Wyoming’s Upcoming General Election: A Snapshot

9/15/2016 – Wyoming’s General election occurs on Tuesday, November 8th. Things are getting interesting.

Nationally, we’ve got a race for Wyoming’s one House seat; Dick Cheney’s daughter, Liz, running for the second time, and Ryan Greene, a Democrat with little or no name recognition.

Closer to home, we’ve got a tight race for the State Legislature; House District 11, between incumbent Democrat Mary Throne and Chairman of the Laramie County Republican Central Committee, Jared Olsen.

What I find so interesting about this race is their Pre-Primary Report – 2016, filed just a few days before the Primary in August, with the Wyoming Election Division. Throne’s report states that she has raised a total of $14,310.78 from donations and loans. But, hey, she loaned herself $5,000, carried $2,365.78 over from last year and almost all the rest, except for $500, came from these out-of-state and a few in-state PACS.

You read THAT right. out-of-state and in-state PACS. Will someone kindly tell me what the Motorola Solutions, Inc. PAC of Washington, D.C. the Oneok Employees PAC, The Chesapeake Energy Corp. Federal PAC, the Tesoro PAC of Salt Lake City, UT, the United Transportation Union PAC of North Olmstead, OH and the BP North American Employee PAC from Houston, TX are doing contributing to the campaign of the Democrat Party House leader, who happens to be running from House District 11 in Cheyenne, Wyoming? Could it be that legislation may come before the Wyoming lawmakers affecting these entities, and they expect some consideration from the minority Party leader? Is this part of a “pay to play” scheme, Wyoming style?

According to her Report, Throne received donations from five Wyoming individuals, who contributed a total of $500. But the rest are Wyoming PACS; the WY Realtors PAC, the Wyoming Hospital Association PAC, and the Wyoming Rural Electric Assn. PAC, to name four of six. Of course, it could not be that they expect some sort of quid pro quo from Ms. Throne, in exchange for their money.

The contrast is stark. Jared Olsen’s Pre-Primary Report – 2016 shows that he has raised $5,345.00 from twenty-seven donors, of which twenty-five are Wyoming individuals. Of the other two, one came from a family member. The other, from a candidate who ran against Throne in the previous election. No donations came from any out-of-state individuals, corporations or PACS.

Looks like, if he wins the House seat, Olsen will not be in the hip pocket of any interests, and will be free to represent the interests of the constituents in his District and in the State of Wyoming.

9/8/16 – CHEYENNE, WY – Despite Large Number of Women Serving in Congress, Its Ratings Continue to Decline

Women in U.S. Congress – 2015

In 2015, 104 (76D, 28R) women held seats in the United States Congress, comprising 19.4% of the 535 members; 20 women (20%) served in the United States Senate, and 84 women (19.3%) served in the United States House of Representatives. Four women delegates (3D, 1R) also represented American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands in the United States House of Representatives.

Congressional Performance

Voters Still Say Congress Is For Sale

Monday, February 22, 2016

Positive reviews of Congress just barely cracked double-digits this month, while voters continued to believe that most representatives – including their own – are selling their votes.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 11% of Likely U.S. voters thought Congress was doing a good or excellent job. That’s up slightly from nine percent (9%) in the previous two surveys which was the lowest positive rating since the start of the new Republican-led Congress in January of last year. Sixty percent (60%) said Congress was doing a poor job, showing little change from the previous survey and generally in line with findings over the past year. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

When the new Congress arrived last year, positive reviews inched up to double digits for the first time in over two years and hit a recent high of 16% that February. The percentage of voters giving the legislators poor marks dropped into the 50s during the early months of 2015 after generally running in the 60s and 70s since mid-2011.

Now, however, voters including members of their own party aren’t pleased with the Republicans’ control of both chambers of Congress this past year. (NOTE Most voters do not understand that it’s not Republicans generally who are doing a poor job, but members of the Republican establishment; those elitists who believe they know better than the voters who sent them to Washington for a reason).

