Tag Archives: election 2010

Michael Moore Echoes FDR, Carter in Bid to Save Dems at Cost of Economy

Michael Moore 66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra)

photo credit: nicogenin

Michael Moore shows his greedy, self-serving intolerant self yet again.  Feel free to destroy the economy as long as failed progressive and socialistic policies are put in place.  Oh, and he thinks it will save the Democrat majority.  Center-right country Ms. Moore, center-right.

It should come as no surprise that the progressive rag, The Huffington Post published this mess of ill-conceived ideas that have already failed in decades past.  In a 5-point rant, Moore throws out the sum of his intelligence in an attempt to save the Democrat majority in Congress.

1. Deliver a blunt, nonstop reminder to the American people about exactly who it was that got us into the mess we’re in.

2. Declare a moratorium on home foreclosures.

3. Prosecute the banks and Wall Street for the Crime of the Century.

4. Create a 21st century WPA (hire the unemployed to rebuild America).

5. Pledge that no Dem will take a dime from Wall Street in the next election cycle.

uh, wow.  Let’s take a few words to dismantle this mantra of progressive leadership.

1) Deliver a blunt, nonstop reminder to the American people about exactly who it was that got us into the mess we’re in

Please do, Democrats have held the majority in Congress since 2006 (Ok, I’ll give you January 2007 if you want to discount the lame duck period in 2006).  Barney Frank felt that Fannie and Freddie were not nearing any crisis in 2003, Congress controls the purse-strings and I didn’t see any Dems pulling back the reigns on any spending once taking control.  I’ll give you that Bush pushed for more spending than he should, but I didn’t see the Dem majority holding him back at all.

2) Declare a moratorium on home foreclosure

You Mr. Moore .. are a fiscal mental midget (you may be overcompensating with the waste line there champ).  We have a credit crisis, where banks are unable to loan because of restrictive liability ratios.  Financial institutions can only loan so much money based on a certain positive balance sheet.  A mortgage represents a liability and the house is the securing asset.  If the mortgage is not being paid, the money that was given to the original borrower cannot just be given to someone else.  The bank has to sell the asset for real money to settle the liability so that it can again loan that money to someone else.

If the government freezes foreclosures, the credit markets will come to a screeching halt and you can just prepare for the massive fallout from this failed feel-good catastrophe.  Keep your government control, anti-free-market marxist B.S. and go hug Hugo .. I hear he needs friends right about now.

3) Prosecute the banks and Wall Street for the Crime of the Century

Feel free, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.  While you’re at it, take a look at Fannie and Freddie (if Barney will let you).  Oh yeah, and Soros.. and Rangel .. oh yeah Waters.. Kerry?  The courts will be clogged for a generation if we take all those Democrat crooks down with the CEOs.  At least the CEOs created jobs and wealth, those other idiots just stole it.

4) Create a 21st century WPA (hire the unemployed to rebuild America)

WPA .. an FDR program, resurrected by former President Carter and now suggested by Michael Moore.  What was it?

..in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs an executive order creating the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The WPA was just one of many Great Depression relief programs created under the auspices of the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act, which Roosevelt had signed the month before. The WPA, the Public Works Administration (PWA) and other federal assistance programs put unemployed Americans to work in return for temporary financial assistance.[1]

If Michael Moore is suggesting that in order to get welfare or unemployment checks, people have to go build roads, bridges and do cow fart studies.. I am all in.  Unfortunately, I am sure that he didn’t mention anything about tying their free government checks to actual work.

5) Pledge that no Dem will take a dime from Wall Street in the next election cycle

Good luck with that.  What about big oil?  Wasn’t the proto-typical progressive democrat (Obama) the leading beneficiary of BPs big oil money?  How ’bout that Fannie and Freddie money Mr. Frank?

..one of Fannie Mae’s main defenders in the House – Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989 – was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.[2][3]

Woah.. two deposits?  This is just populist anger-mongering with no real intention of fixing much of anything.  Then again, when has Michael Moore done anything remotely productive.


[1] FDR creates the WPA: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-creates-the-wpa
[2] Media Mum on Barney Frank’s Fannie Mae Love Connection: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx
[3] Fox News: Barney Frank Escaped Blame for Fannie Mae’s Problems Because He Is Gay: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/fox-news-barney-frank-esc_b_132347.html

Harry Reid: Between A Political Rock and a Religious Hard Place

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church.  Reid has a political problem that’s about to smack him upside the head on November 2nd.  The problem is that the political positions taken by Reid appear to be at odds with his professed religious beliefs. And this is a problem for Reid because there are approximately 173,639 Mormons in Nevada, comprising about 6.7 of Nevada’s population. What’s more, Mormons tend to be devout voters – and the vast majority of them vote Republican. That 6.7 percent figure is larger than Angle’s percentage lead in the polls. Losing the Mormon vote could be disastrous for Reid. And Mormons have good reason to abandon Reid on November 2nd. After all, Reid isn’t exactly representing the views of those conservative Nevada Mormons.

