Adam Andrzejewski—another comment on who I should vote for


Please note: This is my last planned post until Wednesday, February 3rd. I’ve been postponing tax work and need to start working on it. From this point on until after April 15th, my posts will probably be sporadic but I hope to post as often as I’m able.

Tonight’s post: I received one comment in relation to my post of January 27th on voting in the primary in which I stated again that I’m voting of Adam Andrzejewski for Governor. The comment as provided:

“Anonymous said …

Adam is not a bad guy but as the last set of debates showed he really has no understanding how Illinois State government and Springfield works. It nice to be a reform but if you do not know how the system work it is going to be impossible to reform it. Most of the recent polls have Adam to far back to really have a chance of winning. The only Conservative candidate that has a chance of winning and not sticking the party with a rino nominee in the fall is Senator Brady.

9: 21 AM”

My response: Let’s start with the following comment by anonymous, “Most of the recent polls have Adam to far back to really have a chance of winning.” As I’ve said before, I don’t base my vote upon who may or may not win the election. That’s similar to following a “self-fulfilling prophecy.”—you think something is going to happen (based upon a poll or whatever), you react accordingly (voting for someone you would not otherwise vote for because you think he has a better chance of winning) and bingo—he has a better chance of winning. I don’t vote that way. I vote based upon issues and I’ve already stated my three criteria:

1) did the candidate answer my questionnaire?
2) what were his answers to the questionnaire?
3) what are his positions on other issues?

Nowhere did I list “Does he have the best chance of winning?” I’ve never voted that way and I hope I never do. One last thing, last time I checked, NO PUBLIC OPINION POLL HAS EVER VOTED!!! People vote NOT polls!

A second argument advanced by anonymous was “The only Conservative candidate that has a chance of winning and not sticking the party with a rino nominee in the fall is Senator Brady.” Just how conservative is Senator Brady? One way to determine that is how he answered my questionnaire. He did not bother to answer the questionnaire so I don’t know his commitment to my issues or the intensity to his commitment to my issues.

However, he had ample opportunity to answer the questionnaire IF he wanted to demonstrate his conservatism based upon specific answers to specific questions. Every candidate was mailed a questionnaire by me personally. Before that however, we (the Morton 9/12 Project) e-mailed a questionnaire to every candidate who provided an e-mail address. Some Republican candidates did not list an e-mail contact on their website or else could only be e-mailed through their website. Since we were sending the questionnaire as an attachment, we could not e-mail the questionnaire to those candidates.

However, Bill Brady did list an e-mail contact and he was therefore e-mailed the questionnaire. That makes two times he was contacted to answer the questionnaire and each time he chose not to do so. However, that is not all. I know an individual who is actively working for Mr. Brady and also did so in 2006 when he ran for governor the first time. On two different occasions, I personally gave said person a copy of the questionnaire for Mr. Brady to answer. Mr. Brady was the ONLY candidate who on FOUR different occasions had an opportunity to answer the questionnaire and did NOT!

Now, if any gubernatorial candidate should have answered the questionnaire, it was him. This is his second run for the office. He should know that every vote in the primary is important. He also is the only candidate from Central Illinois. Since I’m also from Central Illinois, a well answered questionnaire should be a boost to his candidacy if for no other reason than most of the people who read the blog are probably also from Central Illinois and probably also conservative.

In contrast, Adam Andrzejewski did not have a listed e-mail contact. His website did have an e-mail on site but we could not send the questionnaire as an attachment. His campaign contacted us through our e-mail address and I e-mailed the contact person back and provided the questionnaire. (The original e-mailed questionnaire was sent along with an invitation to participate in a meet and greet. The meet and greet fell through but the letter I sent said we still desired that the questionnaire be answered and returned.) His campaign initiated the contact to insure that he had an opportunity to answer the questionnaire. Two different staff members returned the questionnaire to me—I e-mailed one and received two. He was willing to answer the questionnaire and his answers were in line with mine. Why would I not vote for him?

Another way to have some idea of how conservative a candidate is, although not as reliable as the questionnaire, is who has endorsed him and who is working for him. Normally, I don’t pay any attention to endorsements or who is working for a particular candidate. However, I worked hard to work with the Morton Village Board to ban video gambling because that is an extremely important issue to me. I also want the Tazewell County Board to ban video gambling because video gambling, as I’ve said, is State sanctioned stealing. If Tazewell County does not ban video gambling the Board is making me a very unwilling coconspirator in that State sanctioned stealing.

Early in the campaign, Mr. Brady was pictured in our local paper with two members of the Tazewell County Board who were actively involved in his campaign. One of those Board members wrote a letter to the editor arguing AGAINST banning video gambling. Another local paper had a letter to the editor published on the 27th of January where both of these two Board members endorsed Russ Crawford for County Treasurer. I have already said I am not voting for Russ Crawford in large part because he IS NOT in favor of banning video gambling. I know an individual who is not only supporting Mr. Brady and Mr. Crawford but is also supporting Mark Kirk for the U.S. Senate. In fact, he stated that Mark Kirk is the obvious, best candidate for the Senate. I’ve said repeatedly that I will NOT vote for Mark Kirk in either the primary or the general election. He is my very definition of a RINO (Republican in Name Only). He supports the MURDER of unborn babies. It seems to me that Mr. Brady is running in “bad company.” “Do not be misled; ‘Bad company corrupts good character.’” I Corinthians 15: 33 (NIV)

I don’t watch or pay attention to debates. They are basically a waste of time. A five minute sound bite does not give sufficient time to develop an important concept. You’re writing as an anonymous person. How do I know that Adam Andrzejewski “showed he really has no understanding how Illinois State government and Springfield works?” How do I know that you have any understanding of how Illinois State government and Springfield works? How do I know that you aren’t a supporter of a third Republican gubernatorial candidate (a RINO) who is trying to split the votes of others to benefit your candidate?

I do know this about the workings of the General Assembly. The General Assembly is violating the Constitution by passing laws without the three constitutionally required readings over three days by substituting a bill with another bill after two readings. Adam has said, through my questionnaire, that he will veto any bill that is passed in that fashion. GOOD for HIM!!! Such a practice is unconstitutional, unethical, and immoral! Actually, it might not be such a bad idea not knowing how State government and Springfield is now working.

This I do know. What may seem impossible today may not be impossible tomorrow. Who, one month before the election, really believed that a Republican would win Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in the bluest of blue States?

Consequently, I still plan on voting for Adam Andrzejewski. Won’t you join me. It’s a secret ballot and no one will know your vote except you and GOD!

Mary Burress—criteria for supporting


Update: I downloaded a PDF from a conservative Illinois taxpayer organization that has endorsed candidates that support a conservative tax policy in government. I had written who I was going to vote for and why before I downloaded the information. I’m posting the information dealing with the three offices that I discussed. The information with minor changes to fit my format:

From http://www.ntui.org/

“Tax Accountability
407 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 1170
Chicago, Illinois 60605-1150
Phone: (312) 427-5128
Fax: (312) 427-5139
E-mail: ta@NTUI.org

CANDIDATES ENDORSED FOR FEBRUARY 2, 2010 PRIMARY ELECTION (by Tax Accountability the political arm of the NTUI—my addition)

GOVERNOR

Adam Andrzejewski—Republican

LT. GOVERNOR

Dennis Cook—Republican
Jason Plummer—Republican
Randy White—Republican

U.S. SENATE

John Arrington—Republican
Robert Marshall—Democrat”

In the following section, all material that is in parenthesis and says “my addition” was added to the quotes tonight for clarification purposes. They were not in the original quotes.)

On my January 14th post entitled “Video Gambling and the Republican candidates for Tazewell County Treasurer” I said I was going to vote for Mary Burress for Tazewell County Treasurer. A portion of that post said, “I asked him (Russ Crawford—my addition) the same yes or no question that Mary Burress was asked. Yes, he would ban video gambling or no, he would not ban video gambling. (At an earlier meeting, Mary Burress said she would ban video gambling—my addition.) Of course, Russ Crawford, as a current member of the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors, is in a position to actually vote yes or no on that specific question if the vote comes before the Board sometime this year.” I finished the post by stating, “Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Crawford did not answer the question. Furthermore, his attempt to skirt the question resulted in an incorrect answer. I will be voting for Mary Burress for Tazewell County Treasurer on February 2nd. Mr. Crawford has failed the test!”

Tonight’s post contains two anonymous comments generated from that January 14th post and, at the end of those comments, my response to the first anonymous post.

I received a comment which said:

“Anonymous said:

So your going to vote for a candidate based off them not answering a question on issue that the office they are running for has no poor over? Here an idea how about voting for the candidate that would make a better treasurer and do a better job of investing and managing the counties money. Not on who gave the answer you like to an issue they have no control over.