Sixty-one percent (61%) of all voters thought most members of Congress are willing to sell their vote for either cash or a campaign contribution, and the same percentage (61%) thought it’s likely their own representative had already done so. That includes 30% who thought it’s Very Likely their representative had sold his or her vote; which tied the highest finding in surveys since 2012.

Only 17% don’t think most members of Congress would sell their vote, but a sizable 22% are undecided. Twenty-six percent (26%) don’t think it’s likely their own representative had sold his or her vote, but only seven percent (7%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.

(Want a free daily email update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on February 17-18, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error was +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Voters in past surveys have said that the wealthiest individuals and companies, as well as wealthy special interest groups, have too much influence over government decisions. Most also say these wealthy interests have too much influence over elections.

Majorities of voters across most demographic groups give Congress poor marks and say most representatives sell their votes.

Just six percent (6%) of voters not affiliated with either major political party think Congress is doing a good or excellent job, compared to 13% of both Republicans and Democrats. GOP voters are only slightly less likely than the others to give Congress a poor rating.

Unaffiliated voters feel the most strongly that most members of Congress are willing to sell a vote and that their only representative has likely done so. Democrats are the least convinced that their local representative is on the take.

Voters under 40 are slightly less critical of Congress compared to their elders, but they are just as likely to think most members are willing to sell votes.

Self-described politically liberal voters are the most critical of Congress, but over 50% of moderate and conservative voters agree the legislature is doing a poor job.

Only nine percent (9%) of all voters think the average member of Congress listens to the voters he or she represents the most. Seventy-seven percent (77%) think the average member listens mostly to party leaders in Congress.

Fifty-four percent (54%) feel that the Republican-led Congress’ record will hurt the GOP nominee for president this year. Even among Republicans, just 20% think the GOP Congress’ record will help their party’s candidate, compared to 39% who say it will hurt the candidate instead.

Voters want the Republican-led Congress and President Obama to work together, and they’re far more likely to blame Congress than the president for preventing that from happening.

Yet while voters don’t much care for the job Congress is doing, they still strongly believe the president needs congressional approval before taking action on the major issues facing the nation.

The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has set off a political battle over who should get to nominate his replacement. Only 27% of voters think it’s even somewhat likely that the Republican–controlled Senate will confirm any candidate President Obama nominates to replace Scalia.

Wyoming’s Upcoming Primary Election: A Snapshot

8/12/2016 – Wyoming’s Primary election occurs this coming Tuesday. Things are getting interesting.

Nationally, we’ve got a race for Wyoming’s one House seat; several good candidates – Liz Cheney running for the second time, after being rejected by the voters for being a “carpetbagger”; several talented newcomers, including Darin Smith, who has run an excellent campaign and is closing fast.

Closer to home, we’ve got a tight race for the State Legislature; House District 11, between incumbent Democrat Mary Throne and President of the Laramie County Republican Central Committee, Jared Olsen.

What I find so interesting about this race is their Pre-Primary Report – 2016, filed just a few days ago with the Wyoming Election Division. First, Mary Throne’s report states that she has raised a total of $14,310.78 from donations and loans. But, hey, she loaned herself $5,000, carried $2,365.78 over from last year and almost all the rest, except for $500, came from state and federal PACS.

You read THAT right; state and federal PACS. Will someone kindly tell me what the Motorola Solutions, Inc. PAC of Washington, D.C. the Oneok Employees PAC, The Chesapeake Energy Corp. Federal PAC, the Tesoro PAC of Salt Lake City, UT, the United Transportation Union PAC of North Omstead, OH and the BP North American Employee PAC from Houston, TX are doing contributing to the Primary campaign of the Democrat Party House leader in Wyoming? Could it be that legislation may come before the Wyoming lawmakers affecting these entities, and they expect some consideration from the minority Party leader?

