Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category
By, Nancy Tengler
http://wiseandfrugalgovernment.blogspot.com
Many years ago, I worked for a Swiss company. I loved the people I worked with, I loved my visits to the home office in Zurich, I loved the elegance and history of the country. But there was one thing I didn’t understand. Neutrality. My Swiss colleagues would frequently say things like: Well, I don’t know, I’m neutral on that point. I couldn’t say really. My view of your strategy proposal is neutral. Then, one day it hit me. Neutral? How can anyone be neutral on any matter of significance? In my world view only two things inform neutrality–a want of knowledge or a want of courage. Even Webster’s defines the state of neutrality as lacking stamens or pistils…OK, so maybe I am reaching on that point, but, for me, neutrality is, at the very least, dangerous.
Recently many of my liberal friends have taken to calling themselves independent. I understand the distaste many feel for political parties. I generally share those views. Both are fraught with problems. Being independent denotes in their minds anyway, a kind of neutral ground. A place where criticism and labels can’t stick. And then there is the fact that Americans cherish independence. It is a badge we wear. Or at least used to.
Our way of life is changing quickly, each day our liberties are being consumed by the behemoth, lumbering incompetence of bureaucracy. This Administration has shown a reckless disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution. Twisting and obfuscating, politicizing friendly courts, ignoring the rulings of unfriendly ones. Honestly friends, neutrality is no longer an option. It is time to pick a side. Time to back a team, bet on a horse, double down on the side of liberty and freedom. Oh yes, and independence.
The ruling by Judge Bolton in the Arizona immigration case is just another example of the blurring of the separation of powers. According to The New York Times, Carter appointee and immigration law professor at Yale Law School Peter Schuck commented on Judge Bolton’s ruling, “She rushed to judgment in a way I can only assume reflects a lot of pressure from the federal government to get this case resolved quickly.” That ought to get the attention of some of my independent friends. Three branches of government, each independent of the other. Checks and balances. No collusion. No pressuring of one branch to another. That’s what the Constitution provides. Protecting that should fit right in with an independent view of the world.
And there’s more.
From The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell:
“Taken alone, the White House’s behavior on this issue is troubling enough. But put into the broader context of the first 18 months of this Administration, a truly pernicious pattern emerges. First, there was the Obama Justice Department’s decision to dismiss voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party. Then there was the Obama administration’s use of TARP to bail out its union allies in what bankruptcy law scholars have called “so outrageous and illegal that until March of this year [2009], nobody even conceptualized it.” Then there was the Obama administration’s shakedown of BP in the White House’s Roosevelt Room. Less than a week later after a federal court found its first oil drilling ban to be “arbitrary and capricious,” the Obama administration issued a second oil drilling ban that was wider and killed even more jobs than the first.”
Our founder’s had it right. I am on their side. The side of conservative constitutional values and the rule of law. To my independent friends: Consider that to preserve our cherished independence it may be time to come down on the side of the values that have made this country great: Our Constitution and the rule of law.
For many Americans, the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill is nothing more than pictures and video streaming across a TV or computer screen. For the people living in the Gulf region, it is nothing short of catastrophic. While the rest of America is caught up in the politics, residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida are concerned about real issues – like their collective future. Everyone following this event through the news has been treated to a plethora of details surrounding the spill and aftermath, much of it spun to the corresponding ideological slant of the source. Today, I’d like to look at the past 60 days and find the absolute truth buried beneath all the political grandstanding.
Week 1 – April 20 – 24, 2010
An explosion rocked the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, 50 miles off the Louisiana coast, on April 20th. Two days later the rig sank, replaced by a rapidly spreading oil slick. On the third day, the Dutch government offered to help by using four pairs of skimmers to remove the oil from the water. Their offer was declined by the U.S. government because EPA regulations prohibit pumping water into the ocean that contains oil – no matter how little oil remains after the skimming process. These four pairs of skimmers would have removed 146,000 barrels per day of oil from the water. The flow rate of the spill is estimated at being between 35,000 – 60,000 barrels per day. In other words: Had the U.S. government accepted the Dutch offer on Day 3, the skimmers would have outpaced the spill, and prevented ALL DAMAGE to the Gulf Coast. President Obama spent these four days returning from a fundraiser in Los Angeles for embattled California Senator Barbara Boxer, traveling to New York City to speak on Wall Street reform, hosting an Earth Day event in the Rose Garden, and vacationing in Asheville, North Carolina over the weekend where he visited local restaurants, toured the Vanderbilt estate and went golfing twice.
Week 2 – April 25 – May 1, 2010
The oil continued to leak into the Gulf this week, as Obama returned from his vacation to host the New York Yankees at the White House. The president spent two-days touring the mid-west stumping on the economy, and returned to Washington in time for a DNC fundraiser on the 29th. April 29th would be the first time the oil spill returned to the president’s agenda since an April 22nd meeting with a dozen officials in the Oval Office. All politics and ideology aside, does anyone believe the U.S. President should ignore a severe environmental disaster in the Gulf for a solid week? Perhaps he did not realize the full extent of the spill – a potential justification for not accepting foreign aid in the Gulf. Obama named Thad Allen the national incident commander on Day 11. Those of us watching at home began seeing footage of oil bubbling up from the sunken rig, filling the ocean with thick, gooey tar. We also watched as the Coast Guard used controlled burns to remove oil from the water. I’ll bet that made a lot of environmentalists happy. If only they had oil skimmers that could remove 146,000 barrels per day.
