The Dirty Thirty

PDF 110th-congress

The Dirty Thirty

Will you help us expose the hidden big tax-and-spend records of 30 so called “Fiscal Conservative” freshmen members of Congress?

The National Tax Limitation Committee is exposing 30 so called “centrist” Democrats who ran as fiscal conservatives in 2006, but have since voted like tax-and-spend liberals!

These are the most important House seats in the country – the districts have a history of spending pro-taxpayer Representatives to Congress, but now they have some of the nation’s biggest taxers and spenders!

You may remember in 2006 when House Democrat campaign leader Congressman Rahm Emanuel, and others, campainged on the theme that the “new” Democrats were fiscally reliable moderates who could be counted on to control government spending and restore financial order in Washington.

Many fiscally conservative voters tired of special interest earmarks and reckless spending of the reigning GOP leadership, voted for what seemed like change.

Our Plan to Tell the True Story

  • We will buy ads exposing the Dirty 30 in their key districts!

  • We will educate Taxpayers on the true deceitful Dirty 30 and how they voted when they got to Washington!

  • We will identify, organize, and inform taxpayers through mail, phone and internet to help spread the TRUTH!

Thirty of these “Fiscal Conservative” Democrats replaced Republicans in 2006. They provided necessary votes to make Nancy Pelosi Speaker.

Now, after nearly two years in power, we decided to see if the votes of the Dirty Thirty matched their promises. It was a shocking eye-opener!

You and I must rip the lid off this scam and warn the fiscally conservative taxpayers in these key districts before they return the Dirty Thirty to Washington to squander billions more of your tax dollars!

The taxpayers in these districts are fiscally conservative. They have elected solid fiscal conservatives in the past. But today, these voters are being told their new Representatives are budget hawks when the Congressional Record proves this just isn’t true.

Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference

Great News: Barney Frank says Dems will cut defense, raise taxes, and spend lots of money

Great News: Barney Frank says Dems will cut

defense, raise taxes, and spend lots of money

Rick Moran
Well, you can’t say they didn’t warn us ahead of time:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will “eventually” raise taxes.

Frank told the editorial board of the SouthCoast Standard-Times that he wanted to reduce defense spending by a quarter, meaning the United States would have to withdraw from Iraq sooner.

“The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection,” he said. “It’s extraordinary.”

Frank also said the post-election stimulus package will focus on spending for building projects, extending unemployment benefits, and further supporting states’ healthcare costs. “We’ll have to raise taxes ultimately,” Frank said. “Not now, but eventually.” Frank told the Standard-Times that if Democrats cannot secure the votes they need in November, they will try again in January, when they will likely have stronger majorities in the House and Senate.

B-B-B-B-ut we thought Obama was going to CUT taxes for “95% of Americans?”

Suckers.

Meanwhile, that 25% cut in defense spending means, oh, about $115 billion stripped during a time of war. No word on when the Dems are going to raise the white flag and leave Afghanistan – but that is almost certainly in the cards. But don’t worry. Before long, they will run out of enemies to surrender to. Then they will have start surrendering to each other.

Love that stimulating “stimulus package,” don’t you? We’re running a half trillion deficit and the Dems want to throw more money at us. That’s in addition to our “tax cut” that will no doubt be grabbed back in about 6 months when the government begins to collapse under the weight of additional debt piled on by the liberals.

Barack Obama: Change you can drink hemlock to.

A few not well known facts.

A few not well known facts.

 
Facts:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi‘s House District includes San Francisco.
Star-Kist Tuna’s headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi’s home district.
Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.
Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
Pelosi, Nancy’s husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.

In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not
have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition’s.

Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an “economic development credit in American Samoa”.

Pelosi has called the Bush Administration “corrupt”.

She should know all about corruption

How the Dems Plan to SHUT UP THE RIGHT

How the Dems Plan to SHUT UP THE RIGHT

 

We have already seen how candidate Obama has worked to quiet all dissenters. Remember how hard he worked to silence Governor Palin from the Iran rally this week. But that wasn’t the first time, when a group called the American Issues Project launched an ad talking about the Illinois Senator’s unexplained links to terrorist Bill Ayers. Senator Obama sent a letter to the DOJ asking for an investigation then pressured stations not to run the ad threatening them with letters to their advertisers etc. When the woman who survived an abortion made a commercial against the Senator’s Abortion position, He attacked her PERSONALLY as a liar. In Missouri where he tried to rally supporters in the State police to silence the NRA.

