Why Jim Webb Sucks Balls

PART 1: JIM WEBB - THE PSEDUO SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR ( AND PROFESSIONAL MULTICULTURALISM PROMOTER)
PART 2: JIM WEBB - LIBCUCK EXTRAORDINAIRE... BUT, WHAT FLAVOR: LOLBERGTARIAN HYPOCRITE, OR SOCIALIST SNAKE?
PART 3: FINAL THOUGHTS
==========================================================================================================
JIM WEBB - THE PSEUDO SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR (AND PROFESSIONAL MULTICULTURALISM PROMOTER)
==========================================================================================================

> January 2006
'''Realign politics by union of Scots-Irish & African Americans'''
As a genealogist and author of “Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America”, he is one of the leading experts and

representatives of an important group of people.
On the topic of race, James Webb in 2004 wrote: “the greatest realignment in modern politics would take place rather quickly if

the right national leader found a way to bring the Scots-Irish and African Americans to the same table, and so to redefine a

formula that has consciously set them apart for the past two centuries.”

==========================================================================================================

> May 2006
'''Progressive approach prioritizing fairness and justice '''
==Progressive approach prioritizing fairness and justice==
=='''Progressive approach prioritizing fairness and justice'''==

Jim believes that solutions will be found using a '''progressive''' approach to policy that prioritizes '''fairness and

justice''', focused on four major themes:
• Refocusing America’s foreign and defense policies in a way that truly protects our national interests and seeks harmony where

they are not threatened.
• Repairing the country’s basic infrastructure, which has eroded badly over the past decade, and developing more creative ways to

assist disaster-stricken areas such as those in New Orleans and along the Gulf coast.
'''• Reinstituting notions of true fairness in American society, including issues of race, class, and economic advantage'''
•Restoring the Constitutional role of the Congress as an equal partner, reining in the unbridled power of the Presidency.

==========================================================================================================

> May 2006
'''Public education levels the playing field'''
Education is the only way to level the playing field and provide all Americans with the opportunity to succeed. Jim is a product

of public schools.
'''Jim’s children attended public schools.''' So Jim '''has first hand knowledge of the wonderful job our teachers do, and the

challenges they face.'''
Testing and accountability are a good first step, but they are not enough to ensure a good education for all Americans. It is

vital that we take the crucial next steps to improve academic achievement in American schools.

==========================================================================================================

> June 2006
'''Supports Roe v. Wade and abortion rights'''
Webb says, '''“I drifted away from the Democratic Party on national security issues but I never left on social issues and issues

of economic fairness.”'''

He opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, believes trade agreements should require other nations to improve

labor standards and wages, and backs abortion rights as defined by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade.

“I believe the power of the government ends at my front door unless there is a compelling reason to come inside,” he says.

==========================================================================================================

> June 2006
'''Supports civil unions; opposes constitutional ban'''
Q: Virginia’s ban on gay marriage--are you going to vote for it?

WEBB: '''No, I’m not. It is a bad amendment'''. The second paragraph is extremely vague.

Q: Are you for gay marriage?

WEBB: I am for civil unions and I’m opposed to the amendment.

Q: Are you for civil unions?

MILLER: I support civil unions and I also oppose the amendment. This is the first time Virginia’s have ever considered an

amendment which would limit the rights of individuals. It is a bad idea and I oppose it.

==========================================================================================================

> June 2006
'''Opposes constitutional ban of gay marriage'''
Webb opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, believes trade agreements should require other nations to improve

labor standards and wages, and backs abortion rights as defined by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade.
“I believe the power of the government ends at my front door unless there is a compelling reason to come inside,” he says.

==========================================================================================================

> June 2006
'''Supports don’t ask, don’t tell rule for military'''

Q: Do you like the don’t ask, don’t tell rule or do you think it is stupid?

WEBB: I support the don’t ask, don’t tell rule. I think that the military is a different environment. It’s one where we’ve always

had gays in the military, we always will.

Q: So you should keep your orientation to yourself if it is homosexual?

WEBB: At this point, yes. I just think it’s a practicality issue.

==========================================================================================================

> September 2006
Continue terrorist interrogations within Geneva Accord rules
Q: How would you vote on the Warner-McCain-Graham bill about interrogating enemy combatants? Colin Powell said, “The world is

beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.” To redefine Article 3 of the Geneva Convention “would add to

those doubts.”
WEBB: I’m with Senator Warner on this, and I think in terms of what Colin Powell is saying, that’s a very important piece of how

we deal long-term with the Islamic world particularly, that we have to stay on the moral high ground.

Q: But you would not end interrogation?

WEBB: No. Obviously we have to protect ourselves, and we have to be able to get information out. But if you abrogate the

standards of the Geneva Accords, you give other nations who have less fair standards than ours the moral justification to do

that. We saw that during the Vietnam War when the North Vietnamese refused to call our prisoners of war “prisoners of war.” They

simply called them war criminals, and they didn’t respect the Geneva Accords.

==========================================================================================================

> September 2006

'''Decisions about women in military should be made militarily'''

Q: When you say “Being in the Naval Academy is a horny woman’s dream,” [in an article in 1979 headlined “Women Can’t Fight”], you

regret that?

WEBB: Well, I do regret that. There’s many pieces in this article that if I were a more mature individual, I wouldn’t have

written, as I’ve tried to show by my conduct when I had positions in government.

You followed up with an article in 1997, [entitled] “The War on the Military Culture.” You write:
“Political and military leaders must have the courage to ask clearly in what areas our current policies toward women in the

military are hurting, rather than helping, the task of defending the US.“
Where are our current policies towards women hurting the defense of the US?

WEBB: I was pointing out in that article where the political process interferes with the military being able to make its own

decision on those matters. And one of the things that I did when I was secretary of the Navy was I turned this over to the

military side.

==========================================================================================================

> September 2006
'''Wrote “Women Can’t Fight” in ‘79; now OK with military women'''

Q: An article you wrote in 1979 was headlined: “Women Can’t Fight.” You write:
“No benefit can come to anyone from women serving in combat. I have never met a woman, including the dozens of female midshipmen

I encountered during my recent semester as a professor at the Naval Academy, whom I would trust to provide those men with combat

leadership.”
Was the content of that article wrong?

WEBB: This article was written from the perspective of a Marine company commander, and was way too narrowly based.

Q: But was it wrong?

WEBB: I don’t think it was wrong to participate in the debate at that time. It’s been 27 years, and I am fully comfortable with

the roles of women in the military today. When I was secretary of the Navy, I opened up more operational billets to women than

any other secretary of the Navy in history.

==Q: Bottom line, do you now believe that women can, in fact, provide men with '''combat leadership'''?==

=='''WEBB: Absolutely.'''==
=='''WEBB: Absolutely.'''==
=='''WEBB: Absolutely.'''==
=='''WEBB: Absolutely.'''==
=='''WEBB: Absolutely.'''==

==========================================================================================================

> September 2006
'''Affirmative action should apply to African-Americans only'''

Q: Could you address your comments about affirmative action being “state-sponsored racism.”

WEBB: '''My view on affirmative action has been and remains that it’s a 13th Amendment program.'''
If you go back to the Johnson administration’s executive order on affirmative action, it was based on the 13th Amendment and the

Civil Rights Act of 1866, designed to remove the badges of slavery.
'''African-Americans are the only ethnic group in this country that have suffered from deliberate discrimination and, and

exclusion by the government over generations.'''
When this program expanded to the present day diversity programs, where essentially every ethnic group other than Caucasians are

included, then that becomes state-sponsored racism. '''And we should either move this program back to its original intent, which

I support''', or we should open up diversity programs to the point where poor white cultures have some opportunity.

==========================================================================================================

> March 2007
'''Reduce recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance.'''

Webb '''co-sponsored''' reducing recidivism by giving offenders a Second Chance

Recidivism Reduction and Second Chance Act of 2007 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to expand

provisions for adult and juvenile offender state and local reentry demonstration projects to provide expanded services to

offenders and their families for reentry into society.

