A Really Big Whopper
Jennifer Rubin - 09.29.2010 - 11:10 AM
Joe Sestak’s campaign is going down the tubes. The Senate Democratic Campaign Committee may decide to stop pouring money down the drain. So what does he do? He panics and tries to regain Jewish voters turned off by his anti-Israel positions. He makes a big error though: he drags AIPAC into it. Ben Smith writes:
The pro-Israel group AIPAC says a campaign ad from Rep. Joe Sestak that claims that, “According to AIPAC, Joe Sestak has a 100% pro-Israel voting record” is inaccurate. … ”Joe Sestak does not have a 100% voting record on Israel issues according to AIPAC. I couldn’t be true, we don’t rate or endorse candidates,” said AIPAC spokesman Josh Block of the ad, which ran in the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.
Sestak has faced repeated attacks over his stand on Israel since signing a January letter aimed at easing Israel’s blockade of Gaza, though critics point more to letters and to sponsorship than to any votes that break with Congressional Democrats’ generally pro-Israel party line. (There haven’t been many actual difficult votes on the issue, one way or the other). And Sestak has sought in the past to associate himself with AIPAC.
No, AIPAC generally doesn’t appreciate candidates who keynote for CAIR or sign Soros Street’s Gaza 54 letter. And they really aren’t fond of those who tout the UN Human Rights Council. But they don’t do electioneering. Still, there is no doubt what the mainstream Jewish community thinks of him:
“There are serious concerns about Joe Sestak’s record related to Israel throughout the pro-Israel community,” said an official with a major pro-Israel organization in Washington. “Not only has he said that Chuck Hagel is the Senator he admires most, which is unusual enough, but when comes to actual decisions that have affected Israel and our relationship with them, he has gone the wrong way several times. It’s the height of chutzpah for him to suggest he has a good record, let alone a 100 percent one, on these issues.”
And by the way, is he going to give Soros’s money back?
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Obama doctrine threatens the world
Ahmadinejad Rant Deals Major Blow to 'Obama Doctrine'
Friday, 24 Sep 2010 01:59 PM
Article Font Size
By: David A. Patten
The bizarre U.N. rant alleging a 9/11 conspiracy by Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, delivered from the same podium where President Obama had just hours before extended yet another of olive branch of diplomacy toward the rogue Persian regime, marks the most devastating setback yet in the administration's campaign of global engagement, foreign-policy experts say.
A host of nations joined America in walking out on Ahmadinejad's tirade -- including the 27 European Union states, Australia, Costa Rica, and New Zealand.
But the overwhelming majority of the diplomats representing the worlds 192 nations not only kept their seats, but applauded vigorously when Ahmadinejad finally stopped talking.
"They are literally at their wits' end. They have no idea what to do," Dr. James Jay Carafano, the Heritage Foundation national security expert, tells Newsmax of the administration. "They don't want to take the Iranians on. They don't want to appear soft on Iran. They don't want to say that having an Iranian nuclear program is acceptable, but they're unwilling to do any of the things to demonstrate that the United States truly would hold it as unacceptable."
Richard Grenell, a former spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations including former Ambassador John R. Bolton, tells Newsmax that Thursday's incident is another setback for an Obama strategy he says has "failed miserably on a variety of fronts in the Middle East."
In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Grenell says he concurs with other pundits who say it now appears the Obama administration has given up stopping the determined Iranian march toward attaining nuclear weapons.
"I think the Obama administration has calculated that it's too tough to get the Iranians to give up their weapons, and so they are making plans to deal with an Iranian regime with nuclear capability," Grenell said. "I think that it's a very scary possibility, but it looks like the Obama administration has calculated that it's inevitable."
Story continues below video.
UN Expert Richard Grenell examines Obama and Ahmadinejad appearance at the UN He reviews how Obama takes credit for leading the world out of the global recession He also reviews how Obama hug it out foreign policy is working very well for the Russians
Ahmadinejad's U.N. remarks were widely interpreted as a repudiation of President Obama's diplomatic outreach. "In their actions to date," Obama told the U.N. delegations, "the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope.
