I didnt leave the Republican Party, it left me. I was answering questions today about why I want to be a spoiler, and possibly hurt the Republicans.
I guess its like this, you know a doctor, and he has the cure for cancer. you and millions of others have cancer, so you want him to distribute the cure, but he's too busy looking for a cure for acne, and the cancer cure sits on the shelf getting dusty.
how long do you wait in the lobby? or do you go find another way to get the cure out?
Republicans have access to the cure for every problem we face today, but they are too busy and pre-occupied to get it out. its why they lost power and respect, and they arent learning even from a big loss.
I guess I knew it was over when they threw Sarah under the bus when it was obvious she could make all the difference. I take no joy in this, I have been a Republican since I was 18. I'm still registered, but its time to look for another doctor...
Sunday, August 02, 2009
how do we preserve the healthcare we have, and still ensure everybody access? there is a lot to cover when you discuss healthcare, but bottom line, national-single-payer is the worse possible solution. hospitals treat anybody who walks in, as they should, and they (hospitals) try to recoup the cost when they dont get paid, as they should. People should make an effort to pay their debts, and I hear all the time that someone cant afford to pay their outstanding medical bills, but how many of those people have an I-phone and a widescreen TV? I am gathering signatures this week at the Ozark Empire Fair, and the booth next to me sells health insurance, and listening to the excuses and stories is disturbing. often the folks without insurance tell them that they will just go to the doctor, get treated and let the governmnet pay it.
so why are we ruining the world's best system to pacify and benefit deadbeats? (apply this question to many different areas of life)
so why are we ruining the world's best system to pacify and benefit deadbeats? (apply this question to many different areas of life)
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
the $1.1TRILLION dollar tarp (bailout) I was against it from the start, in fact Roy Blunt voting for the first bush bailout was the genesis of my campaign to run for the 7th district seat. (even before he announced he was running for the senate)
but lets assume that the money was going to be spent regardless, instead of just handing it over to bankers and investor banks, what if we had just paid off 1/16 of all outstanding mortgages? (residential mortgages total about 16Trillion.)
$10,000 off your $160k house? wouldn't that helped a little more than what we have? the instant surge into the banks would have still happened, but consumer debt would have been reduced immediately. many people would have spent a similar amount on other items. I don't support spending all that money in the first place, but it was/is spent in the worst possible way, when it could have been done to actually help the people, not the "special people"
but lets assume that the money was going to be spent regardless, instead of just handing it over to bankers and investor banks, what if we had just paid off 1/16 of all outstanding mortgages? (residential mortgages total about 16Trillion.)
$10,000 off your $160k house? wouldn't that helped a little more than what we have? the instant surge into the banks would have still happened, but consumer debt would have been reduced immediately. many people would have spent a similar amount on other items. I don't support spending all that money in the first place, but it was/is spent in the worst possible way, when it could have been done to actually help the people, not the "special people"
I took a poll on facebook the other day, "should people recieving public assistance be subject to drug testing? and denied benefits if testing positive?"
duh. I would go a step further, and have them pay back what they have recieved over time, and have a limit on having additional kids while on the dole. if they want to do drugs and birth kids they cant support, they need to find other funding sources than the hard-working taxpayers.
once upon a time, the churches fufilled this role, and they had no problem demanding behavior changes for support. and frankly, its the churches and private social groups job, not the government's job to administer aid to the poor. its the job of the government to ensure life and liberty, to allow for the pursuit of happiness, not guarantee results.
duh. I would go a step further, and have them pay back what they have recieved over time, and have a limit on having additional kids while on the dole. if they want to do drugs and birth kids they cant support, they need to find other funding sources than the hard-working taxpayers.
once upon a time, the churches fufilled this role, and they had no problem demanding behavior changes for support. and frankly, its the churches and private social groups job, not the government's job to administer aid to the poor. its the job of the government to ensure life and liberty, to allow for the pursuit of happiness, not guarantee results.
Two powerful Senate Democrats said Tuesday that they knew they got low mortgage-rate deals in a lender's VIP program but thought the special treatment was a "courtesy" or the same as "frequent flier" discounts, The Washington Times reported Wednesday.
Both vehemently denied any wrongdoing or ethical lapse in the mortgage deals, which came to light a year ago and triggered investigations by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"I thought this was like a frequent-flier program," Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said of the special benefits. "I thought nothing of it."
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said an account executive at Countrywide Financial Corp. told him that the VIP status was "nothing more than ... courtesy stuff."
A Countrywide official who handled the loans had said that both senators knew they got preferential treatment in the form of waived fees and points that likely saved them tens of thousands of dollars. (Washington post/Fox news)
perhaps people that stupid shouldnt be serving in congress. Gee I didnt know I was getting special treatment... frequent flier? what you buy a house a week?
