Federal RTW.

    Taxpayers of course stuck with the bill for higher cost in Federal contracts. Thanks to Santorum and his Statist pals.

    “In the 104th Congress Sen. Santorum joined all Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995. (“On the Cloture Motion (motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to consider S.1788),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 188, http://www.senate.gov, 7/10/1996″

    “During that same congressional session, Santorum also voted to retain the 1930s-era Davis-Bacon Act that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers (“On the Motion to Table (motion to table Kennedy Amendment No. 4031 to S. Amdt. 4000 to S.Con.Res. 57),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 134, http://www.senate.gov, 5/22/1996)”

    http://thelibertyblog.org/2012/01/19/rick-santorums-negatives-part-8-right-to-work-davis-bacon-act/

  39. A Crazy Old Coot

    SueQ | February 15, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    //////////////////////////////
    I’m not going anywhere with that. I just posted what I found. Any problems with it, take them up with RP.

  40. Pat:
    And FYI, I am pro life
    ===============================

    So the recognized conservatives assess Santorum as a true conservative and the, well, moderates like yourself who have to convince others that you’re a prolifer even though you mock a true prolifer assess him as somehow lacking something the others who through their do nothing or libertarian acceptance have not fought while he put his activity where the rest put only mouth movements. More convincing please!! There are facts and then there is…well….just stubbornness….even AFTER the facts are presented. You’re only digging your hole deeper. If there’s no right to life all other rights and the seeming “greater concern” about representing one’s own particular constituents come across as pretty secondary to say the least.

  41. Pat 1789 | February 15, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    ‘I don’t have to lie like Statist Cabby.’

    PAT,

    Please hold your acid tongue for Obama-related matters, not other posters who may disagree with you.

    Cabby is about to lose a cherished friend to a series of illnesses, compounded by pneumonia. It is a matter of hours; maybe one more day.

    When you spew this venom, you have no idea what the other person is going through in their lives.

    Have a little consideration for others who may be having a rough time and direct your anger where it belongs.

  42. Observer, from the way Pat1789 writes and calls people names, I am reminded of another individual who used to post here.

  43. The problem folks is we don’t have a perfect candidate. I like Santorum, but I also like Romney. Santorum is very pro America, pro Israel, anti Iran, pro manufacturing, but the simple truth is that he voted for a lot of earmarks and for Spector. There’s pros and cons to every candidate. Santorum has a solid marriage, a great family, great personal values and he’s great in debates and getting better. Romney is also pro America, pro Israel, anti Iran, and pro jobs, but because he was pro-choice before some people refuse to believe that he’s pro life now. He’s probably the most anti-illegal immigration of all the candidates, and illegal immigration is one of the biggest problems facing the country right now. He also is the only candidate who actually has helped to start several multi-million dollar companies that employ people and have created jobs. Romney also has a solid marriage and I think a wife that would make the best first lady out of the current bunch. Ann Romney is very warm and I think would appeal to many. Ron Paul as far as I am concerned knows he can’t win, but refuses to get out of the race on principle or for ego or both. The anti-semitic and racist comments in his newsletters will be run over and over again if he even comes close to the nomination. I also like Newt, but his chances seem to be sinking. While Newt blames Romney for a lot of negative ads against him, the most effective negative ads against Newt were run by Ron Paul.

    In addition, any chance we may have had this coming fall, the GOP idiots in Congress seem determined to squander as they somehow have found a way to fight payroll tax cuts after calling for tax cuts all last year. The compromise may be too little too late. Either way, Obama’s poll numbers are going up as this squabble continues. We can always fight on principle and then lose, and that will be awful for America and the next generation. If Rick Santorum can beat Obama, great, let’s support him. But if he can’t and we all trashed Romney to the point that he will lose, we all have been wrong here. My two cents. It’s time to really think hard about this without name calling.

  44. Cabby – AZ | February 15, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    Observer, from the way Pat1789 writes and calls people names, I am reminded of another individual who used to post here.
    ============================
    Yes, “dualism” has existed with that one in more ways than personal ideology!!

