Here are a list of questions conservative Republican candidate Dan Meuser answered for me.  Mr. Meuser is planning on running for the Republican nomination in 2008 in the 10th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.

1. What would you do to ensure victory in Iraq?

I understand the American public’s frustration with the direction of the war in Iraq, but we should not confuse their frustration with a desire to surrender. I am like many who believe that this administration has made mistakes and miscalculations in the war in Iraq, but that we need to look forward not backwards.

The Iraq leadership and people need to advance their cause and take advantage of the opportunity which the United States and other nations have provided. Abandoning the Iraqis at this time would simply create a more dangerous situation than has existed in the past.

The Iraqis must realize that ours is not an open-ended commitment. We must focus our efforts on training Iraqis to defend themselves. We need to have Iraqi forces stand up so that Americans can stand down.

We do need to make sure that we are providing the troops with everything they need in Iraq to be successful. When I hear some Democrats talking about defunding our troops in Iraq to score political points at home, it makes me realize the real and apparent differences between the parties in regards to this issue.

We must allow our military leaders in the field to determine the best direction for the military operations, while having goals of which we are well aware. I look forward to General Petraeus’ report to the Congress in September.

2. Would you support military action against Iran?

If Iran takes action that threatens the U.S. or our allies then we must stand ready to defend ourselves. Iran has shown itself to be a gathering threat by admitting to and insisting on moving forward with their nuclear program and by exporting terrorist activities within the War in Iraq. We must be very deliberate but decisively clear on this issue.

3. As a Congressman, how would you promote free trade policies?

The businesses that are truly successful understand that we now compete in a global economy. American companies can succeed and American workers can prosper with the recognition of the opportunity global markets can create.

Pride Mobility has been an example of how taking advantage of a global economy can work to the American worker’s advantage. Several years ago, we began purchasing certain parts in the global market. At the time, Pride had 300 employees. The competitiveness this created, combined with Pride’s commitment to investing in our workforce, we now have over 1,000 employees who make a family sustaining wage with the minimum wage being 28% higher than even the increased minimum wage and every one of our employees are eligible for health care benefits.

As a member of Congress, I will oppose trade restrictions with nations who open their markets to the United States. I will be an advocate for free trade and will work to lead the way in Congress on this issue, all the while working hard to protect the American worker. I believe in trade that is both free and fair, and I will fight to make sure that our trade agreements put America on even footing with any and all trading partners.

Our trade deficit threatens the health of our economy and the economic security of our workers, and I will promote free trade so that we may export our way out of the trade deficit. Isolationism would only increase our deficit and increase costs to American consumers.

4. What would be your suggestion for fixing the Social Security Problem?

One of my top priorities as a Member of Congress will be to protect Social Security and make sure there are not cuts in benefits for retirees who count on Social Security. Every American who needs and expects Social Security to be there for
them can count on me to advocate to make sure that it is in fact solvent.

The issue now is how do we best protect the average American’s retirement security? First we need to stop spending money from the Social Security Trust Fund on general operating expenses. Second, we need to reach a bipartisan solution on Social Security that sets long term goals and makes Social Security solvent for future generations of Americans.

5. Would there ever be a time where you would consider voting to increase

taxes?

No. Absolutely not. I have signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to oppose any and all tax increases. I believe that we can trim wasteful spending and continue to cut taxes to grow our economy while at the same time balancing our budget. Prior tax cuts have boosted government revenues because of the growth in economic activity.

6. How do you think the government should deal with the illegal immigration problem?

We need to secure our borders first. We cannot begin to address our problems with illegal immigration until we offer a comprehensive plan for sealing our borders. The wall is a good start, but we have to increase border patrols and stop the infiltration of illegal immigrants to this country. We must also strongly enforce the current immigration laws.

I oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants and would have voted against the recent legislation in Washington that would have granted amnesty to illegals.

7. Do you favor either a constitutional amendment or an Act of Congress that would define marriage as between a man and a woman?

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines it as such. I would support a constitutional amendment if one proved necessary because of a liberal court’s interpretation of that law.

8. If you could choose one current Supreme Court Justice as a model for what type of nominee you would like to see with the next Supreme Court vacancy, who would it be?

I think that Chief Justice John Roberts is the ideal type of strict constructionist that will serve the court well for years to come.

9. How would you grade the Presidency of George W. Bush?

I will leave the grading of George W. Bush’s presidency to the historians, but I will say that I believe he has had a mixed record as President of the United States.

When you look at issues like his leadership immediately after 9-11 and his willingness to confront radical Islamic extremists, I believe the president has done the right thing. His tax cuts have made our economy stronger than at any point in our nation’s history and his appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito will leave a lasting conservative legacy on the Supreme Court.

