This past Tuesday, 4 of the remaining 6 "Cap n Tax 8" held primaries; here are the results:
Cap N Tax Rep. Leonard Lance (NJ-07) won his primary with 56% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Christopher Smith (NJ-04) won his primary with 68% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ- 02) won his primary with 78% of the vote.
Cap N Tax Rep. Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) won her primary with 69% of the vote.
Case Study: NJ-02
Although none of the four "Cap n Tax 8" incumbents were defeated, we need to give the opposition candidates credit. Let's examine the LoBiondo race where the incumbent garnished the largest percent of victory to put things into perspective:
(1) The South Jersey Courier Post described this as a "second consecutive challenge" for LoBiondo meaning that the 8-term Congressman has betimes run unopposed. Thank you challengers Linda Biamonte and Donna Ward for running! Keep up the great work!
(2) Voters narrowed LoBiondo's margin of victory in the primary down from 89% in 2008 to 78% this year. Excellent progress!
(3) These results were achieved with a biased media who described Biamonte as the "LoBiondo Challenger" (Shore News Today) instead of properly using her real name. (SNT completely ignored the presence of Donna Ward in the race--who won 45% of the anti-LoBiondo vote.)
(4) LoBiondo got some national vetting exposure in April by Michelle Malkin about his ignorance on the U.S. Constitution.
(5) Keep in mind the reason why incumbents are so hard to defeat is the money donated to incumbents by PACs and businesses. In the last FEC report, LoBiondo had donated $375K to his own campaign, outraising his opponents combined fundraising by magnitudes. LoBiondo has bought himself another two years in Congress.
Having seen LoBiondo run on an issue-less platform (see the utter lack of issue positions on his website at http://lobiondoforcongress.com/ -- unless you count his dogs as an issue position) it is great to see these two courageous patriots--Biamonte and Ward--stand for principle and I remain excited about their success.
Looking forward
The two remaining GOP "Cap n Tax 8" primaries are: Cap n Tax Congressman Michael Castle (DE) against Christine O'Donnell for the DE Senate seat with primary elections on Sept 14th and Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) vs. Ernest Huber with an Aug 17th primary.
Showing posts with label waxman-markey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waxman-markey. Show all posts
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Ousting the Remaining 6 GOP "Cap n Tax 8" (Correction)
In yesterday's blog we explored the consequences of not getting a conservative through the Illinois GOP Senate primary: we are now supporting Mark Kirk, one of the GOP Cap n Tax 8, or the eight GOP congressman who voted for Waxman-Markey (HR 2454) last year, thus ensuring its passage through the house; the Senate having yet to vote on the bill.
The nomination of Kirk reminds us we must redouble our effort as we have the remaining 6 of the Cap n Tax 8 all yet to face a GOP Primary (one "Cap n Tax 8"--Congressman John McHugh of NY23rd--was appointed Secretary of the Army; the special election held last fall vaulted Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman into national limelight). These 6 must be stopped in their primary elections. The video below highlights the frustration we feel from their betrayal on such an important issue:
The nomination of Kirk reminds us we must redouble our effort as we have the remaining 6 of the Cap n Tax 8 all yet to face a GOP Primary (one "Cap n Tax 8"--Congressman John McHugh of NY23rd--was appointed Secretary of the Army; the special election held last fall vaulted Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman into national limelight). These 6 must be stopped in their primary elections. The video below highlights the frustration we feel from their betrayal on such an important issue:
Following is a recap of these remaining six and links to the candidates who seem to have all voiced opposition to HR2454:
- Congressman Michael Castle (DE) now in play for Biden's old Senate seat against Christine O'Donnell. Primary elections: Sept 14th
- Congressman Leonard Lance (NJ-07) running against Dave Larsen and Lon Hosford. Primary elections: June 8th
- Congressman Frank LoBiondo (NJ- 02) running against anti-Obamacare and anti-Cap n Tax Republican Linda Biamonte. Primary elections: June 8th
- Congressman Christopher Smith (NJ-04) vs. Alan Bateman. Primary elections: June 8th
