MichaelKoffenberger's weblog
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <!--[if gte mso 10]>
So John Boehner, a ten term Congressman from Ohio, is the “next in line” of succession to become the next Speaker of the House. Boehner, who for some reason has been accepted by the tea party movement, has been quoted as saying the following on the day after the election: “The American people spoke, and I think it’s pretty clear the Obama/Pelosi agenda is being rejected by the American people. I think it’s a mandate for Washington to reduce the size of government and continue our fight for a smaller and less costly and more accountable government.” Sounds good right?
On election day, he was quoted as saying, “Across the country right now we’re witnessing a repudiation of Washington, a repudiation of big government, and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the American people.” Really? If that were the case, then he would be thrown out on his rear as well. Boehner voted for TARP and gave an emotional plea to his fellow members of Congress on the House floor. Maybe I am losing my memory with age, but I seem to remember that the vast majority of Americans, across all political beliefs, were against TARP and the bailouts. Of course this may have to do with his constant courting of Wall Street for campaign donations for himself and fellow Republicans up for election. He also owns stock or bonds in several high profile banks and companies such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Company and Bear Sterns. It is a funny comparison with someone like Congressman Ron Paul’s list, who owns mostly gold and silver investments! Let’s take a look at just one company, Goldman Sachs, and who they donate to. Boehner, who is in the top 40, received $10,000. Ron Paul received $0 from Goldman Sachs. There are a few other interesting tidbits in that report: Arlen Specter received $9,850, while Pat Toomey received $9,142. Were they betting on a Republican sweep? Joe Sestak received “only” $1,000 in contributions…the same as Todd Platts. Why am I bringing all of this up? A good rule of thumb into any investigation into politicians (or exchange the word criminals for that matter) is to follow the money. Most of the big banks and financial firms seem to donate to both parties equally, which does not bode well for that change we are looking for.
Boehner was also once described as someone that was for the abolishment of the Department of Education (which would reduce the size of government he claims to be for), yet voted for the “No Child Left Behind Act” along with 185 of his fellow House Republicans in 2001. We must also never forget that he voted for the Patriot Act, which has been one of the biggest assaults on our liberties in quite some time. It seems to be that through his “service” since 1991, he has become corrupted by the political and cultural establishment in Washington D.C. So how much faith should the tea party faithful put into politicians like Boehner? There are videos all over You Tube of his speeches at various tea party events, which is my main problem as a participant and organizer in tea parties. Originally, tea parties demonstrated against both parties and their spending and bailouts. Now, you hear more rhetoric against the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda and many more politicians speaking at them. No current elected politician should speak at any of these events in my opinion, John Boehner included. He seems to be listening to the American people now, but I am sure that he and the rest are hoping that we go back to sleep.
Once thing is for certain, the establishment will not listen to the American people. It may provide “lip service” to our concerns, but we all know that it will be business as usual. Keep an eye on his campaign contributions, since he will be in a more influential position as Speaker of the House. You can also choose to sign a petition to say no to him becoming the next speaker. Remain vigilant and do not fall back asleep!
Poll: Is John Boehner the best candidate for the next Speaker of the House?
0 votes so far. [View Results] |
Categories: Election News, Republican Party, Federal Legislation, Current Events, Congress
Tags:
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
"Post 2010 Pennsylvania Election Season Thoughts"
Another election year has come to a close. The Republican Party can count their victories in battles all across the country this year, but those of us involved in the liberty movement are skeptical. The tea parties that have been held over the last couple of years have been perceived by the media, and those who do not pay much attention to politics, as a referendum on the Obama administration and a Democratic majority in Congress. While it may seem that the majority of the participants in the tea party would agree with those sentiments, there are many others involved that complain about the Republicans as well. Third party or Independent ideas and candidates are ignored. They do not have much of a voice in the political process. They are marginalized by the media, political talking heads, and the two major parties. Those three forces combine to quiet other voices in the battle of ideas.
Personally, I was a Republican, working within the party to effect a change prior to the primary election. When I spoke about my experiences at the Harrisburg tea party in April of 2009, all of the Republicans in attendance at the York County Republican Party showed signs of shock and confusion. I handed out brochures for the Campaign For Liberty to attendees at these meetings prior to the primary election as well. A few supported the ideas within the brochures but many scoffed at the picture of Congressman Ron Paul on the back of the pamphlet. A champion of liberty ideals and free market economics, who was right about the economic situation during the last presidential election...scoffed at! As Ron Paul has stated in the past, his ideas used to be the Republican Party platform, but it is no longer.
