Representative Todd Tiahrt, 4th Congressional District of Kansas, has recently received the endorsement of “The Architect” Karl Rove, and the Tea Party Express. This past week, he has received the endorsement of former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin!
Todd has been defending Kansas more than ever. Instead of shooting a campaign video, he was on the House floor this past spring debating the irrational and unconstitutional health care legislation being bullied through both chambers. He fought the Obama administration when terrorists were attempted to be transferred to the military disciplinary barracks at Fort Leavenworth (which is a 20 mile drive from my residence).
He publicly opposed the nomination of then-Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Mrs. Sebelius has driven the State of Kansas down the gutter in more way than one. She signed a bill in 2003 allowing illegal aliens to pay in-state college tuition in direct violation of Title 8 of the United States Code.
He was the senatorial candidate present at the Kansas City Tea Party, sponsored by PoliticalChips.org. I admit I was shy when I saw him being interviewed by Darla Jaye, of NewsRadio 980 KMBZ, at the Tea Party. He even was talking with people in the concourse at Community America Ballpark.
When I called his office on the day of the infamous health care vote, his staff was still there answering the lines. They still allowed me to voice my concerns, even though I was not his constituent (I’m in the Kansas 3rd).
If you reside in Kansas, I ask that you vote for a true patriot, like Todd Tiahrt for United States Senate on 3 August 2010. If you are not in Kansas, I still urge you to vote for true Conservatives in your state. Because, we will light up the Second of November like the Fourth of July!
Is it true that California 11th Congressional District Republican primary candidate David Harmer filed for unemployment shortly after making nearly $500,000 in a 16-month period?
Please watch the video below for more details on what appears to have been a most un-conservative course of action by the two-time failed political hopeful:
Contra Costa Times political editor Lisa Vorderbrueggen — whose paper had already endorsed Harmer — seemingly attempts to whitewash Harmer’s unemployment flap in her piece on the subject:
Harmer collected $2,395 in unemployment insurance through April 30, 2009. However, all eligible workers who pay into the unemployment insurance pool receive benefits regardless of whether they “need” the money.
Not exactly true, Lisa, which is what I attempted to tell you via Twitter when I saw your mischaracterization:
That is, one has to choose to file for unemployment before one receives any benefits, a reality which Ms. Vorderbrueggen almost certainly knows.
I should mention that I never received a reply from Ms. Vorderbrueggen on Twitter.
David Harmer, after making nearly half a million dollars in one-and-one-quarter years as a lawyer for a failed Wall Street Bank, decided that he deserved a few thousand dollars more from California’s public coffers.
Some might refer to Harmer’s choice to file for unemployment as “greedy,” particularly during a time of such national and statewide economic hardship.
However you view Harmer’s decision, this much is certain: Other conservatives who have made far less than Harmer had during that 16-month period prior to his filing for unemployment have chosen differently. That is, they have chosen not to file for unemployment insurance when it was their right, legally, to do so.
Whether these individuals have not liked the idea of relying on the government for money, have felt someone less fortunate may need the money should there be a shortage of California unemployment funding or were motivated by both of these or other reason(s) isn’t known.
What is known is the choice which David Harmer made when faced with that situation.
And his choice is something which California’s 11th Congressional District voters have the right to know before they head to the voting booth on June 8, 2010.
We are less than three weeks away from the California primary, and some of you may have already received your ballots by mail. It’s time to get serious about our future.
I’ve been saying since the 2008 General Election that this would be the most important election year in most of our lifetimes. And I don’t mean the election in November. It’s the primaries that matter, people. For those with a Tea Party mindset, we’ve been complaining for over a year that we need candidates who are grounded in Constitutional thinking. The only way that happens is through the primaries.
Let’s take the 11th District in California, for example. This is my home district and the one that I will be voting in on June 8th. There are four Republican candidates vying to unseat two-term incumbent Democrat Jerry McNerney. No one is going to confuse McNerney with a Constitutionalist. He votes in lock-step with Nancy Pelosi, and we know where she stands. So, what about these Republicans?