This article presents both sides of the argument as to Reid’s political vs. religious beliefs – you be the judge as to where you think Reid’s true affection lies.

Official Mormon Church Position on Politics

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints officially maintains a position of neutrality when it comes to politics. Here is the church’s official statement on this subject:

The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.

The Church does not:

  • Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
  • Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
  • Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  • Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

The Church does:

  • Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
  • Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
  • Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
  • Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.

Reid’s Rock and a Hard Place

However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does hold doctrinal positions that are diametrically opposed to the political views held by Reid – which puts him in a position of having to choose between his religious beliefs and his political beliefs. Guess which way he goes when the chips are down? Right, politics wins every time with Reid. Let’s examine some of these issues that place Reid between a rock and a hard place.

In his defense, Reid will point to the following official statement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:

Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.

Note that the Church says that members of the church who hold political office can make policy choices that are at odds with church doctrine. However, it makes no statement that such held political views transcend official church doctrine. In other words, Reid can hold liberal views on any subject he believes in – but that doesn’t mean the Church is going to change its doctrine to fall into line with the views of Reid. Reid is still on the hook doctrinally for advocating positions that go against the beliefs of the Church. Reid is free to hold opposing viewpoints, but take a guess what would happen, for instance, if he were to stand at the pulpit and give a religious speech in favor of unrestricted abortions? Yup, his Church leaders would be having a private chat with him for his allegedly apostate behavior.

So let’s take a look at some issues on which the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has spoken out and at the corresponding political positions of Reid.

Abortion

Church Position

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

Reid’s Position

  • Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies.
  • Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP.
  • Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions
  • Voted YES to expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines
  • Rated 50% by the National Right to Life Committee, indicating a mixed record on abortion.
  • Sponsored bill allowing emergency contraction

Analysis

It would appear that Reid is eligible under the rules of his Church for excommunication on the basis that he encourages abortion and has also sought to pay for abortions.

Self-Sufficiency

Church Position

Excerpt from a First Presidency Message published in 1986: Guiding Principles of Personal and Family Welfare by Thomas S. Monson, who is now the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Work is basic to all we do. God’s first direction to Adam in the Garden of Eden as recorded in scripture was to dress the garden and take care of it. After the fall of Adam, God cursed the earth for Adam’s sake saying, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.” (Gen. 3:19.) Today, many have forgotten the value of work. Some falsely believe that the highest goal in life is to achieve a condition in which one no longer needs to work.

Let us hearken to the counsel given by President Stephen L Richards in 1939: “We have always dignified work and reproved idleness. Our books, our sermons, our leaders, including particularly our present President, have glorified industry. The busy hive of the honeybee Deseret—has been our emblem. Work with faith is a cardinal point of our theological doctrine, and our future state—our heaven—is envisioned in terms of eternal progression through constant labor.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1939, p. 65.)

Self-reliance is a product of our work and under-girds all other welfare practices. It is an essential element in our spiritual as well as our temporal well-being. Regarding this principle, President Marion G. Romney has said: “Let us work for what we need. Let us be self-reliant and independent. Salvation can be obtained on no other principle. Salvation is an individual matter, and we must work out our own salvation in temporal as well as in spiritual things.” (In Welfare Services Meeting Report, 2 Oct. 1976, p. 13.)

President Spencer W. Kimball further taught concerning self-reliance: “The responsibility for each person’s social, emotional, spiritual, physical, or economic well-being rests first upon himself, second upon his family, and third upon the Church if he is a faithful member thereof.

“No true Latter-day Saint, while physically or emotionally able, will voluntarily shift the burden of his own or his family’s well-being to someone else.” (Ensign, Nov. 1977, p. 77.)

President Thomas S. Monson

President Thomas S. Monson

Reid’s Position

Reid has presided over the largest expansion of the welfare state ever seen in the history of The United States of America. Reid championed ObamaCare through Congress and voted for nearly $ 1 Trillion in stimulus spending – which will have the effect of making our children and grandchildren unable to be self-reliant. Reid seeks to expand entitlements at every opportunity – making people reliant on the government for their sustenance, thereby removing from them the opportunity to work to support themselves and instead placing them on a public dole.

Personal Liberty and Freedom of Choice

Church Position

Elder D. Todd Christofferson

Excerpt from a talk given January 31, 2006 at Brigham Young University by Elder D. Todd Christofferson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

In years past we generally used the term free agency. That is not incorrect. More recently we have taken note that free agency does not appear in the scriptures. They talk of our being “free to choose” and “free to act” for ourselves (2 Nephi 2:27; 10:23; see also Helaman 14:30) and of our obligation to do many things of our own “free will” (D&C 58:27). But the word agency appears either by itself or with the modifier moral: “That every man may act in doctrine and principle … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (D&C 101:78; emphasis added). When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices.

