In what appears to be a last act of desperation, David Harmer is asking his supporters for 1% of their yearly GROSS income.
When I really didn’t think this CD-11 campaign could get any stranger I get proven wrong! I received an email forwarded from someone on David Harmer’s donor list and started reading. If you can recall I wrote about the cult-like attitude amongst the Harmer supporters and how they were gulping the Kool-Aid by the gallon and this is yet another example.
In the letter, Harmer tells his supporters that if they make $50,000 per year then they should give $500 to his campaign. If they make $100,000 per year they should give $1000 to his campaign and so on. He sort of sounds like a televangelist the way he tries to guilt people into spending their hard earned money don’t you think? After receiving this letter, I wonder how many of his supporters ran to grab their checkbooks. After-all, he did compare this race to what the founding fathers endured when fighting for our nations independence! Are you kidding me? Who writes this crap? That is an INSULT to our founding fathers in my opinion. It is an INSULT to our nation’s independence in my opinion.
He goes on, “Think of what American soldiers risk every day to keep us safe. Think of what the Harmer family is enduring in this campaign…Sometimes it’s those who have the least who give the most.”
I’m sorry David Harmer but you are NOTHING compared to our good men and women serving this fine country! It seems like you are insulting their service and their sacrifice to compare your third political campaign to the risks and struggles that they have endured and continue to endure for us. And in my humble opinion, you and your campaign has reached a whole new LOW! I really can’t believe that you would try to convince “those who have the least” to donate “the most” to your campaign. Are you getting that desperate? Why don’t you file for some more unemployment! After-all, that is taking from the least…from those who need it the most.
Let me finish with this: If Harmer is having no problems asking for your money now and asking for you to give what little money you may or may not have, what is to stop him from voting for tax increases as a way for us citizens to “sacrifice” and do our part? Doesn’t that sound a lot like the liberal Democrats?
In 2007 House speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted President Bush for not asking Americans to sacrifice with tax dollars.
And also in 2007 John Edwards said that if he was elected president, he’ll “institute a New Deal-like suite of programs to fight poverty and stem growing wealth disparity. To do it, he said, he’ll ask many Americans to make sacrifices, like paying higher taxes.” – The Concord Monitor
Mr. Harmer you are sounding an awful lot like a Democrat!
Written by John Heida
Originally posted at http://www.rtamerican.us and written by John Heida. John Heida is not paid by any campaign and is not paid by Conservative New Media. He is only a guest author and has his own opinions which you can find on his website at http://www.rtamerican.us. The views expressed in this article are John Heida’s personal opinions only and are meant for informational and entertainment purposes only. John Heida does not allege any facts, cast aspersions on anyone, or make any claims about what he says here, or in any of his other columns on Conservative New Media or on his site. Again, these are only John Heida’s own personal opinions and his First Amendment protected exercise thereof. These opinions are not necessarily the views of Conservative New Media and Conservative New Media does not endorse or represent or warrant any of the content of his articles in any way and is not responsible for them.
Is it true that California 11th Congressional District Republican primary candidate David Harmer filed for unemployment shortly after making nearly $500,000 in a 16-month period?
Please watch the video below for more details on what appears to have been a most un-conservative course of action by the two-time failed political hopeful:
Contra Costa Times political editor Lisa Vorderbrueggen — whose paper had already endorsed Harmer — seemingly attempts to whitewash Harmer’s unemployment flap in her piece on the subject:
Harmer collected $2,395 in unemployment insurance through April 30, 2009. However, all eligible workers who pay into the unemployment insurance pool receive benefits regardless of whether they “need” the money.
Not exactly true, Lisa, which is what I attempted to tell you via Twitter when I saw your mischaracterization:
That is, one has to choose to file for unemployment before one receives any benefits, a reality which Ms. Vorderbrueggen almost certainly knows.
I should mention that I never received a reply from Ms. Vorderbrueggen on Twitter.
David Harmer, after making nearly half a million dollars in one-and-one-quarter years as a lawyer for a failed Wall Street Bank, decided that he deserved a few thousand dollars more from California’s public coffers.
Some might refer to Harmer’s choice to file for unemployment as “greedy,” particularly during a time of such national and statewide economic hardship.
However you view Harmer’s decision, this much is certain: Other conservatives who have made far less than Harmer had during that 16-month period prior to his filing for unemployment have chosen differently. That is, they have chosen not to file for unemployment insurance when it was their right, legally, to do so.
Whether these individuals have not liked the idea of relying on the government for money, have felt someone less fortunate may need the money should there be a shortage of California unemployment funding or were motivated by both of these or other reason(s) isn’t known.