In Pennsylvania, the endorsement of candidates several months before the primary election also marginalizes many Republican and Democrat voters. Those that prefer a different candidate to the endorsed one, are ignored or pushed to support the anointed ones. Once candidates are endorsed, all of the money and party operatives go to work for the chosen. The endorsement process also marginalized those of us who supported Sam Rohrer for Governor of Pennsylvania. Rohrer, who advocated getting rid of the school property, appealed to a wide variety of voters. While certainly not a full liberty candidate, he ran on principles over party and was very close (perhaps the closest we will see for many years to come) to the liberty movement's ideas. Once Corbett was anointed as the candidate, the marginalization began from the party establishment. He was critical of Tom Corbett's statement that the constitution was a living document and was chastised by Rob Gleason, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party. Gleason could not believe that a "fellow Republican" could speak ill of another Republican....that he proceeded to speak ill of Sam Rohrer! After the primary election, the endorsement process and my own misgivings about the Republican Party, I decided that I had enough. I resigned from a township Republican Committee Man position that I had just won in the primary election, and I switched parties to the Libertarian Party. I had grown tired of having to keep a scorecard on what each Republican believed in. Does this candidate reflect the party ideals? Is this candidate a neo-conservative? On and on and on. That was enough for me! Once believing that the party could be changed from the inside, and returned to conservative ideals and principles, I no longer feel that it can be. Now I see why many talking heads (not the Limbaughs and Hannities mind you) say that the Republicans and Democrats are both big government parties. They both say anything to get elected. The Republicans preach limited government and less spending, then they spend more than the Democrats! I also see why many people choose not to join a political party at all, and choose to be Independents!
Several months before the general election, Republican and Democrat operatives found it in their candidates' best interests to challenge all third party and Independent candidates on the statewide ballot. Facing a fee of at least $80,000 to fight the challenges, all third party candidates reluctantly agreed to have their names removed from the ballot for Governor, Lieutenant Governor and United States Senate. Some U.S. House candidates were also successfully challenged off of the ballot. Not only was the candidate pool reduced by the party establishment before the voters got to the polls in May, they did it again for the November election! This establishment cabal effectively runs the elections across this state! These candidates had to get at least five times the amount of signatures on their nomination petitions than the two main party candidates did. After all of their hard work, they were given the backhand of the Republican and Democrat parties for even thinking of putting their names on the ballot with theirs. When are we the voters going to challenge these practices? Article 1, Section 5 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states that elections are to be fair and equal. Do you feel that the election process in this state is fair and equal? No matter what party you may support, you cannot say that our election process in this state is fair and equal. We are working with a draconian election system, with bare minimal voter involvement, and it is designed to reduce all of your choices down to the anointed two from the party establishment. It is time to speak up and demand changes!
Our local Campaign for Liberty charter began a coalition: The Pennsylvania Coalition for Electoral Reform. We are seeking the support and membership of every third party, voter and political group in the state. Mass petition drives and rallies will be held until our voices are finally heard! The first goals of the coalition are to modify or eliminate the primary election, and to obtain equal ballot access for all third party and Independent candidates. These frivolous and indignant challenges by the party establishment must cease. Fairness and equality must be sought for EVERY voter in this state. Think of just the primary election for a minute. Only Republicans and Democrats can vote in it (after the establishment chooses their candidates for them), and less than 30% of registered voters in those parties actually shows up at the polls. However, EVERY taxpayer in the state pays for the primary election. The coalition advocates either eliminating the primary election altogether, making the Republican and Democrat parties in the state pay for it themselves, or opening the primary election up to all third party and independent candidates and voters. Please consider getting involved, no matter what your political party may be. True fair and equal elections can be had, but only if we are willing to make our voices heard.
Finally, a crop of Republicans (some dubbed as tea party candidates) have taken over the House of Representatives, and more seats (although not a majority) were obtained in the Senate. It is important to not let them do what they choose. We must hold them accountable and have them listen to those of us that they are supposed to be serving. Most importantly, DO NOT GO BACK TO SLEEP! Stay involved, pay attention and demand that they represent you!
Categories: , Campaign For Liberty, Media, 3rd Parties, Election News, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Grassroots News, Action Item, US Constitution, Current Events, Revolution, Miscellany, State Legislation, Voting, Congress
Tags:
No comments yet.
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
In the December 31, 2009 issue of "National Review", there is another example of the "establishment Republicans," or should we say, Neo-conservatives, continuing to not see the forest for the trees. In the section titled, "The Week", they comment on the news of the day. We do not know who is writing these missives, but they obviously passed editorial standards to be included in the magazine.