- Congressman Dave Reichert (WA-08) vs. Ernest Huber. Primary elections:
June 8thAug 17th - And lastly, Nacilbupera's former 12-year Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack (CA-45) when we lived in Riverside County, California vs. newly Nacilbupera-endorsed Clayton Thibodeau. Primary elections: June 8th
So remains the question on your plate as the reader: how mad are you at the remaining 6 of the GOP Cap and Trade 8? Are you mad enough to follow them on Twitter, Youtube, Facebook and other social media? Are you mad enough to do a write up about them on your own blog? Are you willing to send out emails to relatives or friends who might live in these districts? And most importantly, are you willing to put some of your hard earned money the government has yet to take away from you and give it to these noble candidates?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Professor Obama's Lecture at the State of the Union Shows He Still Doesn't Get It
Tonight in his lengthy, professorial lecture Obama reiterated support for the two biggest bills Nacilbupera and Americans opposed this year: Cap N Tax (IE "Climate Change Bill"/Waxman-Markey/"Cap N Trade") and the Democare healthcare scheme. If anyone was in any doubts of whether a Brown victory in MA was enough to pull Obama towards the middle, those doubts have been erased. The State of our Union is bad and Obama doesn't know how to fix it. Worse, he ignores the will of the people in opposing these schemes and taxes.
Obama also reiterated his lie to the American people about creating (or saving) 2 million jobs when the facts are he has lost 4 million in his first year as president.
In a show of bombastic maneuvering, he advocated that federal government workers be given preferential treatment in student loan forgiveness over private sector workers. (Sounds rather unconstitutional let alone anti-business, pro government bureaucracy).
He proposed a super-lite freeze of spending of selected budget items at what are now unsustainable, record levels. The funniest line of all showing how minuscule importance he takes on cutting the deficit was this:
Nacilbupera broke out in hysterical ROFL at the pathetic-ness of an Obama fiscally-responsible budget and complete lack of courage to stand up for the smallest of all budget cutting ideas.
In contrast, Nacilbupera feels the president should proposed a balanced budget. Cut the czars, eliminated the Dept of Education, cut entitlements, cut, cut, cut! Cut before our country goes bankrupt! But no, says Obama. That might hurt. It might cause pain and hardship. Obama will propose a budget $1T again out of whack this year again. Unsustainable. Imagine the pain, Mr. President, you will cause when hyperinflation destroys our country due to unmanageable debt.
You are a fiscal disaster and disgrace to our country, Obama. Shame on you! Perhaps more than any single item we are looking for in a 2012 Presidential Candidate is one who will propose from day one a budget that AT MINIMUM holds the line on the deficit until the economy turns around and we can use annual surpluses to reduce our national debt and pay back the Chinese.
++++More:
Video: Justice Alito lips "Simply Not True" at Obama's SCOTUS shot (Moonbattery)
Obama also reiterated his lie to the American people about creating (or saving) 2 million jobs when the facts are he has lost 4 million in his first year as president.
In a show of bombastic maneuvering, he advocated that federal government workers be given preferential treatment in student loan forgiveness over private sector workers. (Sounds rather unconstitutional let alone anti-business, pro government bureaucracy).
He proposed a super-lite freeze of spending of selected budget items at what are now unsustainable, record levels. The funniest line of all showing how minuscule importance he takes on cutting the deficit was this:
"I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year..."
Nacilbupera broke out in hysterical ROFL at the pathetic-ness of an Obama fiscally-responsible budget and complete lack of courage to stand up for the smallest of all budget cutting ideas.
In contrast, Nacilbupera feels the president should proposed a balanced budget. Cut the czars, eliminated the Dept of Education, cut entitlements, cut, cut, cut! Cut before our country goes bankrupt! But no, says Obama. That might hurt. It might cause pain and hardship. Obama will propose a budget $1T again out of whack this year again. Unsustainable. Imagine the pain, Mr. President, you will cause when hyperinflation destroys our country due to unmanageable debt.