9: 50 AM”

That comment from the first anonymous post led to a second comment from another anonymous reader. It said:

“Anonymous said:

The ‘question’ also reveals the integrity of the candidate. The integrity of a County Board Member transcends to the integrity of Mr. Crawford as Treasurer. If he isn’t willing to be upfront and honest as a County Board Member, what does that say on how he would be as Treasurer? Since he is running for Treasurer on his resume only—he than should be judged on his resume including his current position as County Board member. Crawford has repeated his resume over and over again. He has not once, not one time in a public forum explained his knowledge of the Treasurer’s office. (Due in fact that he has none). We know more about Crawford’s grandparents, his homecoming queen wife and all of his involvement into just about every organization in the area, but we have never heard a word uttered, in particular, a positive word, regarding his knowledge and goals for the Treasurer’s office. He is running his campaign like Mr. Vance as described, just like an old-fashioned ‘politician’—the very people Americans are protesting about and wanting to throw out of office.

Mr. Crawford is a resume builder, a cheerleader—he talks the talk, but does not walk the walk. He is the epitome of what groups like 9/12, Campaign for Liberty, the Convervative Party and normal everday Joe; Jane Six-Pack Americans are complaining; protesting about, and have targeted to drive out of OUR, I repeat Mr. Crawford, OUR government.

Your support of video gambling contradicts your so-called conservative fiscal values. Tazewell County taxpayers have footed the bill for the Gambling boat and many of the businesses including hotels around the boat. Why in the world would we want to place 1000 competing gaming positions around the County to compete against our own investment? There has been millions of dollars that have not gone to our schools, parks, libraries and towns because of sweetheart deals ‘politicians’ just like Crawford have crafted. You know, just like the one Crawford was involved in with the Peoria Museum. In the end, with people like Crawford, taxpayers get it in the end.

If his record as Tazewell County Auditor (of which he is touting in his resume and as a reason to vote for him) is a barometer of how he will treat the Treasurer’s office, then we must reject him. Journal Star records show that he admitted to excessive absenteeism for a solid 6 months and would often disappear from the office without anyone knowing of his whereabouts. Crawford, the man of fiscal conservative values and the self-anointed ‘taxpayer watchdog’ kicked the County’s external auditor of his office telling them that know one tells him how to run his office. It is time to retire this guy permanently—his performances at public appearances qualifies him for a job as a Wal-Mart Greeter only.

I am voting for Mary Burress—you can’t get any closer to the goals of Americans today to finally get people just like us into OUR Government. It is time we take back our County and send them one of us, a ‘Jane Six-Pack’, someone that is humble, upfront, honest and certainly not in any way full of themselves like her opponent. To me, Mary is the symbol of why I started to fight back, the reason I got back involved again—she is worth fighting for and I will on Tuesday, February 2nd.

8:12 AM”

My response in relation to the first anonymous comment:

First, the last comment of the anonymous writer is incorrect. It stated: “Not on who gave the answer you like to an issue they have no control over.” Mr. Crawford does now have some control over the issue as I stated on the original post—“Of course, Russ Crawford, as a current member of the Tazewell County Board of Supervisors, is in a position to actually vote yes or no on that specific question if the vote comes before the Board sometime this year.” How he votes or does not vote on issues is relevant to judging his possible performance as our Treasurer. He, himself, boasted of his five terms as a member of the Tazewell County Board. It’s relevant and it is my most important issue. Don’t I have the right to determine how I will vote based upon my criteria not someone else’s?

Second, as the second anonymous writer correctly and accurately stated, this issue deals with the integrity of the candidates. Integrity not only based upon how he would vote but also how he answered or did not answer the question. As I wrote for the first post, “Even though he was intent upon leaving and attending his other meeting, he never did give a yes or no answer. Instead, for what seemed like five minutes, he danced around the question. During a brief pause, in exasperation, I said ‘You are a politician!’

Now, I was a politician once upon a time. I don’t normally use the term in a negative sense. To me, the second anyone runs for a political office, he becomes a politician whether or not he actually ever wins an election. This time though, I did mean it in a negative sense: someone who responses to a question without ever actually answering the question.

By the way, during the two times that I ran for state-wide elective office (Arizona House of Representatives), I attended two ‘party campaign training camps.’ They actually taught us to answer a question by talking around the question and focusing on the positive points that we, as the candidate, wanted to emphasis. In short, we were taught NOT to give yes or no answers that might alienate a portion of our audience. Our goal was to gain as many votes as possibly without losing any vote, or, at least, losing as few as possible. Talk positively but don’t give a specific yes or no answer.” That is exactly what Mr. Crawford did that night. And I have every right to penalize him for it. It is my vote!

Along the same lines, if you would check Mr. Crawford’s résumé posted on January 12th, his last listing under “community commitment” was “Church Board of Deacons; Cursillo Community Assistant Rector.” If you would check the title of this blog, it is “Christian Gunslinger.” Whether or not Mr. Crawford is a Christian is between him and GOD. However, since he used “Church Board of Deacons” as part of his résumé, I have the right and the responsibility to question whether his refusal to ban video gambling is something that a Christian would do. As I said at the Morton Village Board meeting the night that video gambling was banned, video gambling is State sanctioned stealing. Stealing is condemned as sin in both the Old and New Testaments. If Mr. Crawford will not ban video gambling as a Tazewell County Board member and he has not, I have the right and responsibility to question his integrity and his willingness to support Christian principles and values. And I do. It, again, has to do with integrity. And after all, it is my vote!

However, just because I did not speak of other issues on my post when I stated I was voting for Mary Burress, that does not mean that I didn’t consider other factors. For indeed, I did. I was trying to be as gentle as possible to Mr. Crawford. I saw no reason to mention other things. However, since the first anonymous writer questioned the way I decided to vote, even though it is my vote, I will.

The anonymous writer declared “Here an idea how about voting for the candidate that would make a better treasurer and do a better job of investing and managing the counties money.” My question to the anonymous writer is: “Did you read the two résumés posted on January 12th and the 13th?” Mr. Crawford has ZERO experience as Tazewell County Treasurer—NONE. Mary Burress according to her résumé has “21 years (of experience—my addition) as Deputy Treasurer (in Tazewell County—my addition).” Mr. Crawford did not challenge any item on her résumé when speaking before us. Thus, I’m taking a wild guess and am concluding that her résumé is correct. She has 21 years MORE experience than Mr. Crawford working not only in the Treasure’s office but as the number two in command. What do you think? Does that seem fair?

When I was attending the two ‘party campaign training camps,’ it was suggested that at gatherings where an audience could ask questions that we place people within the audience to ask us “softball” questions to allow use to “hit home runs.” (No, I never personally did that. I’ve never had any problems answering any question I’ve been asked while running for office.) I’ve known of candidates who have done so. Now, I don’t know if that was the case on that night, however the first question Mr. Crawford received was a “softball” question. (Remember, he was only asked two questions. And, he only answer one of those two questions.)

The question was why he was running for the Treasurer’s office—were there problems within the current Treasurer’s office? His answer was that there were problems and then he seemed to blame Mary Burress for those problems. However, that night he also stated that he had been asked by Republican leaders to run for the office. According to him, he was asked to run for the office before the current Treasurer decided not to seek reelection. He turned down the request stating that he would NOT run against the incumbent. He only decided to run after the incumbent said he would not run.

There are at least three major problems with his attitude with this issue. First, and foremost, Mary Burress is NOT responsible for any current problems within the Treasurer’s office. The person responsible is the “buck stops here” person who is in charge of the office and that is the current Treasurer. And yet, he, himself, said that he WOULD NOT run against the current Treasurer. So, the second problem is this: Is he now running because he thinks he can win the election against a non-incumbent while he thought he would lose to the incumbent? Is he running because he wants to solve the perceived problems or is he running to win an election? Finally, at least on the night he spoke to us, he NEVER gave one example of how he would solve the perceived problems or even how he would improve the office. Mary Burress, when she talked to us at an earlier meeting, gave specific examples of how she hoped to improve the office.

I was not able to ask him a second question that I wanted to ask because he left before he had answered my first question. Looking over his résumé, he listed his five terms as a member of the Tazewell County Board. Taken directly from his résumé that I posted on the 12th:

“as their representative on the County Board for 5 terms:

1976-1980 (District 2)
1988-1992 (District 3)
1992-1996 (District 3)
1996-1998 (District 3)
2006-2010 (District 3)”

Did you notice anything unusual about his five terms on the Board? I did. During his fourth term he only served for 2 years. I wanted to ask about that but did not have a chance—he left without answering my first question. It could be totally innocent. However, when an elected official does not serve out his term, I want to know why.