Both vehemently denied any wrongdoing or ethical lapse in the mortgage deals, which came to light a year ago and triggered investigations by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
"I thought this was like a frequent-flier program," Sen. Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said of the special benefits. "I thought nothing of it."
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said an account executive at Countrywide Financial Corp. told him that the VIP status was "nothing more than ... courtesy stuff."
A Countrywide official who handled the loans had said that both senators knew they got preferential treatment in the form of waived fees and points that likely saved them tens of thousands of dollars. (Washington post/Fox news)
perhaps people that stupid shouldnt be serving in congress. Gee I didnt know I was getting special treatment... frequent flier? what you buy a house a week?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
I was on the radio this past week, and was asked about my positions on farm policy. we were discussion multi-national corporations that have seed patents, and generally control our food supply. I replied that small farmers have been the backbone of our food chain for generations (duh) and that should remain so. given the limitations of spur of the moment sound bytes, I wanted to give a fuller answer. I have no problem with large corporations, as long as they act ethically and in the country's best interest. when they only pursue the bottom line, at the the expense of morals and ethics, I have a problem with that. much of the issues we face as a society have their basis in a lack of general ethics. we need a stable and safe domestic food supply. we don't need criminal aliens picking our crops and defecating in the fields causing e-coli outbreaks. we need small farmers, using traditional heritage seed (or at least having easy access to it) and those farmers sending a part of that to local retailers. there is a realistic purpose for mega-farms and multi-national food sources, we like tropical fruits and vegetables, and we need off-season food from the southern hemisphere, but we need a stable and sustainable domestic food supply first. if we were to isolate ourselves from our foreign food supply due to war or such, where would the typical city dweller get food? we used to feed the world with our excess, now we import a huge amount. why? often its the government messing with our Ag policy in ways that hurt us, but benefit some interest group. its time we had a government that looks out for us first.
Monday, June 01, 2009
I'm watching my country slip into socialism, and while It's not without hope,it looks pretty bleak if we stay on our current course. As a society, we have failed to impart upon our children, the foundations that made us great. We have witnessed an unparalleled time in human history. 200 years of freedom and self government,contrasted to 5000 years of bondage,and servitude. Despite advanced technology undreamed of twenty years ago, and greatly increased budgets,our general state of education has declined. Families have fragmented, and even intact families spend far less time together, and less time interacting with their communities. The moral state of our nation has declined to tragic levels. Unbounded greed has undermined our financial markets, and a lack of traditional morals has left our business community destitute, and in many places broke.
There is a common thread for all these problems we face, I believe that the Church has failed to fulfil its God-given purpose in this society. For the past 50 years or so, many churches have forgotten why they exist. They have become social clubs, and therefore ineffective at containing the societal decay. they have lost their saltiness, and usefulness. Not all churches have decayed this far, and millions have a meaningful faith. But the historic benefits afforded our nation by a functioning and fruitful church have all but faded.
not only does the church long for meaningful revival, so does our nation long for restoration.
There is a common thread for all these problems we face, I believe that the Church has failed to fulfil its God-given purpose in this society. For the past 50 years or so, many churches have forgotten why they exist. They have become social clubs, and therefore ineffective at containing the societal decay. they have lost their saltiness, and usefulness. Not all churches have decayed this far, and millions have a meaningful faith. But the historic benefits afforded our nation by a functioning and fruitful church have all but faded.
not only does the church long for meaningful revival, so does our nation long for restoration.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Governor Perry of Texas got himself into some hot water not only by supporting a resolution reminding Washington about the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution but by going one step farther and mentioning the possibility of secession. It is interesting that for the past few weeks Mr. Perry has been heralded by many on the right for standing up to Washington but by mentioning secession, most of them believe he went too far and may have ended his political career. By mentioning secession and then not backing down, he has gone from hero to fool in a moment. But should we not consider the issue in light of what to going on in our country? Rather than a knee jerk negative reaction doesn’t it merit serious consideration and discussion? I believe it does.
First, consider this fact. Before there was a United States of America , there were colonies that became states. Before there was a Federal Government, there were thirteen state governments that were looking for a way to cooperate. Here is a very important fact we all need to understand, particularly in light of this issue. The Federal Government exists to serve the states and the people, we do not exist to serve the Federal Government. The states and the people voluntarily entered into an agreement to create a higher government power to take on specific tasks they were unable to accomplish individually, specific tasks laid out in the Constitution. From the time the Constitution was adopted until the “Civil War”, secession was a constant threat, and not just over the issue of slavery. It was acceptable to consider whether or not the federal government was living up to its billing and if the contract was meeting the needs of the states and the people. Since the war between the North and the South, however, those who talk of secession have been relegated to the same place in our national consciousness as UFO abductees and the black helicopter crowd.