The president has fallen far short on the handling of the War in Iraq. Despite warnings from many members of his own party and administration, the President did not prepare adequately for the long-term fight in Iraq.

I was also disappointed with the President’s inability to work with the Republican Congress to scale back the size and scope of the federal government. Unfortunately, we lost an opportunity to shrink government when we controlled both the White House and Congress.

The spending problem is one that has only gotten worse since Democrats took over. They have offered budgets that tax and spend more than ever before. As a member of Congress, I will vote to balance the budget, lower taxes, and restrain the growth of Government.

10. What would be two major differences between yourself and Congressman Chris Carney?

I think a very significant difference between Congressman Carney comes in the areas of the values we seek to represent. I am a conservative, fiscally and socially, and I think that my commitment to a conservative government is the biggest difference between Chris Carney and myself.

I will represent the values of the 10^th District on important social issues, and I will be a tough fiscal conservative in Congress as well.

Another big difference is in our experience. I have real world experience that includes running a major company and knowing the effects that government regulations and tax policy have on the small businessman and the average American family. I spent years building our business to the point it is now, and this experience gives me a unique perspective on setting and accomplishing goals, creating jobs, and in a transparent manner operating in the interests of the constituents of the 10^th district.

By Jonathan Tallman




Today, presidential candidate John Edwards ended his eight day tour of America’s poorest neighborhoods. Former Senator Edwards is beginning to focus his campaign on the poverty crisis in America. Edwards is trailing Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama, and in some polls, former Vice President Al Gore, who has not announced he will run for president. It is quite obvious that this move by the Edwards campaign is purely political. Edwards is attempting to sell himself as the reincarnated Democratic hero, Senator Bobby Kennedy. Kennedy made poverty the main focus of his 1968 campaign for the White House, although I think his cause may have been a little more noble.

Senator Edwards’ concern for the poor would seem more heartfelt, if he wasn’t so hypocritical. Senator Edwards spends over $400.00 on his haircut. Assuming he gets a haircut every month, that is $4,800 every year just for getting his haircut. To put this in perspective to the poverty-stricken voters Edwards is targeting, a worker making minimum wage in the United States, makes about $11,900 before taxes. That is only two and a half times what he spends on haircuts within a year. All from a man who wishes to run his entire campaign on poverty in America? I would suggest a good start would be going to the local barber and getting a $15.00 haircut.

Let me first make this clear, I agree that people should spend their money as they feel fit. Yet, if you are going to complain about an issue that is so important a candidate is focusing his whole campaign on it, don’t you think he should do a little more to lessen his lavish lifestyle and help the poor with some of what he saves?

Lastly, the impression you would get from the Edwards’ is that they only care about the poor as long as they are voting for Democrats. In case you have forgotten, the Edwards family got in a fight with their next-door neighbor because he supposedly wasn't keeping his property and house up to par with their lavish standards. Mrs. Edwards called Monty Johnson’s house that has been the families since the Depression days of the 1920’s, “slummy.” Johnson is no where near being a millionaire, and has been working on the property for some years. Sadly, it just can’t compare to the $5.3 million dollar house, 28,000 square foot mansion owned by the Edwards’. The outrage started when Johnson had the audacity to share his opinion by hanging a political sign supporting Rudy Giuliani on his fence.

Senator Edwards will make you believe that low-income people in the United States are his top priority. The truth is that this former millionaire lawyer is only looking for votes in a demographic that he knows primarily votes for Democrats. Maybe this will work for Edwards, and he will see a rise in the polls against the two Senators and non-candidate. Finally, when he makes it to the White House, the poor people in this nation that voted to put him the Oval Office will realize that John Edwards only looked at them as a simple Democratic voting bloc that would hand him the key to the White House, and nothing else.

By Jonathan Tallman




Today, Senator Barack Obama spoke to a crowd of abortion-rights activists. In his address, he spoke about the recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the late-term abortion ban. The decision was 5-4. Senator Obama said there is an effort to "steadily roll back the hard-won rights of American women." This statement is an example of why liberals often lose debates, and conservatives tend to be the logical ones.

One thing that gets in the way of most liberals is their emotions. Whenever discussing any issue, liberals like Senator Obama instantly tap into the emotional side of the issue. In this case, he insinuated that pro-life people do not care about the rights of women. I can tell you, Senator Obama, that if I was around when women were fighting to gain the right to vote, I would have stood by that. I support the great advances that women have made in every aspect of our society. There is one thing I do not go for though, and that is that it is a God-given right for a woman to have an abortion. I do not consider that to be against women's rights, because I have yet to see where that right is guaranteed in the Constitution or any corresponding document or corollary.