Finally, to be quite frank, I’m as qualified as he is, if not more so, to serve as the County Treasurer. I have a M.S. degree in political science with a strong emphasis in economics. I taught at high schools. I was an elected public official serving on a five member Board which gave me much more influence that he has as one County Board member on a 21 member Board. During my time on the Board, we build 3 elementary schools, a junior high school, and a high school. I worked at Caterpillar. I was born and raised in Tazewell County. I was a licensed real estate agent in both Illinois and Arizona. I was a church Treasurer. I was a Treasurer for a second nonprofit organization. I taught Bible classes from K-adult. Something he has not done according to his résumé, I had absolute, legal financial control of a million $ plus estate of one of my clients. I was and am a business owner. I am a published author. Okay. One of my businesses published the book but I am a published author. Maybe next time, I should run for the office. Wait. I may not be as qualified as Mary Burress.

Do you think this explanation, satisfies anonymous 1 or should I give more reasons. Oh wait, here’s the best reason of all—IT’S MY VOTE!!!

Voting in a primary election


On my Monday post I said I was voting for Adam Andrzejewski for Governor. I received one comment. It proclaimed the following:

“Anonymous said

You’re wasting your vote. Good luck with that. Enjoy the McKenna candidacy this fall.

11:23 AM”

First, and foremost, no vote that has been cast for any candidate has ever been wasted. The essence of a democracy (republic, if you prefer that identification of the type of democracy that we are) is voting. The only vote that is wasted is the vote that could have been cast and was not. Those who have the privilege of voting and do not are wasting their vote—no voter is!

Second, how long have you (anonymous) been clairvoyant? Strange things can and do happen in primary elections. I can almost assure you (anonymous) that McKenna is not that confident.

Three weeks before the special election in Massachusetts how many people were confident that Scott Brown was going to win the election? How many were confident that Scott Brown would lose the election?

The classic, classic example occurred in Arizona for a primary race for the selection of the gubernatorial candidate for the Republican Party. There were only two Republicans running for the nomination. One was the Speaker of the House for the Arizona House of Representatives. He was so powerful that no other Republican dared run against him except one perpetual candidate who, if I recall correctly, had never won an election although running at least half-a-dozen times for various offices. Every published public opinion poll up to the day of the election had the Speaker of the House easily winning the election. Every major newspaper had endorsed the Speaker of the House.

Meanwhile, I was also running in a primary for the Democratic nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives—I won that primary by 53 votes defeating a candidate who was both a doctor and a lawyer. (No newspaper gave me a chance of winning the nomination. No newspaper endorsed me.) Behind the scenes, I was being helped by a Pima County Board member who two years before was a Republican and changed parties to run as a Democrat for the county board. He was also working for the election of the perpetual, loser Republican challenger. Several times during the primary he said the same thing, his candidate was going to win the nomination. Was he clairvoyant? Not at all.

Doing valid public opinion polls is both science and art. Most people who run polls cut corners to save costs. They were meticulous in their polling and their polls were showing strong support by a dedicated core for their candidate. They identified the Republicans most likely to vote (remember that the turn out at primaries is notoriously low) and they worked tirelessly to change those most likely to vote who were nominally supporting the Speaker and to get out the vote of their core voters. Meanwhile, the Speaker’s supporters were reading all the polls and already making plans for the general election. An example of “Counting your chickens before they hatch.”

Are you (anonymous) counting the votes too early? Do you have inside information that the fix is in? No legitimate election has ever been won before the votes are counted. Have you (anonymous) already counted the votes?

Primary elections are much more difficult to predict than general elections even by seasoned observers. The variables are greater. First, the turnout is much less than for a general election. Consequently, candidates who work the hardest to get their supporters to the polls can overcome the numbers game based upon nominal supporters favoring another candidate(s). Second, this primary election has six candidates running for the Republican nomination. With votes being split six ways (actually seven because even though Bob Schillerstrom has dropped out of the race, his name is still on the ballot and some small number will vote for him), it is more difficult to determine who will vote for whom. It’s likely that no one candidate will receive a majority of the votes as also happened in the Republican primary in 2006. Finally, and this doesn’t come close to discussing all the variables I’m just briefly mentioning three, the weather may play a major factor in the turnout and therefore the results at the polls. (Holding a primary election in Illinois in early February is a valid definition of insanity! Oh well, global warming will change that.) The Tuesday evening long term weather forecast for the Peoria area for the 2nd is the possibility of snow. A strong snowstorm in one or more sections of the State and not in others may noticeably impact the turnout in those areas and impact the final vote totals.

McKenna does have a possibility of receiving the nomination. So do the other five candidates. Until the final vote is cast and counted, there is no winning candidate and hope springs eternal. I’ve win elections and I’ve lost elections. I’ve never been so presumptuous as to believe I had won an election before the votes were counted.

Thanks for giving me this teachable moment! I’m still voting for Adam Andrzejewski for Governor on Tuesday.

Illinois United States Senator—who I’m voting for and why


I’m voting in the Republican primary this year. The vote for U.S. Senator is more difficult than it was for Illinois Governor. As I’ve stated previously, I use the last man/woman standing approach to selecting a candidate. Who is the last man/woman standing?

In both of the political party training camps that I attended, we were taught to select three or four basic issues that we believed would resonate well with the voters and emphasis those issues. We were also taught not to commit to specifics but rather to speak in positive generalities for our proposals while pointing out the flaws in our opponent’s positions and proposals. Consequently, since most campaign literature tends to follow that pattern, I don’t consider such literature to be very helpful in making an informed choice. The same, of course, is true with TV and radio advertising—30 second sound bites.

I also don’t place much emphasis on newspaper articles about the candidates or their endorsements. I know from my own experience running for political office that such articles are easily slanted to favor certain candidates over others. For example, in my 2nd run for the Arizona House of Representatives there were numerous omissions and misrepresentations.

Two quick examples:

I earned both my B.S. and M.S. while attending college for five years. In two different articles the reporter failed to report that I had an M.S. degree. The M.S. degree was in political science. Even after assuring me that he would include the degree in his second article, he did not.

I had been a high school government/economics teacher and a school board member before running for office. My major campaign issue was improving the State education system—unlike many candidates, I gave specifics on how to do so. In every campaign stop but one, the first issue I discussed was education. I was endorsed by the Arizona Education Association. When the newspaper article discussed the two major campaign issues of each candidate, education was not even mentioned as one of my issues. During joint campaign appearances, my opponent only spoke of education once and that was about education at the university level. And yet, the newspaper article stated that education was one of her two main issues. Newspapers and their reporters pick and choose which information is presented and how it is presented. It is generally easy to predict who the newspaper will endorse just by reading the articles, if you are familiar with all the candidates. Do I trust newspaper stories to be unbiased? Absolutely NOT!

Questionnaires and/or surveys can be beneficial. I have a copy of the Illinois Family Institute 2010 Voter Guide. However, except for Mark Kirk who did not answer the questions, all of the Republican candidates for U.S. Senator answered the questions the same. A flaw in the questionnaire process used by the Institute is that it does not ask for the candidates’ intensity factor on each of the issues.

The Illinois Family Institute used Mark Kirk’s voting record in the House of Representatives to answer questions in the questionnaire that he specifically voted for or against. Consequently, Mark Kirk was recorded as supporting Cap and Trade, “Hate Crime” legislation giving homosexuals special protections not given to others (In fact, Mark Kirk co-sponsored the bill), a bill giving “homosexuals and transsexual individuals protected class status in the workplace,” and the transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the U.S., and Mark Kirk opposed the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2006.”

Even without this information, I had eliminated Mark Kirk even before he officially announced for the office. Mark Kirk voted against the ban on partial birth abortion which was passed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Mark Kirk has received 100% approval ratings from Planned MURDERHOOD. Mark Kirk will not receive my vote in the primary and he will not receive my vote in the general election should he be selected in the primary. Robert Zadek and Tom Kuna withdrew and are therefore eliminated.

Left standing, we have John Arrington, Don Lowery, Andy Martin, Kathleen Thomas, and Patrick Hughes. I set three criteria for who I would vote for as U.S. Senator:

1) answer my questionnaire—as I’ve said before it shows courage (not what is taught in campaign camps) and integrity—willing to be specific and to identity the intensity of one’s stance on major issues.

2) the actual answers to the questions—I would not support a candidate who answered the questionnaire but whose answers were in opposition to my positions.

3) the candidates positions on other issues not covered by the questionnaire.