Week 3 – May 2 – 8, 2010
The third week of this environmental crisis began with President Obama’s first trip to the Gulf – on Day 13. Anyone who has ever run a business or been in a leadership or management position can tell you that productivity improves when the boss shows up. Had Obama made the oil spill a priority right away, he could have set the tone in the Gulf that nothing short of 110% would be accepted as local officials geared up for the fallout. Instead, he made a quick visit to Louisiana on Sunday, and went back to the business of government – hosting the Navy football team, a private lunch with Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, a Cinco De Mayo party at the White House, Friday date night with Michelle, and a weekend golf trip.
This week saw the oil reach the Louisiana shoreline and liberal journalists clamor for an end to fossil-fuels – before the disaster is even contained. Talk began about regulations, and how the oil industry must be better regulated. Again, taking political ideology out of the equation, it is important to note that the oil industry is the most heavily regulated industry in the country. In fact, regulations are exactly why offshore drilling is taking place in mile-deep water, where problem-solving becomes far more difficult. It is much easier to operate in 500 feet of water, than 5,000.
Week 4 – May 9 – 15, 2010
By this point, it would be nice if the U.S. government would finally accept the Dutch offer to bring in skimmers, capable of reducing the amount of oil in the Gulf. BP has certainly mismanaged the clean-up effort. They deserve no sympathy here, and should be held fully responsible for the recovery efforts in the Gulf – period. However, by this point, it has become impossible for any sane observer to believe the government has handled this properly. Americans were waiting for their president – a president who believes government is the solution to many things – to stand up and take control. Americans were waiting for leadership – but they found none. Instead, Obama spent the week talking about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, golfing with Joe Biden, hosting a private reception for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, making a surprise visit to Duff’s in Buffalo for wings, and finally making a public speech on the oil spill – on DAY 25!
Week 5 – May 16 – 22, 2010
May 16th was Day 26 of the Gulf Oil Spill crisis. President Obama spent it golfing. I wonder how the people in the Gulf felt when they saw Obama touring a plant in Ohio this week, instead of making another trip down South? After all, it had been two weeks since he first set foot in the Gulf States. The President spent the rest of his week hosting a state dinner for Mexican President Calderon, and meeting with Bono – who also performed. We continued to watch oil spill on TV, and those in the Gulf began to realize how poorly this crisis was being managed by EVERYONE. Obama halted new offshore drilling leases, and said he would “not tolerate more finger pointing or irresponsibility,” while finger-pointing at the Mineral Management Service, BP, Halliburton and Transocean. When he was done, he spent the 22nd – Day 33 – shooting hoops at Fort McNair, and more golf.
Week 6 – May 23 – 29, 2010
I’m sorry, does that say “Week 6?” Are you kidding me? Six weeks?
This week Obama flew to San Francisco to do more fundraising for Barbara Boxer, which included a VIP dinner at the mansion of Gordon Getty – wealthy oil heir. Also this week, Obama talked basketball with Marv Albert, hosted an Asian-American event, hung out with the Duke Blue Devils and U.S. World Cup team, hosted a party for Jewish Americans and then headed to Chicago for a weekend vacation. Prior to his trip home, the President made his second trip to the Gulf on Day 39.
Thankfully, people were starting to wake up. James Carville, the staunch liberal, blasted Obama. “It just looks like he’s not involved in this,” said Carville. “He could’ve demanded a plan in anticipation of this.” Carville continued, “We’re about to die down here!” Even New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, a frequent liberal apologist, pointed to Obama’s lack of leadership. While Obama was raising money with an oil magnate and vacationing in Chicago, oil was seeping 12 miles into Louisana’s marshes. Meanwhile, Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection was ready to send absorbent boom, oil-skimming barges and a team of trained responders – but the U.S. government didn’t give them the green light.
Week 7 – May 30 – June 5, 2010
Ah, seven weeks into the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history. Feels like a good week to schmooze with Paul McCartney, and do some good old-fashioned Bush-bashing. After all, the Gulf Oil Spill, now on Day 44, is clearly Bush’s fault. The previous week, Obama said “From the moment this disaster began, the federal government has been in charge of the response effort,” and that “BP is operating at our direction.” Allegations swirl that workers were bused in for Obama’s third visit to the gulf, in seven weeks.
Making it clear that he was in charge, and to show true leadership in the face of crisis, Obama told the people of Grand Isle, “I can’t dive down there and plug the hole. I can’t suck it up with a straw.” Great. But you COULD accept the Dutch offer for oil skimmers, capable of removing 146,000 barrels a day of oil from the Gulf, right? Remember that offer? From DAY THREE? Obama did finally approve a portion of the sand-berm plan that Governor Bobby Jindal had been proposing for three weeks. Jindal and local officials had been pleading with the Army Corps of Engineers from May 11 until June 2, for permission to build 40 miles of sand berms along the barrier islands.