Liberals have said I'm against women's rights because I'm pro-life, I’m homophobic because I oppose gay marriage, and that I am against terminally-ill people because I am opposed to embryonic stem-cell research. Here is where the greatest trouble comes in with liberal arguments. Using emotion, especially in the above issues, is only human. However, when you go after those opposite your view and personally attack them for that view, you are simply getting too emotional, and completely upsetting the dialogue of the given issue. Staying on the abortion issue: I believe that abortion is the equivalent of taking the life of an innocent person. Some on my side go after those who are pro-choice as murderers and refer to it as murder; however, I stay away from harsh words like that. The reason is because as soon as I allow those emotions to take over and I begin using words like that, I will only inflame the other side, and we will end up farther apart then we started with.

Liberals should take note on how conservatives use logic and reasoning as opposed to full-blown emotions when discussing political issues facing our country. For the most part, conservatives are winning the conversation on crucial issues, and I believe it is for this reason. Senator Obama, keep out the emotion, and let's have a real conversation on the serious issue of abortion.

 

By Jonathan Tallman




Today, Congressman Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to hold a seat in the United States House of Representatives, compared President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler, the German dictator that set out to take over the world and destroy the Jewish population.

Congressman Ellison compared the atrocities of 9/11 to that of when Hitler burned down the Reichstag. Ellison said, "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that." He then went on to say to the crowd of 300 atheist activists, "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it, and put the leader of that country (Hitler) in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted." Not only does this suggest that President Bush is the totalitarian dictator of our time, but he also is insinuating that President Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

Congressman Ellison isn't the first figure of authority and stature to attack the president in such a disrespectful and uneducated manner. Just a few days before Ellison's remarks, Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams said "Right now I would love to kill George Bush." What a great way to spread peace throughout our world, by threatening the sitting president of America when you aren't even from America. A congressional delegate from New York had the audacity to say that President Bush should "be shot between the eyes" and liberal blogs throughout America consistently call President Bush "dumber than a box of rocks," "idiot," and an "imbecile."

Here lies an issue that goes beyond these disgraceful words. Disrespect for the Office of the President of the United States has completely gone out the window. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Independent, conservative or liberal, it is my belief that there is a certain amount of respect that should be given to President Bush simply for being president. I believe in free speech, and would never do anything to prevent it, but I also have enough sense to realize that with that great freedom comes responsibility. As much as I disliked the presidency of Bill Clinton, I never can remember thinking to myself that he should be killed. To me, this man was the sitting president of the greatest nation in the world, and simply for that matter, he received my respect, even to this day. Disagree with Iraq, Social Security, or any other issue for that matter, but just pay respect to a man that has become President of the United States.

Respect for the president has disintegrated. We need to go back to the days when you could agree to disagree. Let’s be honest, there are issues we face that both sides are very passionate about, but what does such verbal slander bring to the table? It does no good to say the president should be dead or that he is like Hitler. If anything, it only inflames the other side to go after the vicious attackers, and then we have accomplished nothing. Hold the Office of President of the United States in high esteem. Not just anybody makes it to the White House, and those that did should be respected to some extent simply for just being the President of the United States. Liberals better be aware should a Democrat take office in 2009. Whether I agree with it or not, there are a lot of conservatives and Republicans that wish to attack liberals the way they have attacked our president, George W. Bush.

I believe Congressman Ellison should come out and apologize for his inappropriate remarks concerning the president. I also believe that Ms. Williams should be stripped of her Nobel Peace Prize. How can it be an honor to receive a reward that is given to those looking for peace in the world when somebody as ferocious as Ms. Williams is a recipient of the grand award?

 By Jonathan Tallman 




Today, the Democratically- controlled House of Representatives passed a resolution that would withdraw troops from Iraq come April 1, 2008, causing America to lose an important battle in the War on Terror.  The resolution passed by 223- 201.  Four "Republican" members voted for the resolution.  Praise should be given to the ten Democrats that went against their defeatist colleagues.  This was a move to undermine President Bush and his policies.  The "Republican" members that voted for the measure are:

Congressman John J. Duncan (TN-2)
Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (MO-8)
Congressman Wayne Ghilcrest (MD-2)
Congressman Walter Jones (NC-3)

Lastly, the liberal media would make you believe that every Republican in the House and Senate has turned against President Bush on the War in Iraq.  This vote is evidence that a super- majority of Republicans still stand by America winning the War on Terror, considering that only FOUR Republicans out of 201 voted for this measure.  Republicans should be relieved to know that President Bush still has strong supporters in both Houses of Congress.