According to her Report, Throne received donations from five Wyoming individuals, who contributed a total of $500. But the rest are Wyoming PACS; the WY Realtors PAC, the Wyoming Hospital Association PAC, and the Wyoming Rural Electric Assn. PAC, to name four of six. Of course, it could not be that they expect some sort of quid pro quo from Ms. Throne, in exchange for their money.

The contrast is stark. Jared Olsen’s Pre-Primary Report – 2016 shows that he has raised $5,345.00 from twenty-seven donors, of which twenty-five are Wyoming individuals. One came from family. The other, from a candidate who ran against Throne in the previous election. No donations came from any out-of-state individuals, corporations or PACS.

Looks like, if he wins the House seat, Olsen will represent the interests of the constituents in his District and in the State of Wyoming.

Water in Wyoming

8/3/16 – CHEYENNE, WY – although the Western states are far from an arid wasteland, there’s no denying that water is scarce. As such it is an important resource, depended upon by the Agriculture and Mining industries, as well as the people who reside in cities and towns.

About our water supply? We get water from both surface water and ground water. Surface water is collected from the Douglas Creek Drainage area, located in the Snowy Range Mountains, about 75 miles west of Cheyenne. The water is stored in Rob Roy Reservoir and transported to Granite and Crystal Reservoirs via two water delivery pipelines. Surface water is also collected from the Crow Creek Drainage area located in the Pole Mountain/Vedauwoo Drainage area, about 30 miles west of Cheyenne. Crow Creek water is collected and stored in North Crow Reservoir (North Crow Creek Drainage area), in Granite and Crystal Reservoirs (Middle Crow Creek Drainage area), and South Crow Reservoir (South Crow Creek Drainage area). Water is delivered from these drainage areas to the R. L. Sherard water treatment plant by pipelines.

The City of Cheyenne owns about 35 groundwater wells located west and northwest of Cheyenne. These wells pump water from the Ogallala and White River Aquifers.

Cheyenne also collects surface water in the Little Snake River Drainage area, located about 110 miles west of Cheyenne on the western slope of the Continental Divide. This water is transported through a tunnel and stored in Hog Park Reservoir, located on the eastern slope of the Divide. Water released from Hog Reservoir is traded for surface water from the Douglas Creek Drainage area. Cheyenne is allowed to collect water from this Drainage area and store it in Rob Roy Reservoir for use in the drinking water system.

In view of Islam’s war against the western world, water can and will become a target for their terrorist tactics. That means that we must develop counter terrorist tactics to protect this major resource from attack by those seeking to damage or destroy the United States.

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON FIRED FROM WATERGATE INVESTIGATION FOR ‘LYING, UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR’

7/10/16 – CHEYENNE, WY: The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther … and goes much deeper … than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation … one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals … including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum … who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach… including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files.

So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,”Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding … as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.http://patdollard.com/2013/05/flashback-hillary-clinton-fired-from-watergate-investigation-for-lying-unethical-behavior-conspiracy-to-violate-the-constitution/
——————————————–

Original eRumor as it appeared in 2008: Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior

by Dan Calabrese Dan Calabrese

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.

The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.

Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.

But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.

This is One of the Things I’ve Been Afraid Of.

CHEYENNE, WY – 7/3/16: This is one of the things I’ve been afraid of. The hopelessly uninformed, the hand out people, the gimme people are coming outta the woodwork.

And they seem to be jumping on the Clinton bandwagon, creating a Clinton’s tail wind of sorts. In April, Democrats nosed ahead of Republicans in voter registration for the first time since 1994.

During the Democrat Primary, they were not in evidence. Republican turnout was far greater. But, now? Something is getting them charged up, motivated.

Meanwhile, what of Republican voters? Disorganized. Unfocused. Fighting each other over who will be their candidate, instead of uniting behind one person – the one who participated in the entire Primary process and won over 13 million votes.

If this does not change soon, we will lose in November.