Week 8 – June 6 – 12, 2010
The eighth week of this disaster was centered on Barack Obama’s speech from the Oval Office. Many pundits weighed in on the speech, but there wasn’t much praise. The Associated Press published a fact-check article where they pointed out several flaws. Even liberal talk show hosts Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow blasted his speech as pointless, and ineffective. We now find out oil has made its way into the Gulf Stream, which could result in environmental damage to the east coast of the U.S. Those skimmers look pretty good now, especially in light of BP’s repeated failures at stopping the leak.
Obama has instituted a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling, which will undoubtedly result in higher gas prices across the nation, and a “second economic disaster for families, businesses and communities along the Gulf Coast,” according to Sen. Mary Landrieu.
Week 9 – June 13 – 19, 2010
The ninth week of this crisis is coming to a close as I write. Louisianans now say George W. Bush did a better job responding to Katrina, than Obama has done with the oil spill. Five days ago, Obama finally accepted the Dutch offer to help with oil skimmers – 53 days later. Lives have been lost. Jobs are gone. Hope is a distant memory. Wildlife is decimated. Tourism is dead. The Gulf economy is in peril. How are we spending this week? Politicizing the spill.
President Obama used this week to tout his Cap & Trade bill, which would increase taxes and fees on the American people to the tune of $1,761 per year. The Deepwater Horizon rig is still spewing oil into the Gulf, and Congress and the President are resorting to politics?
Political grandstanding isn’t going to fix any of these problems, yet that didn’t stop members of Congress from acting big and mighty for TV cameras, including Rep. Joseph Cao, who suggested suicide for BP executive, Lamar McKay.
Final Analysis
This oil spill is the worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history. So far, we’ve learned that Obama’s vision of a government big enough to solve every problem is bunk.
We’ve learned that regulations not only forced BP to drill in mile-deep waters, where recovery is proving extremely difficult, but it also prevented foreign aid from responding quickly to the spill. Regulations also caused the Coast Guard to stop “oil-sucking barges” for 24 hours, because they were missing a certificate of inspection for safety equipment.
We’ve learned that bureaucracies at every level, in government and in private industry, are useless.
We’ve learned that this government cares more about using this crisis to pass Cap & Trade legislation, than it does about taking a serious approach to stopping the leak, and preventing further damage to the Gulf States.
We’ve learned that if we accepted the Dutch offer on Day 3, oil would never have reached the shore.
Apparently, having no executive experience makes it very difficult for this President to be effective in times of crisis. Apparently, appointing scholars and campaign staffers to important positions in his administration, instead of qualified people with experience, isn’t the best way to prepare for challenges.
Obama compared the oil spill to 9-11. The difference: George Bush rose to the occasion and showed great LEADERSHIP through that crisis, as the American people faced unexpected consequences.
In 2010, our President would rather be golfing.
If you went to school when I did, you had to memorize the Preamble to the Constitution. For those of you who are in school now, here it is:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
So who exactly established the Constitution? The answer is: We the People. It was not the federal government. In fact, it was delegates from 13 colonies that CREATED the federal government. They created it to perform a few limited functions, including protecting us against foreign and domestic threats. The new federal government was also designed to not oppress the citizens of our new country, as the monarchy in England had done prior.
Don’t Oppress Us: Less Taxes.
The federal government has no money of its own, so it was clear that it had to collect revenue in order to perform its functions. At first, it did this mainly by collecting tariffs, which were assessed on goods and services imported. The more imported goods and services Americans consumed, the more revenue the federal government would collect. Discounting a brief flirtation with a federal income tax to pay for the Civil War, it was not until 1913 when the Sixteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution. It allowed the federal government to collect income taxes, in direct opposition of the original Constitutional requirement that taxes be apportioned among the states according to Census data.
Basically, taxes no longer needed to be assessed fairly.
In 1913, there were 7 tax brackets, starting at 1% for those earning under $20,000, and ending at 7% for those earning over $500,000. Just 32 years later, in 1945, those making under $20,000 paid between 23% and 56% in taxes; those making over $100,000 paid 90% – 94% in taxes. See what happens when you set precedent, and give the government powers they were never intended to have?
If you take the $20k salary in 1913 and adjust it for inflation, it would be worth $90k in 1945. That same person paid 1% income tax in 1913, and almost 90% in 1945. Does that sound fair? Taxes today, whether regressive or progressive, are OPPRESSIVE.