"We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I've said before and I will repeat, I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations."
Ahmadinejad's response was to launch a broadside against American capitalism and to state "The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree… some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the [9/11] attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime."
Ahmadinejad also called for the establishment of a fact-finding group "to ensure that the different views about [9/11] are not banned from discussion in the future."
Saul Weisleder, the representative of the Costa Rican mission who walked on Ahmadinejad's speech, told CNSNews: "This only reaffirms [Ahmadinejad's] negative contribution to world peace and practical rejection of President Barack Obama's extension of a serious proposal for constructive engagement with Iran in order to build peace…."
The administration's critics saw Ahmadinejad's broadside as a clear repudiation of a U.S. diplomatic strategy increasingly known as "the Obama doctrine." It involves downplaying U.S. strength and exceptionalism, while promising not to act independently against despots without the approval of world governing bodies.
President Obama himself described his doctrine in Thursday's U.N. speech.
"This cannot solely be America's endeavor," he said. "Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
The notion of shared responsibility has generally been met with diplomatic indifference, experts say, or by outright hostility in the case of Iran's volatile, leisure-suit wearing theocrat.
As Hudson Institute senior fellow Anne Bayefsky remarked Friday on National Review Online: "Ahmadinejad has heard this plea from the Obama administration so many times before that he has clearly stopped counting. Ahmadinejad understands perfectly well that confronting Iran is out of sync with the 'new era of engagement' that is the trademark of Obama’s foreign policy.
“'Engagement' looks like this," she wrote. "The president of the United States keeps talking about 'extended hands' and 'open doors,' and the president of Iran keeps building nuclear weapons."
In his speech Obama appeared to soft pedal the Iran situation Thursday. Rather than highlight Iran's plans to develop nuclear weapons, Obama merely said that Iran had not yet demonstrated its peaceful intent, adding the regime must "confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program."
Comments Carafano: "Everything in the doctrine … is predicated on people who the U.S. is antagonistic with doing things that are nice, cooperating. The corrupt Afghans have to cooperate, the Pakistanis have to cooperate, the Iranians have to cooperate. And the enemy gets a vote. And what we're seeing is, people are demonstrating they don't want to cooperate."
According to Grenell, the administration's apparent inability to stop Iran's nuclear program stems in part from its reluctance to use American might.
"Military action is always the last resort," Grenell tells Newsmax.
"But it actually has to be on the table. I think the Bush administration actually was able to move the U.N. in a direction that sometimes it didn't want to go, simply because they were nervous about a military action. I think that threat is a very powerful threat, and what's happened with the Obama administration is they've removed it.
"They basically want to 'hug everything out.' And at the end of the day, you have to have a credible threat."
Grenell also said that the president blundered in reaching out to Palestinians without at least meeting with the Israeli delegation.
"The Obama administration did not meet with the Israelis on this trip," Grenell says. "I think it's a dangerous precedent when you go to the U.N. and you don't have a bilateral, sit-down, formal meeting with the Israelis. As the American president, it sends a terrible message to the U.N. when you snub the Israelis like this."
Ironically, the president's doctrine of engagement doesn't appear to be playing so well in the Middle East either.
Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world initially did improve the approval rating of the United States. But according to The Pew Global Attitudes survey, U.S. favorability in the Middle East has dropped significantly since then.
The U.S. approval rating has fallen from 27 percent to 17 percent in Egypt, from 25 to 21 percent in Jordan, and from 55 percent to 52 percent in Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad's U.N. speech was met with over 800 protesters demonstrating against Iran's theocratic strongmen.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took up their cause, declaring to the crowd: "If the U.N. wants to reclaim its lofty goal of protecting human rights, then it must stand with you against the brutal regime in Iran."
Friday, 24 Sep 2010 01:59 PM
Article Font Size
By: David A. Patten
The bizarre U.N. rant alleging a 9/11 conspiracy by Iranian strongman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, delivered from the same podium where President Obama had just hours before extended yet another of olive branch of diplomacy toward the rogue Persian regime, marks the most devastating setback yet in the administration's campaign of global engagement, foreign-policy experts say.