…The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency” (Moses 7:32).

Reid’s Position

The position of Harry Reid echoes that of the Democratic Party in general and Barack Hussein Obama in particular. Reid supports a vast expansion of government in order to enable the central planning and control long envisioned by the political left. Reid supports Obama’s appointments of “Czars” who have been appointed to take free will away from the people and replace that free will with federal degrees in all facets of life – all without Congressional oversight or approval.

Civil Discourse in Politics

Church Position

The Church expects “its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner…”

Reid’s Position

  • “My staff tells me not to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway.  In the summer you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol, especially Christian conservatives. It’s true, they stink like hell.” – Harry Reid
Harry Reid gives an opponent the finger
Senator Harry Reid, in earlier times, displaying his typical civility in political discourse.
  • Reading in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Sherman Frederick writes: “There are about 250,000 Hispanic voters in Nevada, about 50,000 of which register Republican. No telling how many Hispanic voters — Republican and Democrat — vote for the individual candidate and not a straight party ticket, like most Americans do. For Harry Reid to say that all Hispanics should then vote only for Democrats like himself is like calling a good cross section of Hispanic Nevadans little short of stupid.
    And lest we forget, polls show that Nevada voters (which include that Hispanic electorate) are on the verge of overwhelmingly voting into office the state’s first Hispanic governor, Brian Sandoval. A dreaded Republican. What is that — stupid squared?”
  • Reid said that Obama could be a successful presidential candidate because he is “light skinned” and that he speaks with “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=255708117314

Civil discourse isn’t exactly Reid’s strong suit. Seems he doesn’t give much weight to the advice of his own church leaders.

Conclusion

Reid is appears to consistently be at odds with the doctrines of his own religion. This places him in the awkward position of having to refute allegations of hypocrisy. Which he is? Is he an orthodox Mormon who devoutly practices the teachings of his church? Or he is dedicated to the liberal, leftist, socialist, communist policies of the Democratic Party? There doesn’t appear to be much grey area in this matter. And it doesn’t appear that a devout Mormon can hold to both positions simultaneously. The church positions speak for themselves and appear to be closely aligned with the beliefs of the vast majority of conservatives and self-professed members of the Tea Party. Perhaps this is what gives Reid his dour countenance – he can’t reconcile his public socialist policy planks with the teachings of his own religion.

Which is it Harry? Do you support the theology and doctrines of your faith, or do you support the progressive policies of the Democratic Party?

As for the rest of us, we get to judge Reid via an easy parameter – “By their works ye shall know them.”

New Sharron Angle Ad: Thanks, Pal

Today, the Sharron Angle for Senate campaign released a new ad entitled, “Thanks, Pal.” The new television ad highlights Harry Reid’s history of supporting taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants. From voting for special tax breaks to supporting a program to give education benefits to illegal aliens, Harry Reid’s record has displayed his continually misguided efforts that puts illegal aliens in front of Nevadans.

“Harry Reid’s history of using our tax dollars to support programs and benefits for illegal aliens shows how out-of-touch he is with everyday Nevadans struggling in this economic crisis,” said Jerry Stacy, Press Secretary for Sharron Angle. “In a time when Nevada faces the worst unemployment in the nation and a soaring foreclosure rate, Harry Reid has decided to incentivize illegal immigration by using our tax dollars as enticement. Nevada can no longer afford the disastrous leadership of Harry Reid and, this November, Nevadans will choose Sharron Angle as their Senator because she represents the reform needed to get our state back on track.”

New Christine O’Donnell Ad Released: I am Not a Witch

Christine O’Donnell released this ad which is a well-played tactic.  HotAir.com is reporting in this article that Christine has a new manager for her advertising.

Late last month, O’Donnell signed GOP ad guru Fred Davis to handle her advertising for the campaign. Among his greatest hits are Carly Fiorina’s “Demon Sheep” spot and the now legendary “Celebrity” ad attacking Obama for McCain’s campaign two years ago.

It’s great to hear that she has someone to help manage her publicity and I think the ad is well done.  Someone .. should help her manage her web presence.  Searching for “Christine O’Donnell for senate home page” on google gives you craptastic results:

Christine O'Donnell new ad I am not a witch

I spent the better part of 10 minutes using different combinations of Christine O’Donnel for Senate to see if I could get her home page to show up on the first google page.  Nope.  AARP, DNC, Club For Growth, Huffington Post..   none of which are really all that invested in her winning.

Out of curiousity, I followed one of the first page results I got for AARP.  Then got a worthless page from them.. then again, I guess that’s why I support the Alliance for Retirement Prosperity as an alternative to AARP.  I digress.  I so I went to the search widget and put Ms. O’Donnell’s name in there to see what AARP had to offer.. again, top results?