  45. Cabby
    That’s for “emphasis”…also inflamatory…careful Pat…I have been in my room all day.
    Right to life is a hot button with a lot of people and we should consider that when we approach the subject. I, for one take it seriously and I hate to see it used solely as a campaign tool.
    The greater underlying issue is that if we don’t start doing something to keep families intact in this country, we are running the risk of losing our identity as a nation. The economics of broken homes is enormous, both in terms of emotional and fiscal suffering.
    “as you have done unto the least of these, you have done it unto me”
    Jesus Christ
    .

  46. “Jerome Corsi Fired After Exposing HSBC Bank”

    “Definitely a FEMA camp potential resident…”

    http://gulagbound.com/26174/jerome-corsi-fired-after-exposing-hsbc-bank/

  47. Hey Gordo,
    You just find the best stuff….sounds almost as if ol’ Jerome was a mole.
    He’ll be testifying at something pretty soon, you can bet on that…
    Can you say…”wrongful termination”?

  48. Hey coldwarvet,

    I have vetted you. You passed the smell test. Please understand something. We bloggers have people claiming to be all kind of things and then they begin to undermine our cause. I now know who you are and your background. You check out just fine.

    Now, we should be cooperating rather than be in conflict. Disagreements are fine but questioning someone’s character is not just a disagreement.

    So let us quit breathing fare and smoke the peace pipe.

  49. “FIRE”

  50. Harry Riley is having trouble with SCRIBE. Is anyone else have this problem?

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/81593614/Voeltz-Contest-of-Election-pleading-21

  51. Never mind. I emailed Harry a word version

  52. WAKE UP PEOPLE….it is NO wonder WHY the DOC can’t win any states…election rigging by the corrupt GOP needs to STOP…

    Maddow “Maine Republicans May Have To Withdraw Their Declaration That Romney Won!” pt.1

  53. Only Ron Paul can beat BO……

  54. A Crazy Old Coot

    coldwarvet | February 15, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
    Katie…
    To hopefully put your mind at rest…I was sincere when I took the oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.
    ////////////////////////////////
    I’m with you. I took that oath and will honor it until the day I die. The sad part is that our politicians take a oath too, but refuse to honor their oath.

  55. A Message to Republicans

    If you support the troops, then pay attention to who the troops support! On Presidents Day, Monday, Feb 20th, 2012, Veterans for Ron Paul is organizing a MARCH ON THE WHITE HOUSE to show America who gets their support. Hint: It’s not the candidate who promised hope and change.
    Visit http://www.facebook.com/events/192677970828185/ for details … The rally will start at 12 noon at the Washington Monument, and then the veterans will march at 1400 hours to the White House, and turn their back on the President to salute for as many seconds as active duty military have died under the Obama regime. Please donate to this cause at: http://adamvstheman.com/vfrp.
    There will also be an after party concert that night, including music from the artists in this video (among others). The link for this is: http://march2whitehouse.eventbrite.co.uk/ to purchase tickets. Bands include Aimee Allen, Jordan Page, Golden State, Rebel Inc., and former Misfits frontman Michale Graves.

  56. Dear Liberty LOVERS……..

    Right now, I believe you and I are in the middle of one of the most important presidential elections in our country’s history.

    With our nation now over $15 trillion in debt, most Americans understand we must change course – and fast – or our children and grandchildren may never know the freedom and prosperity intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

    When I first heard my supporters were throwing a “No One But Ron Paul” Money Bomb to show that no other candidate has a consistent track record of standing up to the Big Government, big spending status quo, I can’t help but say I was truly flattered.

    But the truth is, they couldn’t be more right.

    Just as my campaign’s “Three of a Kind” ad points out, I’m afraid my establishment opponents just don’t “get it.”

    Whether it’s supporting the individual mandate so central to “ObamaCare,” taking $1.6 million from Freddie Mac to keep the housing bubble growing, or voting for the largest expansion of entitlement spending since President Lyndon Johnson, when push comes to shove, they’ve all betrayed conservative principles.