The reason for this is the same reason that is bringing up the question of secession in the first place, the metamorphosis of our constitutionally limited government to a centralized state that knows no bounds to its power or sphere of activity. Because so few now question the authority and the ability of the Federal Government to do anything, because most accept the role of the federal government to meet any need or fix any situation, the idea of secession is as absurd as a five year old running away from his parents yet not being able to cross the street. The progressives have changed the role of the Federal Government from one of a referee between the states to a meddling mother-in-law. Over time, we have accepted our role as children to the government’s parent and as the majority’s ability to think critically of the government has waned, secession became an ever more remote consideration.
I would propose a new analogy, however. Rather than parent/child, I think we have Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. The states got together to create this ‘monster’ called the federal government and they believed that through the bonds of the Constitution and the wisdom and morality of a religious people, the monster could be controlled and made to serve their needs. The ‘monster’, however, is snapping the last of its bonds and is demanding that its former masters now serve it and its voracious appetite.. Now in the movies, what do most people do when the monster shows up? They run! If there is no hope of subduing or defeating the monster, vacating the premises is a reasonable option. If the federal government is imposing itself unconstitutionally on the states and the people and it is highly unlikely that its tendency to tyranny is going to change, secession becomes a reasonable option.
In reality, Governor Perry has shown a lot of courage and foresight. Courage because by simply mentioning the fact that there are states, and large ones at that, that are not going to put up with Washington’s abuse and there are no options left off the table for dealing with it. Foresight because any thinking person can look at the direction Washington has taken over the last several years and realize it is only prudent to have a contingency plan. Consider the fact that Washington is loading us down with debt we cannot repay, is printing trillions of dollars that can only result in hyperinflation at some point, that the Chinese are becoming a little skittish about financing our foolish expenditures and now the Department of Homeland Security is labeling anyone in the opposition possible domestic terrorists while we coddle or ignore real threats to our security. If there is a good likelihood that the Federal Government will destroy our economy and monetary system and become even more tyrannical, it is reasonable to consider all the options available.
As an individual, we may need an “escape plan” not just from the oppression of the government but the civil unrest that will result when it can no longer meet the needs of its dependents. Governor Perry is merely doing what he was elected to do, adopt policies and set courses of action that are best for the people of Texas. Unlike the state of California , which like a crack addicted whore is willing to do anything for federal dollars, governor Perry understands the practical and ideological ramifications of federal aid and the strings that come with it. If Washington is going to do things the governor of any state believes are detrimental to his constituents and there is no other remedy, at some point push will come to shove. Either Washington will bribe or bully the state into obedience or the state will stand up and defy the will of Washington . Up to this point it has always been the first option.. The question becomes, what happens if Governor Perry or some other governor refuses to obey the dictates of Washington ? Will it go as far a secession? Probably not but if more states rise up and say no more, perhaps we can begin to put the genie back in the bottle. If not, we are all going to need an escape plan.
lifted from www.patricksamuels.com
First, consider this fact. Before there was a United States of America , there were colonies that became states. Before there was a Federal Government, there were thirteen state governments that were looking for a way to cooperate. Here is a very important fact we all need to understand, particularly in light of this issue. The Federal Government exists to serve the states and the people, we do not exist to serve the Federal Government. The states and the people voluntarily entered into an agreement to create a higher government power to take on specific tasks they were unable to accomplish individually, specific tasks laid out in the Constitution. From the time the Constitution was adopted until the “Civil War”, secession was a constant threat, and not just over the issue of slavery. It was acceptable to consider whether or not the federal government was living up to its billing and if the contract was meeting the needs of the states and the people. Since the war between the North and the South, however, those who talk of secession have been relegated to the same place in our national consciousness as UFO abductees and the black helicopter crowd.
The reason for this is the same reason that is bringing up the question of secession in the first place, the metamorphosis of our constitutionally limited government to a centralized state that knows no bounds to its power or sphere of activity. Because so few now question the authority and the ability of the Federal Government to do anything, because most accept the role of the federal government to meet any need or fix any situation, the idea of secession is as absurd as a five year old running away from his parents yet not being able to cross the street. The progressives have changed the role of the Federal Government from one of a referee between the states to a meddling mother-in-law. Over time, we have accepted our role as children to the government’s parent and as the majority’s ability to think critically of the government has waned, secession became an ever more remote consideration.