You are a fiscal disaster and disgrace to our country, Obama. Shame on you! Perhaps more than any single item we are looking for in a 2012 Presidential Candidate is one who will propose from day one a budget that AT MINIMUM holds the line on the deficit until the economy turns around and we can use annual surpluses to reduce our national debt and pay back the Chinese.
++++More:
Video: Justice Alito lips "Simply Not True" at Obama's SCOTUS shot (Moonbattery)
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Read Our Lips, Obama: No Cap And Trade
Obama promised in his quest for re-election a tax break "for 95% of Americans." Now with the Cap-and-Trade bill he urges Congress to pass he is indirectly taxing 100% of Americans. How so?
Obama gets away with his "inconvenient truth" of increasing taxes or the amount we pay to the federal government by effectively redefining taxes to be limited to personal income tax. Obama is not raising our income tax. Instead he is raising a massive tax on energy companies who must pass on the levied tax in the form of higher rates to consumers. This is not right and Nacilbupera is calling it out for what it is: a scheme to raise a massive $1.5 trillion through indirect taxation.
Interestingly, taxes levied through the higher rates are disproportionately levied on Republican-voting states. This chart shows that the 8 of the 10 states to receive the most energy price increases voted for McCain:
(1) Wyoming
(2) North Dakota
(3) West Virginia
(4) Kentucky
(5) Indiana
(6) Montana
(7) Alabama
(8) New Mexico
(9) Oklahoma
(10) Utah
while of the 10 states least affected in this proposal include 9 voting for Obama:
(1) Vermont
(2) Delaware
(3) Idaho
(4) California
(5) Washington
(6) Oregon
(7) New Jersey
(8) Rhode Island
(9) New York
(10) Connecticut
Put another way, the incremental energy-bill costs to consumers in Wyoming are close to 4000 times as more as if you live in Vermont.
But isn't the issue of CO2 emissions an issue for the states? Nacilbupera says yes. Yet in the 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA the court ruled that the EPA must regulate CO2. Nacilbupera believes this ruling was made erroneously and was out of bounds for the authority granted the court. Yet the court has no power to specify what actions must be taken as this is the arena of Congress. Nacilbupera feels that voluntary compliance with CO2 reductions fulfill our erroneous court-ordered obligation and that a massive tax burden on us Americans is unwanted, unwarranted, and un-American.
For anyone who believed Obama's garbage pre-election promise of a tax break, you need to get on the phone with your representative NOW (vote in Congress tomorrow) and urge them to defeat the energy tax of Waxman-Markey--else take that bundle of money you saved by switching to GEICO and kiss it goodbye.
Obama gets away with his "inconvenient truth" of increasing taxes or the amount we pay to the federal government by effectively redefining taxes to be limited to personal income tax. Obama is not raising our income tax. Instead he is raising a massive tax on energy companies who must pass on the levied tax in the form of higher rates to consumers. This is not right and Nacilbupera is calling it out for what it is: a scheme to raise a massive $1.5 trillion through indirect taxation.
Interestingly, taxes levied through the higher rates are disproportionately levied on Republican-voting states. This chart shows that the 8 of the 10 states to receive the most energy price increases voted for McCain:
(1) Wyoming
(2) North Dakota
(3) West Virginia
(4) Kentucky
(5) Indiana
(6) Montana
(7) Alabama
(8) New Mexico
(9) Oklahoma
(10) Utah
while of the 10 states least affected in this proposal include 9 voting for Obama:
(1) Vermont
(2) Delaware
(3) Idaho
(4) California
(5) Washington
(6) Oregon
(7) New Jersey
(8) Rhode Island
(9) New York
(10) Connecticut
Put another way, the incremental energy-bill costs to consumers in Wyoming are close to 4000 times as more as if you live in Vermont.
But isn't the issue of CO2 emissions an issue for the states? Nacilbupera says yes. Yet in the 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA the court ruled that the EPA must regulate CO2. Nacilbupera believes this ruling was made erroneously and was out of bounds for the authority granted the court. Yet the court has no power to specify what actions must be taken as this is the arena of Congress. Nacilbupera feels that voluntary compliance with CO2 reductions fulfill our erroneous court-ordered obligation and that a massive tax burden on us Americans is unwanted, unwarranted, and un-American.