A host of nations joined America in walking out on Ahmadinejad's tirade -- including the 27 European Union states, Australia, Costa Rica, and New Zealand.
But the overwhelming majority of the diplomats representing the worlds 192 nations not only kept their seats, but applauded vigorously when Ahmadinejad finally stopped talking.
"They are literally at their wits' end. They have no idea what to do," Dr. James Jay Carafano, the Heritage Foundation national security expert, tells Newsmax of the administration. "They don't want to take the Iranians on. They don't want to appear soft on Iran. They don't want to say that having an Iranian nuclear program is acceptable, but they're unwilling to do any of the things to demonstrate that the United States truly would hold it as unacceptable."
Richard Grenell, a former spokesman for four U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations including former Ambassador John R. Bolton, tells Newsmax that Thursday's incident is another setback for an Obama strategy he says has "failed miserably on a variety of fronts in the Middle East."
In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, Grenell says he concurs with other pundits who say it now appears the Obama administration has given up stopping the determined Iranian march toward attaining nuclear weapons.
"I think the Obama administration has calculated that it's too tough to get the Iranians to give up their weapons, and so they are making plans to deal with an Iranian regime with nuclear capability," Grenell said. "I think that it's a very scary possibility, but it looks like the Obama administration has calculated that it's inevitable."
Story continues below video.
UN Expert Richard Grenell examines Obama and Ahmadinejad appearance at the UN He reviews how Obama takes credit for leading the world out of the global recession He also reviews how Obama hug it out foreign policy is working very well for the Russians
Ahmadinejad's U.N. remarks were widely interpreted as a repudiation of President Obama's diplomatic outreach. "In their actions to date," Obama told the U.N. delegations, "the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope.
"We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I've said before and I will repeat, I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations."
Ahmadinejad's response was to launch a broadside against American capitalism and to state "The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree… some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the [9/11] attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime."
Ahmadinejad also called for the establishment of a fact-finding group "to ensure that the different views about [9/11] are not banned from discussion in the future."
Saul Weisleder, the representative of the Costa Rican mission who walked on Ahmadinejad's speech, told CNSNews: "This only reaffirms [Ahmadinejad's] negative contribution to world peace and practical rejection of President Barack Obama's extension of a serious proposal for constructive engagement with Iran in order to build peace…."
The administration's critics saw Ahmadinejad's broadside as a clear repudiation of a U.S. diplomatic strategy increasingly known as "the Obama doctrine." It involves downplaying U.S. strength and exceptionalism, while promising not to act independently against despots without the approval of world governing bodies.
President Obama himself described his doctrine in Thursday's U.N. speech.
"This cannot solely be America's endeavor," he said. "Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone. We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of engagement with the world. And now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
The notion of shared responsibility has generally been met with diplomatic indifference, experts say, or by outright hostility in the case of Iran's volatile, leisure-suit wearing theocrat.
As Hudson Institute senior fellow Anne Bayefsky remarked Friday on National Review Online: "Ahmadinejad has heard this plea from the Obama administration so many times before that he has clearly stopped counting. Ahmadinejad understands perfectly well that confronting Iran is out of sync with the 'new era of engagement' that is the trademark of Obama’s foreign policy.
“'Engagement' looks like this," she wrote. "The president of the United States keeps talking about 'extended hands' and 'open doors,' and the president of Iran keeps building nuclear weapons."
In his speech Obama appeared to soft pedal the Iran situation Thursday. Rather than highlight Iran's plans to develop nuclear weapons, Obama merely said that Iran had not yet demonstrated its peaceful intent, adding the regime must "confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program."
Comments Carafano: "Everything in the doctrine … is predicated on people who the U.S. is antagonistic with doing things that are nice, cooperating. The corrupt Afghans have to cooperate, the Pakistanis have to cooperate, the Iranians have to cooperate. And the enemy gets a vote. And what we're seeing is, people are demonstrating they don't want to cooperate."