A (God Forbid) President Obama, will work with a Democratic congress to place even greater restrictions on the free speech of those who disagree with the liberal agenda. This is how they indeed to shut up the right:


DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT
By BRIAN C. ANDERSON

October 20, 2008 —
SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine – and to diminish conservatives’ influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.


Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn’t seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan’s FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats – including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore – strongly support the idea of mandating “fairness.”
Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It’s doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It’s a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham’s, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don’t do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.
Then there’s all the lawyers you’d have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged – like entertainment or sports coverage?
For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of “fairness” might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer “equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary,” with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of “fairness” is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn’t sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters’ public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater “local accountability” on them – requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It’s a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.
It’s worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children’s programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn’t been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real – and profoundly disturbing.

Brian C. Anderson is editor of City Journal and co-author, with Adam Thierer, of “A Manifesto for Media Freedom,” just out from Encounter Books.

The Last Two Years

The Last Two Years

By Randall Hoven

The Obama/Biden ticket’s entire campaign theme is based on “the last eight years.”  Maybe we should really look at “the last two years,” or the time period when both the House and the Senate were run by Democrats.

In December 2006, after six years of Bush and the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature, a snapshot of our economy looked like this.

 

 

If you recall, that 2006 election was considered a referendum on Iraq.  The people wanted change, so they threw out the Republicans and replaced them with Democrats.  Welcome Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

 

Here is how they handled Iraq once in office:  Harry Reid told us that the Iraq war was “lost” and the surge was not “accomplishing anything.”   Senator Obama introduced legislation that would have prevented the surge and would have taken all US troops out of Iraq by March 2008 (that would be seven months ago, as you read this) .

 

Were they right?

 

Barack Obama now admits that “the surge succeeded.”   So much for that change.  And as the surge succeeded, Congress’s approval ratings plummeted.  The latest CBS/New York Times poll has it at 12%, well less than half of the already low level it stood at when the Republican Congress was being tossed out in 2006.

 

The Democratic Congress did a great job, if what you’re looking for in a Congress is continual investigation of Republicans.  Did the White House out CIA agent Valerie Plame?  No, it was the anti-White House Richard Armitage at State, but Congress investigated anyway.  Did Alberto Gonzalez, with White House urging, fire nine prosecutors for political reasons?  Probably not, and it wouldn’t be a crime anyway, but Congress investigated, and is still investigating.  Did the CIA, under orders from the White House, “torture” prisoners?  No evidence of that yet, but Congress is on the case.

 

What Congress would not investigate was anything about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  In fact, they fought against such investigations and cast aspersions against anyone who would even doubt the soundness of those institutions.  Here is what Barney Frank said:

 

These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis.  The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.

 

You can also see on YouTube how Democrats treated the regulators trying to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

 

But now we know what happened.  Fannie and Freddie were run corruptly and ineptly and went bankrupt.  Their $1.5 trillion portfolios had to be rescued by the government this year.  Franklin Raines, the Clinton-appointed CEO of Fannie Mae who was vigorously defended by Congressional Democrats, was sued by government regulators for cooking the books to the tune of $10 billion to increase his own bonuses to the tune of tens of millions.  He settled his suit for an estimated $25 million.

 

On the other hand, here is what the New York Times had to say in 2003 .

 

The Bush administration is rightly pushing for the Treasury Department to regulate the two giants, along with the network of federal home loan banks. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae provide financing to lenders by creating a secondary market for mortgages. All told, these two institutions’ debt portfolio exceeds more than $1.5 trillion. Their current regulator is ill equipped to keep tabs on Freddie’s and Fannie’s sophisticated hedging strategies and the other financial moves they use to manage their huge investments.

 

And here is what John McCain said on the Senate floor:

 

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…  I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation.  If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

 

So on the big things, the surge in Iraq and the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to our recent financial mess, the Democrats were wrong.  Dead wrong.  One hundred eighty degrees out wrong.

 

On the other hand, who supported the surge?  George W. Bush and John McCain.

 

Who tried to strengthen the oversight and regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  George W. Bush and John McCain.

 

In the case of the surge, Bush and McCain got their way.  The result?  Apparent victory in Iraq, a country that is now a democracy, at peace with its neighbors, no longer a WMD threat, no longer a terrorist sanctuary, and no longer filling hundreds of mass graves with hundreds of thousands of its own citizens.