For anyone who believed Obama's garbage pre-election promise of a tax break, you need to get on the phone with your representative NOW (vote in Congress tomorrow) and urge them to defeat the energy tax of Waxman-Markey--else take that bundle of money you saved by switching to GEICO and kiss it goodbye.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
No to Waxman-Markley, Yes to Republican-Environmentalism
Nacilbupera is a Republican-environmentalist. We have always purchased the smallest, most fuel-economic car that would meet our personal or family needs. We have used our Trek bicycle and our feet as primary means of transportation during our schooling years when we didn’t need a car. We use public buses when it makes economic and practical sense. We don’t idle our cars in the morning and work in the same town we live. We generally purchase Energy Star appliances, acutely so when we can recuperate the additional investment. We turn off lights and are converting to compact fluorescent light bulbs in our home as our incandescent ones burn out. We take short showers and avoid over-watering our lawn. We keep our home cool in the winter and warmer in the summer. We recycle newspaper, steel, and aluminum. We enjoy watching betimes “Planet Green” and keep our eyes vigilant for ideas and technologies we can implement on our meager budget.
Nacilbupera loves our planet. We are awed by the divers creatures—minute and gargantuan--and the breathtaking scenery and vast expanses both in and out of our protected parks. Nacilbupera despises smog and pollution as they detract from the vista and create health risks. Indeed, Nacilbupera believes the majority of Americans love their environment so much they are willing to take small sacrifices to keep American beautiful. So far, both Republican- and Democratic-environmentalists would both wholeheartedly support the ideas we have addressed.
Yet a Republican-environmentalist contrasts to a Democratic-environmentalist in two fundamental ways. First, the level of government involvement: Republicans believe that government should encourage environmentalism, while Democrats believe it should be forced, mandated, taxed, and bureaucratically controlled. The perfect example of this is the proposed “Waxman-Markey Bill” aka “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” aka “cap and trade bill.” The bill seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus in turn reduce global warming. Greenhouse gases are primarily carbon dioxide and methane and are contrasted to the smog and pollutant gases measured by the federal and state governments including carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. In other words, the bill is aimed at decreasing global temperature not directly at fighting pollutants and preserving nature.
There is no debate that the Waxman-Markely Bill will cost Americans more money; what is at question is how much. Estimates range between $100-$1500 annually per household in energy costs with significant increases in federal debt and fuel prices. Democrats have hijacked the environmental debate and turned it into a global warming crisis. Nacilbupera believes that while there is ample evidence to support global warming (e.g. worldwide glacier melt), it is difficult to pinpoint causes (volcanoes and the sun itself are two major variables) and even more unpredictable to suggest future temperatures. While Nacilbupera does not oppose curbing greenhouse gases, we are opposed to a heavy-handed Democratic mandated solution on an already overtaxed citizenry with a scandalously overspent Congress. A better solution would be to establish a voluntary fund that concerned citizens, unions, and corporations could donate to provide the government funds with which to curb gases through things like clean coal technology research or tax credits for alternative fuel source (electric, hydrogen, etc) vehicles. Finally, if developing nations like China and India do not the same (which is unlikely) the projected impact on global temperature is little to nothing and all the money of Waxman-Markley will have been wasted.
The second way a Republican-environmentalist differs is in supporting all forms of energy production (i.e. “all of the above”) to support the demands of our growing population. Nacilbupera wholeheartedly embraces zero-emissions nuclear power (including our support for Utah’s first nuclear power plant—Blue Castle—to be located in Green River), expansion of domestic oil & gas drilling (shame on Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for cancelling drilling leases earlier this year on our Utah lands!), solar, wind, geothermal, clean coal, and hydroelectric. Democratic-environmentalists have an excuse ready not to do anything: wind turbines kill birds, solar panels block view, nuclear you have to actually store the waste, and so forth. America doesn’t need a California-style energy shortage Nacilbupera experienced several years ago under the hand of Democratic ex-Governor Gray Davis and the Democratic California Legislature. Some of the more extreme Democratic-environmentalists, advocates of so-called “sustainable development” philosophy are actually hostile to humans wanting to reduce total human population through diminished growth rates including abortion rather than researching solutions through science and exploration. As we have stated our principles previously, Nacilbupera is Pro-Life and if need saying, Pro-Human.