I’ve been following this race since last fall when candidates first started announcing their intentions to run. I’ve watched the four remaining candidates (two have since dropped out) at various forums and public events, and listened to them on the radio. I’ve studied their websites to get an idea of who these people are and what they believe in. And, on the surface, they all appear to be saying the right things. But if you dig a little deeper, there are some issues that I feel deserve to see the light of day.
Let’s start with David Harmer. Harmer entered the race in January, after all the other candidates had long declared. Harmer lives in San Ramon, but OUTSIDE the district. He won’t even be able to vote for himself. He’s an attorney (wanting to represent a largely agricultural district) who has run for Congress twice before unsuccessfully, once in Utah in 1996 and again last year in a special election in his own district (CD-10) where he lost to John Garamendi. He apparently supports homosexual marriage. He has received about 84% of his contributions from outside the district in which he is running. I believe he is the establishment candidate. Why else the late entry into the race, and all the money from around the country instead of within the district? In addition, his endorsement by the California Republican Assembly is dubious, at best. Having attended the last two San Joaquin CRA meetings, I was privy to the shenanigans that took place to ensure that Harmer would get the endorsement. I don’t think Harmer is the kind of candidate that true conservatives want. Now, if you’re voting Republican, and not conservative………..
Elizabeth Emken is an interesting story. She is a former employee of IBM, and for the last couple of years has been a lobbyist for Autism Speaks, an advocacy group. Her background would indicate the type of person that you might consider as a great Congresswoman, were it not for the lobbying activity. From her own website: ”Elizabeth joined Autism Speaks in March 2007 to manage the relationship between the organization and the federal government, state governments, and related agencies.” In my opinion, if part of her job there wasn’t dedicated to ELIMINATING the relationship between the organization and the federal government, then she’s missed the boat. As great a cause as Autism Speaks is, it has no business lobbying from the federal government, as that would be outside of their Constitutional mandate. Emken says on her website that she is for limited government and lower taxes, but her actions don’t quite bear that out.
Antonio “Tony” Amador is a retired U. S. Marshal with an extensive law enforcement background. He spent 13 years as an LAPD officer, and since has served at the request of governors and presidents in various law enforcement roles. He makes for an intriguing candidate. He seems to have the right answers to all the questions, but all of the candidates do. My question of Amador is like that of Emken and Harmer. You’re all insiders to a degree, having spent time in “the machine”. How do I know that you won’t be just another Washington elitist once you’re elected?
And lastly, there’s Brad Goehring. Goehring is a wine grape grower in the Lodi/Clements area, and has lived in the district for his entire life, save his college years. He knows what it means to be a victim of an out-of-control government. He was almost charged with “filling and destroying waters of the U. S.” by the Army Corps of Engineers….on his own property. He has since become an expert on the Clean Water Act. He calls himself a conservative before a Republican, so he doesn’t seem to have any deep party connections, like some of the others do. This is the one issue that I think sets him apart from the other candidates. He’s one of us, not one of them.
I’m supporting Brad Goehring and will be filling out my mail-in ballot soon. Take the time to learn about these candidates, and make an informed choice. The only way that we take back Washington is if we elect people like ourselves to represent us. People who understand the Constitution and it’s limitations, and then defend it with everything they have.
Originally posted at restoreconservatism,blogspot.com by Evan Stone. The opinions expressed in the above article are those of Evan Stone, and not necessarily those of Conservative New Media. Evan Stone is not paid by any political campaign or by Conservative New Media, and provides the above article as a guest contributor to Conservative New Media.
Full disclosure, I am a paid staff member of the Goehring for Congress campaign. This article is solely meant to reflect my personal views as a political observer. I apologize for any misunderstanding arising from the lack of a disclosure on initial publication. David Creager (dcreager123@yahoo.com).
Historically reasonable Democrats and Republicans have pretty much agreed on one thing, a strong national defense and a well funded military is necessary to the freedoms we hold dear in America. Yet, one congressional candidate, a republican no less, from my home district, CD-11 in California, apparently disagrees. The candidate’s name is Robert Beadles, and he calls himself a conservative, yet I’m not sure which side he really is on.