Don Lowery was considered by me for quite awhile. He was born and raised near Morton and is now from Southern Illinois. His general statements on issues seem to be similar to mine. However, it is my understanding that he personally requested to speak to the Morton 9/12 members and then bowed out claiming a conflicting scheduled meeting. Don’t ask for an opportunity to speak before us and then cancel. It’s not a practice to gain my confidence in the competence of your staff. More telling, he did not answer the questionnaire which would have required him to give not only specific answers to specific questions but also reveal his intensity toward those issues. His failure to answer the questionnaire doomed him as far as I am concerned. He is eliminated.

Patrick Hughes is being pushed by Champion News as the best alternative to defeat Mark Kirk in the primary. I don’t know if that is true or not. However, I don’t vote for candidates based upon their likelihood of winning. If people vote for a candidate just because he is most likely to win, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I don’t vote on that basis. I vote based upon their positions on issues and their willingness to be specific and define their intensity concerning those issues. Because Patrick Hughes did not answer the questionnaire and therefore I do not know his specific position on specific issues that are important to me, he is eliminated. Andy Martin is eliminated for the same reason although I have seen nothing that gives him much of a chance to win.

Two candidates answered the questionnaire and therefore are left for consideration—Kathleen Thomas and John Arrington. John Arrington did not make any comments which I would have preferred but did not require. Since it was not required, I’m not going to penalize him for not doing that which was not required.

Looking at the answers to all 16 questions and the intensity level expressed, both candidates basically answered all 16 the same except for intensity levels. Intensity levels are important as I learned when I was taught the proper methods for constructing surveys, questionnaires, and public opinion polls. If the intensity level is higher, more time and effort will be (should be and/or should be expected to be) devoted to achieving the desired results. That’s why all of my questionnaires include the intensity level of the commitment, resulting usually in five choices. Based upon intensity levels more than any other factor, my vote will go to John Arrington unless something changes that position between now and February 2nd.

Therefore, my choice for U.S. Senator is John Arrington.

Illinois Governor—who I’m voting for and why


I’m voting in the Republican primary this year. The vote for governor is relatively easy. As I’ve stated previously, I use the last man standing approach to selecting a candidate. Who is the last man standing?

In both of the political party training camps that I attended, we were taught to select three or four basic issues that we believed would resonate well with the voters and emphasis those issues. We were also taught not to commit to specifics but rather to speak in positive generalities for our proposals while pointing out the flaws in our opponent’s positions and proposals. Consequently, since most campaign literature tends to follow that pattern, I don’t consider such literature to be very helpful in making an informed choice. The same, of course, is true with TV and radio advertising—30 second sound bites.

I also don’t place much emphasis on newspaper articles about the candidates or their endorsements. I know from my own experience running for political office that such articles are easily slanted to favor certain candidates over others. For example, in my 2nd run for the Arizona House of Representatives there were numerous omissions and misrepresentations.

Two quick examples:

I earned both my B.S. and M.S. while attending college for five years. In two different articles the reporter failed to report that I had an M.S. degree. The M.S. degree was in political science. Even after assuring me that he would include the degree in his second article, he did not.

I had been a high school government/economics teacher and a school board member before running for office. My major campaign issue was improving the State education system—unlike many candidates, I gave specifics on how to do so. In every campaign stop but one, the first issue I discussed was education. I was endorsed by the Arizona Education Association. When the newspaper article discussed the two major campaign issues of each candidate, education was not even mentioned as one of my issues. During joint campaign appearances, my opponent only spoke of education once and that was about education at the university level. And yet, the newspaper article stated that education was one of her two main issues. Newspapers and their reporters pick and choose which information is presented and how it is presented. It is generally easy to predict who the newspaper will endorse just by reading the articles, if you are familiar with all the candidates. Do I trust newspaper stories to be unbiased? Absolutely NOT!

Questionnaires and/or surveys can be beneficial. I have a copy of the Illinois Family Institute 2010 Voter Guide. However, except for two candidates all of the Republican candidates for Governor answered the questions the same. Kirk Dillard gave a “conditional support” response to supporting video gambling. He was eliminated. Dan Proft gave a “conditional support” response to supporting illegal immigrants receiving an Illinois driver’s license certificate. He was eliminated. Andy McKenna was eliminated because he had been the leader of the Republican Party in Illinois and as “the buck stops here” leader is responsible for the present weakness of the Illinois Republican Party. Robert Schillerstrom has dropped out of the race and is eliminated.

I voted for Bill Brady in the 2006 primary but will not this election. Although he voted against video gambling his vote was meaningless because the issue was passed by a large margin in the Senate—the vote was 47 to 12. Now, I don’t know why he voted against it but it is a political fact that if push comes to shove on a specific issue some representatives will vote differently than if the legislation would pass or fail regardless of their particular vote. I don’t know if that came into play in this case or not but I do know this. One of his early backers in Tazewell County is a member of the County Board of Supervisors and he is opposed to banning video gambling and video gambling is State sanctioned stealing. Who your backers are says volumes as far as who you are. I would not support a candidate who is supported by Planned MURDERHOOD and I will not reward a supporter of Bill Brady who will not support the banning of video gambling if there are other acceptable alternatives. And there are.

Another problem I have with Bill Brady is that according to WGN he seems to be backing an across the board budget cut of 10%. Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that across the board cuts are economically stupid. Bill Brady as a businessman should know this. An across the board cut is a declaration that every budget category is of equal value and that is just nonsense. Good economic budgeting demands a setting of priorities and the allocation of money accordingly. That means some budget categories need to be eliminated completely and other budget categories need to be cut much more deeply than others. Some categories may even receive more money although in the State’s situation that would be difficult to justify.

One of Illinois’ main problems as a government is that they are trying to do too much and that causes them to do poorly in many different areas. The new governor needs to set priorities and then budget accordingly. Otherwise, we will continue to be in the same budgetary mess year after year after year. No thank you, Bill Brady!

Left standing, we have Jim Ryan and Adam Andrzejewski. I set three criteria for who I would vote for as governor:

1) answer my questionnaire—as I’ve said before it shows courage (not what is taught in campaign camps) and integrity—willing to be specific and to identity the intensity of one’s stance on major issues.

2) the actual answers to the questions—I would not support a candidate who answered the questionnaire but whose answers were in opposition to my positions.

3) the candidates positions on other issues not covered by the questionnaire.

Jim Ryan did not answer the questionnaire. Therefore, I have no way of knowing his position on these issues or the intensity of his position on these issues. I know of no other issues that he supports in very specific terms that would convince me to vote for him. Jim Ryan is eliminated.

The winner is Adam Andrzejewski. Adam Andrzejewski is the only gubernatorial candidate who had the courage and integrity to answer the questionnaire. More importantly, I agree with most of his answers although not all of his answers. I particularly support his answer to number 8 which sets him apart from all other Republican candidates as far as I know since no other candidate choose to answer the questionnaire.

“8) As Governor, I will automatically veto any bill that is passed contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which currently requires three readings on three different days. Changing the contents of a bill to a totally different subject after one, two, or three readings will not be accepted.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: I am on record as the only candidate promising the end of the ‘shell bill’ practice.”

The clear choice for governor, in my opinion, is Adam Andrzejewski.

Mark Kirk for Illinois U.S. Senator—NO, NO, NO, a thousand times NO!


Update: When I registered on line early Friday morning at the website http://www.virtualmarchforlife.com/ over 61,000 people had registered before I did. I don’t know the final total. I believe this was the first year something like this was done and I didn’t learn about it until Thursday afternoon.

Mark Kirk—Republican In Name Only

On June 9, 2009 an article in the Peoria Journal Star declared “Republicans have yet to offer a candidate, but U.S. Representative Mark Kirk is mulling a run. National Republicans say they are optimistic he could make the race competitive.” On June 17, 2009 I posted on my blog a commentary entitled “Republican Party—an open letter to the National and State of Illinois Republican Party” stating among other things “Are they crazy? When the Republican Party moved away from “values” issues in 2006 and 2008, they lost elections! The Republicans in 2006 nominated a “RINO”—Republican In Name Only—for governor in Illinois and lost badly to a governor who has since been removed from office.”

Recently, I received a robo-call from Mark Kirk emphasizing that many “name” Republicans are supporting him for the U.S. Senate. In my opinion, that simply means that the “leadership” in the Republican Party has not yet realized that the voting conservative public (emphasized by the unexpected victory in Massachusetts) is determined to stop the plunge to the left. Unquestionably, Mark Kirk is part of that leftist agenda even as he carries the Republican label.

