I think this is the brainchild of Brett Rambo Shylock. I just don’t think lollypopadopolous could think of this one.

When pressed by a question at the 10/9/2008 candidate forum about whether or not he would be independent of Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Brown gave an astounding answer.

Listen Here:

Javascript and Flash must be enabled and installed to play this audio file.

The Transcript follows:

MODERATOR: So the question is what evidence from your past would convince me that you would stand up to Nancy Pelosi. What issues do you disagree most with of her liberal positions?

BROWN: Evidence from my past about standing up to Speaker Pelosi. The best example I can give you is disobeying direct orders when I was in the military. As a military officer you are supposed to obey lawful orders from those appointed over you. I can think of a couple occasions when I decided that the orders given to me were wrong. The most graphic example was a crash down in Florida. I was out on a training mission. We were aware of a crash. Our command post told us, “Stay on your training mission. Don’t go after the pilots. So we made the conscious decision. We were going to disobey that, because I was a rescue helicopter pilot. I had the resources right there in hand. We went over to the crash site. We were the first on the scene. Unfortunately that resulted in collecting the first body. We were able to direct a second helicopter to get there, and when I got back and was told, “OK, you disobeyed an order, but you did the right thing.” That stayed with me my whole Air Force career. Sometimes you have to buck the leadership to do the right thing.

I’m Sorry – but the only order you can disobey without facing a court martial is when your superior orders you to commit a felony. I have a hard time believing this story is even real.

This Post is Brought to you by Aaron F. Park – Proprietor, Charlie Brown’s House of Pain

Just like the images of Sarah Palin are burned into the minds of people – so is the Effigy. Spin as they like, the Brownies have way more questions than answers.

So, let’s dive back in to what we know about Colonel Klink:

Excerpt from Daily Kos: “And we’re running a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-comprehensive immigration reform, and pro-getting our troops home from Iraq (where his son is currently serving). He’s not a Blue Dog in the making, but a honest-to-goodness Democrat running a Democratic campaign in a supposedly hostile district”. (9/28 post on Daily Kos)

Nice – so the far-left loves him…

“Sure I could have joined the NRA or given up my ACLU membership. It may have appealed to some people here but that’s not who I am.” – Brown talking to Blue America to get their endorsement in 2007.

Blue America endorsed Brown

“Only 130,000 or so military members left over there now wondering when they will get home from this war of occupation/aggression.” – Charlie Brown when hitting “Reply All” on the City of Roseville e-mail system in 2004.

So Charlie is really was an anti war activist all along – as this was two years before the effigy.

"I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President." - General Wesley Clark, Obama Advisor and Surrogate, June 29, 2008.

Charlie’s number one supporter shows contempt for Vietnam Veterans…

The more Brown talks, the worse it gets for him, one has to wonder what is next…

So what are the voters going to think or do based on the information? Have you seen Charlie’s TV Ad? Does it say anything other than my life sucks and I like Charlie Brown? What a great motivator to vote for Brown, if the above jewels aren’t.

The choice is quite clear – Brown’s circumspect communication and deliberate failure to take difinitave stands on issues should tell California’s 4th CD that Brown is a liberal.

In addition – the buses from Pelosi-Land were nowhere to be seen. The vaunted DCCC warchest has evaporated and the only thing seen around here was some pathetic buy for Bill Durston.

So we load up for next week, Closing time Charlie… you’re in the Jungle. Aaron F Park is your tour guide.

The Poll was done between 9/22 and 9/24 with a margin for error of 5%

McClintock – Favorable / Unfavorable 43 to 31

Brown – 35 to 37 (something about the effigy)

Both Brown and McClintock draw 72% of their own party’s voters

Independent Voters prefer Brown 48-37 over McClintock

Have a look at the McClintock Press Release for more information.

Ooooh! That’s got to hurt…

Oh, but wait, there is more pain for Charlie - Charlie Brown’s trying to sell himself as a conservative has been a definitive failure. On the attribution of “conservative” McClintock leads 66% to 9%. On the attribution of “liberal” respondents identified Brown by a margin of 60% to 7%. Regarding the attribution of “winning the war in Iraq” Tom leads 58% to 29%. And on the anti-tax attribution McClintock leads 56% to 18%.

Where are all those “Blue Dogs” for Brown???

At about the 3:10 point in the video – Tom is talking about cutting the Capital Gains tax rate and paying for it by eliminating the farm bill… in the background you can hear the news anchor saying, “Oh Boy” in a sighing harumph.

She then follows up with a question along the lines of – “If you are in congress I can assume that you oppose oversight and regulation!?”

Nice question by the anchor, wasn’t it.

Even with 3:1 odds – Tom McClintock gave specific answers to questions in detail and Charlie Brown’s answers were general and repeated almost word for word what Pelosi said.

The most telling occurrence was at the end of the interview – Charlie Brown took some distinctly partisan shots at McClintock. So much for patriotism over partisanship – Charlie is now 0 for 2 as he has neither patriotism or non-partisanship.

The link to the TV jousting session is here…

It looks like Charlie is gravitating back to his base… you know Blue America and Daily Kos.

Calitics has also had a few things to say about CA-04.

But First – these messages from our Stenhouse:

Todd Stenhouse at the press conference, September 16, 2008:

“My understanding of the uniform is that if Charlie showed up on base wearing that he’d be reprimanded. It ain’t a uniform.”

“That is not a military standard uniform. Right? It’s a BDU jacket. 300,000 homeless veterans on the streets of America tonight. You know how many of them were wearing similar jackets? Quite a few. Take a walk outside.”

“I’m not an expert on military code of conduct.”

ActBlue made a weak buy targeted at Dan Lungren in CA-03 indicating a shift in Dem strategy. The DCCC and MoveOn have done little if anything in CA-04. It also appears that a rumored bus-a-mob coming from Kool-Aid land never materialized.

Another hard-left blog: Calitics had some more to say about St. Charles (these religious references have got to be annoying the left…)

CA-04: A lot to report here. While Tom McClintock is off putting together propaganda blogs attacking Charlie Brown, and of all things, this website, he ought to be paying attention to his campaign manager problem.

The camp of Democratic candidate Charlie Brown claims evidence shows state Sen. McClintock, a Republican, effectively is a substitute Doolittle, and in particular asserts that McClintock campaign manager John Feliz ’s connections to Doolittle are significant.

” John Feliz is the architect of Doolittle’s first known political-practices transgression,” said Todd Stenhouse, Brown spokesman. “The bottom line is McClintock claims not to be John Doolittle, yet he’s using his former campaign manager, and he has the same treasurer (David Bauer).”

McClintock campaign spokesman Bill George said, ” John Feliz hasn’t worked for Doolittle in 18 to 20 years.”

Note that he doesn’t respond to Bauer, who is still the treasurer for an active Doolittle campaign committee.

Meanwhile, Charlie Brown has endorsed the Pickens Pledge. I am in complete agreement that the Pickens Plan for energy independence is just a scheme for a rich guy to get richer, but the pledge merely calls for an energy plan to be enacted in the first 100 days of the next Administration. There is a difference.

Blogger’s Note – Charlie Brown has the same consultant as Gavin Newsome, Chris Dodd and Wes Clark, and fellow tin soldier Congressional Candidate Mike Lumpkin… Do you think the Auburn Journal will say anything about that?

I wonder if Lumpkin was in uniform too?

The fact that Calitics is reduced to going after John Feliz and trying to attach John Doolittle to Tom McClintock signifies that their own polling data shows Charlie is about to bug out of another island. If that isn’t enough – the limited resources ActBlue has are going after LUNGREN whose seat was supposed to be less of a target than McClintock’s!

Sorry Charlie – Storefront would have helped you in San Francisco. Here in CA-04, you are a fish out of the Tuna Can.

P.S. Charlie – give that $11,500 from Charlie Rangel-Abramoff to charity, QUICK!!!

Excerpt from Daily Kos: “And we’re running a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-comprehensive immigration reform, and pro-getting our troops home from Iraq (where his son is currently serving). He’s not a Blue Dog in the making, but a honest-to-goodness Democrat running a Democratic campaign in a supposedly hostile district”. (I think this answers why the Blue Dogs are nowhere to be found supporting Brown)

The Daily Joke is basically the Left’s version of the CRA. The difference is that the CRA loves America, the Daily Kos crowd does not. Needless to say, the Daily Kos blog is fully invested in Charlie Brown. The Daily Kos is trying to make noise to attract some of the DCCC’s dwindling resources as Obama is sucking the life out of every other campaign in favor of his own.

Brown claims to be campaigning as a moderate – yet his backers read like a who’s who of the extreme left – Blue America, Daily Kos, Brad Sherman, Barbara Lee and Charlie (taxman) Rangel… I still can not figure out why Blue Dogs like Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa have not come to Brown’s aid. Maybe I can – it is because Charlie Brown is a stone-cold anti-war liberal.

Enter the Daily Joke with a “poll”.

Enter “Monty” the Kool-Aid mascot… only he can truly provide a backdrop for the jaw-dropping words on Daily Joke.

Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 04:49:34 PM PDT

We’re finding with our first round of House polling that things are generally tough for the challenger party. We’re playing offense in mostly Republican districts, always against better-known and better-funded Republicans. It’s a tripple-whammy. But it’s one we faced and overcame in 2006 as well, in districts all around the country. So all our current House polling serves more as baseline polling as the House campaigns truly gear up. Most of these races will be polled one more time in late October to gauge movement and momentum.

In any case, while most of our first-round House polls have given us reason to be positive, none so far have given us such clearly awesome news as this one:

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 9/23-25. Likely voters. MoE 5% (No trend lines)

McClintock® 41
Brown (D) 46

Wow – if you didn’t take a look at their methodology, you’d be ready to cut your wrists. But wait – there’s more!!!

This is an open seat race, with McClintock a carpet-bagging but well-known conservative figure in California. Democrat Charlie Brown came close to upsetting the corrupt outgoing congressman John Doolittle in 2006, and Republicans pushed him out to improve their chances in the district. But the GOP primary was ugly, and it appears that the district wasn’t just upset at Doolittle’s shenanigans. They truly do appear to want change.

Brown peels away 13 percent of Republicans in this heavily Republican district (PVI R+10.9), which Bush won 61-37 in 2004. He’s also killing with Independents, winning them 49-33. And while the nine percent of undecided Republicans will likely fall in line, the 10 percent of undecided Independents and five percent of undecided Republicans would probably provide the winning margin today.

Winning this district would be a political shocker. Keep this in mind—only five Democrats (out of 236) hold seats more conservative than this one. And we’re running a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-comprehensive immigration reform, and pro-getting our troops home from Iraq (where his son is currently serving). He’s not a Blue Dog in the making, but a honest-to-goodness Democrat running a Democratic campaign in a supposedly hostile district (McCain beats Obama 51-39 in this poll).

Blogger’s note – that’s a Pro-Amnesty, Anti-Drilling, Pro-Surrender Liberal.

Charlie Brown is not just a Democrat, he’s a better Democrat, and someone we are thrilled to have on our Orange to Blue ActBlue page. We’ve got the lead, Doolittle is on the run. Let’s help Charlie have the resources to close this thing out. Contribute to his campaign today.

Wow – you’d swear that the 4th CD was about ready to have a Group Kool-Aid Slam! Not so fast!!! Take a look at the methods employed by the Daily Kos to get their results:

1) RDD (Random Digit Samples) require interviewers to ask respondents if they are registered to vote. The socially desirable answer is “yes” whether or not they are registered. Also, RDD telephone prefixes do not follow congressional district boundaries. Some voters are excluded from the sampling frame while other voters are incorrectly included.

2) Rather than using patterns of behavior – Kos’ pollsters simply asked the question. Similarly, asking someone if they will vote is subject to the same social desirability. Our superior propensity formula is based upon past voting behavior and other variables found in an enhanced voter file.

3) DTS Voter Participation – Kos used 24% / McC’s team uses 20% based on past elections.Voter turn-out, even in a presidential election, will be higher among Republicans and Democrats than among independents and 3rd party voters.

4) Party Quotas – The California Secretary of State lists the Republican registration advantage in the district at 16 , not the 10 used by the Daily Kos. If the correct quotas are applied (even using Daily Kos results) the vote shares come out to 43.5% Brown and 43.3% McClintock.

5) Senior Citizen Participation – The Daily Kos poll underestimates senior citizen turnout at 19% for 60+ voters. It is not credible to claim that the 18-29 vote percentages will fall 1 point below the 60+ vote in this district. This is important because even the Daily Kos poll has McClintock ahead among senior citizens. (Senior Citizen participation should be about 28%, not 19%)

6) Ballot Designations – The Daily Kos did not use any. McClintock’s team does and has.

Are you understanding what is going on here? Overestimate young voters, DTS voters, underestimate Senior voters, Republican voters and leave ballot designations off the questions and you get the desired result. Oh, and how many respondents live outside the district due to the sample method???

Sorry Charlie! Rigged polls can not change the fact that you are now in the house of pain. You have been drilled, hung in effigy and are being exposed for your real stances on issues.

I’d suggest that it is time for Charlie to man-up and say I am the liberal alternative to McClintock. McClintock knows too much about government and economics – vote for be because I served in Vietnam!

People will forget about the effigy, people will forget about Prop 8 and they will flock to the coven (can’t say church as that would be forcing religious values) of Brown.

Charlie – It’s worth a shot because nothing else has worked…

Tom McClintock was assailed by Doug Ose for a handful of specific votes on Military Issues and Charlie Brown has predictibly picked up on those – I decided to dredge up a few of my own. The following votes only apply to the genre of votes Tom made on behalf of veterans in the category listed. I wouldn’t want to give McClintock too much credit for being a freedom-loving Republican.

God forbid we keep harping on Charlie Brown’s anti-war activity… “Only 130,000 or so military members left over there now wondering when they will get home from this war of occupation/aggression” – Charlie Brown as quoted in an an E-mail sent to everyone in the City of Roseville E-Mail system and released through a freedom of information request in 2006 from the City of Roseville. This was Brown’s response to a co-worker celebrating the return home of their loved one.

Financial Aid/Education Benefits:

SB 1680 – May 2008 – Authorizes the California Community Colleges and California State University and encourages the University of California by establishing a Military and Veterans Offices for assisting veterans for financial aid and other student services.

AB 950 – September 2007 – Extends from one year to two year the period of time which non-resident Californian member of the armed Forces stationed in California seeking a graduate degree to be considered as resident for paying fees.

SB 272 – September 2007 – Give those California State University and California Community College campuses who provide priority enrollment for classes to members of the armed forces within two years of leaving active duty.

SB 1322 – August 2004 – Five year extension of the APLE-National Guard program and other academic related benefits.

AB 1965 – June 2002 – Prohibits the UC, CSU, and CCCs from charging mandatory student fees to any undergraduate student who is a child of a recipient of the Medal of Honor.

Please note that McClintock voted yes on all the above – I don’t think we will see these in a Brown Mailer anytime soon.

Brown tries to hide behind his uniforn to avoid scrutiny – Tom McClintock proudly stands on his record to answer Brown’s cowardice.

A Mother-to-Mother Plea: Don’t Hurt Charlie Brown!

Democratic Candidate’s Wife Asks Sheehan Not to Protest the Iraq War

By STEPHEN S. PEARCY

When America’s leading anti-war activist, Cindy Sheehan, got a phone call last week from Jan Brown, wife of Democratic Congressional candidate, Charles D. (“Charlie”) Brown, the last thing in the world Cindy expected was a plea from Ms. Brown, “mother-to-mother,” that Cindy stay away from a Sacramento anti-war protest. But that’s exactly what she got.

Fortunately for the hundreds of peace activists who showed up at the protest at 16th & Broadway in Sacramento to meet with Cindy, she rejected Ms. Brown’s request, and the event went wonderfully.

But imagine how strange it must have sounded to Cindy to have someone whom she had previously considered an anti-war enthusiast, and friend, tell her that it could hurt Charlie’s chances if Cindy attended the anti-war event.

Nearly two weeks ago, for the 22nd time since summer 2005, my wife and I organized an anti-war protest at 16th & Broadway, in Sacramento. On this particular occasion, we picked the date (October 27th) because Cindy said that she could come if it were held that day. Once she agreed to attend, we prepared fliers, sent out email announcements, and posted advertisements online.

We also passed out over 300 announcements to students in front of C.K. McClatchy High School, and we delivered them door-to-door to many homes in the Land Park neighborhood of Sacramento. We even paid a high school student $100 to deliver more fliers other places.

All of the announcements stated that Cindy Sheehan would be there. The day before the event, I stood on the corner of 16th & Broadway for 2 hours with a 4-foot by 8-foot sign that said Cindy would be there the next day.

I had no idea that Jan Brown was working behind the scenes attempting to frustrate our plans.

When Cindy arrived at 16th & Broadway on Friday, there were already about 200 people there who were very excited to see her. The event was held in the midst of rush-hour traffic. Horns were honking, drivers were cheering as they passed, people gave thumbs-up, and there were lots of smiles and nods of approval in response to anti-war statements on the signs.

Needless to say, I’m sure glad that I didn’t have to stand there explaining to people why Cindy didn’t show up

After Cindy waded through the crowd a bit and met with several people, she walked over to the area where I was standing and we spoke. She told me that Jan Brown had called her earlier to try to talk her out of coming to the demonstration. At the time, I was so pleased to see Cindy at the event, and so happy to see all the positive reactions from those passing by, that what Cindy told me didn’t sink in completely. Now it has.

Later that evening, Cindy and I discussed Charlie Brown’s recent attempts to disassociate himself from the anti-war movement and how cowardly that is.

Recently, the race between Brown and Doolittle has become close. In fact, it has become so close that Doolittle even participated in a debate with Brown a few weeks ago, although Doolittle had previously rejected the idea thinking Brown had no chance.

In the debate, Doolittle criticized Brown for attending an anti-war event that Cindy Sheehan also attended. But instead of proudly thanking Doolittle for mentioning something favorable about Brown’s activities, Brown chose to respond by criticizing Doolittle for his own associations. Since that debate, Brown has been quoted as saying that he’s neither associated with Cindy Sheehan nor has he ever taken any campaign contributions from her.

But why would Brown want to boast about that? That is, wouldn’t it be much better if he could say that Cindy is (or was) a good friend of his or that he’s so committed to ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq that even Cindy Sheehan has contributed to his campaign? Instead, Brown is boasting about his non-association with Cindy. What gives?

Sean Penn was a surprise guest at an anti-war rally that Brown and Cindy attended in Sacramento several months ago, but apparently Brown is now referring to Cindy as the “surprise guest” at that event. Actually, Cindy was booked 4 days before it was held, and that was widely publicized immediately after the booking.

Until I heard about Brown’s new strategy of disassociating himself with the anti-war crowd, I was rooting for him. I really thought that he was a new and different kind of Democrat: one with a spine.

I also appreciated the fact that Brown came to my home wearing his full military uniform and stood outside with many anti-war folks to defend my free speech. Several right-wingers had gathered across the street after I placed a display on my home of a uniformed soldier with the sign, “Bush Lied, I Died.” When Brown, his wife, and about two hundred others, including Cindy and Pat Sheehan, showed up to stand in solidarity with my wife and me, we really felt like there was hope for ending the criminally orchestrated U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Today, however, it’s no longer clear to us whether Brown supports an immediate end to the occupation. Ironically, now that most people are opposed to it, Brown seems more opposed to associating with the anti-war crowd.

The kind of political transformation that Brown has recently exhibited is precisely what’s gotten us into the mess in Iraq. From the perspective of someone who already lacks hope in the Democratic Party, Brown’s new unwillingness to be identified with Cindy and the anti-war crowd only reaffirms my belief that we can’t expect any meaningful change without a viable new party. It’s really sad.

Stephen S. Pearcy is an attorney and peace activist in Berkeley, California. You can email him at stephen.pearcy@sbcglobal.net

For the past four years Charlie Brown has consistently denied he has participated in a variety of anti-war activities. These denials have been made in the face of overwhelming evidence that Brown joined with the radical group Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan and others in the extreme anti-war movement.

New video emerged this week that showed Charlie Brown attended a Sacramento anti-war rally wearing his military uniform. The video clearly shows Brown standing with anti-war demonstrators in front of a home where a soldier had been hanged in effigy. The development capped years of denials and misrepresentations from Brown and his campaign about Brown’s actions that night and in other anti-war activities. The issue is not about what position Brown took on the war; it is about his failure to tell the public where he truly stands. Is this the type of person we want to send to the United States Congress?

Brown’s true stripes emerged publicly April 16, 2004. While working as a records clerk at the Roseville Police Department, Brown sent an email to City of Roseville employees many interpreted as an insult to them and our troops. In the email Brown responded sarcastically to the news of the return of a city employee from a deployment in Iraq this way: “Only 130,000 or so military members left over there now wondering when they will get home from this war of occupation/aggression.”

“I personally know that several employees were offended by Charlie’s politically-charged negative comment regarding our nation’s involvement in Iraq,” said Steve Uribe, a retired Roseville police officer who worked with Brown at that time. “Rather than welcoming home a fellow veteran, Charlie chose to call our troops occupiers and aggressors.”

Brown made his appearance at the war demonstration wearing his uniform February 15, 2005. When asked about it in a radio interview the Bruce Maiman Show, September 12, 2007, Brown said: “I was down there. I was not in uniform. The only times I put on my dress uniform these days are veterans’ ceremonies and I was actually on both sides of the street last night talking to people to find out, you know, what their concerns were. So, yes I was there, no I was not in a dress uniform and I was actually on both sides of the street, policemen down the center. Second Amendment, right to free speech.” (sic)

Stephen Pearcy hanged the soldier in effigy at his home. He says Brown stood with him at the protest. “Brown came to my home wearing his full military uniform and stood outside with many anti-war folks to defend my free speech. Several right-wingers had gathered across the street after I placed a display on my home of a uniformed soldier with the sign, “Bush Lied, I Died.” When Brown, his wife, and about two hundred others, including Cindy and Pat Sheehan, showed up to stand in solidarity with my wife and me, we really felt like there was hope for ending the criminally orchestrated U.S. invasion of Iraq.”

Pearcy’s recollection is matched by Deborah Johns, the mother of a Marine, who attended the rally: “Charlie Brown was most definitely there. He made statements before that he was not a supporter of Cindy Sheehan and that he was not at Virginia and Steve Pearcy’s house in Land Park. He was inside their home. He was hugging not only Steve and Virginia Pearcy, but he was also hugging Cindy Sheehan.”
After a news conference where the video was shown to reporters, Brown spokesman Todd Stenhouse continued to deny that Brown stood with the protestors, telling Politickerca.com: “He did absolutely not lie,” [regarding] Brown’s previous characterizations of his appearance at the house. “He walked on both sides of the street. And I’ll take the word of a 26-year military veteran on that.”

The Sacramento Bee reported that in February 2006, “Brown appeared at an ‘Out of Iraq’ event, sponsored by the anti-war group Code Pink and other organizations. [Cindy] Sheehan and actor Sean Penn also attended.” According to the Bee: [Spokesman Todd] “Stenhouse insisted Tuesday that Brown had no idea that Sheehan and Penn were going to appear at the February ‘Out of Iraq’ event. Pearcy said Brown’s plea of ignorance is ‘ludicrous’ because Sheehan’s appearance was well advertised four days in advance.”
In October 2006 Brown continued to back away from his anti-war issues. According to the Sacramento Bee: “Provoking Pearcy’s anger was a request by Brown’s wife, Jan, last week that anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan cancel her appearance at a planned Friday protest in downtown Sacramento.

“Imagine how strange it must have sounded to Cindy to have someone who she had previously considered an anti-war enthusiast, and friend, tell her that it could hurt Charlie’s chances if Cindy attended the anti-war event, Pearcy said. Brown spokesman Todd Stenhouse said Tuesday that Jan Brown’s request was not made on behalf of her husband or the campaign.”

The Brown campaign spun Brown’s actions this way:
“It was an emotional reaction by someone watching her husband get attacked for guilt by association because he stood on a stage with a group [Code Pink] he doesn’t even support.”

How strange it is that Brown is consistently observed by citizens, government employees, police officers, conservatives, liberals, and pro-and anti-war demonstrators as having a record of participating in radical actions with the extreme anti-war movement.

And he keeps denying those acts.

Straight from Bryan Barton – creator of Doug Ose, the Real Deal…? comes the latest installment of Viral 4th CD Videos.

It includes footage from the now famous press conference where Charlie Brown’s Anti-War activity was exposed.

Click Here to watch the 3 1/2 Minute Video – it flows really well and is an entertaining watch.

Charlie Brown has a lot of explaining to do – he can duck and weave for only so long. But now that Brown has been caught, Red County Placer Readers have a front-row seat to watch the disintegration.

Javascript and Flash must be enabled and installed to play this audio file.

KFBK lit Charlie Brown on fire…

California: Brown Hit for Anti-War Rally Appearance
By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff
September 18, 2008

State Sen. Tom McClintock has launched a broadside attack against retired Air Force Lt. Col. Charlie Brown in their race for the open 4th district, accusing the Democrat of embracing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and participating in a protest where a soldier was hung in effigy.

Brown, hoping to outlast McClintock in the solidly Republican 4th district after nearly knocking off retiring Rep. John Doolittle® last cycle, responded with a call for his GOP opponent to stop the partisan attacks and
join him in supporting veterans.

McClintock held a news conference Tuesday demanding that Brown come clean about his role in a 2005 anti-Iraq War demonstration in Sacramento. McClintock’s campaign also went up with a district wide radio ad featuring the mother of an Iraq War veteran who chides Brown on his participation in the rally.

“Hi, I’m Deborah Johns, proud mother of a United States Marine. My son has served three tours of duty in Iraq, and everyday I’m reminded of what it’s like to have a child in harm¹s way,” Johns says as the ad opens.

“That’s why I was so upset to see Charlie Brown at an anti-war protest where a soldier was hung in effigy,” Johns continues in the ad. “That’s no way to support our troops. Showing up in uniform sends the wrong message to our
veterans and only helps groups like CODE PINK promote their left-wing agenda.”

At the demonstration in question, the owners of the home where it was held hung a soldier in effigy to symbolize the troops who had died in Iraq for a war that the they deemed to be unjust and unnecessary. Brown has claimed that he was wearing a camouflage jacket at the rally, but McClintock’s ad argues otherwise.

Brown, in a statement released by his campaign, doesn’t directly address all of the charges the McClintock campaign makes in this radio ad.

But Brown does criticize McClintock, saying he has voted against veterans and soldiers at war “time and time again,” while encouraging him to donate 5 percent of every campaign dollar that he raises to veterans’ charities, just like he has.

“Rather than join me in a bipartisan effort to provide real, immediate help to veterans, [McClintock] would rather spend thousands of dollars on negative attack ads,” Brown said. “This is exactly what’s wrong with politics in Washington and why so many people are frustrated that our
problems never get solved.”

McClintock also hit the 4th district’s radio airwaves this week with an ad on fiscal issues.

Blogger’s Note – Will Charlie Brown Stand Up and Denounce Nancy Pelosi’s Fraud and the raft of Environmental Lawsuits aimed at stopping drilling?

Now is the time to man up Charlie? you were endorsed by the Sierra Club – are you going to follow them to court to thwart energy production?

Take a look at this report about enviro lawsuits to stop drilling – note how the Dems are ignoring the fact that these have occurred. The Enviros have sued to stop EVERY new lease in the last two years. This really underscores that Nancy Pelosi is a bald-faced liar with the use-it-or-lose-it policy, she knows there is nothing to lose because it is tied up in court!

By JOHN SHADEGG

After a five-week paid vacation, Democrats are back in Washington and claiming that they want to do something about oil prices.

But the problem is that their plan, which passed the House yesterday and will likely come up for a vote in the Senate later this week, will not produce a single drop of oil.

Why? Because it does nothing about environmental groups that are suing to stop drilling.

The Democratic proposal is not a death-bed conversion, it’s designed to solve their political problem. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her members in August that they can say they are in favor of drilling, but that she wouldn’t allow a vote on a drilling bill. Now that she has been forced to, she knows her environmental allies will block new drilling from going forward.

The Sierra Club has told its members that it is “working to ensure that the final bill’s focus is on real clean energy solutions rather than expanded offshore drilling.” Democratic Rep. John Murtha, a Pelosi confidante, went further last week in noting that his party’s not above cynical politics: “This is a political month. There’s all kinds of things we try to do that will just go away after we leave.” And Legislative Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council Karen Wayland has said “This is about politics, not necessarily about policy.”

The green lobby, however, is not going away. EarthJustice, which employs over 150 people, has filed hundreds of lawsuits. On its Web site, it says “Because lawsuits can be so effective, we have a team of policy experts in Washington, D.C. that work hand-in-hand with our attorneys to stop legislative backlash . . .”

Indeed, incessant legal and administrative challenges make true the Democrat claim that oil from newly opened areas will not reach the market for years. These groups make use of a wide range of laws and regulations to challenge development. And they will make sure that the Democrats’ proposal is meaningless.

In February 2008, the administration issued 487 leases in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea, which holds an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and other groups used the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act to challenge and delay progress on all 487 leases. In a separate lawsuit, they challenged the entire national outer continental shelf (OCS) leasing program, seeking to block all future leases.

Even if a lease makes it through these challenges, it isn’t clear sailing. Right now, there are 748 leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Exploration activities in every single one were challenged in May of this year by EarthJustice in conjunction with others.

The Alaskan OCS contains 26 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Not one offshore lease has escaped litigation.

And it’s not just Alaska. Wild Earth Guardians and others recently filed suit to block energy exploration on all leases in recent sales in Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Last year, almost 50% of gas leases in the Rocky Mountain states were protested in court.

Environmental protections are necessary. But, there must be reasonable limits on litigation.

During the oil embargo in 1973, Congress waived environmental laws for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That waiver, Democratic Sen. John Tunney of California said at the time, “in no way dilutes or diminishes the applicability of NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act].” Rather, he said, it “brings into balance grave concerns of national security” with our nation’s environmental safeguards. In 1996 and again in 2006, environmental laws were waived for the construction of fences along the southern border of the United States.

Absent provisions to stop abusive litigation, the bills Democrats support will not lead to oil production. Any serious energy plan would encourage the development of alternative and renewable fuels, and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the OCS and the Western U.S. to drilling. It also would put a stop to never-ending litigation. But that’s not what Democratic leaders are offering.

We’re told that the Democrats now favor drilling. That they have seen the light after feeling the heat all summer. What’s really happening is we’re mid-way through a political hoax.

Some 70% of Americans favor increased domestic drilling. Unfortunately, if Mrs. Pelosi and her party’s leaders continue to play politics, we can be sure Americans won’t get the energy they want.

Mr. Shadegg, a Republican, is a U.S. congressman from Arizona.

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

Click here to listen to the Ad and KFBK’s coverage of the breaking story

Charlie’s response on this blog has been tepid at best – basically calling Deborah Johns a liar. Why? Because I nailed her about a year ago over attacking John Doolittle. This is unusual for team Brown as they actually made a definitive statement on something without a photograph cornering them.

Brown’s Press release “Challenges” Tom McClintock to do the 5% to Veterans Charity challenge – but McClintock isn’t the one with a guilty conscience over anti-war activity. Brown should also do the ethics challenge – returning Rangel and Perata’s dirty campaign cash.

BREAKING UPDATE: BROWN PULLED THE SEPTEMBER 12TH PRESS RELEASE OFF OF HIS WEBSITE (I HAVE A HARD COPY):

Brown’s release contains the following carefully worded paragraph, “To the subject of McClintock’s latest misleading ad, Charlie attended a highly publicized protest staged by pro Iraq war demonstrators in 2005 at the site of a controversial display at the home of an anti-war activist. (Steven Pearcy) He talked with people on both sides of the issue and left. He wore a camoflage jacket, as did many attendees on both sides who were ex-military. Case Closed.

If the case was closed then why did you pull the press release down off of your website?

There was absolutely no way Charlie could have been on both sides of the street as the police were in the middle of the street.

The fact that Stenhouse says that Brown wore a camouflage jacket to the rally also suggests that the Brown team remembers exactly what happened that night.

Blogger’s Note – I am not a fan of Move America Forward, they are counter-productive in my opinion. Eric Kerry-Egland, Deborah Johns and Mark Williams were all part of that outfit and they want after this blogger because I stood with John Doolittle. The fact that Charlie Brown was stupid enough to be at this event where he could be seen by these people is ultimately what the issue is here.

The only response of the Brown Campaign has been to call Deborah Johns a liar on this issue. Note – no denial, just a carefully worded press release that was PULLED DOWN FROM HIS WEBSITE.

I WILL SCAN AND POST THE PRESS RELEASE TOMORROW.

LINK TO RADIO AD COMING SOON!

A new radio ad from the McClintock for Congress Campaign calls on Charlie Brown to clear the air and let the public know he supported an anti-war demonstration that featured a soldier hung in effigy. In the crowd of war protestors was a man dressed in his military uniform: retired Lieutenant Colonel Charlie Brown.

Brown has been attempting to distance himself from his actions that night in February 2005. On September 12, 2007, Brown told KFBK radio’s (Sacramento) Bruce Maiman “I was not in uniform.”

Now, an eyewitness to Brown’s actions has come forward to tell the truth. Deborah Johns was with a group supporting U.S. troops that night and saw Brown standing with chanting anti-war demonstrators. In the ad she tells the story of Brown’s actions:

Hi, I’m Deborah Johns, proud mother of a United States Marine. My son has served 3 tours of duty in Iraq, and everyday I’m reminded of what it’s like to have a child in harm’s way.

That’s why I was so upset to see Charlie Brown at an anti-war protest where a soldier was hung in effigy – that’s no way to support our troops. Showing up in uniform sends the wrong message to our veterans, and only helps groups like Code Pink promote their left wing agenda. Our veterans deserve better than that.

And what did Charlie Brown have to say?
CHARLIE BROWN: “I was not in uniform.”

Deborah JOHNS: Charlie Brown can say he wasn’t part of the protest, and he can say he wasn’t in uniform – but I saw him. Charlie was there. Charlie was in uniform. Charlie Brown… You have some explaining to do.

“It’s taken years for the truth to emerge, but now people will know that Charlie stands with the far left when it comes to national defense,” said McClintock for Congress spokesman Bill George. “Just last week Charlie was forced to admit he would support Barrack Obama for president only after a photo emerged showing him wearing a sticker supporting Obama. Now will Charlie fess up and admit he wore his uniform in support of protestors while a soldier hung in effigy? We look forward to his answer.”

Paid for By McClintock for Congress
1700 Eureka Road, Suite 170 • Roseville, CA 95661 • (530) 613-1188
www.HelpTom.com

Listen to Todd Stenhouse struggle to answer simple questions.

Also note that McClintock answers for himself – Stenhouse talks for Charlie Brown.

This dovetails with past assertions as to why Brown wants to avoid a Lincoln-Douglas debate style.

Javascript and Flash
must be enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Javascript and Flash
must be enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Javascript and Flash
must be enabled and installed to play this audio file.

Take a listen to your radio folks. I have had two people tell me that they have heard a McClintock radio ad with some Blue-Star Mom in it.

She says that she saw Charlie Brown in some sort of uniform at a vigil in front of Steven Pearcy’s House in support of the Soldier Hung in Effigy? Remember the article in the Sacramento Bee? October 31, 2006 where Steven Pearcy talks about Brown’s participation in anti-war rallies?

In Uniform? What was it, a clown suit?

This is huge – apparently Charlie Brown did stand with the Soldier hung in effigy, this is why he could not Man Up and issue a denial.

To think, his supporters have piously defended his military service and patriotism and they HAD to know that Brown did this. They had to!!!

I leave you with the Sacramento Bee Story (again)

“Anti-war activist Stephen Pearcy, who gained attention from his Sacramento home in February when he hung a human-shaped form dressed in a military uniform and adorned it with anti-war messages, charged that the retired Air Force officer is distancing himself from the protesters who had come to regard Brown as one of them.

“He’s back-pedaling,” said Pearcy in an interview. “He was initially holding himself out as an anti-war candidate, someone who vehemently opposed the war and supported immediate withdrawal. Now I am not so sure he supports that … This is an example of the kind of Democrats we’ve had who have acted basically in a spineless manner.”

Pearcy said the Roseville Democrat had appeared at his house in February when his dangling protest symbol was generating crowds of pro-war activists. Pearcy said Brown was dressed in his Air Force uniform to show his solidarity with him and his wife.”

Sacramento Bee, David Whitney, Bee Washington Bureau Published 6:39 pm PST Tuesday, October 31, 2006

On August 18th – Charlie Brown sent out an Email PROUDLY chiding Tom McClintock for not doing his job!

It boastfully started, “If you didn’t do your job, you wouldn’t get paid. Right now in Sacramento, Tom McClintock’s not doing his job. But while the state of California still doesn’t have a budget, nothing happens to Tom McClintock…”

No kidding, some 25 days later – as broken by my friend Jason Daniel ... the Sacramento Bee and the LA Times obtained a copy of an email from Don Perata indicating that they were going to have to cut a deal with the “NO TAX REPUBLICANS”.

Now – since Perata has given Charlie support and campaign cash in between FBI depositions… One would have to wonder why Perata gets it. He called the Republicans, the NO TAX REPUBLICANS.

Maybe Perata can explain to the Brown team, the Auburn Journal and the Monutain Democrat why I nailed Charlie for supporting tax increases.

If you chide someone for doing nothing on a budget and 25 days later people pushing said budget indicate that they are going to have to deal with the “No Tax Republicans” to get a budget deal – the opposite is supporting tax increases.

Charlie Brown just got drilled again.

Sorry Charlie – the voters are far too discerning for “Nuanced” stances on the issues (if the Brown Campaign ever took any).

McClintock – on the other hand gets to finally enjoy a budget victory because the Dems couldn’t get a second Republican after Abel Maldonado to join his tax raising budget. (The Dems need 100% of their caucus + two Republican Senators to pass a budget.)

I guess the McClintock campaign is going to start having to use photos and the like to force Charlie Brown to stop the Chameleon Act. Only after getting drilled with photographic evidence of his feelings for Obama did Charlie Brown come out of the closet.

The Photographic shreds of evidence were apparently compelling enough to get Charlie to take a stand on the issue of Presidential choice.

When speaking to Blue America – Charlie told them he would have co-sponsored Murtha’s bill against the Troop surge in Iraq… that same surge that now appears to have broken the insurgency. (note how the media is not reporting on Iraq that much anymore…) Blue America went one step further stipulating that Brown would support a “real” bill, not some weak resolution. This is Charlie Brown clearly on the record as an anti-war activist. He owes the 4th CD an apology for attempting to portray himself as a patriot.

In the district, Brown is wrapping himself in the Flag. Which Charlie is it? The Anti-War protester? Given the glass jaw of the Brown campaign over anything close to a question about his military service – one wonders why Brown has not vociferously protested his innocence of charges leveled against him over his support of the soldier hung in effigy.

Despite Blog posts drilling Charlie to the wall over energy – The Brown Campaign clings to articles in the Mountain Democrat and the Auburn Journal about energy. Make no doubt – Charlie is being duplicitous – linked here is a story about Florida residents complaining of seeing Chinese rigs off of their coast and linked here is a story with all the evidence you’d ever want about 1 trillion barrels of oil in reserve in America.If the Oil wasn’t there, then why did Charlie’s fellow Liberal Democrat Mark Udall make sure to insert language into a bill to prevent drilling for it? Charlie owes the voters of the 4th CD an apology over Gas Prices.

Truth be told – Charlie Brown said flat out at the Beverly Hills Fundraiser of Brad Sherman that he opposes Offshore Drilling. When pressed on the issue – he says he supports offshore drilling only on the existing leases, a la Nancy Pelosi. We blogged about that, too.

These are called campaign ethics – Brown has none. He attacked Doolittle over ethics and his are amazingly lacking. When a candidate has to get drilled with pictures in order finally take an honest stand, it is a sad commentary. Charlie owes John Doolittle an apology for attacking his ethics.

Further – there is the Dirty Money. Loads of it… $11,500 from admitted Tax Dodger Charlie Rangel. The Rangel of Charlie’s®Angels… If Tom McClintock took campaign money from Duke Cunningham – Charlie and his friends in the Monutain Democrat and the Auburn Journal would trip over their kool-aid jugs to report the story. Jack Abramoff got a raw deal.

Dirty Money? Don Perata – the subject of THREE Federal Investigations (BTW – 4 1/2 years, no indictment of John Doolittle – add that to the apology list). Jack Abramoff is blushing from Prison right about now…maybe some of Charlie’s Angels will be coming to the party soon?

Dirty Money? The Communist Black Panther Barbara Lee – do you think the media would say nothing if McClintock got help from David Duke? Barbara Lee is the Left’s equivalent of Duke.

The Air Force teaches – I will not Lie, Cheat or Steal, or tolerate those who do. Amen, Charlie – that’s why this Sailor is all over you…

But, wait there’s more than the dirty money you’re taking – which you should also apologize to John Doolittle for… You chided Tom McClintock over not voting for the budget.

Remember??? I am sure as I am writing this post, the Brown team is trying their case with their friends in the Mountain Democrat and the Auburn Journal. On August 18th – the Brown team sent out an email that began, “If you didn’t do your job, you wouldn’t get paid. Right now in Sacramento, Tom McClintock’s not doing his job. But while the State of California does not have a budget, nothing happens to Tom McClintock…”

Nope. Not a shred of evidence that Charlie Brown was advocating voting for the State Budget. The proposal on the table at the time that McClintock was and is fighting against includes massive Tax increases. Charlie was leading with his chin once again – while Charlie tries to play the greased pig routine to avoid being caught in a position on an issue – the campaign continues like a downhill steam train.

Closing Time Charlie – We haven’t even gotten to Gay Marriage, Border Security and Earmark reform yet.

Now is the time to man up – Did you stand with the effigy?

Did you mean to suggest that Tom McClintock vote for the State Budget with it tax increases, if not, what did you mean?

Did you have too much to drink when you said you oppose drilling all together at Brad Sherman’s fundraiser?

Were you caught up in the feelings of social justice when you said Prop 8 should not be on the ballot – basically stating that the California supreme court’s decision should stand unabated?

When you gave Blue America an interview that ultimately earned their endorsement you said, “Sure I could have joined the NRA or canceled my ACLU membership, It may have appealed to some people here, but that’s not who I am…”

Charlie – you’re an anti-war liberal, be proud. You take money from anyone, apologize to Doolittle and drive on. Stand up and hug the effigy – it’s yours. Get on board the No on 8 campaign show your sensitive side. This is leadership – the kind of leadership people expect, not the kind of leadership that gyrates and avoids issues until the camera lens traps you.

Questions lose campaigns, answers will set you free.

I still can’t make this stuff up! At the same time he has a hard-core liberal Gay Rights / Surrender advocate raising money for him, Charlie Brown has added to his fundraising team.

The Communist Black Panther has teamed up with Don Perata – outgoing Senate President pro-tempre. Perata is obviously motivated to help Charlie Brown, because Tom McClintock has been a thorn in his side for the last 8 years.

Perata is known to use strong-arm tactics and intimidation to keep Moderate Democrats beaten into submission on budget votes ( including changing the locks on their offices in the capitol)... so why not help Charlie Brown’s vainglorious quest against Tom McClintock?

Now Perata has other issues, like taking $570,000 from the CCPOA somehow avoiding the $3,600 per person/entity limit. In addition “The Don of Investigations” has three concurrent FEDERAL Investigations for money laundering, influence peddling, fundraising violations, and the like.

That’s right – THREE investigations. John Doolittle, one for 4 1/2 years with no indictment.

Yet, Charlie has had Doolittle tried and convicted already, spending 2.5 million on ethics attacks. If Charlie takes one dime from Perata, he owes John Doolittle an apology!

Blogger’s Note: Something never sat well with me about Charlie’s grandstanding regarding charitable donations – especially since he is doing it to get attention. It would be another thing if it was disclosed what Charlie’s real intentions for doing this were.

As I have asserted for weeks – Charlie is a hard-core anti-war activist and he has the credentials to prove it. I believe that Charlie’s “Charitable” actions are to either cover a guilty conscience or to try and decieve the voters about his real motives.

In either event – there is a passage of scripture that applies – especially since Charlie claims faith on his website:

Matthew 6: 1-4

1. Be careful not to parade your uprightness in public to attract attention; otherwise you will lose all reward from your father in heaven. 2 So when you give alms, do not have it trumpeted before you; this is what the hypocrites do in the synagogues (Roseville, Grass Valley et. al.)and in the streets to win human admiration. In truth I tell you, they have had their reward. 3. But when you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing; 4 your almsgiving must be secret, and your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you.

Blogger’s Endnote: These were the words of Jesus delivering one of many sermons he delivered while on earth. These words are timely and important today, right here in Placer County.

“Deeds not Words”

Sen. Tom McClintock’s campaign has issued Democrat opponent Charlie Brown a list of six actions he needs to take in order to let the voters of the Fourth Congressional District know where he stands on the issues. Charlie has been accused of trying to be all things to all people by attempting to distance himself from the liberal Democrat positions he has taken on offshore drilling, amnesty for illegal aliens and higher taxes.

When McClintock’s campaign distributed a direct mail piece to voters over the Labor Day weekend that highlighted the positions of the two candidates on these issues, including gay marriage, the Brown campaign went into a tizzy. Apparently they have never seen their record compared before. The Brown campaign called the mailer “rife with fabrications” and is telling reporters that Charlie hasn’t taken liberal Democrat positions on the issues. While Charlie says he has not taken liberal Democrat positions on the issues, deeds will show the public exactly where he stands.

As a public service, the McClintock campaign has produced a list of actions Charlie can take to set the record straight. We will also help him draft the letters and fill out the forms (we just happen to have an extra copy of the no new tax pledge) so he can quickly get his views on the record:

1. Join with Tom McClintock and send a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking to reconvene Congress and vote on an energy plan for America that includes increased oil exploration and production offshore California and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

2. Sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

3. SUPPORT Citizens Against Government Waste Earmark Reform Pledge and oppose boondoggle spending.

4. Say NO to Amnesty for illegal aliens, period. No means No, even in Spanish. Comprende?

5. Sign the endorsement list to support Proposition 8 which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. You don’t need to sit on the fence with this one. A simple but clear statement of support will suffice.

6. Admit you made a mistake by participating in the hanging of a soldier in effigy, and apologize for wearing your uniform at this event.

As an extra item, why not drop your ACLU membership and join the NRA instead!

Deeds not words. By taking these actions Charlie Brown can prove to the voters of the Fourth Congressional District that he’s not a liberal Democrat.

I can’t make this stuff up folks. Many on the right affectionally refer to liberals like Charlie Brown as communists. Barbara Lee IS a communist. What’s worse, she was also a member of the Black Panthers – a racist, militant organization from the 1960’s

However, less known is Lee’s service on the national coordinating committee of the “Committees of Correspondence,” an organization that splintered from the Communist Party USA in 1991. Angela Davis, her good friend, the three-time Communist Party candidate for vice president of the United States, served by her side. Take a look here

In addition, Barbara lee was the lone vote against action in Afghanistan. She was one of five that voted against bombing Iraq for non-compliance with UN sanctions. She was the only member of congress to vote against going into Yugoslavia to help abate the genocide. Take a look at this article for an interview with Barbara Lee.

Charlie’s support of the effigy and anti-war action seems to mesh well with Lee’s history. But, why would someone whose campaign is dependent upon patriotism allow a known communist to headline a fundraiser? The fact that Charlie’s Angels in the Sacramento Bee and the Auburn Journal don’t care is no suprise – they’d rather rail on Sarah Palin’s daughter.

Barbara Lee was connected with one of the founders of the Black Panthers (Bobby Seale) as well:

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, a student at Mills College at the time, was typical of the people drawn to the Panthers. “They were committed to changing the system that gave rise to racism and oppression,” said Lee, who volunteered in the Panthers’ community learning center and worked on Seale’s mayoral campaign.

“For me, their 10 points are still very relevant today. When they went to Sacramento, it was a testament to their commitment to social and economic justice.” Take a look at this for more

The Black Pathers burst into the assembly chambers armed to the teeth to demonstrate their committment to social and economic justice in 1967.

Charlie Brown oughta do his homework before having another fundriaser

Blogger’s Note – The interesting thing is that the Brown campaign has called leading Border advocates racists, avoiding addressing the issue alltogether. Exception: Brown endorsed the massive proposed anmesty bill from a few years ago that public outcry killed. Closing time, Charlie – what are you going to do?

State Sen. Tom McClintock spoke to a gathering of Minutemen from the Sacramento region on the steps of the State Capitol Tuesday.

In town for their annual ‘Lobby Day,’ the Minutemen make visits to lawmakers to raise awareness on issues stemming from illegal immigration. This year, one of the topics is crimes caused by illegal aliens. One high-profiled example is the murder case involving Edwin Ramos, a native of El Salvador who is charged with three counts of murder. Tony Bologna and his two sons, Michael and Matthew, who were on the way back from a family gathering, when they were brutally murdered following a traffic incident with Ramos in San Francisco’s Excelsior district.

According to news accounts in the San Francisco Chronicle, “San Francisco’s political establishment has long prided itself on providing a haven for illegal immigrants. Mayor Gavin Newsom even launched a taxpayer-funded $83,000 ” public awareness campaign” earlier this year assuring illegal immigrants that the “sanctuary city” by the bay was in their court. And indeed it is. Under the city’s 1989 voter-approved sanctuary ordinance, police officers and other city employees are prohibited from inquiring into immigration status. In addition, the city will not direct municipal funds or employees towards assisting federal immigration enforcement, unless such assistance is required by federal or state law or a warrant.”

In his speech Tuesday, Sen. McClintock suggested that all federal aid to so-called “sanctuary cities” be cut off beginning with the city and county of San Francisco. “A local government that actively works to undermine our nation’s security and sovereignty has no claim to our nation’s resources and support.”

“The Minutemen have become our nation’s neighborhood watch, and I want to commend all of the law abiding, concerned Americans who have volunteered their own time and their own resources at enormous personal risk in order to assist the border patrol by peacefully reporting illegal incursions of our border,” McClintock said.

The following are the remarks delivered by Sen. Tom McClintock.

The Minutemen have become our nation’s neighborhood watch, and I want to commend all of the law abiding, concerned Americans who have volunteered their own time and their own resources at enormous personal risk in order to assist the border patrol by peacefully reporting illegal incursions of our border.

Our nation was built upon LEGAL immigration – the orderly process by which immigrants come to our country in order to become Americans – and they do so by acquiring a common language, a common culture, and a common appreciation of American constitutional principles and American legal traditions.

Illegal immigration undermines that process of legal immigration that makes our nation of immigrants possible.

We should never forget that there are hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants who, right now, are obeying our laws, waiting in line and doing everything our nation asks of them to do, while millions of illegal immigrants cut in line in front of them.

Last year, together, we defeated the amnesty bill in Congress that would have legalized and legitimized the presence of up to 20 million illegal aliens within our borders. It would have excused them from obeying the same laws as every legal immigrant who has respected our nation’s sovereignty.

We fought the leadership of both parties in Congress and we won.

Now, it is time to press for enforcement of our existing laws.

There is nothing radical to insist that we do so. Every other nation in the world has immigration laws. The only difference is that every other nation in the world actually nforces them.

The supporters of last year’s amnesty bill never were able to explain what exactly is wrong with our current immigration laws – except that they’re not being enforced.

Indeed, a prerequisite for any future immigration laws is first to demonstrate a concerted determination to enforce our current ones.

We can start by expediting completion of the 700 miles of the border fence that Congress authorized last year, and that the Bush administration has dawdled on ever since. According to Congressman Duncan Hunter, who coauthored the “Secure Fence Act,” just ten miles of security fencing in San Diego reduced that county’s crime rate dramatically. Imagine what 700 miles would do.

Second, hundreds of armed incursions by Mexican military units in support of drug runners have been documented in recent years and we need to beef up our military presence on the border. Even the limited deployment of a few hundred unarmed National Guard troops last year had a significant impact on those sections that they patrolled.

Third, the government must at least demonstrate a determined, sustained effort to deport those illegal aliens it actually encounters through law enforcement or social service agencies. No immigration law is going to be taken seriously if illegal aliens can receive government-funded benefits while the government cheerfully ignores the fact that they’re not legally entitled to be here in the first place.

Fourth, sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants need to be just as rigorously enforced as all of our other labor laws. There is no excuse for those who would shortchange American citizens and legal immigrants in order to employ those who violate our nation’s sovereignty.

If our state and federal labor agencies can audit every scrap of employment minutia down to lunch and bathroom breaks, they should certainly be able to determine the legal residency requirements that were supposed to be the cornerstone of the 1986 immigration act.

Fifth, we should cut off all federal aid to so-called “sanctuary cities” beginning with the city and county of San Francisco. A local government that actively works to undermine our nation’s security and sovereignty has no claim to our nation’s resources and support.

These modest steps toward enforcing existing law would not only stop the immediate demand on services that is overwhelming our schools, our hospitals and our prisons, it would also produce the voluntary departure of that portion of the illegal population drawn here by public handouts and the underground economy.

Citizenship should be reserved for those who obey our laws – starting with our immigration laws – as hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants are doing right now to fulfill their dream of becoming loyal Americans.

And together, these steps – which require nothing more than the faithful enforcement of existing law—would preserve our nation as a melting pot for many future generations of legal immigrants from around the world who sincerely seek to become Americans and “to secure the blessings of liberty” to themselves and their posterity.

I have wondered since the celebrated incident between retired military officers Mike Holmes and Charlie Brown about Charlie Brown’s obsession regarding promoting his military service.

Charlie is having General Wesley Clark come to Roseville to help promote his campaign through a drive to support the troops.

We know that General Wesley Clark was recruited to screw up the 2004 primary by the Clintons and has been a top Liberal Democrat advisor for several years. Charlie apparently served under Clark in the gulf war.

Since Charlie has made his military service the primacy of his campaign, the recent revelations of Charlie’s anti-war activity have to be weighing heavily in his mind.

Is Wes Clark coming to Roseville to help Charlie obfuscate his anti-war activity? Brown has been remiss to address the issue of the effigy – his lack of a response suggests that claims of his anti-war activity including those reported by the Bee in 2006 are indeed true.

When you read what left-wing blog Blue America says about Charlie – this section attributed to Charlie Brown jumps out at you: “I asked Charlie to put himself in the shoes of a freshman congressman and tell us what he would be doing about the war now. One thing he said was that he would have signed on as a cosponsor to Jack Murtha’s re-deployment resolution (not one of the non-binding symbolic things). Only 9 freshmen have signed on as co-sponsors to either Murtha’s or Woolsey’s proposals, the first of which aiming to end escalation and the second of which aiming to end the war.” (Murtha’s proposal meshes with Brad Sherman and Barbara Lee’s public stance of pulling out of Iraq within 90 days a.k.a. surrender)

Charlie would like to be a cosponsor of the Murtha bill because he thinks Murtha’s credibility and impeccable military credentials make it clear that he supports the troops, just not the way the Bush Regime is misusing them.

General Wesley Clark has his own words of wisdom to add to the mix when he completely degrades John McCain’s military service: “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President.” – General Wesley Clark, Obama Advisor and Surrogate, June 29, 2008.

I might show up to Brown’s shindig and ask him what exactly he meant with those words: “General Clark – I was curious to know weather serving 5+ years as a POW or flying and aborting a helicopter mission represented a higher level of Vietnam era service?”. The real answer is any Republican military service means nothing to these people.

Charlie Brown is assembling an all-star team: Charlie’s Angels. The Drug Dealer, the Crooked Lawyer, the Congresswoman who buys stock in companies she votes to subsidize, the Anti-War/Gay Rights activist, Blue America and the Disgruntled General. I can hardly wait to see who else is on-line to join that cast.

Not a whole lot of Moderates in that coalition. Maybe we should forget about the effigy and ask Charlie to take the first step: “I admitted that I was powerless over the 4th Congressional District – the my life has become un-managable”.

Auburn Journal Editor Deric Rothe has decided to continue using his newspaper to promote the candidacy of Charlie Brown.

As you may remember – Rothe and the Journal were a broken record against John Doolittle. Recently, the AJ was the ONLY local media outlet to run a since-debunked story that Tood Stenhouse shopped around the whole region about no drilling going on off of the Coast of Florida. (ICYMI – yesterday on this Blog, a story was posted citing people in Florida complaining about seeing Chinese Oil rigs off of their coast)

Now the Auburn Journal has decided to tell us how they think the debates should go down.

The Journal writes one of the most disingenuous lines ever seen in a newspaper, “Instead of trying to fix the format for their own benefits, the candidates should instead do the honorable thing and treat each other, and the voters, with respect.”

Rothe must have relapsed – or he is demonstrating his clear bias in support of Brown. Rothe knows damn good and well that the short-controlled format that Rothe suggests is exactly what the Brown team is going for.

Does Rothe know what team Brown does – that Charlie can not be exposed to lengthy answers to questions? Two minute answers as Rothe suggests are nothing more than glorified soundbytes.

Why has Charlie Brown decided to hide behind Deric Rothe? Rothe’s track record is abysmal, his past notwithstanding.

Why is Brown seeking to avoid an open debate with questions between candidates? What is Brown trying to hide from? Is Brown unsure of all the carefully worded positions on his website?

Notes to Deric Rothe:

You wrote “both McClintock and Brown are Patriotic Americans” – why didn’t you follow up asking for Brown to confirm or deny his anti-war activism? Why didn’t you follow up regarding hyperbolic attacks against Tom McClintock over the Veteran’s issue. Your sentence was an all too simple whitewashing of a critical issue in this campaign.

You wrote: “untrue accusations such as Brown supports the Man Boy Love Association or that McClintock doesn’t know where Placer County is located are an insult to voters’ intelligence” – again, you have whitewashed Brown’s membership in the ACLU which he reaffirmed to a very liberal group called Blue America.

Brown’s crowd has sought to tar and feather the CRA – using the behavior of some of its’ members to project onto McClintock. Since the ACLU fights against Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law and defends pedophiles in court – an ACLU membership just does not look good at all.

Rothe finishes his screed by saying that Abortion and Gay Marriage are not important issues. Rothe not only shows his abject bias – but he also demonstrates that foundational core concepts of society are not important to him. Those would be the sanctity of life and the societal foundation of marriage.

Rothe says he hopes that the Congressional election will rise above the muck and mire – both Rothe has chosen a side and slung mud of his own.

WWCBD? Who is supporting Charlie Brown’s campaign… how do they affect Charlie’s decisions? You can glean important details about what someone would do in the office once elected.

I figured it would be a healthy project to look into Charlie’s Angels – you know, the Convicted Felon Editor of the Auburn Journal, Nancy Pelosi, the crooked Lawyer (Vodonick) and now his most recent fundraiser Brad Sherman.

Sherman is a long-time Congressman who has distinguished himself for his Gay Rights advocacy. He is regarded as a Hard-Core Liberal by The Vote Match Quiz – a Project of www.ontheissues.org.

Sherman is a strong supporter of the impeachment of President Bush and supports immediate surrender (withdrawal) in Iraq within 90 days.

Sherman also favors a Department of Peace and Nonviolence as a cabinet-level office. Sherman was rated 89% by SANE

These stances on issues would suggest that Charlie Brown’s anti-war activity meshes well with Brad Sherman’s stances on the issues.

Sherman is rated 100% by the HRC – Human Rights Campaign, the largest GLBT organization in America. Sherman has been honored by that organization for his work to promote the normalization of Homosexuality.

Sherman was a leader in an effort to stop a Constitutional amendment defining Marriage as one man and one woman.

I could go on and on, but like Charlie Brown, Sherman is a member of the ACLU earning a 73% score from the ACLU, amongst the highest in Congress.

I wish I could have been a fly on the wall at that fundraiser Sherman held for Charlie Brown. I am sure Charlie’s comments in opposition to drilling were only the tip of the Iceberg.

There is another important point to look at – the Blue Dog website does not have anything about Charlie Brown on it and Charlie does not mention a Blue Dog Democrat endorsement. Charlie has not had Blue Dogs, Moderates or Conservative organizations assist him with fund-raising.

Charlie’s Angels – a window into the campaign ethics of Charlie Brown.

All this talk over renewable energy hits an interesting crossroads.

Tax Credits are scheduled to expire at the end of this year for investments in Renewable energy sources.

Nancy Pelosi has enacted a policy of no spending cuts at all meaning when there is a tax cut or an extension of a tax cut / credit etc that is to expire… it has to be offset with a tax increase somewhere else.

Complicating matters is the group of Blue Dog Democrats who are deficit hawks who apparently have not figured out that budget cuts are another way to go.

Last year – the Alternative Minimum Tax relief bill was delayed into December because of the above issues.

WWCBD? Would Charlie advocate for spending cuts? Would Charlie join his fellow liberals in allowing R&D credits to expire because they don’t want to cut social welfare programs? Would Charlie stand up to Nancy Pelosi?

Tom McClintock will advocate for smaller government and spending cuts – he has proven it for 22 years.

This is a link to an article about how Wind and Solar development R&D tax credits are set to expire…

It doesn’t stop there: Pelosi has even more trouble when it comes to Wind Power.

Pelosi has taken thousands from “Green Energy” companies and seems to be pushing continued subsidies for this form of power. T. Boone Pickens – cited by many luddites as a Texas Oil Man who has seen the light, stands to gain millions from Government subsidies on Wind Power.

Pelosi has also bought large amounts of stock in companies whose existence is dependent upon Government subsidies… Charlie Brown would have come unscrewed if Doolittle had done the same thing.

WWCBD? Will he join with Pelosi and stick his hand out for campaign cash from those looking for government subsidies?

Take a look at this expose on the Wind Boondogle – no wonder why tax credits are set to expire, God forbid they stop Government subsidies.

So here you go Charlie – do you support Government subsidized power generation from an unstable medium? Will you stand up and ask why Pelosi has her fingers in the cookie jar? Tax Credits? Spending Cuts?

Senator Sam Aanestad, a conservative and someone whose district takes in a massive amount of the areas that burned earlier – had a few things to say about fire protection. Sam Aanestad was there when the Luddites crashed a fire summit – deriding it as a meeting to benefit “big timber”.

Senator Aanestad sees the problem clearly and provides an excellent thesis into the problem of wildfires as posted by the Sacramento Bee

Meantime – Charlie Brown left the fire summit before the Sierra Club showed up to crash it. The Sierra Club has endorsed Brown – suggesting that Brown’s departure was conflict avoidance.

Would Charlie Brown stand up to the Sierra Club in favor of fire protection? Given how he changes his tune at out-of-district fund-raisers, I submit that the answer is no. The Campaign ethics of Charlie Brown

Anyone who claims that wildfires are much smaller now than they were before comprehensive fire-suppression policies were enacted after World War II obviously didn’t set foot in Northern California this summer and didn’t talk to old-timers who say this fire season is the worst they’ve ever experienced.

If he had set foot in my district, or anywhere in California for that matter, he would have found a pattern of thousands of fires caused by lightning strikes that charred well over 1 million acres, destroyed hundreds upon hundreds of homes, took the lives of 15 people and cost California taxpayers well over $1 billion to fight.

But some people are blinded by the same smoke and ash that stung the eyes and burned the throats of hundreds of thousands of my constituents and other Californians who suffered miserably at the hands of catastrophic wildfires this summer. In short, they will never open their eyes to the true reality and catastrophic wildfire threat facing California today.

I strongly support the management of our precious forests to save what we have left for future generations. And I clearly understand that there are those who are opposed to the removal of one dead leaf or pine needle from the forest floors. We can both cite studies, good and bad, to reflect our viewpoints.

But catastrophic wildfire doesn’t listen to studies. In the words of Stephen Pyne, a professor in the School of Life Sciences at Arizona State University, “Fire isn’t listening. It doesn’t feel our pain. It doesn’t care – really, really doesn’t care. It understands a language of wind, drought, woods, grass, brush and terrain, and it will ignore anything stated otherwise.”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger understands this threat. It’s why he created the California-Nevada Tahoe Fire Basin Commission following the devastating Angora fire that destroyed hundreds of homes. The final report delivered by this commission, and the recommendations approved by the governor, prove that thinning of the forests can and does prevent catastrophic wildfire.

The report found that fuel reduction treatments that had taken place on Tahoe Basin lands since 1995 had a dramatic impact in stopping the Angora fire. The report states that “parcels that had been treated exhibited modified fire behavior, including reduced ember production, and reduced heat and smoke allowing firefighters to be more effective. …

“Treated parcels also served as fuel breaks, allowing firefighters to safely protect structures and slowing fire spread. Eyewitness accounts, firefighter interviews and post-fire on-site inspections indicated a significant reduction in fire intensity when fire entered treated urban lots.”

Allowing private timber interests to do what they do best, clean and thin our valued forest lands, isn’t a unique or radical idea. It had been standard accepted procedure in forestry management up until about 30 years ago, until concerns about endangered species and clear-cutting led to a new policy called “hands off.” The forests were to remain untouched by human hand, and for the most part, they have been.

Although the intentions behind this policy were good, the results have been devastating. It’s often said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and these “hands off” and “let it burn” policies led to thousands of acres of forestlands filled with dead and dying trees, undergrowth and other fuels.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that a simple spark was all it took to ignite the worst summer of wildfires witnessed in modern history. As a result, this so-called “environmentally friendly” policy has left us with fouled streams, unhealthy air, burned wildlife and a forest landscape that resembles the moon.

I challenge the Sierra Club or any other group committed to the preservation of our valuable forests to realize the damage caused by current forestry management policies. How many more burned homes, lost forests and emergency room visits do we need? Pointing fingers won’t save our forests from destruction. We both share common goals. Let’s find a common solution.