Just as a comparison, in 2007, the top 50% of wage-earners in America earned over $32,879 in 2007, and paid 97.11% of the taxes collected by the federal government. The bottom 50% of wage-earners in America earned under $32,879, and paid only 2.89% of the taxes collected by the federal government. We hear today’s leaders talk about how the rich make too much, the poor are taken advantage of, etc. But if you take a hard look at each income bracket, you’ll see how disproportionately Americans are treated, according to how much income they earn:
- Extremely Advantaged: 50% of Americans earned under $32.879 (3% of taxes paid)
- Advantaged: 25% of Americans earned between $32,879 and $66,532 (11% of taxes paid)
- Equality: 15% of Americans earned between $66,532 and $113,018 (15% of taxes paid)
- Disadvantaged: 5% earned between 113,018 and $160,041 (11% of taxes paid)
- Heavily Disadvantaged: 4% earned between 160,041 and 410,096 (20% of taxes paid)
- Extremely Disadvantaged: 1% earned over 410,096 (40% of taxes paid)
So if you’re part of the “Extremely Advantaged” category, why wouldn’t you support legislation that increases taxes on the rich? If you’re part of the “Extremely Disadvantaged,” you know you’re already paying far more than your fair share, and you resent the fact that the government still paints you as the bad guy. Many Americans fail to realize that the people who create most of the jobs in this country fall into the “Disadvantaged” and “Extremely Disadvantaged” category. When their taxes go up, they cut jobs, stop investing, stop purchasing and start hiding their assets – which results in less taxes being paid into the system. Less taxes paid on goods and services; less taxes resulting from fewer jobs and less taxes because of an increase in sheltered income.
When we reach the point where a majority of Americans are given benefits, on the backs of the minority of hard-working Americans paying for them – our nation is in danger. Voters will continue to elect leaders who promise them the world, screwing over those who do the work to provide them. Incentives to work hard will be gone, and our entire social, political and economical infrastructure will collapse.
Protect Us: More Dead Terrorists.
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
Take careful note of the phrases, “and shall protect each of them against invasion,” and “against domestic Violence.”
It’s very clear that the federal government is responsible to protect us from foreign enemies, and to secure our borders – which are a constant source of “invasion” from Mexico and Canada. It’s also clear that it is responsible to protect us from domestic terror groups and other internal threats. This is guaranteed to EVERY STATE – which as far as I know, still includes Arizona and other border states.
Today our government refuses to use the term “War on Terror” to describe our nation’s policy against global extremism. The Obama Administration has struck the words “Islamic Extremism” from all official memos and documents. Those in charge of our foreign policy are pandering to Europe and Asia, as well as many parts of the Middle East, instead of doing its job to protect us. I could be convinced of the libertarian ideal of non-intervention, but when a radical, global terror network seeks to destroy “infidels” in Western Europe and the U.S., I feel intervention is an appropriate strategy. When this global terror network flies planes into buildings, killing 3,000 Americans, I feel the “War on Terror” is an appropriate response. When Muslims are trying to establish Sharia Law – inside America, France, the UK and other countries – we cannot simply stand down.
As far as our borders are concerned, our government seems unable to do anything. The Center for Immigration Studies and the Pew Hispanic Center both estimate the number of illegals in the U.S. at over 11 million (Oct. 2008). It is believed that 41% of illegals enter the country legally, and then overstay their visas. A full 25% of the some 11 million illegals reside in California, which is a major factor in their impending economic failure.
One of the reasons our government has failed to act in stemming the flow of illegal immigration is the fear of losing the Hispanic vote. These days, if you even call an “undocumented worker” an “illegal,” you are labeled a racist. With 90% of our illegal population entering through the southern border, and with 57% of illegals coming from Mexico (2006, Pew Hispanic Center), this is clearly a Mexican problem. This has nothing to do with racism, and everything to do with reality.
Some believe we need to remove the incentives for illegals to come here, in order to stop the flow of illegal immigration. Benefits such as free healthcare, free education, welfare and food stamps, driver’s licenses, and most of all jobs – keep illegals coming into America. The assumption is that there will be less illegal immigration if these benefits do not exist. But many Americans believe denying illegals these services is somehow cruel and inhumane.
President Obama stopped raiding businesses that employ illegals, because the raids may result in deportations. He condemned Arizona for attempting to protect their own citizens against those who are here illegally – after a string of murders and other crimes have gripped the state. His administration, in the form of Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder, has also condemned the Grand Canyon State, for doing the job the feds refuse to do – without even reading Arizona’s immigration law. Napolitano believed illegal immigration was a severe problem in Arizona when she served as Governor, but apparently now doesn’t see the need for immediate action.
It’s amazing that the Obama Administration, and this Congress, would rather focus on a national takeover of healthcare, a national takeover of student loans, a national takeover of energy and environmental policies, a national takeover of banks, the auto industry and other financial institutions – issues that do NOT fall under the federal government’s purview. Instead, the federal government should be doing what it is supposed to – dealing with the responsibilities outlined in the Constitution. Until it can handle those, it should stop putting its hands into everything else.
Do not oppress us: Less Taxes.
Protect us: More Dead Terrorists.
That’s simple enough for even Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to understand.
I truly think it’s great that a wife defends her husband and vice versa. That’s the way it should be! In fact I admire it! But in politics when the wife does all the heavy lifting for the guy who is running 
doesn’t it seem like he is hiding behind her a little bit? Trying to keep his hands clean?