Two things clued me in. First was a radio interview that Beadles bragged about through his campaign. He was on with a host named Alex Jones. This is a guy who was the executive producer of the film “Loose Change” a “documentary” about how the 9/11 massacre by Muslim terrorists was really an inside job perpetrated by war mongering Republicans, one-world-government Democrats, and Zionist Jews with a thirst for innocent Muslim blood. Yet when Beadles began his interview he gushed all over Jones and credited Jones with shaping his politics. It was a foolish interview at best, and at worst a declaration of shared beliefs. This is just the kind of fringe radical we don’t need running for office on the Republican ticket, let the Peace and Freedom party take it on.
The second clue was a front and center poll on his website here which asks the question, how much does it cost to send a soldier to Afghanistan. His answer, 1 million dollars. A shocking example of how ineffective government is completing any job? Yes. An appropriate focus for this election cycle? Absolutely not. It tells you something about a candidate when in the era of big government socialism, the takeover of the healthcare industry, cap and trade, unions running roughshod over our constitution, free speech and fox news being attacked boldly by the least honorable white house in recent history, and a plummeting dollar value a candidate is really worried about how much it costs to complete a military mission. This man is not a conservative, he’s hardly a Republican in my personal opinion.
At the same time we work to eliminate the left wing republican checkered pants club from our party in exchange for patriotic conservative leaders, we must also eliminate the crazy radicals who the national media loves to latch on to in order to paint us all as out of touch and radical. We lost the white house, we lost the senate, and we lost the house, not only because our party lost touch with its conservative roots but also because leaders arise within the party that were not conservatives. The national media then paints these non conservatives as conservatives because they are Republicans in name. Our brand is then damaged, how much worse if we let these fringe types take advantage of the bullhorn that is the Republican party.
It’s official, abortion is in there. Amidst that nearly two thousand pages of travesty is a guarantee of federal funding for abortions. Nancy Pelosi has it out for your unborn baby. Republican minority leader John Boehner released this in a statement earlier today:
“What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.” The premium will be paid into a U.S. Treasury account – and these federal funds will be used to pay for the abortion services.”
So not only will that abortion be paid for by federal funds, it will come out of YOUR premiums “whether you like it or not” (thanks Gavin). The question remains, however, why? Why Ms. Pelosi do you and your lackeys continue to require fetal-death-on-demand be included in your massive federal healthcare hijacking? The answer is easy: it’s the money, stupid. The abortion racket is just that, a racket, and a tremendously profitable one at that. The promoters of that racket know that if healthcare is federalized and centralized and abortion funding is left out that many women will choose not to abort simply because they will actually have to pay for the procedure. It’s sad to say but it really boils down to just that.
It’s a sickening state of affairs that we have to fight this kind of thing, but it’s the reality of our times. It will be a great day in 2011 when Pelosi hands the gavel to a Republican and moves out of that speaker’s office for good.
Looking through old media clippings found this gem published by the Oakland Tribune in early 2007. It’s no wonder that Jerry McNerney quickly became the puppet of Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the liberal elite in Washington (97% in line voting with Pelosi). McNerney quickly has become a liberal lapdog, I guess he just wanted the adoration:
”
When Rep.-elect Jerry McNerney strolled into the freshman orientation reception in a Washington, D.C., hotel earlier this month, heads turned.
And why not? Hes the most famous freshman in the upcoming 110th Congress.
McNerney even has a nickname, the dragon-slayer, in honor of his wildly unexpected triumph Nov. 7 over seven-term incumbent and powerful committee Chairman Republican Richard Pombo.
Someone walked up to me right away and said, Youre Jerry McNerney! They recognized me from my picture, said a slightly astounded McNerney. I thought, Wow, thats different.’”
”
There is an unsurprising trend taking place among the liberal elite as 2009 Election Day nears. Here is a recent headline to help demonstrate the phenomenon:
The commonality in all of these stories is that the Republican Party is imperiled, and is in danger of further “marginalizing” itself if it dares to return to its conservative roots.