•Directs the Attorney General to award grants for:
1.state and local reentry courts;
2.Comprehensive and Continuous Offender Reentry Task Forces;
3.pharmacological drug treatment services to incarcerated offenders;
4.technology career training for offenders;
5.mentoring services for reintegrating offenders into the community;
6.pharmacological drug treatment services to incarcerated offenders;
7.prison-based family treatment programs for incarcerated parents of minor children; and
8.a study of parole or post-incarceration supervision violations and revocations.

Legislative Outcome: '''Became Public Law No: 110-199.'''

==========================================================================================================

> July 2007

'''Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.'''

Vote on Dole Amdt. S.2350, amending SP2350 (via the College Cost Reduction Act): To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to

require individuals voting in person to present photo identification.

Proponents support voting YES because: Sen. DOLE.
I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo

identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and

counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks

of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly

support this initiative.

Opponents recommend voting NO because: Sen. '''FEINSTEIN'''.
If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect

January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the

minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's

licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January

1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.

==========================================================================================================

> October 2007
'''Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.'''
Vote on an amendment, S.AMDT.3330, to H.R.3043 (HHS Appropriations Bill): To prohibit the provision of funds to grantees who

perform abortions, with exceptions for maternal health.

Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: Whatever side of the abortion debate you are on, we can all agree on one thing: Abortion is a very divisive topic.

In that context, I think it is the right policy to say we are not going to send taxpayer dollars to support groups that perform

abortions. Now, the other side will say: Well, we have current Federal law that says we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to

fund abortions. But, quite frankly, that is not good enough. Because now, we send Federal dollars to abortion providers and money

is fungible--it is a big shell game and it supports their organizations and, in many cases, that funding is a huge percentage of

their overall revenue.

Letter of Support from Family Research Council:
Recent reports indicate that Planned Parenthood generated over $900 million in income in 2006, of which over $300 million came

from government. We should not be sending taxpayer money to an organization such as Planned Parenthood that performs abortions.

Your support for the Vitter amendment will uphold the principle that the US taxpayer should not have to subsidize the abortion

industry.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BOXER: The Vitter amendment is "Big Brother" at its very worst. It tells non-governmental entities how they should spend

their own private funds. This amendment punishes the very organizations that work hard every day using their own funds to provide

family planning services and reproductive health care, including legal abortion services. If Sen. Vitter wants to deny these

funds, he should work to outlaw all abortion. That is an honest way. But to punish a private organization that works to give

women a full array of reproductive health care is really, I think, a very sorry idea.

==========================================================================================================

> October 2007 - '''This one is important too'''
'''Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects.'''

Vote on the passage of the bill, the American Competitiveness Scholarship Act, the omnibus appropriations bill for the

Departments of Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor.
Pres. Bush then vetoed the Bill.

Proponents support voting YES because:
Rep. OBEY: This bill, more than any other, determines how willing we are to make the investment necessary to assure the future

strength of this country and its working families. The President has chosen to cut the investments in this bill by more than $7.5

billion in real terms. This bill rejects most of those cuts.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Rep. LEWIS: This bill reflects a fundamental difference in opinion on the level of funding necessary to support the Federal

Government's role in education, health and workforce programs. The bill is $10.2 billion over the President's budget request.

While many of these programs are popular on both sides of the aisle, this bill contains what can rightly be considered lower

priority and duplicative programs. For example, this legislation continues three different programs that deal with violence

prevention. An omnibus bill is absolutely the wrong and fiscally reckless approach to completing this year's work. It would

negate any semblance of fiscal discipline demonstrated by this body in recent years.

==Veto message from President Bush:==
This bill spends too much. It exceeds [by $10.2 billion] the reasonable and responsible levels for discretionary spending that I

proposed to balance the budget by 2012. This bill continues to fund 56 programs that I proposed to terminate because they are

duplicative, narrowly focused, or not producing results.
'''This bill does not sufficiently fund programs that are delivering positive outcomes.'''
This bill has too many earmarks--more than 2,200 earmarks totaling nearly $1 billion. I urge the Congress to send me a fiscally

responsible bill that sets priorities.

==========================================================================================================

> March 2008
'''Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules.'''

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To take $670,000 used by the EEOC in bringing actions against employers that require their employees to

speak English, and instead use the money to teach English to adults through the Department of Education's English Literacy/Civics

Education State Grant program.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ALEXANDER:
Let me begin with this story. In March 2007, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the Salvation Army for allegedly

discriminating against two employees in a Boston area thrift store. What had the Salvation Army done to earn this lawsuit from

the Federal Government? Well, it had required its employees to speak English on the job. The English rule was clearly posted, and

the employees were given a year to learn it. But this lawsuit means that a small business in Missouri would have to hire a lawyer

in order to make sure they have a clear business reason to require their employees to speak our common language on the job.
So I have an amendment to bring some common sense to this subject. It would be to take $670,000 used by the EEOC, which it is

using to bring actions against employers who require their employees to speak English.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. KENNEDY:
Let's look at what the law is and what the Alexander amendment provides. The law currently says that if there is a need to speak

English on the job, fine; employers can require that. But employers cannot use English-only rules as an excuse when they want to

fire minorities who are performing the job correctly. In this fact situation, those employees had performed the job correctly for

5 years. In addition, this amendment reduces the EEOC's ability to fight all forms of discrimination because it cuts the entire

budget. That means race, age, religion, and disability cases will be harmed. I hope the amendment will be defeated.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment passed, 54-44

==========================================================================================================

> March 2008
'''Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion.'''

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To increase funding for the vigorous enforcement of a prohibition against taking minors across State lines

in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions consistent with the Child Custody Protection

Act.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment enables enforcing the Child Custody Protection Act, which passed

the Senate in a bipartisan fashion by a vote of 65 to 34. Too many times we enact laws, and we do not fund them. This is going to

set up funding so the law that says we are going to protect young children from being taken across State lines to have a surgical

abortion--we are going to make sure those people are protected.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BOXER: We already voted for $50 million to enhance the enforcement of child protective

laws. If Sen. Ensign's bill becomes law, then that money is already there to be used for such a program.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 49-49 (1/2 required, or 50 votes; Sen. Byrd & Sen. McCain absent)

==========================================================================================================

> January 2009
'''Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue.'''

==Webb signed Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act==

Amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to declare that an unlawful employment practice occurs when:
1.a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted;
2.an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice; or
3.an individual is affected by application of the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other

compensation is paid.

Allows an aggrieved person to obtain relief, including recovery of back pay, for up to two years preceding the filing of the

charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to

practices that occurred outside the time for filing a charge. Applies the preceding provisions to claims of compensation

discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

'''[Note: A woman named Lilly Ledbetter filed a lawsuit for gender-based discriminatory compensation. The Supreme Court ruled

that Ms. Ledbetter could only sue for damages going back 180 days, and the 180 days was calculated from the time her employment

contract was initiated, i.e., her hire date. This new law changes the 180-day period to two years, and also calculates the date

from the time of each paycheck, rather than the hire date. -- Ed.]'''

==========================================================================================================

> March 2009
'''Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.'''
Congressional Summary:To require that amounts appropriated for the United Nations Population Fund are not used by organizations

which support coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. WICKER (R-MS): This amendment with one issue and one issue only--whether US taxpayer

dollars will be provided to help fund coercive population control policies, such as China's one-child policy--a policy that

relies on coerced abortion and forced sterilization. Specifically, this pro-child, pro-family, pro-woman amendment would restore

the Kemp-Kasten antipopulation control provision, which has been a fundamental part of our foreign policy for almost a quarter

century. As it has always done, Kemp-Kasten allows the President to certify that funds are not used for coercive family

practices. My amendment is needed because the underlying bill reverses this longstanding provision.
Sen. COBURN (R-OK): I stand in the corner of pro-life. But I want to debate this issue as if I were pro-choice. If we believe

that women have a right to choose, why in the world would we send money to UNFP that is going to take that right away from women

in other countries? You can't be on both sides of this issue. Either you believe in a woman's right to choose or you do not. Or

you only believe in a woman's right to choose in America, and because the Chinese have too many people, you don't think that same

human right ought to be given to women in China. There is no question that UNFP will mix this money, and we will fund forced

abortions in China. [Without this amendment] American taxpayer dollars are going to go to China to enforce coercive abortion

against the will of women and force sterilization against the will of women in China.