I would propose a new analogy, however. Rather than parent/child, I think we have Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. The states got together to create this ‘monster’ called the federal government and they believed that through the bonds of the Constitution and the wisdom and morality of a religious people, the monster could be controlled and made to serve their needs. The ‘monster’, however, is snapping the last of its bonds and is demanding that its former masters now serve it and its voracious appetite.. Now in the movies, what do most people do when the monster shows up? They run! If there is no hope of subduing or defeating the monster, vacating the premises is a reasonable option. If the federal government is imposing itself unconstitutionally on the states and the people and it is highly unlikely that its tendency to tyranny is going to change, secession becomes a reasonable option.
In reality, Governor Perry has shown a lot of courage and foresight. Courage because by simply mentioning the fact that there are states, and large ones at that, that are not going to put up with Washington’s abuse and there are no options left off the table for dealing with it. Foresight because any thinking person can look at the direction Washington has taken over the last several years and realize it is only prudent to have a contingency plan. Consider the fact that Washington is loading us down with debt we cannot repay, is printing trillions of dollars that can only result in hyperinflation at some point, that the Chinese are becoming a little skittish about financing our foolish expenditures and now the Department of Homeland Security is labeling anyone in the opposition possible domestic terrorists while we coddle or ignore real threats to our security. If there is a good likelihood that the Federal Government will destroy our economy and monetary system and become even more tyrannical, it is reasonable to consider all the options available.
As an individual, we may need an “escape plan” not just from the oppression of the government but the civil unrest that will result when it can no longer meet the needs of its dependents. Governor Perry is merely doing what he was elected to do, adopt policies and set courses of action that are best for the people of Texas. Unlike the state of California , which like a crack addicted whore is willing to do anything for federal dollars, governor Perry understands the practical and ideological ramifications of federal aid and the strings that come with it. If Washington is going to do things the governor of any state believes are detrimental to his constituents and there is no other remedy, at some point push will come to shove. Either Washington will bribe or bully the state into obedience or the state will stand up and defy the will of Washington . Up to this point it has always been the first option.. The question becomes, what happens if Governor Perry or some other governor refuses to obey the dictates of Washington ? Will it go as far a secession? Probably not but if more states rise up and say no more, perhaps we can begin to put the genie back in the bottle. If not, we are all going to need an escape plan.
lifted from www.patricksamuels.com
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Respect for the Constitution
Respect for life
Less Government
Personal responsibility
These are the basics of conservatism set forth by 14 yr old Jonathan Krohn at CPAC 2009.
I think that these are a pretty good foundation.
Respect for the Constitution
Much of what our current federal government is doing I would classify as extra-constitutional. These things by definition need to be reserved to the states or the people.
Social programs for example were historically done by churches and local organizations.
John Adams once said that “We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Oct. 11, 1798
Much of the societal problems we are faced with today, are easily explained by this quote.
I believe that every federal program not authorized by the Constitution needs to be disbanded, and if any state and its citizens feel the need to continue them, let them do it at the state level as they see fit.
Also I do not believe in a “living constitution” or a concept that it should be interpreted to reflect changing values and situations. Would you tolerate a “living marriage license”? How about a “living lease agreement”? Or a “living 1040a”? Of course not, and I will not tolerate bastardizing our founding documents either.
Respect for life
I am pro life, and support capital punishment. The two do not conflict.
My respect for life extends to all aspects of life. From conception, when your DNA is first knit together to cause the formation of the body you use throughout your life, until your natural death, you are a unique person. A person who according to our Declaration of Independence “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
These words—called by historian Joseph Ellis "the most potent and consequential words in American history" came to represent an ideal for which the nation should strive, notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln, who popularized the popular view that the Declaration's preamble is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted. I agree.
At the same time persons who by their own actions have proven themselves to be unworthy of freedom in our society. People who have broken the contract with civil society to the point that they need to be removed from society for the safety of others, should, after enjoying the constitutional right of due process, be removed as society sees the need.
Liberals appear to take the opposite view. Millions of abortions have caused a shift in demographics that will affect generations to come, and yet they feel the need to forgive unrepentant criminals with programs like “weekend furloughs” for murderers, allowing them to commit crimes when they should be locked up. If we truly have respect for life, we would never allow such a person to be free in society unchecked.
Less government
While much of what I believe is also summed up in the “respect for the constitution”, I think that Americans are being cheated out of a meaningful relationship with their government.
The average American has little input in the daily workings of their government, because it’s so far away. Government that affects domestic life needs to be local. I often say that my state representative Ray Weter should have more impact on my daily life, than Roy Blunt my national representative. The individual states need to determine the level of government in their state. If the folks in Vermont want cradle-to-grave healthcare, have at it, leave me alone.