Since my post in 2009, I have revised the letter and every time the Republican Party—State or national—solicits donations I send the postage paid envelop back with the letter and without any money. And yet, they continue to send me solicitations for money. They truly seem to have a most difficult time learning.

Tonight, the letter I have been mailing to the Republican Party:

Recently, I received a robo-call from my present Republican Representative trumpeting the candidacy of Representative Mark Kirk for the Republican primary nomination for U.S. Senator from Illinois. Why the Republican Party is trying to force a RINO upon voting, conservative, value oriented Republicans is something I can NOT fathom.

However, this I guarantee! If the Republican Party promotes RINO’S I will NOT provide a dime to the Party rather turning to PACS which support the values I support. If you do not recognize that the soft underbelly of the Democratic Party is their absurd promotion of immorality and emphasize that difference, you deserve to be the minority party and will neither receive my money nor my VOTE. I will NOT vote for Mark Kirk in the primary or in the general election. Learn from your past mistakes including New York 23!

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 Republican Party—an open letter to the National and State of Illinois Republican Party

From http://www.christiangunslinger.blogspot.com/

The maneuvering for those who desire or may desire to run for the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate in 2010 has begun. An article that recently appeared in the Peoria Journal Star (June 9, 2009, page B3) was about a Democratic member of the Illinois House of Representatives who was thinking about running for the U.S. Senate but who decided not to run—rather she is planning to seek reelection to the House.

I have no concern on whether or not she runs for the Senate and normally would not deal with this article. However, one paragraph in the article is significant and that paragraph I will address.

The paragraph declared that “Republicans have yet to offer a candidate, but U.S. Representative Mark Kirk is mulling a run. National Republicans say they are optimistic he could make the race competitive.”

My response: Are they crazy? When the Republican Party moved away from “values” issues in 2006 and 2008, they lost elections! The Republicans in 2006 nominated a “RINO”—Republican In Name Only—for governor in Illinois and lost badly to a governor who has since been removed from office.

She supported the immoral homosexual agenda including “civil unions” and an increased reliance on gambling for revenue and lost the necessary support of conservative Republicans from downstate. Democrats are not going to support a RINO and conservative Republicans will NOT support a RINO in sufficient numbers to offset the Democratic Chicago area. It was an invitation for another unnecessary loss at the polls.

Earlier, I was involved in the first attempt by conservatives to place an amendment into the Illinois Constitution to define marriage as between only a man and a woman. According to reports I read, black Christians in the Chicago area were actively involved in gathering signatures to encourage the General Assembly to place the amendment on the ballot even though these same black Christians tend to overwhelming support Democratic candidates. Where was the Republican Party? NOWHERE to be found. The Party was conspicuous in its absence.

By ignoring this major “values” issue, the Republican Party missed an opportunity to increase the number of conservative voters going to the polls for the general election and an opportunity to work with Black Christians who, in reality, have much more in common with conservative Republicans than with libertine Democrats. Quite simply, the Republican Party squandered an opportunity to reverse their fortunes in Illinois. They blew it!

By nominating Mark Kirk as the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat in 2010, the Party will again demonstrate that they just don’t get it! A Republican will NOT win in Illinois by acting like a Democrat.

Is Mark Kirk acting like a Democrat? He is as far as I’m concerned. Before the 2008 Presidential election, I said that the three major issues were 1) the MURDER of unborn babies, 2) the sin of homosexual behavior and specifically granting homosexual behavior special “rights” such as the ability to marry, and 3) appointments to the U.S. courts. All three of those issues are just as relevant and just as important today.

I don’t know where Mark Kirk stands on two of those three issues but I do know his stance on the third. I WILL NOT support any Republican who does NOT agree on ALL three and I believe that the same is true for many other conservative voters.

Mark Kirk voted for legislation in the House of Representatives to include homosexual behavior as a protected status in the “hate crimes” bill that passed the House. (See my post of May 9th—“Hate crimes,” part 5 and “Hate crimes” and the vote of Illinois’ members of the House of Representatives, part 6 posted on May 11th.) In fact, Mark Kirk was a co-sponsor of the legislation.

Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R)—YEA HR 1913 Co-sponsor 10th Congressional DistrictWashington Phone: 202-225-4835District Phone: 847-940-0202That one action is sufficient to tell me he does NOT understand or accept the immorality involved in homosexual behavior. Or he does and he doesn’t care! Either way he will neither get my support nor vote and I, along with others, will work for his defeat. A RINO Republican is NO better than a libertine Democrat. Just examine the history of Arlen Specter—Pennsylvania U.S. Senator—who was a Democrat, who turned to the Republican Party, who is now again a Democrat although elected to the Senate as a Republican to understand the impropriety of supporting RINO’S.

NO RINO’S in State government and certainly NO RINO’S in Congress. It just doesn’t work.

Since I wrote this post, Representative Kirk voted for “Cap and Trade”—one of only eight House Republicans to do so!
Also, from http://www.rffm.org/

“Republicans United Against Mark Kirk: Hey, How Do I Sign Up?
Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director
August 7, 2009”

“The animus directed towards Kirk was clear and unambiguous. Many Republicans believed the pro-abortion, anti-gun, tax and spend liberal (which Kirk is) would be better off running as a Democrat. Even fiscal conservatives seem to be marching to the same drummer regarding Kirk’s Senate bid. They cite the fact Kirk was only one of eight Republicans whose House vote helped to pass President Barack Obama’s Cap and Trade bill which may be soon considered by the U.S. Senate.

Subsequently, I am writing this column to see if a campaign to stop Kirk would be supported by Republicans, not only in Illinois, but across the nation. But this message is not solely meant for Kirk. I would hope both the national Republican Party and the Illinois GOP Combine would get the message. The Party needs to understand that so-called moderates or liberals like Kirk have damaged the GOP. If the Republican Party has a masochism complex or some sort of desire to self-destruct, running candidates like Kirk would fit that bill—perfectly. They also need to know, as stated by Peter Finch’s character in his Academy Award winning role in the movie Network, ‘we are sick and tired and we’re not going to take it any more.’ True Republicans feel the same way.”

Further, from http://www.championnews.net/

“Mark Kirk is not a ‘moderate’ on abortion
Posted: July 27, 2009
By John Biver”

“My colleague Doug Ibendahl summed up U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk’s pro-abortion record as follows—and I couldn’t agree more:

‘In 2003 Kirk voted AGAINST the federal ban on partial birth abortion. That vote put him more on the fringe than even his vote this year for Obama’s economy-wrecking cap & trade scheme.”

“My colleague Cathy Santos has compiled the devastating record of Mark Kirk when it comes to abortion and the protection of innocent life:

‘Mark Kirk voted NO to prohibit partial-birth abortion.

Mark Kirk voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

Mark Kirk voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.

Mark Kirk voted NO on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info.

Mark Kirk voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad.

Mark Kirk voted NO on making it a federal crime to harm a fetus while committing other crimes.

Mark Kirk voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.

Mark Kirk voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

Mark Kirk voted NO on an amendment that would stop federal taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood through the Title X Family Planning programs. Planned Parenthood received more than $350 million in taxpayer money from federal, state, and local governments in fiscal year 2007-2008.

Mark Kirk was the only Republican in either the House or Senate to receive a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood in 2008 and 2006.’

For anyone who wants to pretend the country isn’t moving right on abortion, the polls tell a different story. And consider this quote—brought to my attention by my friend Laurie Higgins—from the liberal Joel Klein in Time magazine:

‘It’s possible that abortion has become less acceptable because of the remarkable advances in sonogram technology. We now can see, in perfect detail, the exquisite humanity that exists within the womb, especially in the later stages of pregnancy. Late-term abortions...are usually hard cases, sometimes the result of rape or incest or the discovery of severe birth defects. But they are, without question, the taking of a life.’ (SO IS ANY ABORTION—IT’S MURDER!!!—my addition)

It’s not too late for any pre-mature supporters of Kirk’s candidacy to do the right thing and revoke their endorsement. There will be other candidates in the race who are far more deserving of Republican support.” (This unfortunately didn’t seem to happen although I heard the flow of money to him has slowed—my addition.)

From the Peoria Journal Star, 8/31/09, page B3 and entitled “McCain endorses Kirk for U.S. Senate”

“But the congressman from Chicago’s northern suburbs is the one candidate national Republicans have coalesced around as they try to flip the seat now held by Democratic Senator Roland Burris.”

(When I was living in Tucson, Arizona and voting and running for political office as a Democrat, Republican friends would complain to me that John McCain would be as comfortable living in Massachusetts as a Democrat as he was in Arizona being a Republican. And yet, he was nominated to run for the Presidency for the Republican Party!!!)