Opponent's argument to vote No: None spoke against the amendment.

> The government's reach should end at my front door!... But I'm fine with them giving money to other places that blatantly

violate that supposed freedom from intrusion.

==========================================================================================================

> June 2009
'''ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays.'''
==Webb signed H.R.3017&S.1584==

Prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity by covered entities

(employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees). Prohibits preferential treatment or

quotas. Allows only disparate treatment claims. Prohibits related retaliation.

Makes this Act inapplicable to:
1.religious organizations;
and
2.the relationship between the United States and members of the Armed Forces.

==========================================================================================================

> August 2009
'''Voted YES on confirming of Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court.'''
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee kicked off the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

In her opening statement, Judge Sotomayor pledged a "fidelity to the law:"

"In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a

judge is not to make the law--it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my

rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and

Congress's intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court. In each case I have

heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand."

==========================================================================================================

> March 2010
'''Repeal Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell, and reinstate discharged gays.'''

==Webb signed HR1283&S3065==

Repeals current Department of Defense policy [popularly known as "Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell"] concerning homosexuality in the Armed

Forces. Prohibits the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, from

discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation against any member of the Armed Forces or any person seeking to become a

member. Authorizes the re-accession into the Armed Forces of otherwise qualified individuals previously separated for

homosexuality, bisexuality, or homosexual conduct.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the furnishing of dependent benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1,

United States Code (relating to the definitions of 'marriage' and 'spouse' and referred to as the 'Defense of Marriage Act').

==========================================================================================================

=='''C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!'''==

> January 2012
'''Rated 0% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record.'''
==Webb scores 0% by the Humane Society on animal rights issues==

112th Mid-Term Humane Scorecard: The Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2011 Humane Scorecard,

where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during last year.
We rated legislators based on their voting behavior on measures such as
==agribusiness subsidies, lethal predator control, and the Endangered Species Act;==
==their cosponsorship of priority bills on puppy mills, horse slaughter, animal fighting, and chimps in research;==
==their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection.==

'''All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we're counting enjoy strong bipartisan support; in the House, each of the four

now has more than 150 cosponsors.'''

The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold

lawmakers accountable is central to our work. When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps clarify how the animal

protection movement is doing geographically, by party affiliation, and in other categories. It helps us chart our course for

animals by seeing where we have been effective, and where we need to improve.

==========================================================================================================

> May 2012
'''Rated +1 by AAI, indicating a mixed Arab/Palestine voting record.'''

Webb scores +1 by AAI on Arab-Israeli issues

The Arab American Institute has compiled a Scorecard to catalogue the voting record of the 112th Congress on issues of importance

to the Arab American community. Though not comprehensive, we have attempted to provide a snapshot of legislation concerning many

of the primary issues concerning Arab Americans.
For the Senate, we have included 10 items: two bills on the Arab Spring, three on Palestine, one on Lebanon, one regarding civil

liberties, '''and two for immigration reform.'''

==9.S. 723: (-) The Birthright Citizenship Act, limiting citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants born in the US.==

==10.S. 952: (+) the DREAM Act, allowing undocumented minors to become US citizens, provided they meet certain conditions,

including good moral character==

==========================================================================================================

> October 2014
'''Evolution on gay marriage has been good for the country'''

Q: On gay marriage: You were for civil unions, but not for legalized gay marriage when you ran in 2006. Have you changed?

JIM WEBB: I took some very tough stands in '06. People will look back at the Virginia campaign. There was an anti-gay marriage

amendment on the ballot in Virginia. I've got a lot of family ties down in the far Southwest, and I oppose that. And I'm really

comfortable with where the evolution has gone.

Q: So you're not ready, so legal in some places, but not legal in others?

WEBB: '''I think this has been a good thing for the country.'''

==========================================================================================================

> Mar 2014
==Jim Webb voted Nay - HB 1508 - Prohibits Implementation of Common Core Educational Standards==

Vote Smart's Synopsis: Vote on a motion to declare inexpedient to legislate a bill that prohibits the implementation of Common

Core Educational Standards.
Highlights:
- Requires the State Board of Education to terminate all of the following relating to Common Core educational standards (Sec. 1):
•Common Core plans, programs, and activities;
•Common Core related expenditures; and
•Common Core based instruction and assessments.
•Specifies that the bill will take effect 60 days after passage (Sec. 2).

==Webb voted against this legislation==

==========================================================================================================

> April 2015
==Jim Webb voted Yea - SB 101 - Prohibits the Requirement of Common Core Standards==
Vote Smart's Synopsis: Vote to pass a bill that prohibits the Department of Education or the State Board of Education from

requiring a state school or school district to implement the common core state standards, effective 60 days after enactment.

==Webb voted for this legislation.==

==========================================================================================================
JIM WEBB - LIBCUCK EXTRAORDINAIRE... BUT, WHAT FLAVOR: LOLBERGTARIAN HYPOCRITE, OR SOCIALIST SNAKE?
==========================================================================================================

> April 2006
'''Government’s power should end at my front door'''
We hear talk of morality and “values,” but what values do they espouse, other than the politics of fear and social division?
Conservatives used to believe that the government should leave individuals alone. Now they want to tell you how to live your

private life.
I say to you, the government’s power ends at my front door, unless there is a compelling reason to come inside. Leave us alone,

and let us live our lives.


=='''Remember This One.'''==
'''It's funny later...'''

==========================================================================================================

> April 2006

'''Culture of corruption in Washington needs real reform'''
The culture of corruption in Washington needs real reform, not the kind of half-hearted things being done by the current leaders

in the Senate. The influence-peddling by lobbyists and others must be confronted. You won’t see me shying away from this. I’m

going to take the lead. I’ve always believed that ethics matters in Congress when people like my opponent voted to give this

president a blank check to go to war when he wanted to, for whatever reason he wanted to, and for as long as he wanted to.
 Source: Campaign announcement speech , Apr 28, 2006

'''Remember this one too.'''

==========================================================================================================

> April 2006
'''GOP puts corporate interests first; Dems put workers first'''

We hear a lot of talk about helping the average American, words about patriotic people who work hard and do the best they can for

their families, hoping for an even break.

But anyone who watches the news knows that this administration- always supported by my opponent-has put the interests of big

business and corporate America before your interests.
It’s time for Democrats to stand up again for working people, for working Virginians who expect their leaders to listen.

==========================================================================================================

> April 2006
'''Our tax policies make no sense'''
Our economy is in trouble.
Our tax policies make no sense.
Our country is breaking into three pieces, with the people at the top living in a luxury never before dreamed of, even as our

middle class sees its jobs being outsourced overseas, their health care slipping away and our public education systems declining,

and as the people at the bottom are becoming a permanent underclass.

Source: Campaign announcement speech , Apr 28, 2006

==========================================================================================================

> May 2006
'''Our tax policy is creating a permanent underclass'''
This country is splitting into three pieces. As a result of the internationalization of the economy, the people at the top have

never had it so good. The middle class is continuing to get squeezed by stagnant wages and rising cost of living. And we are in

danger of creating a permanent underclass.
We must reexamine our tax and trade policies and reinstitute notions of '''fairness'''.

Source: 2006 Senate campaign website, webbforsenate.com, “Issues” , May 2, 2006

==========================================================================================================

> June 2006
'''Tamper-proof ID card; stricter enforcement against employers'''

Q: Do you believe in punishing employers who hire people illegally?