This CD-11 race has been like that from the beginning. David Harmer has been quoting everyone and his brother but has rarely spoke for himself. When fellow candidate Elizabeth Emken sent out a mailer that quote the “Mormon Times” (which is where David Harmer announced his candidacy), David sent his wife out to not only defend him, but use it to solicit contributions. Interesting way to use your religion…announce your candidacy in a religious magazine but then cry foul when someone brings it up!
I should not have been surprised to wake up this morning to a message that Elayne Harmer commented on one of my articles. The article is “The Tale of Two Candidates: David Harmer and Brad Goehring“. In the article I show that my candidate Brad Goehring wears his patriotism on his sleeve. You know how he feels about our BRAVE and FALLEN because he tells you. He spent the entire Memorial Day weekend not only spending time at services and celebrations but letting us know how appreciative he is of our armed forces. I was contrasting Brad to David Harmer who waited until 9pm on Monday night to let us know something…anything about how he felt. I never questioned his patriotism. I wouldn’t do that. I did, however, question the fact that he constantly uses other people’s quotes to run his campaign. In fact a few hours after my article went public a Ronald Reagan video from youtube went on his facebook wall.
Apparently Elayne Harmer got wind of my article and decided to respond to it defending her man once again. Please first read the entire article that she is responding to before reading her comments so you know exactly what she is talking about. (If anyone is wondering this was not a private email…it was publicly posted below my article)
“John, just because David waited until 9 pm to write something does not mean it was an afterthought. On the contrary, David and I and our children spent the morning at the Danville Memorial Day celebration (tweeting his location is bragging? how’s that again?), and he took notes of every speech — as he usually does. We were honored to meet with many veterans there, and we spent the rest of the day with family from out of town.”
Elayne that is great! I truly am happy that you and he went to the Danville celebration. But the point of my article was to show that throughout the entire weekend my candidate chose to show his patriotism by thanking our fallen everyday while your husband bragged about stuff like his CRA Endorsement which I’ve pretty easily documented was snatched pretty unethically by your husbands campaigners. Here is that article: “Did the David Harmer Campaign Steal the CRA Endorsement?“ And with regards to the “bragging” I’d urge readers to read the original article because it is once again contrasting the two candidates and what they were posting. “The Tale of Two Candidates: David Harmer and Brad Goehring”
“Your insinuation that David is somehow not patriotic because he doesn’t write something on his Facebook wall at a certain time on Memorial Day would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive. David’s brother is a commander in the U.S. Navy, and has been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world. My father and uncles were in the Navy and served in WWII. “
I thank David’s brother and your father and uncles! They are true heroes! There is nothing I can ever do or say to repay them for their service! My family will tell you that my three favorite holidays are Independence Day, Memorial Day, and Veteran’s Day. We need more patriotic holidays in my opinion. Our heroes deserve it!
But now to the point…. honestly how does association make you anything? I work next to an accountant but that doesn’t make me an accountant. My wife is a teacher but I’m not a teacher. That is a very interesting way to explain how patriotic you are! With all due respect to you and your husband, to me, that sounds more like a soundbite than anything else.
“I don’t have to prove our patriotism to you, nor do I have to prove to you, a Goehring employee, our committed support of the military and the heroes who have given their lives for our freedom. We don’t post pictures of David gazing over crosses, John, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t do it. David just doesn’t spend his life on FB like Brad does.”
Elayne you are right, you don’t have to prove anything to me. I am not and never have questioned your patriotism. I did, however, question how your husband relays his patriotism to his supporters and possible future constituents. Also I am not and never have been an employee of the Goehring campaign. I did post the picture and I took it myself. It wasn’t posed. It was a perfect moment for a snap shot because he was indeed glancing over the crosses. And with regards to Brad on facebook? I know Brad is a busy guy and is out there working hard for our votes…selling himself not a former President or administration. I’m thankful that he sets aside enough time on some days to talk with us, his supporters rather than having others do the posting for him.
“Oh, and your bizarre comment that David ‘rarely speaks for himself’? I had to stop laughing out loud, because I was waking up the kids.”
Interesting rebuttal! It is obvious going on his facebook page and reading his campaign page that he is running a campaign on the coat-tails of Ronald Reagan and trying to associate himself with Reagan as much as possible. But once again just because I have met someone when I was 4 years old or work next to the accountant doesn’t make me an accountant.
Good luck with the remaining day in the race. But I truly hope your husband doesn’t win. I think I’ve documented quite well on my blog only some of the hurdles that he would have to face if McNerney got ahold of him. You think what your family ” is enduring in this campaign” (quoting the 1% tithing email your campaign sent out) is bad now, just wait until the Pelosi/McNerney Machine comes and starts working on him.
I’m going to close this article with a video of Brad Goehring. Brad is a true patriot and is “his own” conservative. He uses his own words and here are a few of those words that say a few things about what he believes. Listen to the end where he talks about our brave. Those are his own words.
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/v/xZuDmsSMjFE
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.
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.
Brad Goehring gazing over the crosses that symbolize our fallen heroes.
It’s interesting to me the differences that are emerging between two of the CD-11 candidates Brad Goehring and David Harmer.