Nothing could be further from the truth. And the, as Andrew Breitbart accurately deemed it, Democrat-Media Complex knows this better than anyone.
The most important concepts in analyzing this Republican Party criticism is to understand who is offering these assessments and to what end.
As noted above, one of those opining on the state of the GOP is Valerie Jarrett, Senior White House Advisor to Barack Obama. Today Joe Biden got into the act, asking for “moderate” Republicans to support liberal Bill Owens in the New York special election.
Most of the other critiques are coming from a heavily-left-of-center media and a few nominal conservatives such as David Brooks.
Why, then, would the left and its allies seek to “help” a Republican Party which they do not wish to see succeed?
Answer: They wouldn’t. And this supposed strategy advice and analysis by the left is to be ignored, except as it can be used to understand exactly what the left most fears.
The very public advice being offered to the GOP by the left is intended to help keep the Republican Party fragmented and to try to convince the American people that conservatism is “extreme” and undesirable. It is a transparent and predictable ploy.
A good and longstanding example of this kind of misdirection attempt is the exhortation by liberals for conservatives to have Sarah Palin be Barack Obama’s opponent in 2012. The refrain goes something like this: If Palin is the nominee, Obama will win in a landslide. So please pick her.
The goal of such pronouncements is to make the right believe that Palin isn’t viable, and that the left doesn’t fear her at all. This is, to any astute political observer, total nonsense. The left fears nobody more than Sarah Palin, but one has to be able to interpret how that fear is manifested. Among the Alinskyites and their media enablers, the fear is often currently expressed as mocking, condescension and dismissal.
What the left most fears at this time is the coming together of a strong, unified and no-nonsense (read: non-elitist or -apologizing-for-itself) conservative opposition to Barack Obama. That movement is well underway, as this summer’s Tea Party protests showed. However, we may be on the doorstep of the first major electoral victories based at least partially upon this coalition.
In Virginia, Bob McDonnell seems a near-lock to defeat Democratic Party challenger Creigh Deeds. In upstate New York, conservative Constitution Party candidate Doug Hoffman may win a Congressional seat in a district which voted for Obama and despite his GOP adversary, Dede Scozzafava, dropping out of the race and endorsing Obama-backed liberal Bill Owens. Finally, the solidly-blue state of New Jersey may vote out Democrat Governor Jon Corzine in favor of Republican Chris Christie.
It would appear conservatives and the GOP aren’t doing so poorly, then. And this is this is the point for those left of center. The last thing they want is for an invigorated right wing to find its footing and gain momentum heading into the 2010 midterm elections.
The first of the three articles I linked to above is meant to quell any possible good feelings conservatives may have after tomorrow’s elections. It is, to use the slang, a buzzkill piece. Don’t get too excited, GOP, it says. Even if you win big.
Stephanopoulos’ report is intended to play up the Republican Party infighting in the New York special election so as to take the emphasis off of the incredibly strong and unified support behind Doug Hoffman. The tactic here is to accentuate the negative.
Finally, Jarrett’s gambit is to try to dissuade people from voting for GOP candidates tomorrow lest they be part of that “extreme” fringe no one wants to be identified with. Why be a radical, she implies, when you could be such a good and decent — and accepted — person and vote Democrat.
As the reconstituted conservative moment continues to strengthen and build, you will see many more such “free advice” articles and TV spots from the right wing’s opponents. When you see them, just smile to yourself and listen to see what the left is most exercised about in their talking and writing. This will let you know what it is that Obama’s allies fear most.
For a genuine conservative and Republican Party resurgence, the right must get back to its roots. Rush Limbaugh, from his appearance on this past Sunday’s FOX News Sunday puts the matter succinctly (go to the 2:50 mark of the video):
THE FOLLOWING VIDEO IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE
It is the Reagan Coalition, not the blue blood/country club set who will lead the right wing back to prominence. The “Democrat Lite” strategy is a failing one and only plays into the hands of the right’s opponents. Those, that is, who are now so freely providing their unsolicited advice.