WEBB: That is very a complex question because of the whole range of employers that are involved. Certainly large employers you

could have sanctions. It’s a question of accountability. '''When somebody is hiring somebody to mow a lawn or something like

that, it’s a lot different than a Wal-Mart of a Tyson’s.'''

==========================================================================================================

> June 2006
'''Allow illegal immigrants a path to citizenship'''

Webb says, “I drifted away from the Democratic Party on national security issues but I never left on social issues and issues of

economic fairness.” His platform is built around three priorities: national defense; curbing presidential overreach; and economic

fairness and social justice. He believes trade agreements should require other nations to improve labor standards and wages. He

supports raising the minimum wage, and allowing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

==========================================================================================================

> October 2006
'''Secure the border first; them deal with other aspects'''

The immigration debate is divided into three separate issues. How can we secure our border? What should we do about the 11

million undocumented workers? And, lastly there is the guest worker question. It is necessary to separate out the 3 issues.

Approaching the issue using an omnibus bill that attempts to solve all 3 issues simultaneously creates a political stalemate that

delays the border security solution. Once the border is secure we can develop a fair solution to other immigration issues.

==Remember this one - you'll see his only intention was to delay.==

==========================================================================================================

> January 2007
==Global warming is real and we need to stop it!==

'''Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.'''

Webb '''co-sponsored''' signing on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

◾Whereas there is a scientific consensus that the continued buildup of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

threatens the stability of the global climate;
◾Whereas there are significant long-term risks to the economy and the environment of the US from the temperature increases and

climatic disruptions that are projected to result from increased greenhouse gas concentrations;
◾Whereas the US has the largest economy in the world and is also the largest emitter of greenhouse gases;
◾Whereas reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the levels necessary to avoid serious climatic disruption requires the

introduction of new energy technologies and other climate-friendly technologies;
◾Whereas the development and sale of climate-friendly technologies in the US and internationally present economic opportunities

for workers and businesses in the United States;
◾Whereas President Bush, in the State of the Union Address given in January 2006, called on the US to reduce its 'addiction' to

oil and focus its attention on developing cleaner, renewable, and sustainable energy sources;
◾Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the United States should act to reduce the health,

environmental, economic, and national security risks posed by global climate change and foster sustained economic growth through

a new generation of technologies
◾by participating in negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and leading efforts in other

international fora,
◾with the objective of securing United States participation in binding agreements that establish mitigation commitments by all

countries that are major emitters of greenhouse gases;
◾establish flexible international mechanisms to minimize the cost of efforts by participating countries; and
◾achieve a significant long-term reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.

==========================================================================================================

> February 2007
'''Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25.'''

Increase the federal minimum wage to:
1.$5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
2.$6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
3.$7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.

Proponents support voting YES because:
We have waited for over 10 years to have a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country Low-wage

workers had their wages frozen in time, from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when

they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when

their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages

they are living in 1997.

Opponents support voting NO because:
This bill is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They

create two-thirds of our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98% of the new businesses in the US. What protection does this

bill provide them? None whatsoever.
We can do better. In the interest of sending the President a final measure that provides consideration for small businesses and

their workers, the very men and women who are responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do better.

==========================================================================================================

> March 2007
'''Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.'''

Amendment would accommodate the full repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, preventing 23 million families and individuals from

being subject to the AMT in 2007, and millions of families and individuals in subsequent years.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This amendment repeals the AMT. Except for the telephone tax, the alternative minimum tax is the phoniest tax we have ever

passed. The AMT, in 1969, was meant to hit 155 taxpayers who used legal means to avoid taxation, under the theory that everybody

ought to pay some income tax.
This very year, more than 2,000 people who are very wealthy are not paying any income tax or alternative minimum income tax. So

it is not even working and hitting the people it is supposed to hit. Right now, this year, 2007, the year we are in, there are 23

million families that are going to be hit by this tax. It is a phony revenue machine, over 5 years, $467 billion dollars. We are

going to have to have a point of order this year to keep these 23 million taxpayers from paying this tax. We might as well do

away with it right now, once and for all, and be honest about it.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The reality of the budget resolution is this may not have anything to do with eliminating the alternative minimum tax. The one

thing it will do is reduce the revenue of the Government over the next 5 years by $533 billion, plunging us right back into

deficit. Look, we can deal with the AMT. We have dealt with it in the underlying budget resolution for the next 2 years. There

will be no increase in the number of people affected by the AMT for the next 2 years under the budget resolution, and that is

paid for. Unfortunately, this amendment is not paid for. It would plunge us back into deficit. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

==========================================================================================================

> March 2007
'''Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million.'''

An amendment to raise the death tax exemption to $5 million; reducing the maximum death tax rate to 35%; and to promote economic

growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:
It is disappointing to many family businesses and farm owners to set the death tax rate at what I believe is a confiscatory 45%

and set the exemption at only $3.5 million, which most of us believe is too low. This leaves more than 22,000 families subject to

the estate tax each year.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
You can extend all the tax breaks that have been described in this amendment if you pay for them. The problem with the amendment

is that over $70 billion is not paid for. It goes on the deficit, which will drive the budget right out of balance. We will be

going right back into the deficit ditch. Let us resist this amendment. People could support it if it was paid for, but it is not.

However well intended the amendment is, it spends $72.5 billion with no offset. This amendment blows the budget. This amendment

takes us from a balance in 2012 right back into deficit. My colleagues can extend those tax cuts if they pay for them, if they

offset them. This amendment does not pay for them; it does not offset them; it takes us back into deficit. It ought to be

defeated.

==========================================================================================================

> March 2007
'''Voted NO on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program.'''

Amendment would increase funding for the COPS Program to $1.15 billion for FY 2008 to provide state and local law enforcement

with critical resources. The funding is offset by an unallocated reduction to non-defense discretionary spending.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This amendment reinstates the COPS Program. I remind everyone, when the COPS Program was functioning, violent crime in America

reduced 8.5% a year for 7 years in a row. Throughout the 1990s, we funded the COPS Program at roughly $1.2 billion, and it drove

down crime.
Now crime is rising again.
The COPS Program in the crime bill worked, and the Government Accounting Office found a statistical link between the COPS grants

and a reduction in crime. '''The Brookings Institution reported the COPS Program is one of the most cost-effective programs we

have ever had in this country.''' Local officials urgently need this support.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The COPS Program has some history. It was started by President Clinton. He asked for 100,000 police officers. He said that when

we got to 100,000, the program would stop. We got to 110,000 police officers and the program continues on and on and on. This

program should have ended 5 years ago or 6 years ago, but it continues. It is similar to so many Federal programs that get

constituencies that go on well past what their original purpose was. It may be well intentioned, but we cannot afford it and we

shouldn't continue it. It was never thought it would be continued this long.

==========================================================================================================

> March 2007
'''Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security.'''

Voting YES would:
1.require that the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund be used only to finance retirement income of future beneficiaries;
2.ensure that there is no change to benefits for individuals born before January 1, 1951
3.provide participants with the benefits of savings and investment while permitting the pre-funding of at least some portion of

future benefits; and
4.ensure that the funds made available to finance such legislation do not exceed the amounts estimated to be actuarially

available.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Perhaps the worst example of wasteful spending is when we take the taxes people pay for Social Security and, instead of saving

them, we spend them on other things. Even worse than spending Social Security on other things is we do not count it as debt when

we talk about the deficit every year. So using the Social Security money is actually a way to hide even more wasteful spending

without counting it as debt. This Amendment would change that.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
This amendment has a fatal flaw. It leaves the door open for private Social Security accounts by providing participants with the

option of "pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits."
This body has already closed the door on the President's ill-conceived plan for private Social Security accounts. The opposition

to privatization is well-known:
•Privatizing Social Security does nothing to extend the solvency of the program.
•Transition costs would put our Nation in greater debt by as much as $4.9 trillion.
•Creating private accounts would mean benefit cuts for retirees, by as much as 40%.
•Half of all American workers today have no pension plan from their employers.
It is critical that we protect this safety net.
Make no mistake about it, this is a stalking-horse for Social Security. It looks good on the surface, but this is an amendment to

privatize Social Security.