What is known is the choice which David Harmer made when faced with that situation.
And his choice is something which California’s 11th Congressional District voters have the right to know before they head to the voting booth on June 8, 2010.
If you’ve been hearing any of the radio ads in favor of Proposition 14 lately, you may have come to the conclusion that this one is a no-brainer. The proponents of the initiative pitch the law as one which will cut costs and ultimately give us more moderate elected officials in Sacramento and Washington. On the surface, who wouldn’t want that?
This is where you have to look under the covers to see what’s really going on. This initiative would in fact, do just the opposite of what it says it would do. They say that the major political parties would have less of a stranglehold on politics in California if this passes. But, that’s not been the case in the two states that already have similar laws in place.
Both Louisiana and Washington have passed the “Top Two Law”, where all candidates run in a single primary without party affiliation, and the top two vote getters in the primary then face off in the general election. In Louisiana, this has lead to more control of their legislature by the major parties, primarily the Democrats. In California, where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one, it wouldn’t be unlikely in a statewide race for two Democrats to be on the ballot in November with no other party represented. The law also bans write-in candidates in the general election, so you wouldn’t even have that option.
In Congressional races, it’s likely that Los Angeles and the Bay Area would end up choosing between two Democrats, while the Central Valley and north state would be picking between two Republicans. And those of you who affiliate with the smaller third parties, you’re just plain out-of-luck.
There’s nothing about this initiative that will benefit voters, and I urge you to vote no on Proposition 14.
Originally posted at restoreconservatism,blogspot.com by Evan Stone. The opinions expressed in the above article are those of Evan Stone, and not necessarily those of Conservative New Media. Evan Stone is not paid by any political campaign or by Conservative New Media, and provides the above article as a guest contributor to Conservative New Media.
There is a very disturbing trend occurring with the signs of David Harmer’s opponents in the California 2010 Congressional District 11 Republican primary election.
At least some of the signs for Tony Amador, Elizabeth Emken and Brad Goehring — David Harmer’s three opponents in the upcoming primary — have been damaged in recent days.
Oddly enough, however, none of Harmer’s signs seem to have suffered similar “wind damage” or the like.
The video has more on this subject, including evidence of the damage that has happened to these signs:
Who or what is behind the damage which has befallen these signs, and why does it appear that the signs of David Harmer have not been similarly affected?
The problem with today’s political climate is that the voters just don’t trust their representatives any more! The tea party movement is pretty good proof of that. So we shouldn’t be surprised to hear that CD-11 establishment candidate and bay area lawyer, David Harmer, seemingly stole the California Republican Assembly endorsement with the help of Harmer’s paid deputy campaign manager, Sara Blicharz.
Though I wasn’t at any of the events leading up to this CRA catastrophe, I have been told that once all was said and done, Brad Goehring was likely to end up with the endorsement of the California Republican Assembly. Knowing that his endorsement would put the final nail in David Harmer’s campaign coffin (and make it his third failed campaign), it seems as though Sara Blicharz jumped into action.
You may recognize the name Sara Blicharz because back in April the CD-11 candidate Elizabeth Emken accused Sara Blicharz and the Harmer camp of rigging the open forum held at the San Joaquin Delta College.
“It’s just flat-out inappropriate,” Emken said. “This was the David Harmer show.”
Sara Blicharz, who is also a member of the San Joaquin Republican Central Committee and San Joaquin chapter of the California Republican Assembly (SJ CRA), organized the event and definitely had the ability to tip it in favor of her boss David Harmer.
In my opinion, the right thing to do would’ve been for Sara Blicharz to remove herself from organizing or having any hand in this event whatsoever. It seems as though that is not how she works. In fact, throughout this entire process, it seems as though Blicharz chose the wrong thing and quite possibly even the unethical thing. I’ll let you be the judge of that.
Like any other political organization, the California Republican Assembly has by-laws that are supposed to be followed at all times. From what I’ve been told, this wasn’t the case when the chapters involved in the endorsement of the 11th Congressional candidate had to make a decision.
It started in Sara’s San Joaquin CRA chapter. This chapter contained both Goehring and Harmer supporters. The other two candidates, Emkin and Amador, had little support. The numbers weren’t in their favor, so it was common knowledge that this would be a battle between only the Harmer and Goehring campaigns. It was finally decided to have a special meeting in which nominations for voting delegates would take place, and the first five vote-getters would represent the SJ CRA at the endorsing convention to choose these delegates. The votes were in and the top five were overwhelmingly in support of Goehring. The President of the SJ CRA was behind Harmer 100% so this nomination posed a huge problem for her and Sara. The meeting was ended and everyone went home knowing that they had delegates chosen to represent their charter. But some left unhappy.