    If you agree that we can no longer tolerate candidates who are conservative in name only, I hope you’ll contribute to today’s Money Bomb IMMEDIATELY.

    Click to donate

    You see, no other candidate:

    *** Has stood up for limited government, free markets, sound money, and constitutional principles for over 30 years;

    *** Predicted this entire economic mess we’re in years before it happened and knows what it takes to get our economy moving in the right direction;

    *** Answered the call to duty by serving our country as a Flight Surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and in the Air National Guard;

    *** Issued a plan to enact one TRILLION in real spending cuts during the first year of his presidency, abolish five unconstitutional federal departments, and balance the federal budget by year three;

    *** Authored legislation to immediately begin saving unborn lives by repealing Roe v. Wade, federally defining that life begins at conception, and stripping out-of-control judges of any jurisdiction over the abortion issue;

    *** Fought to fully audit – and then END – the out-of-control Federal Reserve System and to stop the printing of money out of thin air that is destroying our middle class;

    *** Consistently stood up for our God-given right to keep and bear arms guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment;

    *** Pushed for passage of a National Right to Work law to end forced union dues nationwide;

    *** Put forth a plan to stop illegal immigration and secure our own borders instead of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
    The great news is, my campaign is really making waves.

    Click to donate

    We’ve seen incredibly strong finishes in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine.

    And while my opponents have seen up-and-downs, my finishes have been strong and consistent.

    All along the way, we’re picking up hordes of delegates – the folks who will ultimately select who goes to Tampa, Florida, this August to decide who becomes our Republican nominee.

    I believe we need a true constitutional conservative in the White House – a true champion of limited government and traditional values.

    Quite frankly, not one of my opponents measures up.

    For Liberty,

    Ron Paul

    P.S. No other candidate predicted this entire economic mess we’re in long before it happened and has offered a real plan to turn our country around.

    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

  57. observer | February 15, 2012 at 9:21 pm |

    Pat:
    And FYI, I am pro life
    ===============================

    So the recognized conservatives assess Santorum as a true conservative and the, well, moderates like yourself who have to convince others that you’re a prolifer even though you mock a true prolifer assess him as somehow lacking something the others who through their do nothing or libertarian acceptance have not fought while he put his activity where the rest put only mouth movements. More convincing please!! There are facts and then there is…well….just stubbornness….even AFTER the facts are presented. You’re only digging your hole deeper. If there’s no right to life all other rights and the seeming “greater concern” about representing one’s own particular constituents come across as pretty secondary to say the least.
    —————————————————————————————————–

    I don’t give a politician a “free pass” for being pro life or pro second ammendment, if in the end he is advancing the Socialist cause and destroying the Constitution. Lot’s of Statists and D-rats hide behind these issues.

    Both you and Cabby are not Conservative. You are Big Government Statist’s. Your not fooling anyone.

    Also, You haven’t presented any facts, just fluff opinions.

    Rick Santorum is a Flip Flopping Big Government Statist. Fact!

  58. Pat 1789 | February 16, 2012 at 7:07 am |
    observer | February 15, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    Both you and Cabby are not Conservative. You are Big Government Statist’s. Your not fooling anyone.
    **********************************
    Just because we have reservations about the candidate of your choice? Wow! What intolerance! What false accusations!

  59. Interested Bystander

    Pat commented about observer:

    “Both you and Cabby are not Conservative. You are Big Government Statist’s. Your not fooling anyone.”

    Look Pat, you sure don’t do your cause any good by alienating people, but the TRUTH is YOU support a man who has NO CHARACTER, and is as flip floppy as they come.

    I see Romney as a “Clinton” type President, go along to get along.

    But didn’t you comment that you voted for Clinton?

    I can’t go on commenting to you, my stomach gets all upset because the TRUTH is, YOUR kind IS the problem.

  60. Interested Bystander

    Yo Tina,

    It’s easy to decipher who you are voting for:

    Which one is the tallest?

  61. Interested Bystander

    Cabby,

    Up mighty early for you.

    Don’t let Pat get to you, it’s really NOT worth it.