==========================================================================================================

> March 2007
'''Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness.'''
Amendment intends to pay down the Federal debt and eliminate government waste by reducing spending on programs rated ineffective

by the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).

Proponents recommend voting YES because:
My amendment says we are going to take about $18 billion as a strong signal from the Congress that we want to support effective

programs and we want the taxpayer dollars spent in a responsible way. My amendment doesn't take all of the $88 billion for the

programs found by PART, realizing there may be points in time when another program is not meeting its goals and needs more money.

So that flexibility is allowed in this particular amendment. It doesn't target any specific program. Almost worse than being

rated ineffective, we have programs out there that have made absolutely no effort at all to measure their results. I believe

these are the worst offenders. In the following years, I hope Congress will look at those programs to create accountability.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The effect of this amendment will simply be to cut domestic discretionary spending $18 billion. Understand the programs that have

been identified in the PART program are results not proven. Here are programs affected: Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and

rescue, high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, child abuse prevention, and treatment. If there is a

problem in those programs, they ought to be fixed. We ought not to be cutting Border Patrol, Coast Guard search and rescue,

high-intensity drug trafficking areas, LIHEAP, rural education, and the rest. I urge a "no" vote.

==========================================================================================================

> May 2007
'''Voted YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program.'''

Proponents recommend voting YES because:
This legislation says we wish to add something called guest workers or temporary workers. With guest workers, working Americans

would discover there is no opportunity for upward mobility at their job. In fact, every day their employers are trying to find

ways to push down wages, eliminate retirement, and eliminate health care. What has happened in this country, with what is called

the "new global economy," is dramatic downward pressure on income for American workers. The guest worker program provides that

400,000 people will be able to come in to assume jobs in our country per year--adding to the 12 million illegal immigrants

already here.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
I certainly concur about the need to secure our borders, about the need to have a workable immigration system, and the need for

reform that ensures the rule of law is restored in the US. Where I differ is in the belief that we can actually achieve these

goals if we have no ability for temporary workers to come to the country. This amendment would eliminate the temporary worker

program from this bill. Now, there are several reasons why a temporary worker program, within certain constraints, is a good

idea. The first reason is because it will help to relieve the magnet for illegal immigration. The reason most of the people are

crossing our border illegally is to get employment. There are jobs available for them. Some people say this is work Americans

will not do. That is actually not true. But there are not enough American citizens to do all of the work that needs to be done.

So naturally the law of supply and demand sets in here. People come across the border illegally, and they take that work. What we

want to do is both close the border, but also eliminate the magnet for illegal employment here, because the reality is desperate

people will always try to find some way to get into the country.

==========================================================================================================

> May 2007:
=='''WE''' need to stop Global Warming!... Buuut let's not factor it into our planning.==

'''Voted NO on factoring global warming into federal project planning.'''

Amendment would require the consideration of global climate change, in planning, feasibility studies, & general reevaluation

reports. Would require accounting for the costs & benefits from the impacts of global climate change on flood, storm, and drought

risks; potential future impacts of global climate change-related weather events, such as increased hurricane activity, intensity,

storm surge, sea level rise, and associated flooding; & employs nonstructural approaches and design modifications to avoid or

prevent impacts to streams, wetlands, and floodplains that provide natural flood and storm buffers.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:
It just seems logical that we ask the Corps of Engineers to include in their analyses, judgments about the potential impact of

global climate change. All this amendment seeks to do, as a matter of common sense, is to ask the Army Corps of Engineers to

factor climate change into their future plans. Secondly, we are making a statement here to finally recognize the reality of what

is happening with respect to climate change.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
The same people today who are saying we are all going to die from global warming, just back in the middle 1970s were saying

another ice age is coming and we are all going to die. Which way do you want it?
If a surge of anthropogenic gases--this CO2, methane, or whatever it is--were causing a warming period, then around 1945 we would

have a warming period because in the middle 1940s we had the greatest increase in greenhouse gases. But what happened? It did not

precipitate a warming period.
Peer reviewed evidence shows that the sun has actually been driving the temperature change. You don't have to be a scientist to

know that the Sun can have something to do with climate change.
Implementing Kyoto would reduce the average annual household income nearly $2,700, at a time when the cost of all goods would

rise sharply.

==========================================================================================================

> June 2007
'''Voted NO on comprehensive immigration reform.'''

Establishes specified benchmarks which must be met before the guest worker and legalization programs may be initiated:
1.operational control of the border with Mexico;
2.Border Patrol increases;
3.border barriers, including vehicle barriers, fencing, radar, and aerial vehicles;
4.detention capacity for illegal aliens apprehended crossing the US-Mexico border;
5.workplace enforcement, including an electronic employment verification system; and
6.Z-visa alien processing.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:
If we do not legislate now, we will not legislate later this year when our calendar is crowded with Iraq and appropriations

bills. We are then an election year, and it will be pushed over to 2009. Circumstances will not be better then, they will be

worse.
A vote against cloture is a vote to kill the bill. A Senator may vote for cloture and then express himself in opposition to the

bill by voting against the bill.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
If this bill becomes law, we will see only a 13% reduction in illegal immigration into America, and in the next 20 years we will

have another 8.7 million illegals in our country. How can that be reformed? I submit this would be a disaster.
The Congressional telephone systems have shut down because of the mass phone calls Congress is receiving. A decent respect for

the views of the American people says let's stop here now. Let's go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that will

work.
The American people get it, and they do have common sense and wisdom on this issue. They know repeating the fundamental mistakes

of the 1986 bill, joining a big amnesty with inadequate enforcement, will cause the problem to grow and not diminish. They know

promising enforcement after 30 years of broken promises isn't good enough. They know the so-called trigger is a joke because if

the trigger is never pulled, the Z visas, the amnesty happens forever.

=========================================================================================================

> June 2007
'''Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing.'''

To enable employees to form & join labor organizations, and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices

during organizing efforts.
Requires investigation that an employer:
1.discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
2.threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
3.adds to remedies for such violations: back pay plus liquidated damages; and additional civil penalties.

Proponents support voting YES because:
The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize for better working conditions & fair wages.

There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not.

These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to harassment, if not outright firing. In

fact, one in five people who try to organize unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor,

they are not effective deterrents.

Opponents support voting NO because:
Democracy itself is placed at risk by this bill. The sanctity of the secret ballot is the backbone of our democratic process. Not

one voter signed a card to send us here to Congress. None of us sent our campaign workers out to voters' houses armed with

candidate information & a stack of authorization cards. No. We trusted democracy. We trusted the voters to cast their ballots

like adults, freely, openly, without intimidation, and we live with the results. But here we are, poised to advance legislation

to kill a secret ballot process.
Let's be clear. Every American has the right to organize. No one is debating that. This is a right we believe in so strongly we

have codified it and made it possible for workers to do so through a secret ballot.

Status: Cloture rejected
Cloture vote rejected, 51-48 (3/5ths required)

=========================================================================================================

> June 2007
==And no more oil and gas subsidies! We need '''alternative energy''' solutions!==

'''Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.'''

Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act◾Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction

for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
◾Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas

leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
◾Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean

domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.

Proponents support voting YES because:
This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks & subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several

years, at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits. Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not

once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them through the Tax Code, and they are

hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.
It is time to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new era in

the management of our public energy resources.

Opponents support voting NO because:
I am wearing this red shirt today, because this shirt is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a

taking. It will go to court, and it should be decided in court.
This bill will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. If the problem is foreign oil, why increase

taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense. We should insert taxes on all foreign oil

imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources. But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We

are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.

Status: Bill passed Bill passed, 65-27

==========================================================================================================

> August 2007
==WIRETAPE ALL THE FUCKING FOREIGNERS! SCREW WARRANTS!==

'''Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad.'''