The constitution calls for the federal government to provide for a select few services.
Provide for a Military, providing for the common defense, taxes, excises and debt. Regulating foreign commerce, and establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. Uniform rules for bankruptcies, and to coin and regulate money. To punish federal lawbreakers, to create courts, declare war and take care of Washington D.C. and precious little else.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Personal responsibility
I believe that I have been placed on this earth to make it a better place than when I found it. I also believe that we all have a responsibility to our society to behave ourselves, and when we do screw up, pay for our transgressions. As we interact with others, we owe them the basic respect afforded all people. When we set forth to conduct business, we should be honest and trustworthy. When we enter into any relationship, we should be honest and trustworthy.
This is no longer the standard set forth in our society. We have been conditioned to look for loopholes, and ways to otherwise get out of obligations. We often look for ways to skirt our responsibilities, look at the housing crisis, look at the divorce rate, look at the bankruptcy rates, and look at how many people Obama nominated with tax issues.
We as Americans need to celebrate personal responsibility, and reject the ‘lawyerization” of our society.
This is why I am running for Missouri’s 7th district congressional seat in 2010.
Dean Moore Jr.
Respect for life
Less Government
Personal responsibility
These are the basics of conservatism set forth by 14 yr old Jonathan Krohn at CPAC 2009.
I think that these are a pretty good foundation.
Respect for the Constitution
Much of what our current federal government is doing I would classify as extra-constitutional. These things by definition need to be reserved to the states or the people.
Social programs for example were historically done by churches and local organizations.
John Adams once said that “We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
John Adams
(1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President Oct. 11, 1798
Much of the societal problems we are faced with today, are easily explained by this quote.
I believe that every federal program not authorized by the Constitution needs to be disbanded, and if any state and its citizens feel the need to continue them, let them do it at the state level as they see fit.
Also I do not believe in a “living constitution” or a concept that it should be interpreted to reflect changing values and situations. Would you tolerate a “living marriage license”? How about a “living lease agreement”? Or a “living 1040a”? Of course not, and I will not tolerate bastardizing our founding documents either.
Respect for life
I am pro life, and support capital punishment. The two do not conflict.
My respect for life extends to all aspects of life. From conception, when your DNA is first knit together to cause the formation of the body you use throughout your life, until your natural death, you are a unique person. A person who according to our Declaration of Independence “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.
These words—called by historian Joseph Ellis "the most potent and consequential words in American history" came to represent an ideal for which the nation should strive, notably through the influence of Abraham Lincoln, who popularized the popular view that the Declaration's preamble is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted. I agree.
At the same time persons who by their own actions have proven themselves to be unworthy of freedom in our society. People who have broken the contract with civil society to the point that they need to be removed from society for the safety of others, should, after enjoying the constitutional right of due process, be removed as society sees the need.
Liberals appear to take the opposite view. Millions of abortions have caused a shift in demographics that will affect generations to come, and yet they feel the need to forgive unrepentant criminals with programs like “weekend furloughs” for murderers, allowing them to commit crimes when they should be locked up. If we truly have respect for life, we would never allow such a person to be free in society unchecked.
Less government
While much of what I believe is also summed up in the “respect for the constitution”, I think that Americans are being cheated out of a meaningful relationship with their government.
The average American has little input in the daily workings of their government, because it’s so far away. Government that affects domestic life needs to be local. I often say that my state representative Ray Weter should have more impact on my daily life, than Roy Blunt my national representative. The individual states need to determine the level of government in their state. If the folks in Vermont want cradle-to-grave healthcare, have at it, leave me alone.
The constitution calls for the federal government to provide for a select few services.
Provide for a Military, providing for the common defense, taxes, excises and debt. Regulating foreign commerce, and establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. Uniform rules for bankruptcies, and to coin and regulate money. To punish federal lawbreakers, to create courts, declare war and take care of Washington D.C. and precious little else.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Personal responsibility
I believe that I have been placed on this earth to make it a better place than when I found it. I also believe that we all have a responsibility to our society to behave ourselves, and when we do screw up, pay for our transgressions. As we interact with others, we owe them the basic respect afforded all people. When we set forth to conduct business, we should be honest and trustworthy. When we enter into any relationship, we should be honest and trustworthy.
This is no longer the standard set forth in our society. We have been conditioned to look for loopholes, and ways to otherwise get out of obligations. We often look for ways to skirt our responsibilities, look at the housing crisis, look at the divorce rate, look at the bankruptcy rates, and look at how many people Obama nominated with tax issues.
We as Americans need to celebrate personal responsibility, and reject the ‘lawyerization” of our society.