Christine O'Donnell AARP results

The O’Donnell campaign needs to invest a few buck in an online strategist that at least understands search engines .. she’s getting the crap kicked out of her on the internet and the crafty ad, isn’t going to fix that.  Now that the primaries are over, we have got to support the most Conservative candidate available.  She isn’t perfect, her online strategy has its work cut out for it, but she’s a Conservative and that’s better than being handed another $1 Trillion boondoggle next year.  We have to remember that it is not alway about that singular candidate, sometimes it’s about the caucus.

By the way, anyone wondering, I already had her site bookmarked.  Here it is: http://christine2010.com/.  And yeah, the new ad.. isn’t there.

Update 10-5-10:

The ad now appears on her home page, but still is missing from the multi-media tab.

Scott Ashjian Threatens to Hand Nevada Election to Harry Reid

For perhaps the first time this election season, I find myself in total agreement with the GOP establishment.  According to former Nevada GOP Executive Director Chuck Mith, Scott Ashjian ” .. is a huckster, he’s a slimeball”

Scott Ashjian lists himself as the real Tea Party candidate in Nevada.  Sharron Angle was endorsed by the Tea Party express while Ashjian is endorsed by the Nevada Tea Party that he created. He doesn’t do speeches or spend much on advertising, he can’t.  He’s only collected about $5,000 according to the Wall Street Journal.

That article paints a narcissistic, playboy image more akin to someone like John Kerry than any Tea Parties I know:

He wears a platinum Rolex and slicks his hair back, Mad Men-style. He got his start in car washes, went into asphalt and now has a company that floods the Internet with flattering information about people worried they look bad in Google searches. He keeps a Playboy-themed pinball machine in his office, drives a $160,000 black Mercedes with a night-vision system, and carries a pistol under his suit jacket.

The article then questions what might have pulled Scott into running:

Mr. Ashjian won’t say who suggested that he run for the Senate, except that it wasn’t a Democrat. When he formed the Tea Party of Nevada in January, he made his podiatrist its chairman and Mr. Levinson its secretary.

That’s weird, no real motivation for running and just chose his foot doctor and a lawyer as his Tea Party administration.  Sounds more like an Obama lawn party than any grass roots effort I can think of.

Perhaps there is a real motivation.  Just a a few weeks ago, Angle was polling dead even with Harry Reid, with Scott Ashjian’s snake-in-the-grass move, she’s dropped 4 points to Reid, and Ashjian has pulled 5%.

Scott makes his motives very plain.  And at the so does the WSJ article near the end

“He is, he admits, counting on angry Nevadans to check the box next to the man identified as the Tea Party candidate.”

That’s the whole sham, get his name on the ballot with “Tea Party” next to it while Angle has “Republican” next to hers.  Anyone not well-informed will vote against the Republican candidate just to stick it to them.  This will effectively split the vote and hand the election to dingy Harry.

Has this always been the plan?  You betcha!

Michigan:

New Hampshire

 

And of Course, Nevada

This is most-likely not all of them or even close.  In Michigan alone they tried to create 20+ fake candidates.  This is the back-room, illegal and unethical trickery they used to win elections in the past and put craptastic legislation like Obamacare into law.  Imagine what they’ll do if they are left with a majority in either house.

The Defining Line Between Progressives and Conservatives

terra mítica 11

photo credit: alamez

Progressives and Conservatives – we aren’t as alike as many of the big tent thinkers on either side would have you believe. These are the true philosophies that identify most political agendas and it would be difficult to sit in the middle of these two ideologies and be able to accomplish much of anything.

I had heard on a radio show the other day a caller explaining what he felt the difference between liberal and Conservative were.  He expressed that Conservatives fundamentally view humanity as flawed and therefor when that person falls down, we have to help that person realize his weakness and guide them on the path to getting stronger – help him to help himself.  The caller continued by saying that liberals think of all people as basically good, so anything that happens to them must be the fault of someone or something else and society must then rally together to change the other person or entity so that no one else could find themselves in the same situation.

I certainly get why how this person formed the theoretical difference.  If a liberal sees someone with too much school debt, they feel that society should be rescuing them from a system that took advantage of them (a public school system in most cases).  A Conservative might have said, well since you didn’t work during college, chose an expensive school and decided to live on campus instead of at home, I guess you get to pull up those boot straps, live on Ramen noodles, buy a beater to get to work, and get yourself a cheap apartment while you pay off the debt you CHOSE to take on.  A clear defining characteristic is personal responsibility.

The battle lines have traditionally been drawn as liberal vs. Conservative, Republican vs. Democrat- neither is the reality.  It’s a clear line between Conservative and progressive – and it’s a line we should be accentuating.