Vote on passage of S.1927, the Protect America Act: Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to state that nothing

under its definition of "electronic surveillance" should encompass surveillance directed at any person reasonably believed to be

located outside the US.

A modified version, S.2011, failed; it called for amending FISA to provide that a court order is not required for the electronic

surveillance of communication between foreign persons who are not located within the US for collecting foreign intelligence

information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the US or the surveillance device is located within the

US.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. '''LEVIN''': Both bills cure the problem that exists: Our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the

communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activities who are physically located in foreign countries. Now, what are the

major differences? Our bill (S2011) is limited to foreign targets limited overseas, unlike the Bond bill (S1927), which does not

have that key limitation and which very clearly applies to US citizens overseas. Our bill does not. Now, if there is an

incidental access to US citizens, we obviously will permit that. But the Bond bill goes beyond that, citing "any person." It does

not say a "foreign person." We avoid getting to the communications of Americans. There you have to go for a warrant.

Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. '''LIEBERMAN''': I will vote for the Bond proposal (S1927) because we are at war, & there is increased terrorist activity.

We have a crisis. This proposal will allow us to gather intelligence information on that enemy we otherwise would not gather.

This is not the time for striving for legislative perfection. Let us not strive for perfection. Let us put national security

first. We are going to have 6 months to reason together to find something better.

==========================================================================================================

> November 2007
'''Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.'''

Allows State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), that require state legislation to meet additional requirements imposed

by this Act, additional time to make required plan changes.
==Pres. Bush vetoed this bill on Dec. 12, 2007, as well as a version (HR976) from Feb. 2007.==

Proponents support voting YES because:
Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9

million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President's veto message [from

HR976]:
1.It terminates the coverage of childless adults.
2.It targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States

from covering families with incomes above $51,000.
3.It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Rep. DEAL: This bill [fails to] fix the previous legislation that has been vetoed:
•On illegal immigration: Would the verification system prevent an illegal alien from fraudulently using another person's name to

obtain SCHIP benefits? No.
•On adults in SCHIP: Up to 10% of the enrollees in SCHIP will be adults, not children, in the next 5 years, and money for poor

children shouldn't go to cover adults.
•On crowd-out: The CBO still estimates there will be some 2 million people who will lose their private health insurance coverage

and become enrolled in a government-run program.

==Veto message from President Bush: Like its predecessor, HR976, this bill does not put poor children first and it moves our

country's health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance

to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a result, I cannot

sign this legislation.==

==========================================================================================================

> December 2007
'''Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land.'''
To prohibit the involuntary acquisition of farmland & grazing land by government for parks, open space, or similar purposes.
Exceptions include takings for use by:
•public utility
•road or other right of way
•an aqueduct or pipeline
•a prison or hospital
•national disaster

Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. CRAIG: "Eminent domain was elevated greatly as an issue following a highly controversial 2005 Supreme Court decision known

as Kelo vs. The City of New London. Since that decision, we as a nation have allowed state & local governments to utilize eminent

domain to force landowners to yield their property to private development. Farmers and ranchers in particular have become

vulnerable to state and local governments taking their property for economic development or open space designations. My amendment

is a very targeted amendment. It addresses only cases in which private working agricultural land is taken and turned into public

open space."

Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. HARKIN: This amendment doesn't reach the Kelo decision [because Kelo was about taking open space for private development].

Under this amendment they can still do that.
CRAIG. Oh, I disagree totally. We reach a portion of Kelo that is now most frequently impacting farms and ranches, and that is

open space for open space.
HARKIN. The amendment has the Federal Government telling a local government what it can and cannot do within its own

jurisdiction.

Letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures & US Conference of Mayors:
"This amendment is not only ill-advised, but it is also unconstitutional [because it] preempts state & local land use laws. The

5th Amendment expressly permits the taking of private property for public use provided just compensation is provided to the

owner. The power of eminent domain has always been, and should remain, a state and local power."


==“I believe the power of the government ends at my front door unless there is a compelling reason to come inside,” Jim Webb

says, while voting not to restrict eminent domain action for the purposes of converting farmland and grazing land into parks and

other public open space.==

==========================================================================================================

> February 2008
==DON'T WIRETAP AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT A WARRANT!==

Voted YES on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. FEINGOLD: The Protect America Act (PAA) we passed last year was sold repeatedly as a way

to allow the Government to collect foreign-to-foreign communications without needing the approval of the FISA Court. Now, this is

something all of us support, every one of us. But the PAA actually went much further. It authorized new sweeping intrusions into

the privacy of countless Americans. The bill the Senate is considering to replace the PAA does not do nearly enough to safeguard

against Government abuse. So this amendment would provide those safeguards.
[The PAA allows] acquiring all the calls and e-mails between employees of a US company and a foreign company, with no requirement

to get a warrant and no requirement that there be some link to terrorism. So any American who works at a company that does

business overseas should think about that.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. BOND: The purpose of this bill is, and always has been, to enable the intelligence

community to act to target foreign terrorists and spies overseas.

The amendment, as it is drafted, will have a totally unexpected impact. It is difficult to explain, in an unclassified session,

why this amendment is unworkable. There are only certain communications which the intelligence community is lawfully permitted to

acquire, and which it has any desire to acquire, because to acquire all the communications from all foreigners is an absolutely

impossible task.

I cannot describe in a public setting how they go about ascertaining which collections are important. But to say that if Osama

bin Laden calls somebody in the US, we cannot listen in to that communication, unless we have an independent means of verifying

it has some impact or a terrorist threat--That is the most important communication we need to intercept.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment Rejected, 38-57

==========================================================================================================

> March 2008
'''Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities".'''

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To create a reserve fund to ensure that Federal assistance does not go to sanctuary cities that ignore the

immigration laws of the United States and create safe havens for illegal aliens and potential terrorists. This vote is a motion

to table the amendment; voting YES would kill the amendment.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO ON TABLING MOTION:Sen. VITTER:
There are so-called sanctuary cities which establish as an official policy of their jurisdiction: We are not going to cooperate

with Federal immigration enforcement officials. That is wrong. What is more, it is completely contrary to Federal immigration

law. My amendment says: We are going to put some consequence to that defiance of Federal law. We are not going to give them COPS

funds. We are going to send those funds, instead, to all of those other jurisdictions which abide by Federal law.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES ON TABLING MOTION:Sen. DURBIN:
There are sanctuary cities in about 23 different States across America. What the Vitter amendment will do is to take away the

COPS funding from those cities. Police departments will tell you they need the cooperation of everyone to solve crimes and stop

crime. If you create fear in the minds of those who are here in an undocumented status that any cooperation with the police will

result in their arrest, they will not cooperate and criminals will go free. Let's not use the COPS Program as some sort of

threat. If you want to deal with immigration, deal with it responsibly in a comprehensive way. SUPPORTER'S RESPONSE:Sen. VITTER:

If folks feel that way, they should come to Congress and change Federal law, not simply defy Federal law. This is another amnesty

vote. Are we going to give folks in sanctuary cities amnesty for defying Federal law and refusing to cooperate with Federal

immigration officials?

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Motion to Table Agreed to, 58-40

==========================================================================================================

> March 2008
'''Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million.'''

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: '''To put children ahead of millionaires and billionaires''' by restoring the pre-2001 top income tax rate

for people earning over $1 million, and use this revenue to invest in LIHEAP; IDEA; Head Start; Child Care; nutrition; school

construction and deficit reduction.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES: Sen. '''SANDERS''':
The wealthiest people in the country have not had it so good since the 1920s. Their incomes are soaring, while at the same time

the middle class is shrinking, and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. The time is now to

begin changing our national priorities and moving this country in a different direction. This amendment restores the top income

tax bracket for households earning more than $1 million a year, it raises $32.5 billion over 3 years, and invests that in our

kids, including $10 billion for special education.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. KYL:
The problem is we are spending the same dollar 3 or 4 times, it appears. The Sanders amendment is paid for by raising taxes

another $32.5 billion, ostensibly from the rich; that is to say, by raising taxes on people who make over $1 million a year. Here

is the problem with that. The budget on the floor already assumes the expiration of the current tax rates; that is to say, the

rates on the highest level go from 35% to 39.6%, and that money is spent. If you took all the top-rate income, you would come up

with $25 billion a year, not even enough to meet what is here, and that money has already been spent. The reality is somewhere or

other, somehow, more taxes would have to be raised. I don't think the American people want to do that, particularly in the

current environment.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 43-55
> Who's kiking who?

==========================================================================================================

> March 2008
'''Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset.'''

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:To exempt from pay-as-you-go enforcement modifications to the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) that

prevent millions of additional taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES: Sen. GRASSLEY:
The Senate voted to make sure that middle-class America didn't pay the AMT, and we did it without an offset, by a vote of [about

95%]. So here we are again with an opportunity to say to middle-class America that we are not going to tax the people who were

not supposed to be hit by the AMT. This amendment gives us an opportunity to get over that hurdle that is in this budget

resolution that, under pay-go, you would have to have an offset for the AMT. Unless my amendment is adopted, the 25 million

families who will be hit by the AMT increase will get a tax increase of over $2,000 apiece. They deserve a guarantee of relief.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO: Sen. CONRAD:
If you want to blow a hole in the budget as big as all outdoors, here is your opportunity--a trillion dollars not paid for, a

trillion dollars that we are going to go out and borrow from the Chinese and Japanese. That makes absolutely no sense. I urge my

colleagues to vote no.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 47-51

==========================================================================================================

> April 2008
==God forbid the welfare money should stop flowing!==

'''Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn.'''

Webb '''co-sponsored''' preserving access to Medicaid & SCHIP in economic downturn

A bill to preserve access to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program during an economic downturn.

•Economic Recovery in Health Care Act of 2008 - Prohibits finalizing, implementing, enforcing, or otherwise taking any action,

prior to April 1, 2009, on any changes to Medicaid programs or State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
•Amends the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 to extend

through April 1, 2009, the moratorium relating to the cost limit for providers.
•Amends the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 to extend through April 1, 2009, the moratorium relating to

rehabilitation services, school-based administration, and school-based transportation.
•Provides for state fiscal relief through a temporary increase of Medicaid federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP).

==========================================================================================================

> May 2008
==WHO CARES ABOUT CHINA AND INDIA!? '''WE''' NEED TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!==

'''Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China.'''

OnTheIssues.org Explanation: This is a motion on an omnibus spending bill, sending instructions to the committee resolving

differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Sen. Boxer introduced this motion, and Sen. DeMint introduced a

counter-motion. Voting for the Boxer motion means you favor Boxer's method over DeMint's method, which means speeding up

Congressional action on global warming.

Opponents argument for voting NAY: Sen. DeMINT.
When we are talking about trade agreements, there needs to be a level playing field. This motion would prevent Congress from

passing any law with new mandates on greenhouse gas emissions that would harm the U.S. economy or result in job loss unless both

China and India had the same mandates--in other words, if we had a level playing field. It is not going to help the environment

in the United States or the world if we pass mandates that raise the cost of doing business in our country, if we create mandates

that do not exist in India or China.

Proponents argument for voting YEA: Sen. BOXER.
I rise to speak against the DeMint motion and in favor of the Boxer motion. The DeMint motion is a throwback to 10 years ago when

everybody, including myself, was saying we better watch out and not do anything about global warming until the undeveloped world

acts. We cannot do that anymore. This is a time when we need to stand up as the leading country in the world and say that we can

fight global warming, and we can win this fight.
But what happens with the DeMint motion, he gives China and India a veto power over what we should be doing. Imagine saying we

are not going to do anything about human rights until China acts. Why would we give up our chance to take the mantle of

leadership and finally grab hold of this issue? I cannot look into the eyes of my grandchildren and tell them: Sorry, I am giving

over my proxy to China & India, and I can't do anything about it.

==========================================================================================================

> June 2008
'''Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare.'''

Congressional Summary:
•Extends Medicare to cover additional preventive services.

•Includes body mass index and end-of-life planning among initial preventive physical examinations.
•Eliminates by 2014 [the currently higher] copayment rates for Medicare psychiatric services.
Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH's veto message (argument to vote No):I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall

reductions in physician payments. Yet taking choices away from seniors to pay physicians is wrong. This bill is objectionable,

and I am vetoing it because:•It would harm beneficiaries by taking private health plan options away from them.
•It would undermine the Medicare prescription drug program.
•It is fiscally irresponsible, and it would imperil the long-term fiscal soundness of Medicare by using short-term budget

gimmicks that do not solve the problem.
In addition, H.R. 6331 would delay important reforms like the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies

competitive bidding program. Changing policy in mid-stream is also confusing to beneficiaries who are receiving services from

quality suppliers at lower prices. In order to slow the growth in Medicare spending, competition within the program should be

expanded, not diminished.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Sen. PATTY MURRAY (D, WA):
President Bush vetoed a bill that would make vital improvements to the program that has helped ensure that millions of seniors

and the disabled can get the care they need. This bill puts an emphasis on preventive care that will help our seniors stay

healthy, and it will help to keep costs down by enabling those patients to get care before they get seriously ill. This bill will

improve coverage for low-income seniors who need expert help to afford basic care. It will help make sure our seniors get mental

health care.

==========================================================================================================

> November 2008
'''Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks.'''

Congressional Summary:Revises the formula for Tier-1 amounts a state credits to an applicant's emergency unemployment

compensation account. Increases the figures in the formula from 50% to 80% of the total amount of regular compensation ; and from

13 to 20 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:

Rep. CHARLES RANGEL (D, NY-15): The House, for weeks, has attempted to save the free world from a fiscal disaster. We have bailed

out the banks and those who held mortgages. At the same time, we provided for energy extensions, we provided tax breaks for those

people that tax provisions have expired. We provided for hurricane relief, for mental health. So over $1 trillion is out there

for this House to ease the pain of millions of Americans.

While we were dealing with these gigantic powers, we overlooked the fact that over the last 12 months the number of unemployed

workers has jumped by over 2 million, leaving 10 million Americans struggling for work. These are hardworking people that have

lost their jobs through no fault of their own.

Rep. JERRY WELLER (R, IL-11): This important legislation provides additional needed assistance to the long-term unemployed. It's

important that we pass this legislation today as our last act before we leave for the election campaign.

This legislation focuses the most additional benefits on workers and States where the unemployment rate is highest and where jobs

are hardest to find. This program continues the requirement that those benefiting from extended unemployment benefits had to have

worked at least 20 weeks. Americans were rightly concerned about proposals to eliminate that work requirement and allow 39 weeks

or, under the legislation before us today, as many as 59 weeks of total unemployment benefits to be paid to those who have

previously only worked for a few weeks.

Opponent's argument to vote No:None voiced.

==========================================================================================================

> March 2009
''' Dangerousness, not mental incompetence, limits gun rights.'''

Webb signed Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated

mentally incompetent for certain purposes [including 2nd Amendment rights].

Prohibits, in any case arising out of the administration of laws and benefits by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, considering

any person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from

being considered adjudicated as a mental defective for purposes of the right to receive or transport firearms without the order

or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself

or herself or others.

==========================================================================================================

> March 2009
==Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention.==

Congressional Summary:Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act:
Adds to National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA) purposes:
1.providing year-round opportunities in service-learning;
2.involving program participants in emergency and disaster preparedness, relief, and recovery;
3.increasing service opportunities for retiring professionals;
4.encouraging service by individuals age 55 or older and continued service by national service alumni;
5.focusing national service on the areas of national need.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Sen. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D, MD):
[In developing national service over many years] we were not in the business of creating another new social program.
What we were in the business of was creating a new social invention. What do I mean by that? In our country, we are known for our

technological inventions. But also often overlooked, and sometimes undervalued, is our social inventions.

We created national service to let young people find opportunity to be of service and also to make an important contribution. But

not all was rosy. In 2003, when I was the ranking member on the appropriations subcommittee funding national service, they

created a debacle.
One of their most colossal errors was that they enrolled over 20,000 volunteers and could not afford to pay for it. That is how

sloppy they were in their accounting. I called them the "Enron of nonprofits."
And they worked on it. But all that is history.
We are going to expand AmeriCorps activity into specialized corps. One, an education corps; another, a health futures corps;

another, a veterans corps; and another called opportunity corps. These are not outside of AmeriCorps. They will be subsets

because we find this is where compelling human need is and at the same time offers great opportunity for volunteers to do it.

Opponent's argument to vote No:No senators spoke against the amendment.

> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/05/us/national-briefing-washington-suit-to-halt-religious-teaching.html?ref=topics
> 2002
> A Jewish group is suing the independent federal agency that oversees AmeriCorps and other programs, contending that it is

sponsoring religious teaching in some schools. The American Jewish Congress filed the lawsuit on Thursday in federal court

against the Corporation for National and Community Service, which oversees AmeriCorps. The group asked the court to stop

AmeriCorps from financing programs that teach religion, saying government support for religious instruction in sectarian schools

is unconstitutional.

> https://my.americorps.gov/mp/listing/viewListing.do?id=56202&fromSearch=true

> http://www.jta.org/2014/06/20/news-opinion/united-states/americorps-launches-recruitment-drive-for-volunteers-for-holocaust-

survivors
> http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-07-07/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jjps-volunteer-0709-20140707_1_holocaust-survivors-

jewish-community-services-jewish-federations
Thanks to a historic partnership between the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA), the Corporation for National & Community

Service and the Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies, AmeriCorps VISTA members will be placed in Jewish

communities across the country to work with Holocaust survivors.

==========================================================================================================

> July 2009
> Four years after stating the "culture of corruption in Washington needs real reform"

'''Voted YES on Congressional pay raise.'''
Congressional Summary: Makes appropriations to the Senate for FY2010 for:
1.expense allowances;
2.representation allowances for the Majority and Minority Leaders;
3.salaries of specified officers, employees, and committees (including the Committee on Appropriations);
4.agency contributions for employee benefits;
5.inquiries and investigations;
6.the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control;
7.the Offices of the Secretary and of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate;
8.miscellaneous items;
9.the Senators' Official Personnel and Office Expense Account; and
10.official mail costs.

'''Amends the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act of 1968 to increase by $50,000 the gross compensation paid all employees in

the office of a Senator.'''
'''Increases by $96,000 per year the aggregate amount authorized for the offices of the Majority and Minority Whip.'''

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Rep. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D, FL-20): We, as Members of Congress, have responsibility not just for

the institution, but for the staff that work for this institution, and to preserve the facilities that help support this

institution. We have endeavored to do that responsibly, and I believe we have accomplished that goal.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. SCALISE (R, LA-1): It's a sad day when someone attempts to cut spending in a bill that grows

government by the size of 7%, and it's not allowed to be debated on this House floor. Some of their Members actually used the

term "nonsense" and "foolishness" when describing our amendments to cut spending; they call that a delaying tactic. Well, I think

Americans all across this country want more of those types of delaying tactics to slow down this runaway train of massive Federal

spending. Every dollar we spend from today all the way through the end of this year is borrowed money. We don't have that money.

We need to control what we're spending.

==========================================================================================================

> February 2011
==FUCK IT, WIRETAPS FOR EVERYONE!==

'''Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.'''

Congressional Summary: A bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, individual terrorists as agents

of foreign powers, and roving wiretaps until December 8, 2011.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:[Rep. Smith, R-TX].
America is safe today not because terrorists and spies have given up their goal to destroy our freedoms and our way of life. We

are safe today because the men and women of our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement agencies work

every single day to protect us. And Congress must ensure that they are equipped with the resources they need to counteract

continuing terrorist threats. On Feb. 28, three important provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act will expire. These provisions give

investigators in national security cases the authority to conduct "roving" wiretaps, to seek certain business records, and to

gather intelligence on lone terrorists who are not affiliated with a known terrorist group. The Patriot Act works. It has proved

effective in preventing terrorist attacks and protecting Americans. To let these provisions expire would leave every American

less safe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No: [Rep. Conyers, D-MI].
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows a secret FISA court to authorize our government to collect business records or anything

else, requiring that a person or business produce virtually any type record. We didn't think that that was right then. We don't

think it's right now. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure which require the government to

show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. And so I

urge a "no" vote on the extension of these expiring provisions.

Status: Passed 86-12

==========================================================================================================

> April 2011
==Let the EPA regulate water vapor emissions! The government should leave us alone! Their reach ends at my front do- oh, sorry,

wrong talking point, uh...==

> Told you it'd be funny.

'''Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.'''

Congressional Summary:To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation

concerning the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change. The Clean Air Act is amended by adding a section entitled,

"No Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases".
In this section, the term 'greenhouse gas' means any of the following:
1.Water vapor
2.Carbon dioxide
3.Methane
4.Nitrous oxide
5.Sulfur hexafluoride
6.Hydrofluorocarbons
7.Perfluorocarbons
8.Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.
The definition of the term 'air pollutant' does not include a greenhouse gas, except for purposes of addressing concerns other

than climate change.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way

to respond to rising gas prices. But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to

get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are

they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and

regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that

the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the

business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know

better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.

Status: Failed 50-50

==========================================================================================================

> May 2012
'''Rated 86% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record.'''
==Webb scores 86% by UFCW on labor-management issues==

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) is North America's Neighborhood Union--1.3 million members with

UFCW locals in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Canada.
Our members work in supermarkets, drug stores, retail stores, meatpacking and meat processing plants, food processing plants, and

manufacturing workers who make everything from fertilizer to shoes.
We number over 60,000 strong with 25,000 workers in chemical production and 20,000 who work in garment and textile industries.

The UFCW Senate scorecard is based on these key votes: 1.American Jobs Act (+)
2.Balanced Budget Amendment (-)
3.Rejecting Cut, Cap, and Balance (+)
4.Repeal Health Care Law (-)
5.Sen. Am. 14 Wicker Am. to S 223, excluding unionization at TSA (-)
6.Sen. Am. 740 McCain Am. to HR 2112, defunding TAA (-)
7.Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAA) (+)

==========================================================================================================
FINAL THOUGHTS
==========================================================================================================

> http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jim-webb-for-us-president-good-or-bad-for-the-jews/


> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1741117/posts?q=1&&page=229
'''Near the end of "Born Fighting," Mr. Webb provides a clue of where his intentions for the Scots-Irish might lie. "And thus the

final question in this age of diversity and political correctness is whether they can learn to play the modern game of group

politics. For if they do, they hold the future direction of America in their collective hands. "The era of Democratic dominance

on Capitol Hill was forged on an alliance between Southern conservatives and Northern urban ethnics. A good measure of how badly

the Democrats want to create a new and long-lasting national majority — and not just for the most recent election — will be the

extent to which they embrace Mr. Webb's Scots-Irish as another item on the buffet of identity politics.'''

> In this book he also apparently praises Nathan Bedford Forrest's military prowess while ignoring the Fort Pillow massacre or

good ol' Nathan's founding of the KKK.
> He explicitly defends the Stars and Bars Confederate battle flag and those who fly it, but even given that his campaign had the

chutzpah to attack Allen for possibly having Confederate sympathies.
> He wants to take from the "rich" (apparently anyone who owns stock) and give to the poor so that we're all happy comrades.

(Class Struggle (Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Nov 15, 2006)).
> One astonishing charge Mr. Webb levels to get our collectivist blood boiling is "(t)he top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of

national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of

loopholes."
> He conveniently leaves out the part where the top 1% pay 29% of income taxes.

==========================================================================================================