This is why I am running for Missouri’s 7th district congressional seat in 2010.
Dean Moore Jr.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Washington (CNSNews.com) – Too many absentee ballots, litigation against voter identification laws, and actions by a liberal community-organizer group have disenfranchised some voters while potentially allowing illegal votes to be cast, election lawyers claimed Thursday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C.
In Minnesota -- where the Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken likely will not be decided until the summer – at least 12,000 votes were not counted, said Mark Braden, an election lawyer who has been involved in the case for the last several months.
Most of those 12,000 votes were absentee ballots, and most were rural voters.
“There is a push in Minnesota to get so many people in the mail process,” Braden, former chief counsel for the Republican National Committee, said during an election law panel at CPAC.
Because of local government resources there, cities rejected less than 1 percent of absentee ballots, while rural areas rejected more than 10 percent, Braden said.
“This is a clear violation of the equal protection clause,” Braden said. “More mail-in votes results in many disenfranchised voters.”
The Minnesota Senate race is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But beyond that single state, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) also poses a threat to clean elections, said Heather Heidelbaugh, vice president of the Republican National Lawyers Association, which brought suit against ACORN in Pennsylvania.
Heidelbaugh said ACORN will probably get money to help conduct the 2010 Census.
“The one thing worse than having Al Franken in the Senate is to have ACORN conducting the Census,” Heidelbaugh said during the CPAC panel.
Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who supervised that state’s election system, called the effort to move the Census under control of the White House an indicator that “team Obama has its sights set on the greatest accumulation of power we have ever witnessed.”
President Barack Obama’s support for ending the secret ballot in union elections through passage of "card check" legislation would work to “chip away at the moral grasp of the secret ballot” in other areas, Blackwell said. Blackwell also said he thinks the administration wants to regulate talk radio and thus silence opposing viewpoints.
The Obama administration might also try to pack the courts with judges that would oppose voter ID laws, while Democrats in Congress are already calling for same-day voter registration nationally, a system Blackwell thinks is open to fraud.
Blackwell predicted that Obama also would push for amnesty for illegal immigrants, who have been involved in election fraud cases in the past.
“Individually, these are dangerous,” Blackwell said. “Taken collectively, it is the game plan of the left and the Obama administration.”
The left has run a consistent legal assault against voter-verification at the state level, said Hans Von Spakovsky, a former election lawyer for the Department of Justice and a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
The U.S Supreme Court upheld a voter ID law in Indiana. However, liberal organizations sued the state of Arizona for requiring proof of citizenship for voters and sued Georgia for checking voter registration forms against Social Security numbers to make sure a voter is still alive and is a citizen.
“Since 2000, liberal organizations have been pouring money into litigation all over the country,” said Von Spakovsky. “All of the lawsuits are aimed at destroying the ability of states to verify information on voter registration forms. All the laws survive, but unfortunately at great expense. It’s a scorched earth process, to keep litigating until states won’t want the expense.”
In Minnesota -- where the Senate race between Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Al Franken likely will not be decided until the summer – at least 12,000 votes were not counted, said Mark Braden, an election lawyer who has been involved in the case for the last several months.
Most of those 12,000 votes were absentee ballots, and most were rural voters.
“There is a push in Minnesota to get so many people in the mail process,” Braden, former chief counsel for the Republican National Committee, said during an election law panel at CPAC.
Because of local government resources there, cities rejected less than 1 percent of absentee ballots, while rural areas rejected more than 10 percent, Braden said.
“This is a clear violation of the equal protection clause,” Braden said. “More mail-in votes results in many disenfranchised voters.”
The Minnesota Senate race is likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But beyond that single state, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) also poses a threat to clean elections, said Heather Heidelbaugh, vice president of the Republican National Lawyers Association, which brought suit against ACORN in Pennsylvania.
Heidelbaugh said ACORN will probably get money to help conduct the 2010 Census.
“The one thing worse than having Al Franken in the Senate is to have ACORN conducting the Census,” Heidelbaugh said during the CPAC panel.
Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, who supervised that state’s election system, called the effort to move the Census under control of the White House an indicator that “team Obama has its sights set on the greatest accumulation of power we have ever witnessed.”
President Barack Obama’s support for ending the secret ballot in union elections through passage of "card check" legislation would work to “chip away at the moral grasp of the secret ballot” in other areas, Blackwell said. Blackwell also said he thinks the administration wants to regulate talk radio and thus silence opposing viewpoints.
The Obama administration might also try to pack the courts with judges that would oppose voter ID laws, while Democrats in Congress are already calling for same-day voter registration nationally, a system Blackwell thinks is open to fraud.