By Jonathan Tallman
 
           


Today, the United States Senate began debate upon their return from their July 4th vacation.  The Senate debated the most pressing issue of the time: Iraq.  Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, it is agreed that this is an extremely important issue that most Americans feel very passionate about.  Today, there were two Senators/ presidential candidates absent from the debate.  Those two candidates are the two front- runners for the 2008 Democratic nomination.  Senators Obama and Clinton completely skipped out on the debate on the Senate Floor today.  The reason is even more startling, they were campaigning for president in Des Moines, Iowa.

Both Obama and Clinton were elected to serve the people of Illinios and New York, respectfully.  As I said above, no matter what your party affiliation, Iraq is an extremely important issue for most Americans.  Both senators failed their constituencies by not showing up to listen to or address the Senate Floor speeches.

What upsets me most about two could- be future presidents is that they are the most anti- war candidates in the Democratic  Party.  You would think that the two candidates who consistently tell us how important it is that we leave Iraq, would be more than willing to show up to their taxpayer- funded job to debate the issue. 

I believe that Senators Obama and Clinton should no longer talk about Iraq.  After all, they neglected their duty to the people that elected them by not showing up to the debate on this most crucial issue.  If this issue is so important to them, as they often say it is, they should have canceled their comparably unimportant events in Iowa to represent their constituents in the United States Senate.

This despicable move by the two Democratic Senators proves to the American people that Obama and Clinton are nothing but politicians hoping to propel themselves to the apex of American politics: the American Presidency.  Senator Clinton has often been criticized as a politician who has calculated every move since college on how to become President of the United States.  I would guess she stayed with her husband simply because she saw it politically convenient, and now she skipped debate on a war, something she will take over as president, because of her political ambitions.  Senator Obama has obviously proved that the only reason he became a Senator was to use it as a stepping stone to the White House.  It is ironic that Obama is often said to be the "change" and "new face" to Washington that this country needs.  It seems to me that Obama is worse than any other Washington politician, missing debate on the most crucial issue of our time.

I hope the press covers this story, and that the Senators' current and could- be future constituents hold them accountable for this tragic political move.  It is a disgrace for any Senator, Democrat or Republican, to miss debate on the War in Iraq because they are too busy campaigning for president, and both Senators should be ashamed with themselves for not serving the people that elected them. 

By Jonathan Tallman
 



I have been an avid supporter of President George W. Bush since he ran for president in 1999.  This country had been through a lot under President Bush, and I have supported the president from 9/11, to Afghanistan, Iraq, Social Security and many other issues minus immigration.  President Bush has a leadership style that has been unmatched in the Oval Office since the days of President Lincoln.  President Bush does what he swore to do, and that was to protect the American people and the Constitution of the United States.  President Bush has gone from a post- 9/11 approval rating to a dismal 35- 42%, depending which poll you look at.  Even with all the negative publicity President Bush has gotten from the liberal media, the Hollywood elite, and the national Democratic Party, he has stood firm on all of those issues which he has fought for, namely Iraq.  I think that the President should use his approval ratings to his advantage, and here is how.

First off, President Bush has strong support among conservative Republicans according to most polls.  Immigration hurt him slightly, but his continuation of the Iraq policy has put him in good standing with many hawkish conservatives.  From what we can tell from the approval polls, the president is not very popular among average American circles, and there is a way he can easily use this to his advantage; he needs to go on the offensive with Democrats and all other people who attack him on a daily basis.  As long as President Bush stands where he does with the attorney firings, the commutation of Scooter Libby, and the War in Iraq (War on Terror), conservatives, that 35- 42% voting bloc that still support him, will continue to follow him and trust him.  As long as this Administration puts aside the immigration debate, their poll numbers will go no lower.  Therefore, go after defeatist majority leader Senator Harry Reid for claiming we have lost a war we are still fighting, and attack Congressman John Conyers for investigating a reprieve that is 100% constitutional.  At this point, Mr. President, you have absolutely nothing to lose.

On Iraq, the Democrats are winning the debate.  President Bush should not be happy about this, and he should go on to claim that their words and actions represent exactly what al Qaeda wants, which is quite correct.  Karl Rove said it best when he said that al Jazeera puts Senator Dick Durbin's words on their airwaves showing that America is ready for defeat.  Although many Americans hate the partisanship that occurs in the Nation's Capitol, they may just buy into some of what the President says.  Republicans won both the 2002 and 2004 Elections in large part because Americans believed Democrats did not have what it takes to win the War on Terror.  Americans no longer believe this, although it still remains to be the truth, mainly because the Democrats have been taking the fight to Americans warning them of the failures of Republicans.  This has put Republicans on the defensive, which is not the way it should be.  The president needs to get on the offensive going after the liberal elite in Congress who wish to make President Bush look so bad, that they are willing to cost us a victory in the greatest struggle of our time.