I’ve been watching the Harmer campaign for quite some time and I notice that David Harmer rarely speaks for himself. Whether it’s through his facebook page or his campaign mailers, David Harmer keeps a distance. I’m not sure if it’s because his handlers are afraid that he’ll make a mistake or what. He has ran his entire campaign so far on being a “Reagan Republican”. That and “true conservative” or “real conservative” are really what all Republican’s are running on this election. But for David Harmer, it’s more than that. He is running on the quotes and words of Reagan and top Reagan officials but not his own. His facebook page is littered with quotes from Reagan, Ed Meese or the like.
Contrast that with Brad Goehring who talks with his facebook “friends” almost daily and has original posts and status updates quite frequently. Brad Goehring isn’t afraid to make himself available to the public even if that means strong ridicule from the extreme left which happens on a daily basis.
David Harmer uses great quotes like:
“Ronald Reagan would be disturbed about the expansion of the power of the federal government, the intrusion into people’s lives like this Obama health care program, appalled by the increase in federal spending…” – Edwin Meese
Quotes like that are great. I totally agree with Edwin Meese. The idea is to put up quotes like this so people continue to associate Harmer with the Reagan crew. I think for a lot of kool-aid drinkers it works. There are a lot of people who are great at working people’s minds like this…can you say Hale-Bopp? Can you say Branch-Dividians? I’m not saying that Harmer is a cult leader…so don’t start twisting my words. What I am saying is certain people know how to get into people’s minds to get them to feel all warm and fuzzy inside and I believe this is what Harmer is doing. I could write you a great article telling you where I was exactly when Ronald Reagan gave one of his well known speeches. I can tell you how great I felt at the time and I bet you that I would have you feeling warm and fuzzy inside by the time you finished reading it. The bottom line is I’m not Ronald Reagan and neither is Harmer. Harmer is his own fallible guy….so stop drinking the kool-aid and wake up.
“So who is the true Harmer,” you ask? Take a look at my past articles and you may start seeing who he is. In fact my last article called “The David Harmer Puzzle” puts a lot of his pieces together. An interesting thing that has recently come to mind is their patriotism. I’m not questioning Harmer’s patriotism but he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve like someone who I want representing me. I’ve watched all four of the candidates all memorial day weekend. As of 8pm on Memorial Day, all of the candidates EXCEPT Harmer wrote something about our fallen and thanking them for their sacrifice. When it comes to the two top candidates, here is what I’ve seen with regards to their facebook updates.
On Saturday, in his own words Brad Goehring posted:
“We live in the land of the free ONLY because of the brave!”
On Saturday David Harmer bragged about an endorsement he received (but failed to mention that it was drawn out of a hat). If you don’t believe me about the hat read the South San Joaquin Republican President Frank Aquila’s letter that just went out on 5/31/10. Or you can read my article that exposes the CRA shenanigans that took place.
On Sunday Brad Goehring spent his entire day celebrating our nations heroes at Woodward Park in Manteca. I know this because I was with him watching him talk to vets and making himself available to the voters. Before leaving for the celebration, Brad Goehring posted:
“I will fight socialism with our Constitution relentlessly to ensure those who sacrificed with their lives in the name of freedom and liberty were not sacrificed in vain! WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE!”
Brad didn’t even brag about the fact that he was going to the Memorial Day celebration and I am glad he didn’t. Memorial Day is not something to politicize.
On Sunday David Harmer’s wall was blank.
On Monday (Memorial Day), in his own words Brad Goehring posted:
“I was humbly honored yesterday to stand beside the gold star father of Michael D. Anderson Jr – U.S. Marine Corp May 1983 – Dec 2004. His son wrote a blank check payable to the United States of America with his life. THAT IS HONOR! During a ceremony he whispered to me that each morning he wakes up he is reminded it is …Memorial Day. May God bless the men and women and their families in service.”
On Monday David Harmer took the opportunity to brag, in my opinion, about the fact that he finally made it to a Memorial Day celebration…but still nothing about the fallen:
“At the Danville Memorial Day Celebration! Come say hello.”
David Harmer couldn’t you have at least found a great quote from Reagan regarding Memorial Day? After all Memorial Day is one of our greatest holidays.
This is the San Joaquin GOP booth but with the three Harmer signs you would think it was the Harmer booth. One in the front, one hanging on the left side, and one in the back that would make it's way to the front later on in the day.
We would have NO OTHER holidays if it wasn’t for our brave! Is it because you don’t know how to talk about such great things or because you are afraid that if you did win the primary that McNerney would somehow paint you as a patriot in the general?
I want to appeal to you the reader. This election is critical. We have a guy who is running on the coat tails of Ronald Reagan but we don’t know what he really thinks himself? He is also relying on the backing of the local GOP because they recruited him and that’s who they decided they want. (See photo) You gotta love the big party establishment right? And then there is a great patriot in Brad Goehring who knows what to say and when to say it. And when he says it, it shows the true character of BRAG GOEHRING. Not of some other guy. He is a farmer from this district who has always lived here. He is someone who loves God and touts his pro-life stance. I overheard him telling someone: “I’m 45 years old but have been going to my church for 46″. He doesn’t need a soundbite from Reagan or a quote from Edwin Meese. He is a genuine guy who puts his pants on one leg at a time like both you and I. He touts his pro-gun stance by proclaiming that he is the only candidate to have a concealed carry permit.