Blackwell predicted that Obama also would push for amnesty for illegal immigrants, who have been involved in election fraud cases in the past.
“Individually, these are dangerous,” Blackwell said. “Taken collectively, it is the game plan of the left and the Obama administration.”
The left has run a consistent legal assault against voter-verification at the state level, said Hans Von Spakovsky, a former election lawyer for the Department of Justice and a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
The U.S Supreme Court upheld a voter ID law in Indiana. However, liberal organizations sued the state of Arizona for requiring proof of citizenship for voters and sued Georgia for checking voter registration forms against Social Security numbers to make sure a voter is still alive and is a citizen.
“Since 2000, liberal organizations have been pouring money into litigation all over the country,” said Von Spakovsky. “All of the lawsuits are aimed at destroying the ability of states to verify information on voter registration forms. All the laws survive, but unfortunately at great expense. It’s a scorched earth process, to keep litigating until states won’t want the expense.”
Friday, February 27, 2009
Springfield MO Tea Party was a success! 200+ people arrived in the middle of a work day to protest. conservatives usually have much more difficulty attending an event like this compared to liberals. I have been to many rallies and events. many times the left contingent of an event will be employees of left-leaning organizations or people paid to be there to impress the media.
when people on the right show up in any number, it means they took time off from work to be there.
when people on the right show up in any number, it means they took time off from work to be there.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
I just read the summary overview of the 2009 omnibus spending bill. it starts off blaming President Bush for cutting programs last year, and ends with the comment "there are no earmarks in this bill"
Ahem.
so anyway, while conservatives are off at CPAC, the republicans in congress, add $31 Billion in "non-earmarks"? or 40% of the total.
cant blame the democrats, they are being themselves, but I'm pretty ticked at the republicans.
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary02-12-09.pdf
Ahem.
so anyway, while conservatives are off at CPAC, the republicans in congress, add $31 Billion in "non-earmarks"? or 40% of the total.
cant blame the democrats, they are being themselves, but I'm pretty ticked at the republicans.
http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/PressSummary02-12-09.pdf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bill Clinton declared more than a decade ago "the era of big government is over." With his new budget, President Barack Obama has brought it back.
Obama's $3.55 trillion budget proposal represents a gamble that Americans are ready for the sort of change they embraced by electing him in November, including a tax increase on Americans making more than $250,000 a year.
He proposes expansion of spending on the U.S. healthcare system, on greater energy independence and on education, hoping Americans weary of paying for a raft of expensive bailouts for banks and the car industry will go along.
"What I won't do is sacrifice investments that will make America stronger, more competitive and more prosperous in the 21st century -- investments that have been neglected for too long," Obama said in rolling out his plan on Thursday.
The tax increase on Americans making more than $250,000 will help pay for a healthcare overhaul that has yet to be formulated.
Some experts worry this provision will have the unintended consequence of adding to the tax burden of small businesses, causing them to lay off workers or stop hiring.
"The taxing aspect of this is worse than Robin Hood," said economist Peter Morici, a University of Maryland professor. "He's resurrecting class warfare for political gain."
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51P73W20090226?sp=true
I'm told that in the 2006 tax year, that 2% of Americans paid 62% of all taxes.
those of you not in the top 2% better get ready to pay up...
Dean
Obama's $3.55 trillion budget proposal represents a gamble that Americans are ready for the sort of change they embraced by electing him in November, including a tax increase on Americans making more than $250,000 a year.
He proposes expansion of spending on the U.S. healthcare system, on greater energy independence and on education, hoping Americans weary of paying for a raft of expensive bailouts for banks and the car industry will go along.
"What I won't do is sacrifice investments that will make America stronger, more competitive and more prosperous in the 21st century -- investments that have been neglected for too long," Obama said in rolling out his plan on Thursday.
The tax increase on Americans making more than $250,000 will help pay for a healthcare overhaul that has yet to be formulated.
Some experts worry this provision will have the unintended consequence of adding to the tax burden of small businesses, causing them to lay off workers or stop hiring.
"The taxing aspect of this is worse than Robin Hood," said economist Peter Morici, a University of Maryland professor. "He's resurrecting class warfare for political gain."
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE51P73W20090226?sp=true
I'm told that in the 2006 tax year, that 2% of Americans paid 62% of all taxes.
those of you not in the top 2% better get ready to pay up...