When Democrats threaten to end the War in Iraq by withdrawing troops, the president should suggest they take a look at the Constitution.  It is designated in the constitution that the president deals with foreign policy.  The only constitutional way Democrats can go about ending the War in Iraq is by either cutting the funding to our troops on the ground, or rescinding the vote they took to allow the president to use force against the tyrannical Saddam Hussein.  Either they threaten the lives of our men and women in uniform who bravely fight for our freedom, or they go back on something they originally supported.  That would be quite similar to the gift that kept on giving in 2004, "I actually did vote for it, before I voted against it."  Either way, the president and Republicans have the upper hand in the debate.  They have simply failed to sell this to the American people, yet they have a great case to present.

Lastly, go after the Democrats as mere politicians who would do whatever is popular at the time but have no gall to stand up for a policy that appears to be losing ground with the American electorate.  Quote President Bill Clinton, Senator John Kerry, and Senator Hillary Clinton on what they said before we invaded Iraq and it appeared to be popular with the American people.  Attack the Democrats for telling Americans they would lower gas prices, when they have only increased since the Democrats took control of both the House and Senate.  Criticize the fact that they have yet to send a minimum wage bill to President Bush's desk for approval.  Lastly, attack them for not getting rid of the corruption in government.  Last week, Congress voted on a bill that would increase their pay by $4,400 per year.  William Jefferson is in trouble with the law after investigators found tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer, while the Democrats have not demanded he resign.  Other congressman like Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania have funneled money to a business run by his family, yet he maintains his position of chairman on a powerful funding committee.  The corruption continues, and the president must point this out to the American people.

President Bush's approval rating most likely would not increase significantly because of him going through with this, but seeing their beloved president taking on the Democrats would bring strong unity to a GOP that is falling apart since the 2006 Elections.  Democrats are quite vulnerable, and they have failed the American people.  President Bush needs to fight the last eighteen months of his presidency for his policies, or else we will have a lot more liberal policies within the country come 2009.

By Jonathan Tallman




The woman who politicized her American hero son's death, may now be running against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Cindy Sheehan announced this weekend that should Speaker Pelosi not begin impeachment hearings for President Bush by July 23, she will go against the San Francisco liberal in the 2008 Elections. 

I look forward to Speaker Pelosi's response to this radical demand from one of the most far-left, anti-American citizens in the history of this nation.  If Mrs. Pelosi gives into Cindy Sheehan's request of bringing about articles of impeachment against the president, it will only prove to all Americans that the heart of the Democratic Party is to the extreme left, and that even the most powerful in the party can't control their own.  Should she not, Ms. Sheehan will be running for Congress in a district that is filled with the most liberal members of the Democratic Party.  This would make a rather interesting race.

No matter what happens with this, it is a great tool for Republicans in 2008.  As I said above, if Speaker Pelosi follows Ms. Sheehan's request, it will show Americans that the Democratic Party has been hijacked, and that Mrs. Pelosi is nothing but a politician trying to keep potential opponents out of her way.

Should Ms. Sheehan run, I think she may actually put up a good fight, only because Speaker Pelosi's district includes the liberal city, San Francisco.  Congresswoman Cindy Sheehan would be a complete Godsend to the Republicans throughout the country.  The woman who has stood with the dictator of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and claimed him to be a "good man." 

Her worst offense of all, was taking the tragic death of her son, Casey Sheehan, and politicizing it.  This woman had the nerve to call her son "stupid" when he decided to sign up to go back to Iraq.  Yet, it doesn't seem to bother her conscious that she referred to her son as stupid for wanting to serve his country. To make matters worse, she then went on to use the money she received from his death to buy property in Crawford, Texas and to travel the country protesting a policy he obviously stood by.

I offer the best of luck to Ms. Sheehan in her tough endeavor, and may the best woman win.  I would enjoy watching Speaker Pelosi have to give up her speakership to a flaming liberal who is completely out of touch with reality, and who is so anti- American, she makes President Ahmadinajad of Iran look pro- Western.  Dissension within the ranks of the Democratic Party will be a sure- fire way to ensure the Democrats lose in 2008.

By Jonathan Tallman:
 


If you watched any television on Saturday, you couldn't help but hear about the Live Earth concerts taking the Earth by storm, no pun intended of course.  I didn't watch any of the concerts for a number of reasons, reasons that I wish to outline in this piece.  I have to say that global warming is a non-issue the Democrats feel like they can control.  If you have been watching the Democrats, you can't help but notice the mass hysteria that they send throughout the world with this idea. 