Another meeting was held later on and it was brought to the attention of the SJ CRA that two people weren’t notified of the special meeting held earlier, so according to the President the prior nominations were void. A motion was brought to the floor to accept the previous nominations. In a clear violation of “Robert’s Rules of Order,” which is the set of procedural rules adopted by the CRA to adhere to, the motion was ignored. Somebody seconded the motion and again that was ignored. A call to a vote was also ignored. After realizing that they only needed to bring three delegates to the endorsing convention, it was apparently decided that, in the interest of speeding the meeting up, the SJ CRA would just use the delegates that the SJ CRA President had appointed at an earlier meeting back in January. Guess who was chosen back then? I’ll help you out: Sara Blicharz and the SJ CRA President.
I would think that as Harmer’s deputy campaign manager, Sara Blicharz would’ve recused herself from all votes. Did she? Absolutely not! Needless to say the Harmer fans and campaign staff came out of the second SJ CRA meeting victorious but not representing the SJ CRA chapter properly. To be fair to Sara, “Robert’s Rules of Order” does not require a person to recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest, but it is encouraged.
The final endorsing players are the chapters of San Joaquin county, Gilroy, and Contra Costa county. Here are two problems; Gilroy was unable to send enough delegates to the endorsing convention and Contra Costa was supposed to be an inactive chapter for failure to follow the rules set forth in their by-laws which required a certain amount of meetings per year with a certain amount of members attending those meetings. I’ve been told that they had only met once in the last 18 months. To my knowledge, they haven’t met the requirement to continue their chapter so it is confusing to me as to how they were allowed to renew in 2010.
With Gilroy out of the picture and not able to vote for Harmer, Sara Blicharz seemingly wanted to cover her bases just in case anyone exposed her for the shenanigans it appears that she had pulled. She was able to somehow breathe new life into the Contra Costa chapter with members grabbed out of thin air. How do you have members when you shouldn’t have a chapter? How do you have delegates if you don’t have members in a chapter that shouldn’t exist? Good questions. It’s seems impossible, but they still showed up.
Seeing that something was odd when the three delegates chosen by the SJ CRA President showed up along with the five that were voted on by the SJ CRA chapter, statewide CRA Vice President Angela Azevedo called in Celeste Greig, the President of the statewide California Republican Assembly, to preside. I’ve been told that she ordered the SJ CRA chapter to caucus which basically means to have a meeting and figure out what to do. But seeing the numbers in favor of Brad Goehring (five for Goehring and two for Harmer), the SJ CRA President refused to, and decided to put everyone’s name in a hat and choose the three delegates that way. So that’s what they did.
So through manipulation, political maneuvering and parliamentarian gamesmanship, Sara Blicharz was able to yank the endorsement from under Brad Goehring’s feet and secure it for her boss David Harmer. The California Republican Assembly is usually conservative and I used to have the utmost respect for it. But I’m sorry, in my opinion the CRA needs to either investigate Sara Blicharz and how she handled this or lose a lot of supporters’ respect forever.
I have to assume that Sara is merely following the orders of her boss who, as a lawyer and big Republican party guy, has credentials from here to Timbuktu. It appears as though he knows how to play the political game. That’s what voters like right? This sort of action is exactly the kind of thing us voters enjoy right?
If you ask me, this is quite the embarrassing fiasco for the California Republican Assembly to let happen and to ultimately have an endorsement drawn out of a hat. Pretty amazing how essentially one person, seemingly on behalf of David Harmer, could bend the system to work in her favor as she did. I asked Sara about this myself and she responded, “Everything was done according to by-laws…you must be drinking the kool-aid.”
By-laws? Really? Which ones? The David Harmer by-laws that seems to say, “Anything for a vote? Anything for an endorsement? Anything to get into office? Anything for power?”
Those aren’t the by-laws I want to follow. Do you?
Written by John Heida
Originally posted at http://www.rtamerican.us and written by John Heida. John Heida is not paid by any campaign and is not paid by Conservative New Media. He is only a guest author and has his own opinions which you can find on his website at http://www.rtamerican.us. The views expressed in this article are John Heida’s personal opinions only and are meant for informational and entertainment purposes only. John Heida does not allege any facts, cast aspersions on anyone, or make any claims about what he says here, or in any of his other columns on Conservative New Media or on his site. Again, these are only John Heida’s own personal opinions and his First Amendment protected exercise thereof. These opinions are not necessarily the views of Conservative New Media and Conservative New Media does not endorse or represent or warrant any of the content of his articles in any way and is not responsible for them.
