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
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.
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.
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’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.
Are you kidding me? No, I’m serious, are you kidding me? Let me tell you right now in my personal opinion Lisa V from the CC Times is a JOKE, ok!? In my personal opinion, anyone, I mean ANYONE (Tom Del Beccaro, Harmer, etc.) who works closely with her on our side has ZERO credibility, NONE, ZIP! In fact, you’ve exp…osed yourself.
What I want to know is this, Read this GLOWING piece on Harmer/Meese below and ask yourself these KEY questions:
1.) How is it that the CONTRA COSTA Times goes all the way down to near Gilroy for this story? Uh, it’s not in CC, it’s not breaking news? It’s not really news, but yet Lisa V goes way out of her way for this story. Yeah, Harmer is running for a district in CC , but uh, hmm, I’d call it a stretch.
2.) What exactly is the story? Is there a REALLY a story? Ed Meese does Harmer fundraiser, wow…stop the presses, lol. Are you serious? How many other fundraisers of Emken’s, Goehring’s, Amador’s, etc. have been covered with this kind of attention and glowing press and a personal visit & photo ops by Lisa V? Look, I love Ed too, but, uh…I had a one-hour exclusive interview with Ed like 14 years ago for the law school newspaper at Berkeley I started & I didn’t catch the national papers burning my phone to reprint it. I’m just saying….
3.) On that note: How many positive articles on Harmer has Lisa V done? How many negative? How many positive on Brad Goehring (In my opinion, the front runner and biggest threat to McNerney) has Lisa V done and how many has she done that have been negative, or critical on Brad or his campaign? How about Emken and Amador? Kind of interesting when you add those numbers up no?
4.) Why is it that Lisa V shows up to a lot of events that Tom Del Baccaro is at? That’s kinda weird huh? Why do I hear rumors that Tom is unofficially supporting Harmer? Huh? Did you know that allegedly Tom Del Beccaro and David Harmer have the same political consultant (Tim Clark)? Huh, that’s kinda strange. Why do I hear rumors that the CCRP is emailing people asking them to phone bank for Harmer? Now that is really weird. I hope those rumors aren’t true as ALL official GOP party orgs/people are supposed to be neutral in the primary!
5.) Do you think for a second that the CC Times or Lisa V will back/endorse or in any significant way support our CD-11 GOP nominee over Democrat incumbent Congressman Jerry McNerney whom the CC Times endorsed last election?
Why would you listen to their advice then? Do you think Lisa V really likes or admires Reagan, Meese, or Karl Rove? Yet she shows up at these events and gives in my opinion temporary glowing coverage, weird huh? Don’t you think Harmer and Tom Del Becarro know how Lisa V seems to feel about conservatives? What then does that say to you about how Harmer’s camp is approaching this election and their credibility?
6.) Finally, read the “news story” below and ask yourself this one last question. If the byline was taken off, could you tell the difference between this article from Lisa V of the Contra Costa Times and a press release from the Harmer Campaign? Be honest.
Note: ALL of this entire post and associated content are my personal opinion only (i.e. it does not represent the views of any of my clients or campaigns I/Conservative New Media work(s) on) and I make NO factual claims whatsoever, nor cast aspersions on anyone in any way. This is all intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. I am merely expressing my opinion as an American and conservative who is interested in seeing fairness and transparency in the media and the CRP/GOP nominating process & to fight the MSM from possibly manipulating that. I am simply asking questions and it is up to you to do your own diligence and make up your own mind.
Politics is often nasty but sometimes it can be entertaining too! Especially when you can see what appears to be a campaign melting down in the final days like Jeff Denham’s campaign for the CD-19 as documented on RightOnDaily and now David Harmer’s campaign for the CD-11.
So let’s see here (Some of these are personal experience and some are from the rumor-mill):
It starts with the carry-over from the CD-10 race that Harmer lost. He jumped into CD-11 to possibly save some face from his second humiliating loss.
It appears as though David Harmer sent his deputy campaign manager Sara Blicharz to perhaps tip the SJ Delta College candidate forum in Harmer’s favor? (See story where Elizabeth Emken calls him out on it)
Then you have Harmer’s people intimidating me for posting an article from the Contra Costa Times where David Harmer failed to take a position on “same-sex marriage” and the “don’t ask don’t tell policy” and successfully getting my article removed from other blog sites. See that article with valid links to the Contra Costa article.
We also see Harmer perhaps grasping for the “9/11 truther” vote by adding former CD-11 candidate Robert Beadles as his co-chair.
We see Sara Blicharz seemingly using her SJ Pro-Life email list as a way to forward Harmer propaganda. I have received two so far.
The rumor-mill that I hear says that the Harmer campaign is having an issue raising money even after seemingly playing the persecution victim which is probably why we see Harmer’s supporters appearing to melt down as well. They appear to me personally as treating bloggers like myself and some others pretty negatively with intimidation tactics and it is showing how desperate they are. It’s sad really. I’ve even seen supporters try to defend the indefensible.
This comment was made by a Harmer supporter on one of my articles regarding the gay-marriage thing:
“I voted for Harmer… I think that the people who are so set against gay marriage are wrong… I see nothing wrong with it… I am heterosexual and married, and I don’t see gay marriage as a threat to me and mine.” – Kelly W.