I actually just started laughing out loud thinking about David Harmer shooting a gun.
(Updated: Since writing this David Harmer finally penned something as Memorial Day was coming to a close. In the interest of fairness I needed to add this update. But it wasn’t until 9pm on Monday night that he finally wrote something halfway patriotic. 9pm? Really? It’s almost as if it was an after-thought. Was it?).
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 live in a world where everything is politicized. Almost every American agrees we have a problem with illegal immigration, but once politicized, any attempt to solve that problem is reduced to racism. Most Americans know our government’s spending will result in decades of severe debt, yet once politicized, any attempts to cut spending are seen as anti-poor, anti-minority, anti-elderly, anti-education, anti-environment, etc. Politicizing these issues is a great way to get apathetic Americans to take notice of an important issue, and even garner support for one side or another. However, often times, the reality of these situations is lost when politics is the driving force behind the solutions. That’s exactly what we’re seeing with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was implemented in 1993 by a Democrat-controlled Congress, and signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. The gay community, in their undying love for the Democratic Party, often conveniently forgets that fact. The Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, and during the decade between the implementation of DADT and the start of the Iraq War, Democrats were virtually silent on the matter. Fast-forward to 2006, when Democrats regained the majority in Congress for the first time since the mid-90s. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was not simply a low priority for the incoming Democratic majority; it was nowhere to be seen. It was not until the 2008 Presidential campaign, when Barack Obama made the repeal of DADT a top priority in his promises to the gay community. Obama has yet to make DADT a top priority in his administration, and joins the long list of Democratic leaders to fail on this issue.
This is a national security issue that affects us all. As taxpayers, we have spent millions of dollars training thousands of soldiers and officers discharged under this policy. Our military has invested time and money creating lean, mean, fighting machines out of these brave men and women, and we’re willing to toss them away simply because of who they are physically attracted to? It’s outrageous! We could use another 14,000 troops right now, in case nobody has noticed.
In March, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates sent out a memo ordering a comprehensive review of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The purpose of the study, with results due December 1st, is to:
(1) Determine any impacts to military readiness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and “family readiness.”
(2) Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding personnel management, leadership and training, facilities, investigations and benefits.
(3) Recommend appropriate changes, if any, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as evaluate how a policy change would affect ongoing cases.
(4) Find appropriate ways to monitor the workforce climate and military effectiveness once a change is made.
With 78% of Americans supporting a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it is clear the policy will come to an end soon. However, many Americans – myself included – want to make sure it is repealed responsibly, given that we are in the middle of a two-front war. This Pentagon study is designed to analyze the effects of repeal on our military, and act accordingly.
Therefore, it is entirely political when, in the midst of waiting for the results of a Pentagon review of the policy, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) inserts an amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. It is entirely political when the liberal and gay media (which are one in the same), praise this amendment as a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – when it is clearly NOT.
“House Passes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Amendment” – The Huffington Post
“DADT compromise passes House/Senate committee” – Bay Windows
“House Passes ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Repeal Amendment 234-194” – Towleroad
“Congress Moves to End DADT” – The Advocate
“DADT Passes the House” – The Daily Kos
These headlines sound great but a closer look at the amendment, by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, shows that it is nothing but political maneuvering. In order for Murphy’s amendment to repeal the DADT policy, all of the following must happen:
(1) The Secretary of Defense must receive the Pentagon report, which is not due until December 1, 2010.
(2) The President must submit a written certification to the congressional defense committees, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which states: (a) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report’s proposed plan of action. (b) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments. (c) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
Oh, and the repeal still wouldn’t go into effect until 60 days after all of these conditions are satisfied.
So let’s put this in plain English: According to Murphy’s amendment, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not be repealed until the Pentagon report comes back on December 1, 2010, and the President, Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defense all say the military is ready to repeal the policy. And, if the report suggests that military readiness and effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention would be adversely affected by DADT’s repeal, it won’t be repealed.
Understood?
The Amendment does NOTHING. So why insert it in the Defense Authorization bill? So Democrats can vote for it, and paint Republicans as bigots. There have been 14,000 gay men and women dishonorably discharged from the military, and we’re playing political games. It’s disgusting.
There is no doubt that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. Gays are the only people in America that have to lie about who they are to serve and die for our country. Regardless of how you feel about gays serving openly in the military, we’re talking about the gay guy serving in Afghanistan who can’t write to the guy he has at home because someone might find out he’s gay. We’re talking about the guy who can’t put a picture of his 15-year partner on his bunk because somebody will find out he’s gay, and throw him out of the military. That’s an equal rights issue. Meanwhile, a guy who is openly Muslim and openly anti-American is at Ft. Hood dispensing psychological advice to our military men and women. This guy can be in the military, but gays aren’t welcome?