To begin with, I don't believe that it is humans that are causing this climate change, which is exactly what this is, a simple change in climate.  The Earth went through many climate changes millions of years before the earliest form of life even began to prosper on the planet.  I often wonder why Al Gore has never been asked about where previous climate changes came from previous to humans "intoxicating" the Earth.  I would urge any believer or non- believer alike to watch the science channel or the National Geographic Channel on the history of our beautiful planet.  Many probably don't know that the Earth began as a giant fireball, turned into a  giant ice ball, then back to a lava- infested planet, and then our oceans froze again, and then to the beautiful planet we now see.  This all happened before bacteria was even on Earth, so what caused it then?  A natural cycle, and the cycle of the sun.  Currently, the sun is getting hotter because it is burning different gases.  It is expected that average temperatures could eventually reach 139 degrees Fahrenheit within the next couple of hundred years.  Simply because the sun is getting hotter.  This is scientific fact, and I have yet to hear former Vice President Gore ever bring this up as he travels the world in his pollutant plane.

Now back to the series of concerts held yesterday.  Al Gore and his followers held these concerts to get the attention of the world.  I think they most likely got that attention from all the coverage I saw, but at what cost to the environment?  Well, according to the Washington Post, we would "have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effect of Live Earth."  That seems to me to not be so environmentally safe, does it?  How did all those famous rockstars get there?  How else, they rode in planes and then brought their coach bus motorcades, all separate.  It is estimated that the stars traveled over 500,000 miles by plane, and those planes aren't said to be completely environmentally friendy.

Which brings me to the next point.  Al Gore tells everybody to "go green."  The Academy Awards went "green" this year, and so have a lot of other events held by the Hollywood elite.  What does "green" mean, exactly?  When somebody goes green, it actually takes nothing but giving a donation.  Yes, a donation.  When something is said to have gone green, all they have done is sent money to a company, usually in Europe, that is working to create environmentally friendly vehicles and fuels.  Although that also helps the environment, it does nothing to prevent pollution at the event that is green.  In other words, the Academy Awards used as much energy as they normally do, Al Gore and his buddies just felt better about themselves because they knew in some far- off country in Europe, a scientist was experimenting with new ideas for an environmentally- friendly car.

Last of all, the complete hypocrisy with this whole issue.  Madonna, one of the heavy- hitters at yesterday's concert, has a carbon footprint of 1, 018 tons.  That is 92 times the carbon footprint of the average American at 11 tons.  Al Gore, the spokesman for the whole debacle, tells us non- believers that we are ignorant, and that if we don't change our inefficient ways, the world will end.  Funny how Mr. Gore's energy bill for his multi- million dollar mansion costs eleven times the average American's energy bill.  Well Mr. Gore, if the effects of global warming are going to bring an end to the world, why haven't you changed your ways?  Either you have lied to the American people and the world about the effects of global warming, or you just don't care what happens to the world.  It could just be that you are so full of yourself that you think the American people should change their very way of life, but you shouldn't have to.  After all, you are Al Gore, the man who should be president.

The hypocrisy will continue, and Al Gore and his cronies will remain ignorant to the facts for as long as they want to, but one thing is for sure; they will never sell these book of lies to me.  A climate change, something that has happened before any form of life even made a dwelling on Earth is all this is, and the truth of the matter is, no matter what we do, we cannot stop it.  That is the nature of nature.

 

Fact Sheet: Job Creation Continues - More Than 8.2 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003
June 2007 Marks 46th Consecutive Month Of Job Growth

In Focus: Jobs and Economy

Today, The Bureau Of Labor Statistics Released New Jobs Figures – 132,000 Jobs Created In June. Since August 2003, more than 8.2 million jobs have been created, with more than 2 million jobs created over the twelve months ending in June. Our economy has now added jobs for 46 straight months, and the unemployment rate remains low at 4.5 percent.

Americans Are Working And Taking Home More Pay

Real After-Tax Per Capita Personal Income Has Risen By 9.9 Percent – Nearly $3,000 Per Person – Since President Bush Took Office.

Real Wages Rose 1.1 Percent Over The 12 Months Ending In May. This is faster than the average rate during the 1990s, and it means an extra $729 in the past year for the typical family with two wage earners.

The Economy Has Now Experienced Over Five Years Of Uninterrupted Growth, Averaging 2.9 Percent A Year Since 2001. Real GDP grew a strong 3.1 percent in 2006.

Since The First Quarter Of 2001, Productivity Growth Has Averaged 2.8 Percent. This is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.

Purchasing Managers Reported Manufacturing Expansion For The Fifth Consecutive Month In June. The Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index rose to 56 in June.

The President's Agenda Will Help Keep America's Economy Strong, Flexible, And Dynamic

President Bush's FY 2008 Budget Lays Out A Detailed Plan To Balance The Budget By 2012 While Keeping Taxes Low. Tax and spend is no way to balance the budget. The President's Budget keeps annual spending under control and addresses our long-term budgetary challenge – the unsustainable growth in entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Strong Economic Growth Has Helped Produce Record Levels Of Tax Revenue, Which Is Helping Reduce The Federal Deficit And Meet Our Goal Of A Balanced Budget. Record tax revenues helped us reach the President's goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. Receipts have increased nearly 35 percent since the tax relief was fully implemented in 2003, and the deficit has declined by $165 billion in the last two years.