Dean
Catholic Group Petitions Pope to Excommunicate Nancy Pelosi
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43884
(CNSNews.com) – Human Life International (HLI), a Catholic pro-life group based in Front Royal, Va., had a letter from its Rome office delivered to the Vatican this week, in which it called upon Pope Benedict XVI to “formally excommunicate” from the Catholic Church House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The pope met with Pelosi on Wednesday.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43884
(CNSNews.com) – Human Life International (HLI), a Catholic pro-life group based in Front Royal, Va., had a letter from its Rome office delivered to the Vatican this week, in which it called upon Pope Benedict XVI to “formally excommunicate” from the Catholic Church House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The pope met with Pelosi on Wednesday.
I think that we need to redefine the entire discussion of “climate change” (i.e. “global warming/global cooling).
We need to reject "climate change" because the climate is always changing; it’s the nature of climate. Instead we need to change the wording to something along the line of "good stewardship" because everybody can be active and involved in that. If you look at the environmental websites, when they do show what to do, it’s either expensive or distant, and it would be better to just send money. You can’t plant a tree in the US; you need to send money to us, so that we can plant a tree in Belize. I owned a carbon offset company, and I received a lot of hate e-mails from the enviro-whack-jobs, because I was infringing on their turf and that only trees planted at the equator could possibly help the world.
Good Stewards take care of what is entrusted to them, and that is the message we need to promote. That message, like the blessings of liberty, can be passed on to our posterity.
We need to reject "climate change" because the climate is always changing; it’s the nature of climate. Instead we need to change the wording to something along the line of "good stewardship" because everybody can be active and involved in that. If you look at the environmental websites, when they do show what to do, it’s either expensive or distant, and it would be better to just send money. You can’t plant a tree in the US; you need to send money to us, so that we can plant a tree in Belize. I owned a carbon offset company, and I received a lot of hate e-mails from the enviro-whack-jobs, because I was infringing on their turf and that only trees planted at the equator could possibly help the world.
Good Stewards take care of what is entrusted to them, and that is the message we need to promote. That message, like the blessings of liberty, can be passed on to our posterity.
Dean Moore for Congress
Missouri’s 7th District
Welcome to the Springfield Tea Party
I am seeking to run for congress in 2010. I am as fed up as you about the ever expanding federal government.
Americans have been trained to look to government to solve their problems, yet we as conservatives instinctively know that expansive government is the problem.
I would run for congress for different results than most. I would seek to reduce government control, and return power to the states. The people have more control when the power is local.
The federal government has a wide range of responsibilities, but does many of them poorly, mostly because it is busy micromanaging many aspects of your life and mine.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
We need to pare down the federal government and allow the states to administer these programs as they see fit. (Or not)
I stand for a strong federal military, and a strong local militia.
I support free enterprise, but understand the need for some limited regulation.
I support eliminating the IRS, and limiting federal taxes to less than 10%.
I support states rights. Your local politicians should have more power, your federal politicians should have less, and you should have more control over them both.
I strongly support national sovereignty, and strong borders.
I support local education. I would draw the line at national testing and standards only.
I support strong national infrastructure and standards.
I support using OUR national resources. We can eliminate imported energy.
I support personal healthcare. No social healthcare. Ever.
I support LEGAL immigration. I do not support criminal aliens or benefits for them.
I support a strong constitutional federal justice system.
I support honest, fair and just elections. Voter fraud should be punished severely.
I support the environment. We take stewardship seriously, not hype created to cause fear.
I am Pro-Life.
www.deanmoore.us
Missouri’s 7th District
Welcome to the Springfield Tea Party
I am seeking to run for congress in 2010. I am as fed up as you about the ever expanding federal government.
Americans have been trained to look to government to solve their problems, yet we as conservatives instinctively know that expansive government is the problem.
I would run for congress for different results than most. I would seek to reduce government control, and return power to the states. The people have more control when the power is local.
The federal government has a wide range of responsibilities, but does many of them poorly, mostly because it is busy micromanaging many aspects of your life and mine.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
We need to pare down the federal government and allow the states to administer these programs as they see fit. (Or not)
I stand for a strong federal military, and a strong local militia.
I support free enterprise, but understand the need for some limited regulation.
I support eliminating the IRS, and limiting federal taxes to less than 10%.
I support states rights. Your local politicians should have more power, your federal politicians should have less, and you should have more control over them both.
I strongly support national sovereignty, and strong borders.
I support local education. I would draw the line at national testing and standards only.
I support strong national infrastructure and standards.
I support using OUR national resources. We can eliminate imported energy.
I support personal healthcare. No social healthcare. Ever.
I support LEGAL immigration. I do not support criminal aliens or benefits for them.
I support a strong constitutional federal justice system.
I support honest, fair and just elections. Voter fraud should be punished severely.
I support the environment. We take stewardship seriously, not hype created to cause fear.
I am Pro-Life.
www.deanmoore.us
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