According to Grenell, the administration's apparent inability to stop Iran's nuclear program stems in part from its reluctance to use American might.
"Military action is always the last resort," Grenell tells Newsmax.
"But it actually has to be on the table. I think the Bush administration actually was able to move the U.N. in a direction that sometimes it didn't want to go, simply because they were nervous about a military action. I think that threat is a very powerful threat, and what's happened with the Obama administration is they've removed it.
"They basically want to 'hug everything out.' And at the end of the day, you have to have a credible threat."
Grenell also said that the president blundered in reaching out to Palestinians without at least meeting with the Israeli delegation.
"The Obama administration did not meet with the Israelis on this trip," Grenell says. "I think it's a dangerous precedent when you go to the U.N. and you don't have a bilateral, sit-down, formal meeting with the Israelis. As the American president, it sends a terrible message to the U.N. when you snub the Israelis like this."
Ironically, the president's doctrine of engagement doesn't appear to be playing so well in the Middle East either.
Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech to the Muslim world initially did improve the approval rating of the United States. But according to The Pew Global Attitudes survey, U.S. favorability in the Middle East has dropped significantly since then.
The U.S. approval rating has fallen from 27 percent to 17 percent in Egypt, from 25 to 21 percent in Jordan, and from 55 percent to 52 percent in Lebanon.
Ahmadinejad's U.N. speech was met with over 800 protesters demonstrating against Iran's theocratic strongmen.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani took up their cause, declaring to the crowd: "If the U.N. wants to reclaim its lofty goal of protecting human rights, then it must stand with you against the brutal regime in Iran."
Obamacare worse than thought
Examiner Editorial: Obamacare is even worse than critics thought
September 22, 2010
Much more has been revealed about Obamacare since President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pushed the bill on Americans six months ago. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP file)
Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:
» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.
» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.
» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.
» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.
» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.
Follow the Washington Examiner on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/washingtonexaminer
September 22, 2010
Much more has been revealed about Obamacare since President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pushed the bill on Americans six months ago. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP file)
Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:
» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.
» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.
» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.
» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.
» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.
» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.
» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.
» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.
If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.
Follow the Washington Examiner on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/washingtonexaminer
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Obama why not release your records?
Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "Not released" or "Not available." I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are I have them written down here somewhere -- oh wait. I'll just read it to you.
Could you please help me find these things, Sir?
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
13. Why your wife, Michelle, can no longer practice law as an attorney? (Insurance Fraud?)
14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?
15. Why were you getting "foreign student aid" as a college student?
16. Which countries "passport" did you have when you visited Pakistan in 1981?
Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir? Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . ...
What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things? We the People of the United States of America ! You know, the ones that vote.
Could you please help me find these things, Sir?
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
13. Why your wife, Michelle, can no longer practice law as an attorney? (Insurance Fraud?)
14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?
15. Why were you getting "foreign student aid" as a college student?
16. Which countries "passport" did you have when you visited Pakistan in 1981?
Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir? Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . ...
What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things? We the People of the United States of America ! You know, the ones that vote.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Nation of Islam congressman in Indy opposed
The most important & least known House Race in America
America and indeed the world, anxiously awaits the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. The political and social direction of the Republic is on the line. Republican versus Democrat, Conservative versus Liberal, RINO versus Tea Party and the beat goes on. Millions of dollars are flowing into campaign chests; miles of print espousing opinions grace the pages of newspapers, magazines and blogs; thousands of hours of programming on radio and television debate the issues, from the ridiculous to the sublime. Volunteers and professionals are burning up the phone lines and the postal delivery folks are bent over with the weight of direct mail appeals.
Meanwhile, the most important House race in the whole country is being totally ignored. A race which exemplifies the ying and the yang. A race which incorporates every exciting and essential element on the political radar screen. A race which will separate hacks from heroes, principle from pragmatism, love of country from lust for power. A race between the power of politicians and the power of the people.