The President Will Veto Appropriations Bills That Threaten Deficit Reduction With Overspending. The Administration supports responsible spending to achieve the goal of a balanced budget by 2012.

President Bush Has Called On Congress To Pass Legislation To Achieve His "Twenty In Ten" Goal To Reduce U.S. Gasoline Consumption By 20 Percent Over 10 Years. President Bush commends Congress for considering legislation to help bring America closer to meeting his "Twenty In Ten" goal, and challenges them to take a bolder approach to strengthen America's energy security. Achieving this goal will benefit the economy, national security, and the environment.

President Bush Has Called On Congress To Help Keep America Competitive In The 21st Century By Reauthorizing And Strengthening The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act This Year. NCLB is working – during the most recent five-year period on record, the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows nine-year-olds made more progress in reading than they did in the previous 28 years combined. Strengthening NCLB will help ensure that all children graduate high school ready for college and the global economy, will better help struggling schools, and will empower parents with more choices.

Here is a briefing from the National Republican Congressional Committee on the corruptness of Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D- PA 11):

Representative Paul Kanjorski (D- Pennsylvania)

Representative Paul Kanjorski is a congressman from the 11^th Congressional district of Pennsylvania. Representative Kanjorski currently sits on the House Financial Services Committee and serves as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and government Sponsored Enterprises. Allegations against Representative Kanjorski’s ethical conduct involve the misuse of his official position to direct over $9 million to a company owned by family members and allegedly run by Representative Kanjorski.

Ethics Issues Involving Representative Kanjorski

Congressman Kanjorski has steered over $9 million in federal funding to a company called Cornerstone Technologies, a company run by Mr. Kanjorski’s daughter and nephews. These grants were administered through the Office of Naval Research over the course of several years (1999-2002) via earmarks that Representative John Murtha placed in the Department of Defense Appropriations/ Authorization acts at the behest of Representative Kanjorski. ONR did not request this money nor did they know how to spend it. The agency had to call congressional staff to inquire as to how the money was to be spent. ONR was directed to Cornerstone Technologies by congressional staff.

Representative Kanjorski’s Involvement in Cornerstone

In August 2000, roughly a year after the first contract was awarded. Mr. Kanjorski and his chief of Staff, Karen Feather, were summoned to the firm’s office in order to oversee a dispute between Cornerstone’s EO Bruce Conrad and CFO Peter Kanjorski, the congressman’s nephew.

According to Scranton times- Tribune, Thomas Unger, a former senior vice president at Cornerstone, said in published interviews in 2002 that Mr. Kanjorski took an active role at Cornerstone and acted “like a CEO.”

Cornerstone’s Bankruptcy

Cornerstone filed for bankruptcy on September 26, 2006. For its $9 million investment, the only product that the Navy reeived from Cornerstone was several hundred pages of final reports and supporting documents.

Potential House Rules Violations

The Ethics Manual Code of Ethics for government Service, passed by both houses and adhered to by all government employees, including elected officials, states that a government employee shall:

Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his government duties. (Code of Ethics for Government Service, Clause 5)

___________________________________________________________________________

Dave Janoski, The Times- Tribune, 6/3/2007

Dave Janoski, The Citizen’s Voice, 6/3/2007

Jeff Miller and David Slade, The Morning Call, 10/31/2002

Dave Janoski, The Times- Tribune, 6/3/2007

Dear fellow citizen:

In 2006, Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate to the Democratic Party. Grassroots Republicans like yourself worked hard for the good of the nation to attempt to elect Republicans across the board. Although it was a quite difficult task, we did not lose as much as some political pundits had predicted. We lost the Senate by just two seats, and the House majority by thirty- two seats.  Although this disappointed you as well as it did me, the Democrats have another challenge facing them in 2008.  Democrats have not kept to their campaign promises, and Republicans must hold them accountable for this.  Democrats have kept to their cronyism, done nothing to prevent record-setting gas prices, fought for cutting funding for our troops in Iraq and surrounding areas, and they have yet to send a minimum wage bill to the president’s desk.

One of the major reasons we lost the 2006 Midterm Elections was because we did not stay away from scandal and cronyism, and Americans told us they were tired of the corruption in their government. I think the Republican party has learned from this dreadful mistake, and we are once again ready to bring change to Washington by fighting corruption, fixing social security, securing our nation’s borders, and winning the War on Terror, something our Democratic leaders in Congress don’t want to do.