 

In the case of Fannie and Freddie, Bush and McCain did not get their way – Barney Frank did.  The result?  The failure of Fannie and Freddie, law suits against their executives and the spark that sent banks failing and stocks falling across the globe to the point of threatening a Great Depression.

 

Let’s vote for change.  Let’s undo what we did in 2006.

 

Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or  via his web site, kulak.worldbreak.com/.

Chuck Schumer has a lot of explaining to do

Chuck Schumer has a lot of explaining to do

Thomas Lifson
Susan Schmidt of the Wall Street Journal has discovered a disconcerting coincidence: Senator Chuck Schumer took a highly unusual step of publicly criticizing a bank, sparking a run on it, just as big Democrat hedge fund donors were examining assets of the bank in hopes of buying them on the cheap should the bank fail.

Schumer of course denies any impropriety. But the odor from this is very, very bad. If a Republican had done something like this, the headlines and network news features would be screaming for his head.

 

Read the excellent article here. A few samples:

 

Sen. Schumer’s office said recently he didn’t know anything about Oaktree’s possible interest in IndyMac until after the bank failed. Oaktree Chairman Howard Marks said he never talked to the senator about IndyMac. [….]

 

The group of investors led by Oaktree are big political contributors, predominantly to Democrats. They have donated more than $700,000 to Senate Democrats and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the four years that Sen. Schumer has chaired the campaign committee.

 

Oaktree’s Mr. Marks gave the Democrats’ Senate Campaign Committee $20,000 in late March. Executives of his firm and three other equity firms that considered investing in IndyMac along with Oaktree — Thomas H. Lee Partners, Ares Capital Management LLC and Fortress Investment Group LLC — have been generous donors to the DSCC under Sen. Schumer’s chairmanship, as have many Wall Street financial-services firms.

 

Mr. Marks said he is a longtime Democratic donor and has gotten fund-raising calls from Sen. Schumer. But, he said, “I know him socially. I’ve never talked business with him.” [….]

 

We were interested in taking a look,” said Mr. Marks. His firm has raised $11 billion this year to invest in distressed assets. “We’re bargain hunters. And we have a long history in distress,” he said.

 

The investors knew after a few days of due diligence in mid-June that they weren’t interested in buying the bank, said Mr. Marks. He read from a June 22 email from Oak Tree managing director Skarden Baker, who was assessing IndyMac’s business. “I am taking the view of doing enough here to jump in if it goes to receivership,” wrote Mr. Baker.

 

Four days after the email was sent, Sen. Schumer released publicly letters he sent to bank regulators and to the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. “I am concerned that IndyMac’s financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers,” the senator wrote, warning that “the bank could face a failure if prescriptive measures are not taken quickly.”

 

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Elections board testimony: ACORN pestered me into registering multiple times

 

Elections board testimony: ACORN pestered me into registering multiple times

Posted by rrutti October 13, 2008 11:54AM

Freddie Johnson talks to reporters outside the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in Cleveland Monday.

Two Cleveland men who each signed multiple registration cards as part of a national voter registration drive told the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections today they did so to help ACORN canvassers keep their jobs.

One of the men said he was sometimes offered a cigarette or a dollar bill by workers with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

“They would come up with a sob story when they needed a signature,” said Freddie Johnson.

The other man, who came to the board wearing a Domino’s pizza delivery shirt, said he would tell ACORN workers who approached him while he was reading on Public Square that he already was registered. But the workers would persist.

“They’d just keep saying I could help them hold onto a job,” said Christopher Barkley.

Cuyahoga board of elections members learned recently that many ACORN canvassers had quotas and often had to scramble to meet them. Board employees had flagged a number of registration cards handed in by ACORN that showed the same names, but with different addresses or birth dates.

After testifying, both men were led to a private office and were interviewed by Cuyahoga County sheriff’s deputies. The board decided during its meeting that it would turn over the ACORN investigation to the sheriff and county prosecutor’s office.

A sheriff’s deputy said neither Johnson nor Barkley have been charged with a crime, but could be used as witnesses later.

ACORN has been under fire in several states for possible fraudulent voter registration activities.

The board subpoenaed two other people for today’s meeting. One could not be found. The other did not show up.bankert says…

donnaandstan: are you thinking the more you post, the smarter you sound? Didn’t work! Take it easy on the keys, will you?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 55 other followers