Republicans are waiting for the Pentagon review to be completed, and that somehow makes them bigots. Democrats, who refuse to wait for the Pentagon review, are somehow labeled champions of gay rights. But what good is their support for a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, if they want it implemented recklessly, sacrificing military readiness during a two-front war?
Politicizing issues and making them about emotion – not logic – is exactly what the Democrats do best. We need to do what is best for our nation and our military, and we owe it to every man and woman in uniform to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell responsibly, leaving military readiness uncompromised.
It’s hard to get the full picture when you only see one or two pieces to a puzzle. With regards to David Harmer and his campaign the pieces are finally starting to come together. I can
promise you that my campaign against Harmer IS NOT because I think he is the front-runner. I think a lot of people see him as the front-runner so they are naturally going after him. I, however, think that with all of his baggage, Harmer would be devastating to the Republican party during the general election and if he were to squeak out a victory would be devastating to our district.
With that being said let’s look at the puzzle pieces (keep in mind that this stuff will be used against him in the general if he wins the nomination):
- Harmer got terminated from his job and is looking for a job: Harmer ran a failed campaign in Utah and just finished a failed campaign in CD-10 last November.
- Harmer is carpetbagging into a district that looks a lot different than his. He cannot properly represent us. In his last failed campaign against Garamendi, Harmer accused his opponent of doing this exact same thing. Flip….flop. Lack of consistency. My own personal opinion is that it’s ok to carpetbag if there are no other alternatives and if you can properly represent the district you are wanting to run in. We do have other alternatives very capable of beating McNerney and they live here and are more capable of properly knowing our aches and pains.
- Harmer has pulled out the religious card and has used it to gain more support from his church. David Harmer essentially announced his candidacy in the Mormon Times but when Elizabeth Emken posted a thumbnail of the Mormon Times article on a mailer he cried foul. I personally think that his response is dirty and desperate. We don’t need religious martyrs we need representation.
- Harmer’s contributions are coming from outside of the 11th District raising concerns as to who he will actually represent. A lot of people in the party just want Republican representation. Am I wrong to want proper representation of my district on top of the Republican label? I’ve found that just Republican representation has not always been the best thing in the past. Here is an article I wrote on just this: If He Wins, Who Will David Harmer Represent?
- Harmer did indeed refuse to take a position on gay-marriage in his last race back last November. If he does indeed have a position as I’ve been told by supporters, this will come up in the general.
- Harmer aligned himself with former CD-11 opponent Robert Beadles by making him co-chair to the Harmer campaign. Beadles has a TON of baggage himself (9/11 truther, being raided by the Sheriff’s office, get-rich quick schemes etc). Whether or not that stuff is true, it’ll come up in the general.
- Harmer has seemingly obtained at least one endorsement in a questionable fashion bringing in to question his honesty and integrity. This will come up in the general. Here is the article I wrote on just this: Did the David Harmer Campaign Steal the CRA Endorsement?
- Harmer took an unemployment check for $2395 after receiving an alleged stimulus bailout severance and bonus that totaled $159992 from JPMorgan Chase. Here is the article I wrote on just this: David Harmer, “We’re Disgusted by It!” This will indeed come up in the general election if Harmer gets the nomination. It calls into question his conservatism among other things.
- More miscellaneous items like opponents signs falling down, strange behavior in front of FOX News cameras etc. You can find videos at Conservative New Media.
All of these items help the picture come more into focus. David Harmer is not the guy we need going up against McNerney in the general. In my opinion he is a liability that us conservatives can’t afford to have going into the general. There are three other candidates who do not carry the baggage that Harmer does.
It’s no secret that my choice is Brad Goehring. Brad Goehring is a local farmer who knows the aches and pains of our district because he has grown up here. Brad Goehring is a patriot who’s devotion is to our Constitution before the Republican party and I respect that a great deal. Brad Goehring is a regular guy. He is not a politician but has felt the call of patriotism to step up into the public spotlight to represent a district that he loves enough to call it his home.
Join me in supporting Brad Goehring for Congress!
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.
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’re disgusted by it.” That we do agree on Mr. Harmer! We are definitely disgusted on the stimulus money as you said: “the so-called stimulus that has not stimulated anything but 
government spending and federal debt.” Well put. Very well put.
But Mr Harmer I was reading in the Stockton Record today and there is a very good article that says you took some of the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money. It said that despite your huge salary (don’t get me wrong I’m a capitalist and I’m for being rewarded for good work) you still got $75,406 bonus and $84,586 in severance. But that’s not all. Mr. Harmer it also says that once you were laid off, you filed for unemployment and got an additional $2,395.
I once read that you call yourself a Reagan Conservative. So is this some new type of conservatism that I don’t know about? I was young but that’s not the Reagan Conservatism that I remember. Last I heard conservatism didn’t mean to milk the system or use it to your advantage. Or is this a glimpse of the true David Harmer that so many (like me) have been warning about?
I say let’s let the readers decide. And Mr Harmer if you really want to become a conservative, why don’t you watch your opponent Brad Goehring for awhile. That guy is a true conservative!
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.