We are less than three weeks away from the California primary, and some of you may have already received your ballots by mail. It’s time to get serious about our future.
I’ve been saying since the 2008 General Election that this would be the most important election year in most of our lifetimes. And I don’t mean the election in November. It’s the primaries that matter, people. For those with a Tea Party mindset, we’ve been complaining for over a year that we need candidates who are grounded in Constitutional thinking. The only way that happens is through the primaries.
Let’s take the 11th District in California, for example. This is my home district and the one that I will be voting in on June 8th. There are four Republican candidates vying to unseat two-term incumbent Democrat Jerry McNerney. No one is going to confuse McNerney with a Constitutionalist. He votes in lock-step with Nancy Pelosi, and we know where she stands. So, what about these Republicans?
I’ve been following this race since last fall when candidates first started announcing their intentions to run. I’ve watched the four remaining candidates (two have since dropped out) at various forums and public events, and listened to them on the radio. I’ve studied their websites to get an idea of who these people are and what they believe in. And, on the surface, they all appear to be saying the right things. But if you dig a little deeper, there are some issues that I feel deserve to see the light of day.
Let’s start with David Harmer. Harmer entered the race in January, after all the other candidates had long declared. Harmer lives in San Ramon, but OUTSIDE the district. He won’t even be able to vote for himself. He’s an attorney (wanting to represent a largely agricultural district) who has run for Congress twice before unsuccessfully, once in Utah in 1996 and again last year in a special election in his own district (CD-10) where he lost to John Garamendi. He apparently supports homosexual marriage. He has received about 84% of his contributions from outside the district in which he is running. I believe he is the establishment candidate. Why else the late entry into the race, and all the money from around the country instead of within the district? In addition, his endorsement by the California Republican Assembly is dubious, at best. Having attended the last two San Joaquin CRA meetings, I was privy to the shenanigans that took place to ensure that Harmer would get the endorsement. I don’t think Harmer is the kind of candidate that true conservatives want. Now, if you’re voting Republican, and not conservative………..
Elizabeth Emken is an interesting story. She is a former employee of IBM, and for the last couple of years has been a lobbyist for Autism Speaks, an advocacy group. Her background would indicate the type of person that you might consider as a great Congresswoman, were it not for the lobbying activity. From her own website: ”Elizabeth joined Autism Speaks in March 2007 to manage the relationship between the organization and the federal government, state governments, and related agencies.” In my opinion, if part of her job there wasn’t dedicated to ELIMINATING the relationship between the organization and the federal government, then she’s missed the boat. As great a cause as Autism Speaks is, it has no business lobbying from the federal government, as that would be outside of their Constitutional mandate. Emken says on her website that she is for limited government and lower taxes, but her actions don’t quite bear that out.
Antonio “Tony” Amador is a retired U. S. Marshal with an extensive law enforcement background. He spent 13 years as an LAPD officer, and since has served at the request of governors and presidents in various law enforcement roles. He makes for an intriguing candidate. He seems to have the right answers to all the questions, but all of the candidates do. My question of Amador is like that of Emken and Harmer. You’re all insiders to a degree, having spent time in “the machine”. How do I know that you won’t be just another Washington elitist once you’re elected?
And lastly, there’s Brad Goehring. Goehring is a wine grape grower in the Lodi/Clements area, and has lived in the district for his entire life, save his college years. He knows what it means to be a victim of an out-of-control government. He was almost charged with “filling and destroying waters of the U. S.” by the Army Corps of Engineers….on his own property. He has since become an expert on the Clean Water Act. He calls himself a conservative before a Republican, so he doesn’t seem to have any deep party connections, like some of the others do. This is the one issue that I think sets him apart from the other candidates. He’s one of us, not one of them.
I’m supporting Brad Goehring and will be filling out my mail-in ballot soon. Take the time to learn about these candidates, and make an informed choice. The only way that we take back Washington is if we elect people like ourselves to represent us. People who understand the Constitution and it’s limitations, and then defend it with everything they have.
Originally posted at restoreconservatism,blogspot.com by Evan Stone. The opinions expressed in the above article are those of Evan Stone, and not necessarily those of Conservative New Media. Evan Stone is not paid by any political campaign or by Conservative New Media, and provides the above article as a guest contributor to Conservative New Media.
In an Eastern Conference Finals which has rapidly turned into a mismatch, the Boston Celtics drilled the visiting Orlando Magic in Game 3 of their best-of-seven tilt:
