The closing session of the Rightonline Conference in Minnesota was graced by the presence of Herman Cain. He is not a politician. Mr. Cain has been a highly successful businessman (former CEO, author, and speaker). More information about his background can be found here: http://www.hermancain.com/about
My inclination on coverage of this candidate is slightly different than previously published articles on the others who attended the Minnesota Conference. The mainstream media are simply refusing to acknowledge there is an accomplished businessman who understands the meaning of the word conservative. To that end, he can make his case better than anyone else.
Here are the two links for Part 1 and Part 2 of his speech at the Rightonline conference in Minnesota.
“Our dreams and the dreams of our grandchildren are under attack, and that is what this is all about”, stated Cain. The good news is we can take the country back.
All of the candidates have strengths and weaknesses. After all, they are human beings. However, one very important criteria must be added to the job description for the President of the United States of America – they must love this land and what it stands for! No more “pretenders in chief” in the White House!Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Congressman Anthony Weiner (Dem), was first elected to the House in 1998. He is up for re-election in 2010.
This Representative has become known for being one of the “point” people on the Healthcare Reform options being considered by the Congress and the Senate.
Weiner Responds To Senate Finance Committee Rejection Of The Public Option
“It should come as no surprise that the Finance Committee rejected the public option amendment offered by Senator Rockefeller”
“After all, the health insurance lobby has won virtually everything it has fought for in the Finance Committee to date.”
“Fortunately, the bill is not being written in the Senate Finance Committee.” “The American people support a public option. Doctors want a public option. The President has said he wants a public option. Without a public option there will be no competition, no cost containment and less choice. That is why it will be part of the bill.”
Polls and newscasts have begun to show the “facts” stated above, in the Senator’s speech, are not true.
Here are some key facts on the Senator’s record:
1) Weiner has been onboard completely with the Obama administration’s lavish economic policies from the beginning.
2) His “good judgment included a request to release a man from prison who had received a life sentence for passing classified information to Israel. Clearly the deed was serious enough to receive this sentence as dictated by the laws of the land, yet Congressman Weiner wanted a “custom” justice mandated for his cause.
3) He touted how much the stimulus plan would “help NYC”. It is now nearly at the end of October 2009. There have not been any new jobs created in the entire state of NY by this bill (per recovery.gov). Given the text of his earlier speech it appears the NYC area will be recipients of entitlements and grants. The entire country (primarily the middle class) will be taxed to pay for NYC initiatives is what this means. People in Brooklyn and Queens (the middle class) will be getting new taxes as well to help pay for the enormous stimulus package. Somehow in the speeches he fails to alert constituents of the tax bill they will be paying for many years due to this law.
4) Most recently, he had blasted the Social Security Administration for not giving a cost of living raise to the elderly. This seemed odd given there was no cost of living increase in the economy this year per statistics. **Remember he is up for election in 2010.
His resume and speeches indicate a person very “hungry” for the power and notoriety that comes with politics. For instance, since the beginning he has touted a special “bond” and support for the middle class. The middle class represents the majority of his New York district. Usually he has attempted to introduce tax cuts for the middle class when it is close to an election year. Yet, he is now proposing a sweeping Healthcare Reform Bill with a public option that would result in a much heavier taxation of the middle class and impose hardships on the elderly. Representative Weiner has been in the “limelight” on the House Floor anytime there is an opporunity to be high profile on pro-Obama administration positions. His speeches for the middle class are visible in every major talk show. This keeps the people back in his District happy because they visibly “see” him saying things in support of them. However, on the floor of the Congress he has has been a strong supporter of virtually every major spending initiative by this administration (which will definitely result in hardship for the middle class). This ensures he will get campaign support on a priority basis from this administration.
Recently in the Congress several amendments were brought forward to “itemize” several Solar studies and projects in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars. May I remind everyone that Exxon Mobil, and all the other oil majors around the world have done exhaustive studies in this area and determined the technology is not there at this time to make this a cost effective solution for America or anyone else. Yet, the Democrats passed all the amendments without flinching spending hundreds of more millions of dollars when the country is deep in debt and in extreme trouble financially. Senator Weiner has made statements that this administration is progressive and “tackling” all the hard issues. So now the politicians believe they can resolve all the issues with solar, regardless of the consistent and numerous results found by other expert studies over the past 5 years. Did I mention that many of the companies who will be recipients of these millions of dollars in funds for studies are heavy Democrat supporters? How convenient as we are approaching another election year for many of the heavyweights in the Democratic party!
So what is real? His desire to help the middle class in election years, or his eagerness to “perform” on camera for the White House? There is a consistency in his voting and numerous speeches on the House Floor. He will support all visible Democrat initiatives regardless of whether it benefits his beloved middle class.
Representative Weiner has been the protégé of Senator Schumer for several years, and is well-known as someone who has full and easy access to all the powerful people in the current administration. From all appearances and from his pattern of behavior this appears to be another “Schumer in training”. Is this really a good thing for the Constitutional Republic? Congressman Weiner has quickly become the “consummate” politician learning how to placate his constituents in a visible manner and be the “popular guy” with the White House. For this adept ability to speak from both sides of his mouth almost simultaneously, Congressman Weiner, it is time to go!
Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct. ~Thomas Jefferson
Senator John McCain was first elected to office in 1986.
He is up for re-election in 2010. Let me preface this finding with an acknowledgement of the conflict many people will find (including myself) surrounding the topic of Senator John McCain. Everyone in America appreciates his service in the military and the price he paid for all of us. This goes without saying. I, like many others fully support and respect the men and women who have courageously served their country. That being said, we should not allow our bias of support for the men and women who have served in the military to interfere with our views on how is he performing in the Senate. These are two entirely separate topics.
Senator McCain is usually one of the first to offer compromise on major bills before the House. It has been difficult for him to “stand his ground” on behalf of the American people and the Constitution. Furthermore his principles/values/beliefs fluctuate on a regular basis as he attempts to “compromise” with his peers in the House. What follows are some examples of poor judgment, and the various impacts to Americans by those decisions.
Voted YES on the Second Economic package – 10/2008 – HR1424
Vote to pass a bill that allows the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions, with a total outstanding balance of up to $700 billion, and also provides tax incentives for alternative energies and contains income tax and alternative minimum tax provisions.
Editorial Note: Did we see any charges brought against the institutions that “promoted” the bad mortgages and made billions in profits at the expense of the mortgage holders? Now we want to give the same mismanaged institutions money when they are clearly suffering the consequences of bad business decisions? People and institutions will learn (just as children do) when they suffer consequences for their actions.
Voted YES on the First Economic Package – 02/2008 – HR5140
This bill provides economic stimulus through recovery rebates to individuals, incentives for business investment, and an increase in conforming and FHA loan limits.
Editorial Note: In this bill was the following verbage: “- Increases the limits on the maximum original principal obligation of mortgages for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and for the Federal Housing Administration (Sec. 201, 202)”.
Here is an extract from Senator McCain’s comment on the First Economic Package that they were about to vote upon:
“The bill pending before the Senate–a compromise product between the House and the President–is not perfect. Certainly we can all agree on the important yet limited improvements I mentioned such as ensuring our senior citizens and disabled veterans are not left out of this stimulus package. While perhaps none of us will be fully satisfied with the final measure, we simply cannot afford to include every member’s wish list in this package. I believe the measure we will send to the President is one that almost all of us can and will support”.
Editorial Note: No one in the House or Senate should “compromise” when there are such wide sweeping constitutional implications to the American public. Earlier in his speech Senator McCain said the compromises were necessary to ensure the disabled veterans and seniors were included in the tax relief. So, we pass legislation based on “deals” between the parties.
The two packages listed above helped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to get deeper in trouble, made temporary tax cuts, put us deeper into debt, and did nothing to curtail the spending in the House.
Here is an excerpt from a speech on the Senate Floor by Senator McCain: “I know these words will fall on deaf ears, but it is certainly not responsible for House to continue to load up appropriations bills–and, yes, authorization bills–with wasteful and unnecessary spending. Americans all over the country are hurting. People are losing jobs, their savings and their homes. Yet we continue the disgraceful earmarking process, elevating parochialism and patronage politics over the true needs and welfare of our men and women in uniform and the taxpayers”.
Editorial note: Although he said the above in a speech on the Senate Floor, he has voted for several bills that included earmarks just to be able to get the main bill through on the vote.
Senator John Sidney McCain, III repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff. What is the political courage test? The Political Courage Test asks candidates which items they will support if elected. It does not ask them to indicate which items they will oppose. Through extensive research of public polling data, it was discovered that voters are more concerned with what candidates would support when elected to office, not what they oppose. If a candidate does not select a response to any part or all of any question, it does not necessarily indicate that the candidate is opposed to that particular item. The majority of the Presidential Candidates, Senatorial, and House candidates have filled out this brief form for the public to review.
Editorial Note: Why would a candidate be against transparency?
The Constitution and the Declaration were very clear on the rights given to the people and the government. There shouldn’t be any “compromise” on the issues at the expense of any of those individual rights. Senator McCain, it is time for you to go.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Senator Chris Dodd (Dem) was first elected in 1980. He will be up for re-election in 2010.
Looking at Healthcare, Senator Dodd has some radical ideas. First he wants to force a government run system on the people. Even worse, he is for the illegal aliens and all their children to be covered by the plan. His theory is it will prevent the American population from catching things from them, and after all – they will pay. In the healthcare plan, and in all the speeches it has been stated the premiums set for individuals and families based on their ability to pay. In other words, the poor would pay very little and be subsidized (so to speak) by the people who are able to pay more. Let’s say you have 50M illegal aliens, how much do you think the rest of working America will have to pay to make up the difference?
What is it that is so difficult for Senator Dodd to understand about the word illegal? He appears reluctant or unwilling at best to address what they are going to do about enforcing the law. This is criminal for a United States Senator to speak of “taking care” of all the millions of illegal aliens at the expense of the people who pay his paycheck.
This is a quote from the Senator: “I’ve got a five-year-old and a two-year-old and one has a strep throat and the other has an infection of adenoids. But it’s important to know what families go through who have young children. I’m a US Senator. I’ve got a wonderful health care program. I want every single American in this country to have as good a health care program as every member of the US Congress. That ought to be something we’re going to stand there and fight for”. Everyone applauds this concept. Isn’t it strange that the Senate will not be participating in this government run program? They will keep their benefits, and we will have something separate. If it is so wonderful, why doesn’t he take it for his family? Why doesn’t he propose the entire Senate be on the plan?
Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages.
Vote to provide federal protections, such as access to specialty and emergency room care, and allow patients to sue health insurers in state and federal courts. Economic damages would not be capped, and punitive damages would be capped at $5 million. Editorial Note: This type of “sue mentality” without any caps is what has driven the insurance rates so high. Senator Dodd has contributed to our rates being high, by voting yes on this bill. Lawsuits cost everyone.
Voted NO on an amendment prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion
All I can say is the thought of a teenager sneaking across state lines for abortion (probably without parental knowledge) is a horrible thought. How could he possibly justify allowing minors the right to cross state lines for abortions?
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
How could anyone say a crime had not been committed when an unborn fetus is harmed during the commission of a crime? This is unbelievable!
Remember the hedge fund managers that have caused such turmoil with the market and investors over the last few years?
The Stanford Advocate (paper in his hometown), reported that Senator Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman has stated his reluctance to hike taxes on hedge fund profits. He led in political contributions (when he ran for President), $726,950, from the booming investment sector. The tax code allows hedge fund executives to pay capital gains taxes at 15% instead of paying the personal income tax rate at 35%.” Senator Dodd raised campaign money from these hedgefund managers, and then the legislation which would raise their tax rate got killed afterwards. Does anyone believe this was a coincidence? The hedgefund managers had a huge part in the economic upheaval on Wall Street over the past several years.
Voted NO on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
Don’t we all want the government to have constraints legally that bind them to doing the right thing and balancing the budget? Shouldn’t a United States Senator that represents America be fiscally responsible? Why would he not vote to have a balanced budget? As Americans, do we have to balance our checkbooks? Can we spend unchecked without any consequences?
Senator Dodd admitted to adding a loophole in the Stimulus package that would allow AIG executives to get bonuses
He admits to adding the loophole so the amendment would pass! Is this kind of “deal making” in the best interest of the country?
See link below:
Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
How does it feel to have worked all your life in America and have to share your pension with the illegals? This is something Senator Dodd thinks is “ok”.
And as if that weren’t enough, take a look at this: Last year, Congress overwhelmingly passed bipartisan legislation granting immunity to telecommunications companies that have cooperated with federal authorities’ anti-terrorism efforts. Senator Chris Dodd, the extremely vulnerable incumbent Democrat, has re-introduced legislation to open those telecom firms to civil and criminal lawsuits. So we vote to grant immunity to gain help last year on anti-terrorism and now he wants to penalize them for helping us.
This man hasn’t exhibited common sense, or morals. Otherwise how could he possibly stand for the items listed above? There are dozens of other equally bad choices this Senator has made in his career representing the people. Senator Dodd is not serving the American people. It is time for the Senator to go. We the people deserve better.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )