PCRA Weblog

Charlie's Angels: Let's hear from Jesus Himself

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:41:00 GMT

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.

OTT: The Actions Charlie Brown Needs to Take

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 05:39:00 GMT

“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.

Charlie's Angels - The Communist / Black Panther

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:51:00 GMT

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”: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/Black-Panthers-Led8oct06.htm

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

OTT: McClintock Urges Cutting Off All Federal Aid to Sanctuary Cities

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:25:00 GMT

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.

AJ Columnist Jim Ruffalo: Enviros Lose in Court / Montgomery Ducking Interview?

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:40:00 GMT

Entire Column

Judicial matters: Wonder when we’re going to get some local comment on a very recent decision handed down from the Ninth Appellate.

The ruling came in Lands Council v McNair where the justices, sitting en banc, unanimously ruled to limit judicial oversight in forest remediation projects. The decision also grants federal wilderness managers much more leeway in implementing such projects.

Naturally, the so-called environmentalists will appeal this decision, but allow me to point out a judicial fact.

In the history of the Ninth Circuit, it has never heard — much less overturned — an appeal to one of its own unanimous en-banc (all of the justices sitting) decision.

Blogger’s Comments – It is about dammed time a court recognized that the Sierra Club has been suing for years advocating a hand’s off forest policy whose disastrous results were borne out in this years’ unbelievable wildfire season.

Hat tip to Jim Ruffalo – oh, and he actually provided some balance to the AJ’s pimping for Jennifer Montgomery – writing: Burning questions: And while we’re on the subject of elected offices, allow me to request that one and all keep an eye out for Jennifer Montgomery, the other candidate for the District 5 Supervisorial seat.

For weeks now, she’s been promising me a sit-down interview session, but even when we’re in the same room — as was the case a few weeks ago at Meddlers — she somehow disappears when the pen and notebook appear.

Even her top handler, Rob Haswell, as been working hard to get us together.

But being the political junkie that I am, I fully understand the rigors of waging political warfare. Even in the best of times, one loses all track of time.

I’m sure she’s not ducking me and remain just as convinced that she really wants to answer the hard questions. For example, I’d love to query her as to where she really stands on the question of opening burning.

Does she want to ban any open flame in the foothills, as she told the League of Women Voters, or is she foresquare for a property owner’s right to torch trash and slash, as she was quoted in the Aug. 19 Sierra Sun?

Such confusion can easily be sorted out by means of a quick interview, and I’m sure she’ll get back to me. Probably no later than that crucial first week of December. ...

Blogger’s Note – Jennifer Montgomery is vigorously supported by the Sierra Club.

Charlie's Angels - the RINO's

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:34:00 GMT

Joanne Neft and Emil John Vodonick. Now, I refer to Emil as the crooked attorney… the Auburn Journal and it’s soft-on-crime editor whitewashed Emil’s $53,000 financial misdeed as “forgetting to pay a fee for a client”. If only Sarah Palin’s daughter was so lucky… I digress as the “businessman”-turned-editor of the Auburn Journal (now there’s something worth focusing on) is also one of Charlie’s Angels as well.

Emil John Vodonick has been quite open in his disdain for both John Doolittle and now for Tom McClintock. He is reported to have told Nevada County GOP volunteers, “I hate McClintock’s guts”. I guess Vodonick has a kindred spirit in Neft.

The amazing thing is that noted liberal Republicans like the Holmes Brothers (Jim, Placer County Supervisor and Auburn Councilmember Mike) are on board with McClintock.

Let’s take a second look at the leader of Republicans for Brown:

Who is Joanne Neft?

Joanne Neft purports to be a lifelong Republican. She is purported to be a close associate of Liberal Republican Supervisor Robert Weygant. (Weygant is staying nice and quiet even though he is rumored to be supporting Montgomery for Supervisor)

Joanne Neft has never given a dime to the Placer County Republican Party in the entire time I have been involved with it. (She may have bought a ticket to one Lincoln Day dinner)

Neft wrote Liberal Democrat Jennifer Montgomery a $1500 check, as reported on Montgomery’s 6/30 form 460.

Neft wrote Charlie Brown a check for $1,627 in 2006.

Now Republican Joanne Neft is up to her old tricks. After supporting and lending her name to the attempted recall of two Republican members of Sierra College’s Board of Trustees – she is a “leader” in the Save Sierra College effort to elect Liberal Democrat activists + “Emil the Lawyer” to that board.

In 2002, Neft was part of the Placer County Republican Congress slate of Liberal Republicans that formed to attempt the takeover of the Central Committee. They were also active in supporting John Doolittle’s primary opponent, Bill Kirby. This was pre-Abramoff – Doolittle won with 78% of the vote.

Neft is involved with the Sierra Club and like organizations.

In 2002, Neft authored the John Doolittle coloring book – that may have been a violation of Campaign Finance Laws, but nevertheless was replete with attacks against John for supporting Hunters, Gun Rights, Development and Tax Cuts.

In 2006, Neft was part of Now-Democrat former Congressman Pete McCloskey’s effort to weaken John Doolittle in the primary called “Revolt of the Elders”. Again, their mailer was replete with Environmentalist attacks.

Neft has never endorsed or supported Bruce Kranz, she supported Liberal Democrat Rex Bloomfield.

Neft has never endorsed or supported Ted Gaines in the time I have been active.

Neft is a fraud, Vodonick is a fraud. The only thing that could round out Charlie’s Angels properly is a Communist.

The Crooked Attorney
The Disgruntled General
The Surrender / Gay Rights Activist
The Congresswoman who buys stock, then votes to subsidize that company
The Drug Dealer
The RINO’s
The Luddites
... who’s next?

“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.” – Charlie Brown from a Blue America interview before getting endorsed again for 2008 election cycle.

SB 375 - Central Planning (A Bill the OBM Machine Loves) Trashed by McClintock

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:21:00 GMT

SB 375 is a Sierra Club endorsed brainchild of Darrell Steinberg. Like most issues, Charlie Brown has yet to take a stand – but Charlie’s Friends Jennifer Montgomery and the Sierra Club love this Bill.

SB 375 would centralize planning, basically screwing over Suburbs in an effort to force development back to city centers. What is sinister is that SB 375 could allow School Bond money to be taken away from districts as well. That’s correct, even if Measure Q passes – SB 375 could allow the State to raid the bond money because of how it is written.

While Brown chides McClintock for not doing his job – McClintock did his job, setting Steinberg and others who are promoting this partial birth abortion of land-use on fire. Not bad for a SoCal politician that doesn’t know where Placer County is… huh?

SB 375 – Steinberg
Urban Cores

Mr. President:

The Orange County Register summed up this bill very accurately when it asked, “Want to live in a condo by the train tracks?”

Some people do, and they’re welcome to. But most people – particularly those with families – want a yard for their kids to play in; they want a lawn and a garden; they want a little distance between themselves and their neighbor.

And in a free society, people have that choice. Those who want to live in a condo by the train tracks can do so and those who want to live in a quiet, tree-shaded neighborhood can do so.

And government once respected these individual choices and provided the infrastructure to accommodate them.

What rankles the left is that most people prefer the quiet, tree-shaded neighborhood. That’s why they move to the suburbs – so that they can enjoy what the left now scoffs at – what we used to call “the American dream.”

Under this legislation, the “American Dream” of raising your kids with a back-yard and swing-set and a barbecue and a little elbow-room is to be replaced with something the liberals are calling the “Preferred Growth Scenario.”

And let’s be clear on what they mean by “Preferred Growth Scenario.” It isn’t about your preferences for your own life. They’re talking about their preferences for your own life. And for your family’s life.

They prefer that you move into dense urban cores – and they are prepared to manipulate public policy and misuse government authority to force you to do so.

What is this brave new world? It is very precisely defined by this politburo edict as a density of 20 families per acre living a half-mile from a busy transit corridor. (That’s roughly three and a half times the population density of San Francisco).

If you comply, you’ll be rewarded with streamlined regulations that are otherwise stifling development and a cornucopia of tax revenues taken from those who don’t choose this Brave New Preferred Growth Scenario.

This says to the millions of Californians who have rejected this lifestyle: “Tough. We know what’s better for you and your family than you do.”

This says to the millions of voters who have supported one bond measure after another: “Tough. You are not going to receive the proceeds of your taxes unless you conform to this Brave New Preferred Growth Scenario. The money that you thought you had voted for highway construction under this bill will instead be used for so-called transit villages, or more accurately, dense condominiums next to a train track.”

I’m curious to find out how many of the elitists who vote for this measure have actually made that choice for their own families. I suspect very few.

This bill is the ultimate victory of bureaucratic central planning over individual freedom of choice. Apparently, the sponsors believe that it worked so well in the old Soviet Union that we ought to give it a try here.

Mark me down as skeptical.

Charlie's Angels - the Disgruntled General

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 05:30:00 GMT

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”.

Charlie's Angels - AJ Editor Tows the Brown Line on "DebateGate"

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:31:00 GMT

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.

Charlie's Angels - Gay Rights / Surrender Advocate Fundraiser

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:55:00 GMT

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.

Charlie's Angels - Nancy Pelosi in a Solar/Wind Jam

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 08:14:00 GMT

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?

Pro Life / Pro Family Groups Estatic over Nomination of Sarah Palin

apark@placer-cra.org (Aaron Park) — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:19:00 GMT

From Robyn Nordell
To: CRA Friends

Conservative Leaders React Positively to Gov Sarah Palin, McCain’s V.P. Choice!

Dr. James Dobson:
McCain’s Choice of Palin ‘Outstanding’

Dr. Dobson will further discuss McCain’s pick tonight at 9 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes.

Press Release

FRC Action’s Tony Perkins:
Gov. Palin – a Pro-Family, Pro-Life Champion

Gary Bauer: Choice of Sarah Palin
for GOP Vice-President ‘Historic and Energizing’

“I believe we now have the most pro-life ticket in history running on the most pro-life platform in history.”

“More Pro-Life Reaction to John McCain
Picking Abortion Opponent Sarah Palin”

See Full Article

by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com Editor
August 29, 2008

Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission: “Governor Palin is a vice-presidential selection which shows that John McCain at the age of 72 today is still able to think outside the box. Governor Palin will delight the Republican base. She is pro-life. It appears that Senator Obama played it safe in picking Senator Biden and Senator McCain made the bold and unconventional choice in picking Governor Palin.”

Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest: “With this bold and inspired selection, Sen. McCain has verified his stated commitment to assembling a truly pro-life administration. The Republican ticket stands in stark contrast to the stridently pro-abortion ticket put forth by the Democratic party. You can be sure the vice presidential selections will have far-reaching ramifications in this race.”

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America: “Governor Palin will change the dynamics of the entire presidential race. Her admirable record of confronting corruption and living her pro-life convictions shows she is a doer, not just a talker. Sarah Palin will make history as a vice presidential candidate – and not simply because she’s a woman, but because she’s a woman of substance and character.”

Mat Staver, pro-life attorney and founder of Liberty Council – “Absolutely brilliant choice. John McCain could not have chosen a better vice-presidential nominee that Gov. Palin. She is attractive, articulate, conservative, pro-family, pro-life, and pro-marriage. John McCain hit this one out of the ballpark. She is very pro-life. She has a Down Syndrome child. She’s committed to pro-life. She understands the commitment to the sanctity of human life.”

Jill Stanek, the nurse who exposed live birth abortions: “Governor Sarah Palin is a welcome addition to the McCain Republican ticket. I could not be more pleased that he has chosen a pro-life woman as his running mate. McCain/Palin offers a complete contrast to the Obama/Biden ticket and provides a solid background on all family issues. With Governor Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket, it looks like Obama’s abortion problem just got a whole lot bigger.”

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, a pro-lifer from South Carolina: “Sarah Palin is an exciting choice by Senator McCain. She completes a strong ticket that will bring a real record of change and reform to Washington. She is a strong defender of traditional family values, with an unquestioned commitment to protect life.”

Christian Coalition of America president Roberta Combs: “Governor Sarah Palin is a bold choice for Vice President who is a courageous advocate for unborn children. I congratulate Senator McCain for his outstanding selection for his vice presidential running mate.”

Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council: “Senator McCain made an outstanding pick from the choices that were on the table. Sarah Palin clearly addresses the issues so many conservatives are concerned about. It balances out the ticket. She’s also really a checkmate for the Democratic Party because folks who were looking to make history for Barack Obama can make history by voting for John McCain in seeing the first woman elected to the vice-presidency. It was a very strategic move by John McCain.”