Populist Republican, Dr. Marvin Scott is attempting to wrest the Indiana 7th District from the clutches of a liberal Democrat dynasty. Julia Carson was elected in 1996 and served until her death in 2007. Andre Carson, her grandson, was elected to serve the remainder of her term in a special election and was overwhelmingly reelected in 2008, thanks to the Barack Obama landslide.
Dr. Scott, a tenured professor of Sociology at Butler University, was the Republican nominee for Senate in 2004. He is an extraordinary example of the American Dream. Born to proud, but not formally educated parents in the segregated south, Dr. Scott learned to be a proud American. Robert and Gertrude Scott taught their seven children to appreciate what you have and strive to earn what you want. Three of their children earned PHd’s or finished all the requirements and one of their grandchildren was Flo-Jo, the Olympic champion.
Andre Carson voted 98.9% of the time with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He has earned high marks from Organized Labor, Pro Choice organizations, Gun Control Groups, Muslim groups (he is one of two Muslims in the House), Homosexual support groups, Tax Increase lobbies, Arab & Anti Israel groups (Carson earned a 100% rating from the Arab American League) and the NAACP. Andre Carson is a proud member of the Progressive Caucus in Congress.
Marvin Scott is a Constitutional Conservative. He passionately believes that America is the land of opportunity. He is a fiscal and social conservative. He has never been embraced by the Republican power people but is loved by the Tea Party folks. Dr. Scott is a true gentleman, but not a coward. He gets standing ovations from the everyday folk and deafening silence from the DC insiders. His motto is “It is never right to do wrong, and it is never wrong to do right”. He publically commits to term limits and is an unabashed supporter of Israel.
This race is very winnable by Dr. Scott, because of his huge name recognition, the frustration with Andre Carson (he is the one who lied when he claimed the “N” word was used 15 times at a Tea Party rally in DC), the mood of the country, the unpopularity of President Obama, the changes in the District (only 25% black, only 53% Democrat), the fact that Marvin Scott is a black man so the “race” card is eliminated, the high unemployment rate (60+%) among black youth, the strong 2nd Amendment sentiment, the fact that Andre Carson voted for the Health Care Bill with its unconstitutional personal mandates and the publically funded abortion provisions, and Andre Carson’s condemnation of Israel in a letter signed by him and 53 other anti-Israel members of Congress. Andre Carson‘s personal relationship with the hateful Louis Farrakhan and Farrakhan’s endorsement of him, plus Carson’s sponsorship of the J Street Gala Dinner are very troubling for most citizens. 2010 brings with it photo ID requirements which will cut down on the aggressive cheating carried out in the past in this District. Andre Carson supports open borders, a path to citizenship for illegals and a weakened national defense. Dr. Marvin Scott believes in securing our borders, enforcing our laws and strengthening our National Defense.
The “Power” Republicans have done their best to discourage donors to Dr. Marvin Scott’s campaign. Congressmen Mike Pence and Dan Burton have been the notable exceptions. Insiders claim the district cannot be won, but ignore the fact that no Democrat has won the 7th in an off year election by more than 10,000 votes. The reality is, that Power Republicans don’t want to encourage Democrat turnout by backing a vigorous campaign. They have been cowed by the possibility of being called racists and they want a Republican who is a ring kisser. Dr. Scott is a happily married man with 4 children and he is allergic to chapstick.
Will this, the year of the people, end this progressive liberal dynasty?
Will the people’s frustration with RINO like positions and politicians explode at the ballot box? That is the question, you are the answer. Get informed, get involved, get Andre Carson out and Dr. Marvin Scott & the Constitution back in the United States House of Representatives.
America and indeed the world, anxiously awaits the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. The political and social direction of the Republic is on the line. Republican versus Democrat, Conservative versus Liberal, RINO versus Tea Party and the beat goes on. Millions of dollars are flowing into campaign chests; miles of print espousing opinions grace the pages of newspapers, magazines and blogs; thousands of hours of programming on radio and television debate the issues, from the ridiculous to the sublime. Volunteers and professionals are burning up the phone lines and the postal delivery folks are bent over with the weight of direct mail appeals.