When will the party learn? Mark Kirk may win the primary because of the number of candidates and the misguided and/or ignorant endorsement by name Republicans at both the State and federal level, but he WILL NOT win the election. I have done my homework and so have others. “Values” orientated conservatives WILL NOT vote for him. Value issues is the key to regaining control of Congress. The other issues are symptoms NOT the sickness. I will NOT donate to a party supporting RINO’S!!!

Illinois Lieutenant Governor candidates


Update: Today is the anniversary of the most obscene, immoral, constitutionally illegal decision of the United States Supreme Court—the decision to permit the MURDER of innocent pre-born babies. An annual march in Washington D.C. is scheduled.

I just heard of this on the radio Thursday. There is a website that allows you to participate in the march virtually. Okay. I have no idea what that entails exactly but I plan to check it out this morning. The website is http://www.virtualmarchforlife.com/.

Normally, I would also have a post today on this issue. Not this year. I’m continuing on with political material since I believe this primary is critical. If you don’t think so, remember Scott Brown’s landmark upset in Massachusetts this past Tuesday. It is time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!

Update 1: For those who read the answers to the questionnaire given by John Arrington on the day I posted it, I received an e-mail from him. He stated that he had incorrectly answered question 12 dealing with enforcing the current immigration laws. He answered strongly disagree and had meant to answer strongly agree. I have changed the answer on the original post.

Recently, I was asked by two 9/12ers who I was supporting for Illinois Lieutenant Governor. I said I had not done any research on it but was planning to do so in the near future. I told them I would e-mail my results to them. After all that research, I though I would post the same information tonight.

Republican Lieutenant Governor candidates:

Since I am voting in the Republican primary, the Republicans are the only ones I checked out.

The candidates are:

1) Brad Cole

2) Jason Plummer

3) Don Tracy

4) Randy White

5) Matt Murphy

6) Dennis Cook

All six have websites. Actually I did not check out Matt Murphy to see if he did because I had already eliminated him but I’m sure that he does. He claims to be the front runner. You can google them by typing in their name plus Illinois Lieutenant Governor. I am a values voter based upon Christian values as I understand them (obviously, not everyone who claims to be Christian [Barack Hussein Obama] define Christian values the same). I work through a process of elimination and vote for the last man (woman) standing.

I first checked Illinois Family Institute 2010 Voter Guide. I am on its e-mail list and sometimes use the information provided on my blog. All six Republican candidates answered the questions the same. Consequently no separation was possible. (Based upon the Democrats answers to the questionnaire or their votes since several are legislators, I wouldn’t support any of them.)

The conclusions, therefore, are basically based upon the information on their own websites and newspaper articles. I have not met or heard any of them speak.

1) Matt Murphy

I eliminated him first and rather easily. Although he voted against video gambling, he is supported by the House and Senate minority leaders who both voted for video gambling. He is also “running” a joint campaign with gubernatorial candidate Andy McKenna who was the head of the Illinois Republican Party until he resigned to run for governor and McKenna is “the buck stops here” person responsible for the present weakness of the Republican Party in Illinois. Murphy is also an elected State Senator whose term does not expire this year. Therefore, if he loses, he is still a member of the General Assembly. I personally don’t like the concept of running for a higher office while being able to remain in your old office if you lose. In Arizona, if you are not finishing up your last year of office, you must first resign to run for another office. I think that’s the way it should be.

2) Jason Plummer

I also eliminated him although it seems that Champion News which is another of my regular e-mail sources may be supporting him although I haven’t seen anything specific. It provides numerous links and I only check out the ones I’m most interested in. On his website under “issues” the only listing was “Creating new and meaningful jobs and revitalizing the economy.” To me, that is NOT the purpose and function of government. However, it will occur if government does its primary purpose and function and does not interfere in free enterprise except for its valid purpose of protecting the public from illegal and unethical business practices—this obviously includes video gambling. The more government controls; the less likely jobs are created and the economy revitalized. A quote from his website: “Unfortunately, it appears that many in the Democratic Leadership in Springfield have lost sight of the fact that creating new jobs is the answer.” I am very concerned that value issues are NOT discussed in his “issues” section. In my opinion, until we return to Christian values, all the rest will make no difference. Also, he is only 27. Should he become governor will he be able to govern? Running the government is not the same as running a business and he does not have that much experience running a business.

3) Dennis Cook

Eliminated. His age is a factor at 31 but he is a member of a school board so that gives him some experience although a school board member is more a legislative person than an executive. The day-to-day executive power is really with the school superintendent and the ultimate with the school board as a whole. A major concern is that he has no “issues” page on his website. I am an issues oriented voter and I want to know his specific stand on specific issues. His website is filled with platitudes that are basically meaningless as far as I am concerned—give me specifics. Also according to his website, he was “campaign manager for Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno’s bid for State Treasurer (2006).” And yet, Radogno (another instance of a State Senator running for higher office when her term was not ending) has endorsed Matt Murphy. This may be petty but it bothers me. He has a campaign picture of his family—himself, his wife, his child, and two dogs. When I ran for the Arizona House of Representatives, I attended a party campaign training camp. We were shown a picture of the Arizona U.S. Senate candidate jogging with a dog running by his side. It was not his dog. In fact, he did not have a dog. Why was a dog in the picture? The voting public likes dogs. Therefore, you wanted the candidate associated with a dog to get more votes. Oh, the “tricks of the trade” that are taught to get votes! Every time I see a dog pictured with a candidate I wonder: Is that his dog or is it a vote dog?

4) Brad Cole

He has executive experience as mayor of Carbondale. Carbondale has banned video gambling and was one of the first to do so. That’s a positive. I didn’t find a real “issues” page. He did have 2 PDFs that had copies of campaign literature he is handing out. The campaign literature was the general type put out by candidates—light on specifics and heavy on platitudes and previous successes. There was NO mention of value issues that I observed on the website or contained within the campaign literature. I don’t ever vote early. I vote on election day. There have been instances when damaging, true information has been made public just days before the election which made a difference on how I voted. (An example might be if John Edward’s affair had been made public before the primaries instead of after. Of course, I did not vote in the Democratic Primary that year.) Today, I would not vote for him. He still remains a possibility on election day if something breaks. I would need more specifics on my issues than I’ve seen or heard.

5) Randy White

His “issues” page consists of links to each issue. His issues were education, juvenile sex offenders, property taxes, healthcare in Illinois, and God centered candidate. He probably is the only statewide candidate who has juvenile sex offenders as an issue and I didn’t check it out. I did check out education, healthcare in Illinois, and God centered candidate. The God centered candidate was a letter to the editor written by him that seemed to have been written before he declared for the office but I didn’t check for a date. I didn’t think much of his education position paper—filled with generalities that offered little relief. His healthcare position isn’t much better. It basically says that there is too much paperwork (duh) and malpractice insurance and similar costs are too great (duh). Of course, he is the one to fix the problems. I was extremely disappointed that he did not have value issues listed although they are mentioned briefly elsewhere. He is a pastor and listed where he was educated. I checked it out and the institution seems to be conservative and “affiliated” with the Christian church. From the little he provides, he seems to be aligned to my view on values but I would have preferred more specifics and more emphasis on those specifics. I’m not sure that he is opposed to granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. All his experiences seem to center after graduating from school in 1994. However, he is fifty-two, according to a newspaper article, and his Associate of Arts degree was 15 years ago (1994) at the age of about 37. Counting two years for that degree, what did he do until he went to school at age 35? He tries to draw a distinction between a democracy and a republic. I didn’t read it but I’ve heard the argument before and they are wrong. A republic is a form of democracy but it is a democracy. Of major, major concern is that he claims he was called by GOD to be involved in politics. Now, if he believes that, that’s up to him. However, here are my problems with such a claim. If we do not vote for him, does that mean we are voting against GOD? If he does not win, does that mean he was not called by GOD to run for Lieutenant Governor and he is a “false prophet?” Right now he is probably my second choice because of the values positions.

