The candidacy of Dede Scozzafava has divided the GOP between its Reagan conservatives and the party establishment.
Leftist progressive Republicans might not raise the eyebrow of your average Snowe-blind Maineiac, but the thought of adding another DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only) statist-minded representative to Washington has GOP conservatives and libertarians apoplectic.
Scozzafava is in a three-way race with Democrat candidate Bill Owens and Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman to fill the seat of departing Republican John McHugh in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.
Scozzafava, who has been lauded by Newt Gingrich, supports abortion, homosexual marriage, Brother O’s stimulus spending, cap-and-trade, and Card Check; and is endorsed by Markos Moulitsas, founder of The Daily Kos; NYSUT (New York State United Teachers), the largest labor union in New York and affiliate of the National Education Association, and ACORN’s (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now’s) Working Families Party.
Right now Democrat Bill Owens is leading Hoffman Scozzafava, but Hoffman’s poll numbers have been steadily rising and have surpassed Scozzafava, which means that Scozzafava is now just a spoiler and could keep Republicans from holding the seat that McHugh routinely won by 2-to-1 margins.
Hoffman is running as the Conservative Party’s candidate because New York’s local GOP establishment entered their “smoke-filled room” and chose Scozzafava behind closed doors, bypassing a primary and the party’s grass-roots voters.
Scozzafava’s leftist politics aren’t the only embarrassment for the Republican Party. She called the police on John McCormack, a Weekly Standard blogger, who questioned her about support for Card Check and then used the propagandist media to smear the journalist.
The call has gone out for Scozzafava to withdraw or be dumped from the race. More than a dozen conservative bloggers and organizations have called for her resignation and for the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) and the Republican National Committee (RNC) to withdraw their support and put their resources behind the real Republican in the race.
If Hoffman wins the big one, his campaign will become the template for grassroots conservative campaigns nationwide next year. The special election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District just might be the spark that ignites an internal revolution to regain the soul of the GOP and bring common sense and sanity back to the party of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.
Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has issued her latest unspeak rules of decorum for House members. The nanny Chair of the House Rules Committee permits the terms “disgrace” and “nitwit,” used to malign the actions of recent Republican presidents, but makes verboten the use of the terms “liar” or “sexual misconduct” that accurately define the actions of recent Democrat presidents.
Slaughter updates section 370 of the House Rules and Manual to control what Representatives can and cannot say on the floor and in committee regarding improper references to Brother O. The Slaughter House rules decree that Members can:
refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.”
refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.”
refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.”
refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.”
Conversely, Members must never:
call the President a “liar.”
call the President a “hypocrite.”
describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
The Slaughter House rules graciously permit political criticism on matters of policy, but prohibit offensive criticism of the Democrat President. Members may say Brother O is unworthy of re-election, but they must never mention personal misconduct, for in doing so is to incite animosity and antagonism among House members and members of other branches of Government.
Aside from being openly subjective and imprecise, the Slaughter House rules are an overreaching attempt to impose political correctness and to strip the people’s representatives of their right to point out the progressive leader’s “terminological inexactitude.”
Titles can be bestowed, but genuine respect must be earned. To gain Americans’ respect for the man as well as the office, Slaughter and the Democrat ilk must refrain from treating their President like a victim.
Life used to be so hard
Now everything is easy ‘Cause of you
My meeting! My rules! My office! And don’t tell me what to do! Understand? Thus sprach the Hoosier Overman to constituents at a town hall in Bloomington, Indiana.
The exchange between Indiana “blue dog”Democrat Representative Baron Paul Hill (IN-9th) and a young journalism student has ironically put the arrogant “Red Baron” in the very compromising position his adoptive rules were created to avoid.
The student, who was working on a project, asked Hill why she was being denied her right to film the town hall meeting, and Indiana’s beneficent leader responded with the following:
“Well, this is my town hall meeting. I set the rules, and I’ve had these rules. Now let me repeat that one more time! This is my town hall meeting for you. And you’re not going to tell me how to run my congressional office.” [emphasis mine]
In essence, Hill told voters, “You work for me, this means you respect me! Got it? Now, let’s move on.”
Following his rebuke, he went on to explain his filming rule:
“Now the reasons why I don’t allow filming is because usually the films that are done end up on YouTube in a compromising position.” [Overman prescience]
And here’s the scene, duly clipped from the news coverage and posted on YouTube! Enjoy:
After his initial town hall debacle, he came prepared for the second and reportedly devised a green and purple tee shirt identity system to distinguish the friendly union officials, teachers, and other mindless Obot questioners.
Come November 2010, Hoosiers may help Hill understand that Baron is a given name, not a title.
The Bloomington Herald Times streamed Baron’s entire town hall live online. The exchange with the student begins at the 18:43 mark.
By Jay Printz | Friday, February 20th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Members of Congress are living large as the recession deepens for ordinary folk. Their lavish events recall Marie Antoinette’s clueless remark about the French peasants who had no bread — “Let them eat cake!”
The deepening economic recession hasn’t stopped members of Congress from throwing lavish events to raise campaign money for the 2010 election.
This weekend, donors to a political action committee run by Rep. Jeb Hensarling are invited to the Snake River Lodge & Spa near Jackson Hole, Wyo., for a ski outing hosted by the Texas Republican. The minimum donation: $2,500, according to the invitation, which touts opportunities to take sleigh rides to an elk refuge and snowmobile excursions to the Continental Divide.
Skiing also is on the agenda at a fundraiser this weekend in Vail, Colo., for Democrat Ed Perlmutter. Donations range from $2,400 for an individual to $5,000 for a political action committee.
Donors seeking warmer climes could have joined veteran Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii for a “Weekend of Aloha” fundraiser at a resort on Honolulu’s Waikiki Beach. Inouye’s event, held last weekend, started two days after lawmakers passed President Obama’s $787 billion plan aimed at jump-starting the economy. Lawmakers are on a week-long break and return Monday….
Does the phrase “term limits” sound reasonable?
To keep an eye on the frolicking politicians who became American royalty courtesy of your votes, visit the Party Time! website maintained by the Sunlight Foundation.
From the early hours of the morning until late in the evening, politicians are partying. Sunlight’s PARTY TIME can help you find out who is partying, where and when.
Sunlight’s Party Time is a project to track parties for members of Congress or congressional candidates that happen all year round in Washington, D.C. and beyond.
We also post information we receive about parties where members of Congress are expected to participate—such as convention or inaugural parties.
The Sunlight Foundation is an excellent taxpayer advocacy group that has created many tools to make the workings of Congress more transparent. We encourage our readers to explore all of their projects.
Outrages are coming so fast and furious these days that I am numb. It has become difficult to be outraged when practically everything politicians of both parties are doing is outrageous. But a recent proposal in Congress deserves mention. HR 1999, proposed in April by co-sponsors Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ), would provide $10 million a year to a radical immigration group, the National Council of La Raza (meaning “the Race”).
The bill offers funds for “community development and affordable housing projects and programs serving low-and moderate-income households,” for families of “Hispanic origin.” So giving immigrants the same free medical care, education, food, housing and income support available to all low income groups is not enough. Now we have to single them out for special treatment, empowering a radical organization in the process! And the bill does not discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants. I don’t need to tell you where most of the money will go. It is bad enough there are already programs that do this. The real dig is that NCLR gets to distribute the money, keeping them well endowed and cementing their position of influence within the immigrant community.
NCLR challenges the “radical” label that U.S. Congressmen and others have placed on them. On the NCLR website they make a forceful argument claiming they oppose illegal immigration, disavow separatist or racist Hispanic movements and only seek to bring Hispanics into the American mainstream by teaching English, respect for our laws, etc. Sounds truly inspiring. Of course the Congressman who had the guts to call them radicals has since conveniently died, and thus has no way of responding further. I like to be factual. Anyone who reads my columns knows that. So I looked into some of the organizations and causes they support.
Remember Proposition 187, the 1994 California ballot initiative that would have denied social services to illegal immigrants? What reasonable person wouldn’t agree it’s insane to allow illegal immigrants to not only flagrantly violate our border laws, but then get all kinds of social services to reward their criminality once they get here? It passed with 58% support. Any rational taxpaying citizen or group, Hispanic or otherwise, should support it, right? Not La Raza. They, along with others, successfully defeated it in court with the help of then Governor Gray Davis. Here’s their answer, as expressed in an address by former NCLR President Raul Yzaguirre given at their 2003 Annual Conference:
Proposition 187 in California and similar proposals elsewhere were ugly efforts to hurt the Latino community. They were direct and blatant attacks.
But we fought back. We didn’t passively sit back and accept someone else’s fate for us. Maybe we surprised the bigots and the xenophobes. We got angry when they expected us to be meek.
Now the Hispanic community is being assaulted once more. This time they don’t want to make you angry, so their tactics are subtle. But no matter how many nice words and glossy photos they hand us, a knife in the back is deadly even if it’s delivered with a smile.
“Bigots,” “xenophobes,” that’s what we are. And “a knife in the back is deadly even if it’s delivered with a smile.” That last snide remark was aimed at George W. Bush and other Republicans trying to court the Hispanic vote. Not bigoted? Not racist? Not radical? Certainly not grateful. This group has relied extensively on generous American foundation and government grants since its inception in 1968. They received $5.8 million from the Feds in 2005, according to their Annual Report, and now they may well get an additional $10 million per year for their trouble. How nice.
It gets better. Have you heard of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, better known by its acronym MEChA? If you live in California, you have. This group’s website states “We are Chicanos and Chicanas of Aztlán reclaiming the land of out birth” which according to their revisionist history includes areas of the Southwestern US.
In their answer to critics’ charges of support for this radical separatist group, NCLR explains that MEChA is really just a “student organization whose primary objectives are educational” and that their founding charter’s radical goals don’t matter. To make their pathetic case, they cite, of all things, a passage from an LA Times article by one Gustavo Arellano that “few [MEChA] members take these dated relics of the 1960s seriously, if they even bothered to read them.” So we’re supposed to take the word of a Hispanic LA Times reporter as an answer to this serious charge?!?
“The following documents are essential to the philosophy of MEChA. Every MEChista should be familiar with them,”
referring to MEChA’s “National” Constitution, El Plan de Santa Barbara, and El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. The Constitution states in its preamble: “Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlán must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza [Race] with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlán” (emphasis mine).
To get a flavor for how these “liberated” people think, go to the following Aztlán news link, where the author discusses how the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse saga is being exploited by “Jewish pornographers,” or visit their news site for a treatise from these enlightened Mexicans on their charming views of Americans. This is the same tripe you’d find coming from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the American Socialist Party or MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, or Michael Moore come to think of it. Simply amazing how predictably similar they all are.
NCLR’s website has a clean, professional look and their propaganda carries all the buzzwords designed to make them look moderate, very much like the equally radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). They have similarly wrapped themselves in the mantle of moderation by cultivating friends in both parties, flattering gullible lawmakers.
So are they polished? Yes. Do they fool a lot of people? Apparently. Are they really moderate? No.
According to WorldNetDaily, NCLR had “virtual veto power” over the most recent Senate immigration proposal. These are the folks pushing immigration policy in the U.S.
The ever-reliable Wall Street Journal has surfaced yet another attempt by Democrats to subvert the democratic process through deceptively titled campaign “reform.” Read this post, here. As I have said many times before, whenever a Washington politician talks about “reform,” watch either your wallet, your back, or both.
You can worry even more any time “reform” is proposed by a Massachusetts Democrat, as it has in this case. Marty Meehan, a leftist (what Massachusetts congressman or Senator isn’t?) member of the thoroughly corrupt Massachusetts contingent, has proposed legislation that would force grassroots campaigns to register as lobbyists. Now why would a corrupt politician, who depends on the labyrinthian campaign finance system to carry out his plans, want to pass legislation that that makes life even tougher for some of us? Hint: it certainly isn’t for “reform” purposes.
As I’m sure most of you recognize, this will merely hamstring groups that rely on the grassroots support of little guys like you and me, groups who usually have a real beef, like for instance trying to stem the flow of illegal immigration. Instead of “reforming” the process, this is just another backdoor attempt at stifling free speech, so the wonderful Congressmen and Senators can conduct business as usual without the bothersome anklebiting we grassroots activists occasionally trouble them with, and move more deliberately forward to the socialist nation they are preparing for us.
This legislation is backed by Democracy 21, a deceptive name for a very anti-democratic group. And as with virtually all of the campaign “reform” we have already suffered, the real player in the shadows is George Soros, about the most corrupt, evil, anti-reform minded person on the face of the planet.
Regarding this and other issues, I refer you to a blogger I just stumbled upon, Centerman. I have not checked out a lot of his posts, but those I have provide a lot of good , factual background on George Soros’s demonic, anti-Democratic, anti-Republican campaign finance “reform” movement.
[Editor's note: We're delighted that our contributor, Jim Simpson, has discovered one of our favorite bloggers. Back in July 2005, when Centerman wrote his very first blog post, we had the privilege of leaving the very first comment. A few days later Centerman wrote a post titled I Love American Daughter and we have deemed him a gentleman and a scholar ever since!]
First one political party and then the other tries to hype and spin the scandalous behavior of their opponents. A homosexual Congressman here, an unpatriotic and bungling Senator there.
And, of course, in those individual instances conduct and commitment to America do matter, and should count for those specific individuals. But for the profile of the nation as a whole, it is the generic issues that should decide the election.
The war against terrorism.
If our nation is lost to the terrorist agenda, none of the other issues will be relevant. There will be no economy. All of the life-style issues will be moot. And the Democrats have amply demonstrated that they want to concede the middle eastern conflict to the terrorists. Only the Republicans have shown the backbone to do what has to be done, however unpleasant.
If we “cut and run” from the commitments we made in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the war will come home to our own shores. The tragedy of 9/11 will pale in comparison to the nuclear events, biological threats, and civic disruption in our own cities that will occur. The weapons are already in place, imported through our porous southern border.
If we persist in our efforts to establish democracy in the Middle East, do not lose our nation to the Islamofascist terrorists, and do not become a backward country ruled by sharia law, then we may be overrun by an invasion of uneducated and illegal Hispanics, who have allowed their own countries to be trashed by drug lords, and are now coming to destroy ours. The influx of potential voters who only want to exploit the United States to send money back to South America and do not understand the mechanics of democracy will dilute our electorate, and our way of life will be lost.
In general this issue favors Republicans, but it must be examined separately for each race — gubernatorial, senatorial, and congressional. For a complete rundown on the candidate positions on immigration and border security visit Americans For Better Immigration.
The right to keep and bear arms.
Our founding fathers established a workable democracy. Its continuation depends on our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. The most important of those rights is defined in the Second Amendment, the “right to keep and bear arms.” This is the freedom that secures all of the other rights, and, in fact, the Constitution itself.
While this issue largely favors Republicans, it must be examined for each election contest. The best record of incumbent voting patterns and challenger platform positions is maintained by the National Rifle Association. To view the endorsements for races in your jurisdiction, click on your state in their map of the United States to bring up a complete list of all the races in the state.
This issue decidedly favors the Republicans. The economy is prospering. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, one measure of our general prosperity, has reached record highs. Employment is solid. The rise of all the traditional economic indicators is remarkably covariant with the passage of tax cuts by the Republicans.
Across the board, the Democrats favor increased government control and taxation, based on their theory of “redistribution of wealth.” Their traditional viewpoint favors penalizing the productive members of the society to grant unearned benefits to the non-productive citizens, as a way of buying their votes. This is a tremendous de-motivating factor for those individuals and businesses that grow our economy, and for the capital investors that enable them.
The right to life.
This issue generally favors the Republicans. Most of those who advocate abortion, research on human embryos, and euthanizing the disabled tend to be Democrats. However, not all Democrats deserve to be painted with this brush.
When the highly (and incorrectly) publicized battle was fought to save the life of Terri Schiavo in the spring of 2005, a subset of the Democrats in Congress, and a few Republicans, voted on the side of death. The American newspapers, consistent with their liberal bias, nowhere published a tally of the vote.
One courageous Canadian journalist did. We archived that issue of the Canada Free Press at the time, so that we could make it available before the 2006 mid-term elections. It gives a complete list, with pictures, of the Capitol Hill Death Squad.
This is a separate page from the archives at our old website, so after viewing it, you will need to use the “Back” button in your browser to return to this article. Check out the
It would be nice to think that all members of society would do the right thing, whether or not anyone was watching and whether or not there were any penalties for misbehavior. But we all know that human nature needs a little nudge now and then — civil and criminal penalties, financial motivators, and so on. With that in mind we urge all of you to read this article elaborating the ten things about their legal and financial incentives that Congressmen DO NOT WANT THEIR CONSTITUENTS TO KNOW. For starters:
10 Things Your Congressman Won’t Tell You
By Brigid McMenamin
1. “I can’t lose.”
This year 404 members of the U.S. House of Representatives are standing for reelection. For most it’s a formality: On average, more than 90% of House incumbents win, according to a 2005 report by the Cato Institute.
What’s behind the incumbency advantage? Campaign financing, for one thing. We taxpayers pick up the tab for incumbents’ regular offices, staff, publicity, travel and mailings, so they needn’t raise as much money to run. Challengers, on the other hand, must come up with a fortune — and do so in dribs and drabs since Congress caps individual contributions at $2,000.
But the biggest factor is partisan gerrymandering. Since the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that states must ensure each congressman represents the same number of constituents, the process of redistricting after every census has been aggressively used by state party bosses to protect their incumbents. “Because of gerrymandering, almost 90% of Americans live in congressional districts where the outcome is so certain that their votes are irrelevant,” concludes the Cato report. And it’s bound to get worse: In June the Court ruled states can redraw congressional districts as often as they please.
2. “I’m above the law.”
Some people were dismayed last spring when Capitol Police didn’t give a sobriety test to Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) after he rammed a Capitol Hill security barrier late one night and emerged from his Mustang “impaired,” with “unsure” balance and “slurred” speech, according to the police report. Georgetown University law professor Paul F. Rothstein wasn’t surprised: “They always give [congressmen] a pass.”…
Media Footnote: As a courtesy to our dial-up visitors, our audio and video media are configured to download completely before play is enabled. The control buttons in the media bar will highlight when the selection is ready for playback. Selections must be started manually by clicking the PLAY button.
License: Unless otherwise expressly stated all original material, of whatever nature, created by the American Daughter staff and included in this website, its related pages and archives, is licensed under a Creative Commons License, some rights reserved.
Disclaimer: This is a personal website. The views expressed here are those of the authors and no one else. This is also an experiment in thinking out loud, so there are no warranties as to the reliability or accuracy of anything presented here. Source material -- references, citations, quotes, photos, and other elements -- is gathered from publicly available materials and some of this material may be restricted. Any trademarks used are the property of their respective creators or owners. All are reproduced under the principle of Fair Use.