Meanwhile, the most important House race in the whole country is being totally ignored. A race which exemplifies the ying and the yang. A race which incorporates every exciting and essential element on the political radar screen. A race which will separate hacks from heroes, principle from pragmatism, love of country from lust for power. A race between the power of politicians and the power of the people.
Populist Republican, Dr. Marvin Scott is attempting to wrest the Indiana 7th District from the clutches of a liberal Democrat dynasty. Julia Carson was elected in 1996 and served until her death in 2007. Andre Carson, her grandson, was elected to serve the remainder of her term in a special election and was overwhelmingly reelected in 2008, thanks to the Barack Obama landslide.
Dr. Scott, a tenured professor of Sociology at Butler University, was the Republican nominee for Senate in 2004. He is an extraordinary example of the American Dream. Born to proud, but not formally educated parents in the segregated south, Dr. Scott learned to be a proud American. Robert and Gertrude Scott taught their seven children to appreciate what you have and strive to earn what you want. Three of their children earned PHd’s or finished all the requirements and one of their grandchildren was Flo-Jo, the Olympic champion.
Andre Carson voted 98.9% of the time with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He has earned high marks from Organized Labor, Pro Choice organizations, Gun Control Groups, Muslim groups (he is one of two Muslims in the House), Homosexual support groups, Tax Increase lobbies, Arab & Anti Israel groups (Carson earned a 100% rating from the Arab American League) and the NAACP. Andre Carson is a proud member of the Progressive Caucus in Congress.
Marvin Scott is a Constitutional Conservative. He passionately believes that America is the land of opportunity. He is a fiscal and social conservative. He has never been embraced by the Republican power people but is loved by the Tea Party folks. Dr. Scott is a true gentleman, but not a coward. He gets standing ovations from the everyday folk and deafening silence from the DC insiders. His motto is “It is never right to do wrong, and it is never wrong to do right”. He publically commits to term limits and is an unabashed supporter of Israel.
This race is very winnable by Dr. Scott, because of his huge name recognition, the frustration with Andre Carson (he is the one who lied when he claimed the “N” word was used 15 times at a Tea Party rally in DC), the mood of the country, the unpopularity of President Obama, the changes in the District (only 25% black, only 53% Democrat), the fact that Marvin Scott is a black man so the “race” card is eliminated, the high unemployment rate (60+%) among black youth, the strong 2nd Amendment sentiment, the fact that Andre Carson voted for the Health Care Bill with its unconstitutional personal mandates and the publically funded abortion provisions, and Andre Carson’s condemnation of Israel in a letter signed by him and 53 other anti-Israel members of Congress. Andre Carson‘s personal relationship with the hateful Louis Farrakhan and Farrakhan’s endorsement of him, plus Carson’s sponsorship of the J Street Gala Dinner are very troubling for most citizens. 2010 brings with it photo ID requirements which will cut down on the aggressive cheating carried out in the past in this District. Andre Carson supports open borders, a path to citizenship for illegals and a weakened national defense. Dr. Marvin Scott believes in securing our borders, enforcing our laws and strengthening our National Defense.
The “Power” Republicans have done their best to discourage donors to Dr. Marvin Scott’s campaign. Congressmen Mike Pence and Dan Burton have been the notable exceptions. Insiders claim the district cannot be won, but ignore the fact that no Democrat has won the 7th in an off year election by more than 10,000 votes. The reality is, that Power Republicans don’t want to encourage Democrat turnout by backing a vigorous campaign. They have been cowed by the possibility of being called racists and they want a Republican who is a ring kisser. Dr. Scott is a happily married man with 4 children and he is allergic to chapstick.
Will this, the year of the people, end this progressive liberal dynasty?
Will the people’s frustration with RINO like positions and politicians explode at the ballot box? That is the question, you are the answer. Get informed, get involved, get Andre Carson out and Dr. Marvin Scott & the Constitution back in the United States House of Representatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