In summary being a Republican-environmentalist means protecting your environment, conserving resources, and promoting energy development while at the same time feeding your family, keeping taxes low to encourage parental time with children, and letting government focus on national defense and protection from terrorism.
Nacilbupera loves our planet. We are awed by the divers creatures—minute and gargantuan--and the breathtaking scenery and vast expanses both in and out of our protected parks. Nacilbupera despises smog and pollution as they detract from the vista and create health risks. Indeed, Nacilbupera believes the majority of Americans love their environment so much they are willing to take small sacrifices to keep American beautiful. So far, both Republican- and Democratic-environmentalists would both wholeheartedly support the ideas we have addressed.
Yet a Republican-environmentalist contrasts to a Democratic-environmentalist in two fundamental ways. First, the level of government involvement: Republicans believe that government should encourage environmentalism, while Democrats believe it should be forced, mandated, taxed, and bureaucratically controlled. The perfect example of this is the proposed “Waxman-Markey Bill” aka “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” aka “cap and trade bill.” The bill seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus in turn reduce global warming. Greenhouse gases are primarily carbon dioxide and methane and are contrasted to the smog and pollutant gases measured by the federal and state governments including carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide. In other words, the bill is aimed at decreasing global temperature not directly at fighting pollutants and preserving nature.
There is no debate that the Waxman-Markely Bill will cost Americans more money; what is at question is how much. Estimates range between $100-$1500 annually per household in energy costs with significant increases in federal debt and fuel prices. Democrats have hijacked the environmental debate and turned it into a global warming crisis. Nacilbupera believes that while there is ample evidence to support global warming (e.g. worldwide glacier melt), it is difficult to pinpoint causes (volcanoes and the sun itself are two major variables) and even more unpredictable to suggest future temperatures. While Nacilbupera does not oppose curbing greenhouse gases, we are opposed to a heavy-handed Democratic mandated solution on an already overtaxed citizenry with a scandalously overspent Congress. A better solution would be to establish a voluntary fund that concerned citizens, unions, and corporations could donate to provide the government funds with which to curb gases through things like clean coal technology research or tax credits for alternative fuel source (electric, hydrogen, etc) vehicles. Finally, if developing nations like China and India do not the same (which is unlikely) the projected impact on global temperature is little to nothing and all the money of Waxman-Markley will have been wasted.
The second way a Republican-environmentalist differs is in supporting all forms of energy production (i.e. “all of the above”) to support the demands of our growing population. Nacilbupera wholeheartedly embraces zero-emissions nuclear power (including our support for Utah’s first nuclear power plant—Blue Castle—to be located in Green River), expansion of domestic oil & gas drilling (shame on Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for cancelling drilling leases earlier this year on our Utah lands!), solar, wind, geothermal, clean coal, and hydroelectric. Democratic-environmentalists have an excuse ready not to do anything: wind turbines kill birds, solar panels block view, nuclear you have to actually store the waste, and so forth. America doesn’t need a California-style energy shortage Nacilbupera experienced several years ago under the hand of Democratic ex-Governor Gray Davis and the Democratic California Legislature. Some of the more extreme Democratic-environmentalists, advocates of so-called “sustainable development” philosophy are actually hostile to humans wanting to reduce total human population through diminished growth rates including abortion rather than researching solutions through science and exploration. As we have stated our principles previously, Nacilbupera is Pro-Life and if need saying, Pro-Human.
In summary being a Republican-environmentalist means protecting your environment, conserving resources, and promoting energy development while at the same time feeding your family, keeping taxes low to encourage parental time with children, and letting government focus on national defense and protection from terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