And another comment on a RightOnDaily.com blog from a Beadle/Harmer support:
“Aaron your a complete idiot… You can like, admire, respect, love someone without being in agreement with every aspect of their lives or beliefs. Robert makes a ton of money and he wrote a book to show others how to as well. He’s no nut job, you are. Maybe you assault woman and sexually harass them… you must condone the abuse of women. Right? Your an idiot.” – Bill
Like I said, meltdown mode.
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.
So things are definitely heating up in the 11th Congressional district race here in California. There has not been a dull moment in recent times with one candidate saying this and another doing that.
I tend to shy away from commenting on people’s religion…as we do have the freedom in the USA to worship who we want. I’ll leave that between them and God. Some of my favorite people in the world happen to be Mormon as well. But let me say this, I’m a firm believer that Christ’s death is the one and only way to salvation.
Acts 4:12 says, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” That’s what my Bible says so that’s what I believe.
But this issue of David Harmer’s Momonism has become an issue in the CD-11 race and it can’t be ignored. First Elizabeth Emken sent out a mailer (linked here) that had a small image of the “Mormon Times” (linked here) headline stating that Harmer was running AGAIN for yet ANOTHER congressional seat.
Like I said, things are heating up. And David Harmer, if you can’t take the heat maybe you should find yet ANOTHER district to run in!
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 David Harmer campaign must release talking points on how to deal with people like me because I’ve heard on multiple occasions now that I’m “drinking the McNerney kool-aid.” The only problem is that when I ask them what “kool-aid” they are talking about nobody can answer me.
Who is drinking who’s kool-aid is the real question. I’ve run my own campaign on this blog against David Harmer because I think he is COMPLETELY wrong for our district. The people of CD-2 in Utah thought the same thing and the people of CD-10 here next door agree as well.
I have found my own information without Jerry’s help. I have come up with my own conclusions without Jerry’s help. The bottom line is this: We don’t need David Harmer. We have several good candidates from this district. There was no need for the puppet-masters to bring in the failed bay-area lawyer. He brings nothing to the table except broken relationships and resentment. It is quite the disservice to the constituents of our district as well. It shows a lack of respect and understanding of us regular people out here. It is yet another example of the elitist world some of these people in politics live in.
So what do we know about David Harmer?
Harmer doesn’t live here.
Harmer just finished running in the 10th district and lost (this past November)
Harmer ran a failed race in 96 in Utah CD-2
Harmer is a bay area lawyer wanting to represent a district largely covered in agricultural land
Are those lies? Is this the Jerry McNerney kool-aid?
My candidate is Brad Goehring. What do I know about him?
Brad Goehring is a guy who has lived in the valley for most of his life. He can vote for himself because he LIVES HERE! He is a farmer which is ideal in my opinion that he is wanting to represent a farming district. He has run a business and knows how to budget properly. He is very pro 2nd amendment and has a carry permit to prove it. He is pro-life. Oh and he considers himself a conservative before a Republican. Maybe that’s what has everyone in the PARTY up in arms????
Are these all lies? I suppose I’m not the one drinking the kool-aid now am I? Maybe it’s higher ups in the party that figured us dumb little voters would just LOVE to have a bay area lawyer come over the mountain to rescue us and represent us even though he has ABSOLUTELY NO vested interest in our district. I’m sorry but the Harmer folks are the ones GULPING the kool-aid. And it’s getting really sickening and scary to be quite frank.
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.
I’ve been doing a little digging on the Federal Election Commission’s website and have found some interesting information. The FEC keeps track of all donations reported by each campaign. It separates it out into donations by individual, PACs, the candidates party, and by the candidate him or herself. What I’ve found was pretty amazing to me.
In a country where we are supposed to have a citizen ideally from our own geographic area represent us in both Sacramento and Washington DC you’d think that their donations would come from that area as well. In the case of former CD-10 candidate and current CD-11 candidate and lawyer David Harmer that is definitely not the case.
What I’ve found is actually mind-boggling. So take a guess. How many donations do you think came to the Harmer campaign from within the CD-11 district? Oh come on…give it a guess. Would you say 50%, 75%, 25%? How about 16%! Let me say that again. In the 11th Congressional District of California, David Harmer has received only 16% of his donations. So I’d assume the next logical question for you is where has the rest of the money come from? That was my next question too so here is what I’ve found.
The majority of his donations (I’m talking individual numbers of donations not amounts of $$$) have come from the Bay Area like San Francisco, Oakland, etc. I’ve also found donations from other areas in the state like Beverly Hills, Santa Barbara and Pebble Beach.
A lot of other contributions came from the district he just got done campaigning in last November in a failed race. But the California contributions only amount to about 54% of his total contributions. Again I’m talking about numbers of donations and not the amounts of money.
So then where is the rest of his money coming from? The majority of his out-of-state donations are filtering in from Utah. The rest of his donations are split fairly evenly between states like Idaho, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, Maryland and others. All of this is public knowledge and you can check it out for yourself here.
The bottom line to me is I want someone who is going to represent ME and my district here. I see evidence over and over again that David Harmer is a big Republican establishment guy carpetbagging his way into a district that he knows little about. We do have candidates running for this race that live within our district and have lived here for most of their life and are ready to represent US.
And David Harmer I’d like to hear you answer the question of who are you going to represent? Are you going to represent the bay-area? Are you going to represent Utah, or Idaho, or Nevada? We know you like earmarks (see Transportation stance on page 3) so will you only bring 16% of those earmarked dollars to CD-11?
Look at the breakdown of California donors. Green is within our district and Yellow is outside. CA-Donors List
Here is the extremely small list of CD-11 district donors. 11th-Donors List
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.