Liberal vs. Conservative gets into social issues that fracture both sides of the trenches. Abortion vs. Right-to-life, Government-run health care or not, amnesty or defend the border, etc.  All of these issues are where moderate liberals and Conservatives move left and right in election years.

If we change the battle to Democrat vs. Republican the common perceptions are big labor (unions) vs. big business (corporations).  Sure, all the usual arguments come out: Unions don’t create jobs – they get them sent overseas -or- Corporations don’t care about you.  While the chamber of commerce would certainly favor a GOP-led Congress and the AFL-CIO would prefer Dems, voters don’t tend to define themselves along the same lines.  Years ago, when I used to identify as a Republican, I didn’t do it because I wanted Kraft to get some government gift or for Intel to get a pat on the head from Dick Armey.  I doubt most Democrat voters pulled the lever to the left just to support Andy Stern’s corrupt little band of morons.

That leaves the true battlefield: progressives vs. Conservatives.  This is the feud that’s been raging since the early 20th century in America and has been present since pre-revolutionary times (Federalists vs. anti-Federalists) –  To have a strong central Federal government or not.  The State’s rights battle that spilled over into a civil war was fought along these lines, and today we identify our politics the same way.

For Conservatives, the identity is strong today.  The grass-roots Tea Party organizations have made the cause clear: smaller government, adhere to the most-strict interpretation of the Constitution, keep taxes low.  Basically, Conservatives want as little government as can be accomplished while maintaining the Republic.  Specific issues are decided upon this basic set of ideas which creates a concrete foundation to build upon.

For progressives the core ideology is muddier – the cause and effect of it are different.  Instead of a core set of principles upon which the forge their position on issues, it’s social issues that push them into a similar ideology.  Some left-wing groups want renewable energy, others want government health care, another group would push for government-provided houses, and yet another would push to have the government force us to eat or drink certain things – all of them end up causing the same thing: a much larger central government and reduced individual liberties – perhaps even a change in the type and purpose of government.  There’s the line.

The major challenge for progressive leaders has alway been to get their many groups of disparate radicals to come together at election time.  This year may be a fine example of their challenge.  Only one group of leftist extremists got their agenda addressed – health care.  They aren’t even happy because there wasn’t enough government in the solution that passed – no single-payer or public option.  Other groups: environmentalists, peace activists, pro-Palestinians, community housing reformers, etc .. got nothing.  That will sting at the polls in November.

That was the purpose of the One Nation indoctrination .. er .. rally on October 2nd, 2010 – to get them all to vote Democrat despite the fact that Democrats cannot possibly achieve their disjointed agendas.

As Conservatives we must remain united on the core principles while we may differ on some issues built around that core.  We must always remain vigilant on some basic ideals:

Drastically Reducing the Size and Scope of Government

We should be wary of any candidate for Federal office that promises more help or entitlements from the government.  While the government must do certain things: common defense, enablement of trade, performing the census – the Federal government does not need to be building local libraries, museums, statues, funding cow fart studies and the like.  That’s for State and local government to handle.  John Doe for Mayor – he’ll keep cow farts local.

Adhere to a Strict Interpretation of the Constitution

While the Constitution has its issues, (welfare clause anyone?), it is a fundamentally sound document.  It limits the power of each of the branches of government.  When listening to candidates promise things, test it against the protections in the Bill of Rights and the constraints of government found throughout the document.

Reduction of Taxes

As much as the progressives would love to have us believe that by increasing taxes, we can reduce the National debt – nothing is further from the truth.  If we give Congress more money, they will spend it.  Heck, even though we haven’t given them as much as they’ve wanted to spend, they’ve spent that too by robbing Social Security and putting our nation so deep in debt that the the way out is getting harder and harder to see.  They only way to make Congress fiscally-responsible is to stop enabling them – take away the checkbook.

There are ramifications of the Conservative agenda on social policy, but don’t expect to hear it out of a politician’s mouth prior to the mid-terms.  To insure a healthy majority in Congress, through which we can achieve many of our other goals, we must unite around these core ideals while the progressives argue over why their individual agendas never made it to Congress.

Statement From Sharron Angle On Reid’s False Ad

September 30th, 2010:

Reid is trying to scare women into voting against me by making up facts out of thin air. His new attack ad makes a blatantly false claim that I tried to repeal a law that makes insurance companies cover mammograms.

As a woman, I understand the fear of breast cancer in a way that Harry Reid never will. I’ve known many women who have been diagnosed, and families who have lost mothers, daughters and sisters to this horrible disease. I am disgusted that he is playing politics with the tragedy that is breast cancer. It’s sick. If elected I will push for health care legislation that will reduce insurance costs and ensure high-quality care for all Americans. Harry Reid’s campaign has hit a new low today, and trust me, for them, that’s really saying something.

*from: SharronAngle.com

Barney Frank’s Campaign is in Trouble

Bringing back a line from Jack Nicholson in “As Good as it Gets”, is Sean Bielat making Barney Frank “want to be a better man”?  According to Margery Eagan of the Boston Herald – yup!