6) Don Tracy

He has a long history as a business owner owning a family business, it seems with other family members—brothers and sisters—and started by his parents. His three major issues seem to be: 1) revitalizing “the business climate by reforming tort laws and reducing worker’s compensation abuse to create a more job-friendly environment.” 2) reforming “state government by improving political contribution disclosure.” and 3) building “respect for traditional values by protecting innocent life, defending the family, and protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights.” (Randy White also spoke of protecting 2nd Amendment rights. I believe he is the only other candidate who specifically did but I don’t guarantee that statement.) Again, I would have preferred more details and specifics. He said that he was a Democrat at one time (so was I) and switched parties because the Republican Party better represented his views and values (so did I although there are some Republicans, such as Mark Kirk, that I will not vote for). I am concerned that he is “on the Board of Directors of the Springfield YMCA.” According to information I have received, at least some YMCA’s allow Planned MURDERHOOD to be involved with the organization. I do not know if that is true for the Springfield YMCA. Also, he is a lawyer. Now, I know that there are some very good, conservative lawyers. However, in general, I believe that there are far too many lawyers in government and far too many lawyers who believe that the Constitution can be bent and twisted, rewritten, and reinterpreted to achieve their goals and desires regardless of the clear wording of the Constitution. I do believe that he would better handle the duties of governor, if it became necessary, than would Randy White from the information I have read. Therefore, at this point in time if the election were held today, he would probably receive my vote for Lieutenant Governor.

Adam Andrzejewski —Illinois Gubernatorial candidate


Update: Over the last two days I posted the answers of two Senatorial candidates who returned a questionnaire I sent to all Senatorial candidates—five Democratic candidates, six Republican candidates, and one Green Party candidate. Why such a meager response? Could it be that they don’t want to give specific answers to specific questions and then be held accountable for those answers? I thank Kathleen Thomas and John Arrington for having the courage and the integrity to answer the questionnaires. Sometime during the week of January 24-January 30th, I plan to say who I support for Senator and why.

I also sent different questionnaires to all the Illinois Gubernatorial candidates—two Democratic candidates, seven Republican candidates, and one Green Party candidate. Due to some problems, Adam Andrzejewski did not receive a paper questionnaire. I was contacted by a member of the campaign staff for a copy. I e-mailed it to her and said that it would be permissible for it to be returned by e-mail without his signature. Therefore, although no signature was given, the following are the answers given by Adam Andrzejewski as far as I know. However, I can not confirm that to be true. If he is elected governor, I certainly intend to hold him to his answers.

Adam Andrzejewski is the only gubernatorial candidate who has answered the questionnaire. Why such a meager response? Could it be that they don’t want to give specific answers to specific questions and then be held accountable for those answers? I thank Adam Andrzejewski for having the courage and the integrity to answer the questionnaire. Sometime during the week of January 24-January 30th, I plan to say who I support for Governor and why.

I told all the candidates that I would post responses received on a “first response” basis and if received before the primary I would post it if I had time. There are certain other posts I have planned. If I receive additional questionnaires, I will certainly try to work them in before the primary. It, of course, is up to the candidates to answer the questionnaire and return it.

Adam Andrzejewski

Questionnaire for Governor candidates:

1) As Governor, I will vigorously set budget priorities and cut spending, if necessary, to insure that the State budget is actually and realistically balanced—spending no more than received.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: I’m the only candidate with a plan and a process to a) create public support for deep cuts, that b) doesn’t require the legislature to pass it.

2) As Governor, I will work diligently to pass a State Constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. No other types of marriages or civil unions are acceptable.

His answer: agree

Comment: The action described is a monumental task that would require a Republican majority in a party that is itself split on this issue. More important is getting a Constitutional change that gives citizens the right to binding referenda on these divisive issues.

3) As Governor, I will veto any bill that allows, promotes, and/or encourages the use of “medical” marihuana.

His answer: undecided

Comment: If crafted solely to provide for the alleviation of pain for cancer/chemo patients and the terminally ill, I would consider signing such a bill.

4) As Governor, I will work diligently to NOT increase taxes during my term of office.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

5) As Governor, I will work diligently to amend the State Constitution to allow for the people to have the power of initiative, referendum, and to expand recall to all State elected executive offices.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: I am already on record for supporting the Put Back Amendment, which term limits the legislature, ends the power of legislative leaders, and ends gerrymandering. I prefer Term Limits to Recall, in that it is more effectively instituted, but support both.

6) The right to keep and bear arms at the State level may be severely restricted by the State’s police power and may include confiscation of all arms to protect the State.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: The right to bear arms is an individual right. It attaches to one of the most important rights of a free people, and that is to defend themselves.

7) As Governor, I will work diligently to expand the Illinois Constitutional rights of practicing homosexuals since the equal protection clause rightly permits such activity.

His answer: disagree

Comment: People of alternative lifestyles already have all the rights everyone else has, and I will defend their rights as I would any other citizen of Illinois.

8) As Governor, I will automatically veto any bill that is passed contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which currently requires three readings on three different days. Changing the contents of a bill to a totally different subject after one, two, or three readings will not be accepted.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: I am on record as the only candidate promising the end of the “shell bill” practice.

9) As Governor, I will diligently support abortion for women as a Constitutional right.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: Abortion isn’t a Constitutional right according the 9th and 10th Amendments. It was made a right by the Supreme Ct. I am pro-life.

10) As Governor, I will work diligently to establish term limits for all elected members of the three branches of the State government.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: I support the Put Back Amendment

11) ACORN and its affiliated groups shall not receive State monies.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

12) The State of Illinois should and shall work cooperatively and vigorously with the federal government to enforce the immigrant laws as presently written by Congress.

His answer: agree

Comment: We should know who is here, where they are, where they are working, and whether they want to become citizens.

13) As Governor, I support embryonic stem cell research supported by federal and State tax dollars.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

14) As Governor, I will work diligently to repeal video gaming within the State outside of the already established casinos and without further increases within those casinos.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

15) As Governor, I will work diligently to encourage families to home education their children. I will work with home educators to establish a pilot program(s) to provide financial assistance—for example, $500 per education-age child for books, supplies, and equipment—to the home education family. This program(s) should both strengthen families and relieve the State of financial responsibility—thousands of dollars per child—for said education.

His answer: agree

Comment: I will support the Home School community.

16) As Governor, I support the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of Freedom of Speech including using obscene language, burning the American flag, and public nude dancing.

His answer: undecided

Comment: Much of what is described above easily falls into exceptions to my strong support of “free speech.” I fail to see how “nude dancing” is free speech.

17) As Governor, I will work diligently to allow our citizens to carry a concealed weapon(s) on his/her person—sometimes known as “right to carry”—as allowed in almost every other State.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

18) As Governor, I will work diligently to identify and repeal laws and bureaucratic rules that unnecessarily restrict private individuals from successfully establishing and operating a small business.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

19) As Governor, I support the federal government taking the major responsibility to provide health care and/or health insurance for everyone within the United States.

His answer: disagree

Comment: Health Care is not the government’s responsibility. It is the individuals right and responsibility to find the best health care services that fit their needs.

Signature of the candidate: done by e-mail; see opening comment by me

Please print the candidate’s name: Adam Andrzejewski Thank you!

John Arrington—Illinois U.S. Senate candidate


News Update: Unless you have been living in a cave for the last 24 hours, you should know that Scott Brown did what was thought to be impossible. He won the special U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts Tuesday. Watching the 10 PM news Monday night, I knew he would win. The news segment about the race had Barack Hussein Obama campaigning Sunday for the Democratic candidate—what was her name? The segment for Scott Brown had Curt Schilling—ace pitcher for the Boston Red Sox when they won the World Series—campaigning for him. Curt was saying that the Democratic candidate—what was her name—claimed he was a New York Yankee fan. He then said, “I’m not a Yankee fan!” And the crowd roared. Even though I knew Scott Brown would win, I was praying throughout the day for his victory. Thank you LORD!!!

Now, my question is: Do you think the Democrats in Congress will finally get the message? WE DO NOT WANT NATIONALIZED HEALTHCARE!!! Or will they continue to be stiff-necked believing that they know best what is best for the American people?

Tonight’s regularly schedule post:

Earlier during this primary season, I mailed questionnaires to all Illinois candidates for Governor and the U.S. Senate—Democrats, Republicans and Green Party. I am posting the original questions and the answer given with any comments provided by each candidate. Each question asked for a response that strongly agreed, agreed, was undecided, disagreed or strongly disagreed. To save space and time, I am only posting the answer—not all five choices—for each question. I am posting the responses and comments by the candidates without any comment from me.

The second questionnaire from the various Senate candidates that I received was from John Arrington. I am posting the questions and his answers tonight.