In "The Week", the unknown writer praises Jim Demint of SC for several things, including "generally disturbing the sleep of congressional Republicans". But then the writer states, "The one initiative on which we sharply part company with the senator is in his signing off on Ron Paul's crusade to involve Congress in the Fed's monetary-policy decisions. There are excellent reasons to insulate the Fed's workaday monetary operations from the political winds sweeping down from Capitol Hill. The audit-the-Fed campaign is not about opening the Fed's books, but about extending Congress's meddlesome reach, a project that promises destruction. It is Congress, not the Fed, that drives us into debt, and Senator DeMint would do better to stand athwart appropriations than to expand the congressional portfolio."
Now this might as well have been written in the partisan NY Times for its factual errors and clear hatred of Ron Paul (whereas the NY Times would just lambast something due to Republican involvement). Let's break this dismissive snippet of "news" apart shall we?
First, "there are excellent reasons to insulate the Fed's workaday monetary-policy decisions." Name one! NO ONE, except those in the Fed, know what they do and where their money goes. The HR1207/S604 bills would find out where the money goes plain and simple. The Fed got so scared of this push, that they hired a lobbyist to scare people into thinking an audit would be bad. Hmmm...did this lobbyist come from the National Review? Should we not know where OUR money is going? The real threat to the Fed from this is that the citizenry would find out what they have been up to, and would demand changes or hopefully abolishment of the Fed. Which leads us into point two.
"The audit-the-Fed campaign is not about opening the Fed's books, but about extending Congress's meddlesome reach, a project that promises destruction." As of now, no one has any reach on the Fed. The Fed controls the money supply. Whomever controls the money, controls the power. So is the power really in Congress, Mr or Mrs National Review? We could only hope that "Congress's meddlesome reach" would destroy the Fed. However, that is not what the Audit-the-fed bill is about. It does nothing but allow an audit by Congress. It would certainly expose the rascals for what they do. It may certainly show how much money it prints out of thin air, but Congress having an audit powers of a quasi-government agency is a good thing for everyone (except the Fed of course).
"It is Congress, not the Fed, that drives us into debt..." Now that really says it all doesn't it? Sure Congress loves to spend our money, but when they've already fleeced the citizens for all we have, where do they get their money to enable their spending? THE FED! Blind ignorance in hating Ron Paul and libertarian principle is not healthy. Sure, you have every right not to like Ron Paul. You can disagree with him all you want. But, to make a statement such as that shows true ignorance. Without the Fed enabling Congress and the Executive Branch, we would not have an American Empire. We would not be involved in two wars, while maintaining bases in over 100 countries across the globe. We would not be expanding social programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and now, the new national health care plan, cap and trade, and on and on. The Fed is the drug dealer that enables the politician to spend money they don't have. Sure, you can have a line of credit, as long as we keep you addicted to our money, you will always come back for more. In fact, if we enable your bad habits, you'll protect and insulate us from harm. The Audit the Fed bill would not destroy the Fed as the mystery National Review writer states. It would open the books for those wishing to see where they spend their money. Someone has to pay attention to where it is going afterwards however, and then takes steps to End the Fed. That is what they are really scared about now isn't it? Disrupt the pusher and the addict goes crazy...
It is amazing to me how the National Review, The Weekly Standard, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin can sing praises for Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann and a few others, but completely despise, dismiss and make fun of Ron Paul. However, they leave out that Michele Bachmann has been having weekly luncheons with Ron Paul and learning about Austrian economic theory, and Jim DeMint, unlike his wingnut co-South Carolinian Senator Graham, always sings the praises of Ron Paul and his principles. All of these leads me to believe that if the GOP "establishment", like NR, Hannity, et al, do not finally see the light, there will be a BIG split in their GOP, which will cause them to lose in 2010 and 2012, when they should be winning in landslides. The election in NY's 23 congressional district should be a warning. True conservatives are not going to stand for just fighting tyranny at home, but tyranny abroad as well - thank me very much Mark Levin!
Categories: , Foreign Policy, Education, Globalism, Presidential Race, 3rd Parties, Election News, Republican Party, Federal Legislation, Just For Fun, Current Events, Philosophy, Revolution, Miscellany, Social Issues, Voting, Economy, Congress
Tags:
Showing comments 1—1 of 1
Posted 01/02/10
Josh Misner
Hanover, PA | Well written Mike! The arguments that the National Review and others such as Sen. Judd Gregg make to argue against auditing the Fed are absurd if you even somewhat understand what the Fed does....you are spot on about fighting tyranny both at home and abroad. |
You must be logged in to post comments. [Become a member]
|
| |
Local Coordinator
RSS feed