Margery wrote:

Yesterday I asked him some questions. I was bracing to get hammered by his reply.

This time, though, he didn’t tell me I was asking something dumb. He didn’t get mad. He didn’t lecture me on what I should be asking instead.

Huh, what could be going on?  Well DUH, it’s Sean.  In recent polling Frank holds now less than 50% of likely voters.  While this demostrates a 10 point lead for Frank (48% for Frank and 38% for Bielat), his command of Massachusett’s District 4 is slipping.

But a September 22nd release from the Bielat camp contained a poll of independents that showed a 51% to 34% lead for Bielat over Frank – the widest margin to-date.  Back in July, it was Frank that held a lead with the same group of likely voters.

What happened?  The people have figured out that Barney Frank is a centrally-responsible figure for the current economic collapse.

from boston.com

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.” Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this “subprime” lending by authorizing ever more “flexible” criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

Barney Frank spent 2008 and 2009 making statements that it was our Free Market economy that caused the problem.  In fact, he alludes that perhaps Ronald Reagan is to blame.

If that wasn’t enough to turn Massachusetts voters off, this year Frank turned on Fannie and Freddie, the semi-government agencies that he had been protecting all this time.  In an August 2010 interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business News, Frank told Neil that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, “..should be abolished”.

Maybe it’s not that hard to see why Sean Bielat is becoming so much more attractive to Massachusetts voters – Barney Frank is blowing it.

Then again, maybe he is just spending too much time discussing an exit strategy.

Burr Protects American Jobs, Businesses

ImageSept. 28, 2010

Today, Senator Richard Burr voted against a cloture motion for S. 3816, the Reid-Durbin legislation to implement a new international tax regime and punish American companies with tax increases.

“Once again, the Majority Leader denied Republicans the ability to offer any amendments and improve this bill,” Burr said. “I cannot support legislation that will place American jobs at risk. This bill would hurt the ability of American companies to compete in a global marketplace, costing us jobs right here at home.”

S. 3816 would have raised tax burdens on imports from U.S. owned corporations with no change in the treatment of imports from foreign-owned corporations. This would force consumers to pay more for American products, leading to potential job losses throughout North Carolina and the United States.

From http://burrforsenate.com

Bachmann Campaign Asserts Opponent is Lying on Entitlement Issues

From: http://MicheleBachmann.com

Once again the Clark campaign has come out with a blatant lie, accusing Congresswoman Bachmann of wanting to eliminate Social Security and Medicare.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has been clear she does not support ending Social Security.  Michele has stated both Medicare and Social Security need to be fixed.  Under their current conditions these programs can’t be maintained for our future generations because of liberal spending by politicians like President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Tarryl Clark. Michele remains committed to maintaining benefits for those who are receiving benefits as well as protecting the money future recipients have paid into the system.

Our retirement systems must be prepared to meet the needs of our growing population. Tarryl Clark, who supported and continues to support Obamacare, needs to explain to voters why Medicare was cut by $500 billion to pay for this monstrosity.

We found this transcript and analysis of the Tarryl Clark ad at 1500 ESPN.com

SCRIPT: Female narrator: “Addict. Addict. Addict. Addict.” Male voice: “Wait, what?” Narrator: “Well, Michele Bachmann says we need to `wean everybody off’ of Social Security. Like Social Security isn’t your money. Like it’s an addiction you need to break. If Michele Bachmann wants to wean you off Social Security, she sure can’t be trusted to protect it. Michele Bachmann: Keeping her pay raises, but not our promises to seniors.” Clark: “I’m Tarryl Clark and I approve this message.”

Carly Fiorina Unveils Plan To Rein In Out-Of-Control Government Spending

September 27, 2010

Highlights Boxer’s Decades of Support for Irresponsible Government Expansion

SAN DIEGO, CA – During a town hall with students at the University of San Diego, U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina today discussed the importance of creating jobs and ensuring a stronger economy for future generations. She also unveiled her plan to rein in out-of-control government spending by implementing common-sense budget solutions that control spending, cut waste and restore accountability, strengthen transparency and reduce the debt.

“During her 28 years in Washington, Barbara Boxer has been a consistent vote for bigger government and more government spending of money taxpayers don’t have. This has resulted in trillion-dollar annual deficits and fiscally irresponsible borrowing that amounts to generational theft,” said Fiorina. “Our nation’s rising national debt and unsustainable federal deficit threaten long-term economic growth and job creation, and it jeopardizes the future of our students who will soon be entering the workforce and will have to pay the price of Washington’s fiscal irresponsibility.”