The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee is starting to focus on what races they think Republicans have a chance of winning against Democrats. Some of Democrats who are being targeted are Congressmen Jason Altmire, Chris Carney, and Patrick Murphy. Now, The NRCC is beginning to look for candidates to go against Congressman Paul Kanjorski, an eleven term incumbent who quite obviously is the epitome of cronyism, in government.

Congressman Kanjorski recently voted to increase his pay due to cost of living increases. The raise would have given him $4,400 extra per year, on top of at least the already $166,000 pay that is currently getting. Not many Americans like you and me get an increase in pay to help cover the everyday increases of common necessities, but because of hard work, we try our best to get along. It is quite obvious to me that Congressman Kanjorski is completely out of touch with the people of the 11^th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, and it is time that we make 2009 the year he leaves the House Floor after what would be a twenty- two year stint in the House.

Democrats will try to say that Congressman Kanjorski has fought for the best interests of your values during the campaign. We know that it just isn’t true, especially after the recent revelations that Congressman Kanjorski allegedly used his leadership position as Chairman on the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises to wheedle government grants from the Office of Naval Research to his family owned and operated business, Cornerstone Technologies.

Mr. Kanjorski is not doing the right thing for the people of this terrific district. The 11^th District is one filled with hard-working, average Americans. Mr. Kanjorski’s actions and his votes on the House Floor are clear evidence that he has sold out to his liberal friends and interest groups. I would urge you to do everything you can to help ensure Congressman Kanjorski doesn’t sail into another term. We can prevent it, and we must. By changing district-by-district from blue to red, we will ensure a Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives come January 2009.

If you are interested in becoming part of my mailing list, send your name, address, and email address to jonathan.gop2008@gmail.com You may also be interested in visiting the National Republican Congressional Committee where you can get the latest on nationwide congressional races as well as give a donation to help ensure a Republican majority.

Sincerely,

Jonathan T. Tallman

Concerned Citizen

 

I urge you to check out this video recently released by the National Republican Senatorial Committee narrated by Senator John Ensign.

Two Seats

By Jonathan Tallman

 


Well, the second quarter has ended for 2007, and some of the campaign totals are in.  The Democratic leader in donations for the primary is none other then Senator Barack Obama.  Senator Obama brought in $31 million to Senator Hillary Clinton's $21 million.  Some are now saying that it is a good sign that Obama will go on to win the nomination.  However, I would tone it down a little.  One quarter of solid fundraising eight months out from the primary does not equate to victory come "Super Tuesday" in February.

Over all this commotion on how Obama is going to rise to the top because of this quarter, I would point out a governor that even Karl Rove predicted would be the Democratic candidate in 2004.  His name: Howard Dean.  Dean had a great second quarter, raking in an astounding $7.5 million in fundraising totals, and people started talking about Howard Dean, the nominee that would take on President Bush in November.  More importantly, it was said that Dean had the support of the average American, just as they are saying now about Obama, because they had come from Deanites, individuals who donated to the campaign.  Before we all knew it, Dean lost to Senator John Kerry, 32% of the vote, to Dean's third place finish with 18% of the vote in the Iowa Caucus.  Then, Kerry went on to defeat Dean in the New Hampshire Primary.  From there, it was all over for Dean.  The record-setting fundraiser who just weeks earlier was said to be the next Democratic nominee, lost to a once underfunded Senator from Massachusetts who went on to win the nomination.

Here is where things get interesting.  Senator John McCain had a dismal $11 million in donations for the second quarter.  Now, politicos throughout the country are beginning to talk about Senator McCain being out of the race.  Going back just four years ago, a democratic primary contender had the same problem.  This candidate only got 16% of the vote on MoveOn's highly symbolic Democratic internet vote.  The candidate slipped into the shadows of Howard Dean, the expected nominee.  Going into the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, it appeared Howard Dean was going to sweep.  Then, unexpectedly, Senator John Kerry, the eventual nominee, went on to win both the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire.  Once in financial troubles and a fledgling campaign, he went on to take on President Bush. 

What political pundits and commentator fail to realize is that money doesn't always win races.  2004 proved this.  Senator McCain should most certainly not be happy with his showing in this quarter's fundraising, but just the same, he has two more full quarters before the first primary.  That, on top of the immigration debate being brought to an end late last week, could mean good news for the McCain camp.  Senator Obama, on the other hand, should take note on the past.  Obama has proved to be somewhat of a disappointment since he announced, never truly staying ahead of Senator Clinton in the polls.  This may just be another disappointment; lots of money doesn't change Obama's lack of experience.  The next quarter may bring new surprises or reawaken old ones, one thing is for sure, there is more to a presidential campaign than money, and the first candidate to forget that, will be the first to announce their departure from the race.