  62. Interested Bystander

    By the way,

    Which State passed the FIRST cap and trade legislation?

    Was this the guideline Obama used for his cap and trade crap, like Romneycare was for Obamacare?

  63. Interested Bystander

    Hey All,

    It’s interesting that Romney spouts off about “cutting” taxes 19 times, but he fails to mention this:

    http://romneyfacts.com/issue_tax.php

  64. Cabby,

    Pat is a broken record… “Big Government statist, D-rat… bla bla bla bla.”

    Don’t let it get you down. It’s old like moldy bread.

  65. SueQ | February 16, 2012 at 8:01 am |

    i would respond, but honestly I have never read any of your comments. Who are you?

    Are you one of the Paul Bots ?
    ———————————————————————————————–

    @ IB, Cabby others. I don’t care if you like or vote for Mitt. Just stop spreading Obama campaign talking points, if you want to be taken seriously.

  66. Good morning CW.

    I haven’t entered the discussion as to which republican candidate is the best. They all have some qualities that I believe would help these United States. Ron Paul’s domestic fiscal policy is ideal, and I believe that his limitation on US ‘footprint’ worldwide would be better. Santorum has a good grasp of Christian views and their importance in a daily working society. Romney has the experience and business savvy to rebound the economy and take away the misery of joblessness. Newt knows more about the US government and Constitution than any politician.

    Despite the above, they all seem to have a single negative quality. That negative quality is that they all know that the system is corrupt to the core yet do not speak about it. Jerome Corsi investigations into the banks and money laundering, the Washington Insiders report on the Obama administration and connections to bankers whom take the peoples money in TARP/Iraq funds/Green Projects/Unions/Stimulus and redirect to individual pockets is enlightening. The recent ‘quiet’ release of information suggesting the 2008 stock demise and energy surge were ‘manufactured’ events, suggests a grand manipulation.

    We the people are being played. There is no longer rule of law, only a money grab by immoral people. Obama, his past history, the courts and his eligibility, his disregard for the Constitution, are a SYMPTOMS of a failed Republic that died because of corruption. There does not seem to be enough people whom can call out evil, and accept responsibility when they themselves make mistakes. I call these the ‘good’ people of the world, as no one is perfect.

    I read a quote on the internet recently “If voting really counted, they would make it illegal!” and it first I scoffed at found it funny. After the primaries, especially Iowa and Maine, I am starting to wonder if the ‘elite’ aren’t the ones laughing. The inability to effectively uncover Obama’s past, or even get a fair discovery order from a judge to verify his information, historically will be seen as the day the United States Federal Government crossed the Rubicon.

    Pete

  67. Good morning I.B. (and all others)…

    I.B.,

    I honestly enjoyed reading your comments yesterday. They were spot on – and shows your analytical and rational abilities to grasp what is truly happening in our politics.

    Well done and kudos to you.

    footnote….that does not mean I don’t feel the same for others. Just talking to I.B. for now.

  68. Good morning Pete, et al.

  69. Pat1789,

    I have sat on the side in idle simply reviewing your comments for the last 2 days and have a 2 simple questions for you.

    – Which politician to you support for Presidency?
    – Explain why.

  70. Pete,

    Well said. Kind of scary when one grasp the full political circumferential illegalities isn’t it?

    Yes, we are being played, even by our own party…

  71. Politics is imprecise and subject to interpretation. There isn’t any “sure” point of view. However, there is a veritable epidemic of people who think that saying things authoritatively makes their point more valid. People who are sure they are right deserve extra examination. Impassioned rhetoric is the tool of the demagogue. Having said that, I am not sure, which makes me more intellectually honest. And I support Santorum. But I am not sure he is “the one”.

    Not only that but almost all political thinkers have a different opinion from other political thinkers and they are very certain that their opinion deserves to prevail. Politics is a lot like theology. As a Republic we rely on a consensus to make decisions. Voting keeps demagogic influences on a leash

  72. Pingback: INELIGIBLE to MERIT your SUPPORT « jbjd

  73. Pingback: INELIGIBLE to MERIT your SUPPORT « jbjd

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s