Fiorina’s plan is based on the principle that, in order to put Americans back to work, get small enterprises back in business and boost economic growth beyond just 2 or 3 percent, we must reduce the stress that record-high federal spending places on our economy. To do that, Fiorina proposes that Congress implement the following steps:

Control Spending

  • Pass the Sessions/McCaskill spending cap bill, a modest but important step toward a spending freeze.
  • Cap annual spending to the historical average of 20 percent of the economy.
  • Freeze federal civilian workforce pay and hire just one civilian employee for every two who leave government service until the federal workforce returns to 2008 levels.

Cut Waste And Restore Accountability

  • Review every government program as their authorizations expire to ensure only effective programs receive additional funding.
  • Terminate ineffective programs that are unable to be reformed such that they have a positive impact.
  • End earmarks and sweetheart deals and give the president the authority to line item veto any spending not in the national interest

Strengthen Transparency

  • Put agency budgets and quarterly spending reports online, audit unspent funds annually and place an expiration date on all unobligated funds.
  • Put bills online at least two weeks before they’re voted on and provide Americans access to all information about committee hearings, amendments and other official acts of Congress that members have.
  • Evaluate the short- and long-term costs of every bill – including the impact on businesses – at least one week in advance of voting

Reduce the Debt

  • Give taxpayers the opportunity to designate 0 to 10 percent of their federal tax liability towards debt reduction.
  • Put unused stimulus money toward debt reduction, since the economic stimulus plan has failed to create the jobs Barbara Boxer promised.
  • End taxpayers’ ownership stakes in Detroit, Wall Street, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the end of 2011.

“In order to get our economy moving again, Congress must make the tough decisions necessary to control spending, cut waste and restore accountability, strengthen transparency and reduce the debt,” Fiorina continued. “Barbara Boxer has shown time and time again that she is either unwilling or unable to make these tough choices and help get our economy back on track. Changing our government starts with changing the people we send to Washington, and that is why today I am asking for your support on November 2.”

To read Fiorina’s plan to reduce the federal deficit and lower federal debt, please click here.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz- Fundamentally Dishonest About Her Reckless Agenda That Holds Our Economy Hostage

Pembroke Pines, FL, September 28, 2010 – It is no secret that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is one of the most brazen partisan politicians in the country today. In every media appearance, Debbie never deviates from her talking points and her political spin- but the truth is that her misinformation and outright falsehoods cannot withstand scrutiny. Time and again, Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz is routinely tasked with the role of caricaturing and vilifying her political opposition while she fundamentally deceives the American people about the true nature of her Party’s radical agenda that continues to divide the American people.

The hard truth about Debbie’s agenda that she cannot avoid is that it really is more of the same- unsustainable fiscal spending that comes at taxpayer expense, a hostile government takeover of the health care system that threatens the quality of our health care, the creation of massive new bureaucracies and expansion of government power- there is nothing “new” here; Debbie’s agenda is a tried and failed plan of action.

As Debbie has busied herself supporting policies that are sure to fail the American people, her and her Democratic Party have now become derelict in their responsibilities, as they have announced that they will not schedule a vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts for every American before adjourning Congress at the end of this week.

“All Americans are going to suffer the biggest tax increase in history if Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Democratic-controlled Congress do not vote to renew tax-rate cuts,” said Karen Harrington, the candidate challenging Wasserman-Schultz in Florida’s 20th Congressional District.  “There is not one small business owner operating in the United States who knows what their tax rate will be as of January 1st.  Small businesses will not be able to make hiring decisions or determine capital spending in this kind of economic uncertainty.  The hard economic reality is that my restaurant business, just like most other small businesses here in South Florida, will unfortunately postpone hiring and expansion decisions until after the beginning of next year.

“If taxes are increased come January 1st, the current poor economic climate will become even worse, and the chance that new hiring will take place or that businesses will expand their operations will become far less likely. Unfortunately, it is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s ignorance about the way business works that is causing needless uncertainty amongst small businesses and doing great damage to South Florida’s economy.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s awards and photo-ops do not help small businesses, and her present inaction on taxes is only doing further damage to the same small businesses that she claims to support.  As more people come to understand that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has nothing to offer other than platitudes and policies that are hijacking our economy, the more people will abandon her and her agenda,” said Harrington.

Angle Campaign Releases Statement On ObamaCare

Sharron Angle for Senate Spokesman Jerry Stacy released the following statement today in reference to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s visit to Las Vegas to promote ObamaCare on behalf of Harry Reid.

“First Harry Reid rammed through ObamaCare against the wishes of the people and now he’s actually campaigning on this monstrosity,” said Jerry Stacy. “Sharron Angle sides with the citizens of Nevada and strongly supports repealing and replacing ObamaCare while Harry Reid has totally ignored Nevadans in order to please President Obama. It’s clear that at this point Harry Reid doesn’t believe he works for the people of Nevada, he works for President Obama. We need a Senator who works for us. That’s Sharron Angle.”

A Majority Of Nevadans Oppose Senator Reid’s Health Care Bill:

“An Identical 62% Of Nevadans Also Think It Would Be A Good Thing If President Obama’s Recently Signed Healthcare Legislation Was Repealed.” (“Poll News For Nevada’s Democrat Harry Reid: 62% There Don’t Like Incumbents Or The Healthcare Bill,” LA Times, Top Of The Ticket Blog, 4/5/10)

“Forty-Three Percent (43%) Of Voters In The State Favor The Requirement In The New National Health Care Bill That Every American Must Buy Or Obtain Health Insurance. Fifty-Five Percent (55%) Oppose That Requirement. This Includes 25% Who Strongly Favor It And 44% Who Are Strongly Opposed.” (Rasmussen Reports, 8/18/10)

“53 Percent, Who Oppose The Law While Only 39 Percent Support It, According To The Poll.” “Angle also has vowed to join GOP efforts to repeal the health care law that was Reid’s centerpiece achievement for President Barack Obama last year. Here she’s with a majority of Nevada voters, or 53 percent, who oppose the law while only 39 percent support it, according to the poll. That compares to 52-38 percent two weeks ago, suggesting Reid’s efforts to sell the reform hasn’t worked.” (“Angle, Reid race still tight,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, 8/13/10)

“Fifty-Four Percent (54%) Of Nevada Voters Favor Repeal Of The Health Care Plan, comparable to findings nationally. Forty-three percent (43%) oppose repeal. This includes 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 33% who are Strongly Opposed.” (Rasmussen Reports, 7/13/10)

“Fifty-Three Percent (53%) Of Nevada Voters Favor Repeal Of That Bill, while 42% oppose repeal. This includes 45% who Strongly Favor repeal and 33% who are Strongly Opposed.” (Rasmussen Reports, 6/24/10)

Senator Reid Said Those Who Dislike The Health Care Bill Must Not Understand It:

Reid Recently Said That Those Who Dislike The Health Care Bill Must “Have A Lack Of Understanding.” “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) responded today to a Missouri vote that Republicans call a rebuke to the sweeping new health law by saying voters like the legislation better the more they know more about it. . . . ‘It’s very obvious that people have a lack of understanding of our health care reform bill,’ Reid said. ‘The more people learn about this bill, the more they like it.’ He noted that the health insurance ‘exchanges,’ or marketplaces, will take three years to kick in. Reid cited recent polls suggesting that the health law is becoming more popular, though a significant number of Americans still oppose it. ‘The trend is turning all over America today,’ Reid said. ‘Once you explain what’s in the bill, the American people of course like it.'” (Naftali Bendavid, “Reid: Voters Like Health Law If They Understand It,” Wall Street Journal’s Washington Wire Blog, 8/4/10)

From: http://sharronangle.com

BJ Lawson Receives Endorsements from Leading Conservative Legislators

CARY, N.C., Sept. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today the Lawson for Congress campaign received strong endorsements from the leading doctors in Congress, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).  Lawson, a physician challenging Rep. David Price in North Carolina’s 4th district, has made pro-market health care reform a cornerstone of his campaign.  He strongly opposes the mandates, rationing and increased bureaucratic intervention in the health care delivery process.

Dr. Tom Coburn stated, “Our health care system is broken, and has only been made worse by this administration’s actions. Americans face skyrocketing medical costs with declining quality and availability due to oppressive big government policies. Reversing these trends demands leadership that will return health care to patients and physicians, and get government and insurance bureaucracies out of our exam rooms. I’m proud to endorse Dr. William (B.J.) Lawson in his campaign for Congress in North Carolina’s 4th District. As physicians, we have sworn to uphold the Hippocratic Oath — putting patients first, and above all else, doing no harm. As public servants, we swear to uphold the United States Constitution and protect the freedoms of the American people. Dr. Lawson will stand with me in the United States Congress in support of these sacred principles.”

Dr. Ron Paul added, “B.J. will be a stalwart defender of the constitution and individual liberties. In 2008 I supported his campaign because he was talking about the Constitution, limited government and reducing our global police force, I encourage everyone to stand with me in supporting him again in 2010. We need more people of Dr. Lawson’s caliber in Washington D.C. ”

“I am humbled to have the support of such principled statesmen as Drs. Coburn and Paul.  If elected, I will join their fight to return to Constitutional principles, limit the size and scope of government, remove government bureaucrats from the health care delivery system and restore fiscal sanity to Congress,” said Lawson.

B.J. Lawson is a Constitutional conservative, medical doctor and small businessman running against 22-year incumbentDavid Price, who votes with Nancy Pelosi more than any other congressman. For more information regarding B.J. Lawson’s bid for North Carolina’s 4th Congressional seat please visit his website at www.LawsonforCongress.com.

SOURCE: Lawson for Congress

« Older Entries Recent Entries »