John Arrington

Questionnaire for Senate candidates:

1) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to overturn the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade that allows abortion.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

2) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to pass a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. No other types of marriages or civil unions are acceptable.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

3) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to expand the Constitutional rights of practicing homosexuals since the equal protection clause rightly permits such activity.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

4) Congress should provide a “path to citizenship” for people who are in this country illegally.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

5) “Strict constructionists” should be appointed to the Unites States Supreme Court and to the other lower federalist courts.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

6) The right to keep and bear arms is a federal right and therefore States have the authority to place restricts on that right up to and including denying that right if allowed by State Constitution.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

7) The United States Constitution provides for a “wall of separation between church and State” as defined by the United States Supreme Court.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

8) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to withdrawal our troops in Afghanistan and establish a timetable for said withdrawal of United States armed forces.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

9) The United States Supreme Court was correct in establishing abortion for women as a Constitutional right.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

10) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to establish term limits for all members of Congress.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

11) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to pass a Constitutional amendment to redefine citizenship so that babies born in the United States to individuals who are not American citizens do not automatically become a citizen at birth.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

12) The United States government needs to more vigorously enforce the immigrant laws as presently written by Congress.

His answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

13) As a Congressman, I support embryonic stem cell research supported by federal tax dollars.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

14) As a Congressman, I support the June, 2008 Supreme Court decision to allow captured enemy combatants to have legal access through the writ of habeas corpus to civilian federal courts.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

15) As a Congressman, I support the federal government taking the major responsibility to provide health care and/or health insurance for everyone within the United States.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

16) As a Congressman, I support the Supreme Court’s definition of Freedom of Speech including using obscene language, burning the American flag, and public nude dancing.

His answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

Signature of the candidate: He signed the form—my statement of confirmation

Please print the candidate’s name: John Arrington Thank you!

Kathleen Thomas—Illinois U.S. Senate candidate


Earlier during this primary season, I mailed questionnaires to all Illinois candidates for Governor and the U.S. Senate—Democrats, Republicans and Green Party. I am posting the original questions and the answer given with any comments provided by each candidate. Each question asked for a response that strongly agreed, agreed, was undecided, disagreed or strongly disagreed. To save space and time, I am only posting the answer—not all five choices—for each question. I am posting the responses and comments by the candidates without any comment from me.

The first questionnaire for the various Senate candidates that I received was from Kathleen Thomas. I am posting the questions and her answers tonight.

Kathleen Thomas

Questionnaire for Senate candidates:

1) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to overturn the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade that allows abortion.

Her answer: agree

Comment: Roe v. Wade decision has no constitutional foundation.

2) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to pass a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. No other types of marriages or civil unions are acceptable.

Her answer: agree (She specifically circled “No other types of marriages or civil unions are acceptable” and then wrote below that “agree.”)

Comment: I agree marriage is between one man and one woman. There was a point in our not too distant past when conservatives and Republicans were all about limiting government’s role in our private lives. I don’t want more government, I want less! As long as federal courts do not require one state to honor gay marriage from another state, there is no reason to get Fed. Congress involved in what has been a state legislative issue.

3) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to expand the Constitutional rights of practicing homosexuals since the equal protection clause rightly permits such activity.

Her answer: strongly disagree

Comment: The 14th Amendment does not permit this.

4) Congress should provide a “path to citizenship” for people who are in this country illegally.

Her answer: She did not mark any of the five choices.

Comment: I do not believe the county has the collective will or the resources to deport 12 to 20 million undocumented workers. We must 1st secure the borders. We can then begin the process of documenting (visas, work permits) those here so they can begin working and paying taxes.

5) “Strict constructionists” should be appointed to the Unites States Supreme Court and to the other lower federalist courts.

Her answer: She did not mark any of the five choices.

Comment: I’m not sure of your definition of strict construction. I do not believe judges should legislate from the bench. There should be no judicial activism.

6) The right to keep and bear arms is a federal right and therefore States have the authority to place restricts on that right up to and including denying that right if allowed by State Constitution.

Her answer: strongly disagree

Comment: Because the power is delegated to the United States by the constitution, the right to Keep & Bear Arms cannot be restricted by states.

7) The United States Constitution provides for a “wall of separation between church and State” as defined by the United States Supreme Court.

Her answer: disagree

Comment: The 1st Amendment indicates the Fed. gov’t shall not establish a religion.

8) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to withdrawal our troops in Afghanistan and establish a timetable for said withdrawal of United States armed forces.

Her answer: disagree

Comment: I will work diligently to establish goals that help us protect ourselves. Setting an objective with a timetable is necessary.

9) The United States Supreme Court was correct in establishing abortion for women as a Constitutional right.

Her answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

10) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to establish term limits for all members of Congress.

Her answer: agree

Comment: None was given.

11) As a Congressman, I will work diligently to pass a Constitutional amendment to redefine citizenship so that babies born in the United States to individuals who are not American citizens do not automatically become a citizen at birth.

Her answer: undecided

Comment: Conceptually I don’t have a problem with the citizenship law. However, there may be some very negative consequences on 2nd generation immigrants, both from an individual perspective as well as a societal perspective here in the U.S.

12) The United States government needs to more vigorously enforce the immigrant laws as presently written by Congress.

Her answer: strongly agree

Comment: None was given.

13) As a Congressman, I support embryonic stem cell research supported by federal tax dollars.

Her answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

14) As a Congressman, I support the June, 2008 Supreme Court decision to allow captured enemy combatants to have legal access through the writ of habeas corpus to civilian federal courts.

Her answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

15) As a Congressman, I support the federal government taking the major responsibility to provide health care and/or health insurance for everyone within the United States.

Her answer: strongly disagree

Comment: None was given.

16) As a Congressman, I support the Supreme Court’s definition of Freedom of Speech including using obscene language, burning the American flag, and public nude dancing.

Her answer: strongly disagree

Comment: Burning a flag is not speech.

Signature of the candidate: She signed the form—my statement of confirmation

Please print the candidate’s name: Kathleen Thomas Thank you!

She wrote below her name: Thank you!

Nationalized Healthcare—causing panic among Democrats?


I heard on the radio Friday afternoon that Democrat House member Vic Snyder was losing in a public opinion poll to the probable Republican candidate for the 2nd District in Arkansas by 17 percent points. Interested, I googled the story to find out more. I did find out more. Vic Snyder is retiring from the House of Representatives when his term is completed at the end of 2010. Did you read this in you local paper? I didn’t!

According to the Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/) on 1/15/10, “Snyder’s Little Rock-area district was already rated a competitive ‘toss-up’ race by the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. Without an incumbent to defend the seat, the GOP prospects for a pick up are brighter. John McCain won the district 54%-44% against Barack Obama in 2008. The Arkansas Democrat is the 11th member of his party to announce he will not seek re-election this November.”

I did some checking on Vic Snyder, the retiring Democratic member of the House of Representatives. He is in his seventh term and won his reelection in 2008 with 77% of the vote. And he is now losing by 17% (56%-39%) in a current public opinion poll. Even more interesting, before being elected to the House, he was a physician! Could it be that the voters in Arkansas hearing all that is going on with the nationalization of healthcare and realizing the impossibility of this monstrosity actually doing good is willing to vote out of office a physician for not standing up to his fellow Democrats and demanding real change in healthcare—rather than nationalization?

Last week I posted two appeals for money for the special Senate election in Massachusetts on Tuesday the 19th. One was from Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois pleading for money for the Democratic candidate and one was from the conservative Minnesota Majority (http://www.mnmajority.org/). Below are two more e-mails received among several that stresses the possibility of a Republican, Scott Brown, being able to win in Massachusetts even though just a couple of weeks ago such a possibility seemed impossible.

“Friday, January 15, 2010

A Message from Scott WheelerExecutive Director

An urgent appeal from the GOP Trust—

The Massachusetts Senate Special Election is just four days away (Tomorrow by the time I get this posted—my addition)

Watch our TV ad … it’s working!

Republican candidate Scott Brown can win!

Brown’s win best chance to drown Democrats’ health care bill!

We need your help!

Dear Fellow Conservative:

The National Republican Trust is the nation’s third largest PAC dedicated to recruiting and electing conservative candidates. We are going all out to win the critical special election in Massachusetts. It is only four short days away.

A Republican victory to fill ‘Ted Kennedy’s Seat’ would end Obama’s filibuster proof senate. Republican Scott Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote to kill the Health Care Bill and other reckless policies on Obama’s anti-American agenda.

The National Republican Trust launched a TV ad campaign entitled ‘The Real Change’ to help elect Scott Brown. Great news—it is working! Latest polling shows this high-stakes race is neck and neck and Brown has the momentum. I’ve been at this long enough to know that Republicans must win by a Theft-Proof Margin. (The Minnesota Senate election was probably stolen in 2008—my addition.) This ad campaign can get us closer to this monumental victory.

Our ad reminds voters that on Tuesday they can send Washington the message that it’s time to end the madness. Scott Brown, can end the bailouts, broken promises and all the back room, closed-door deals.

GO HERE TO SEE OUR AD

The National Republican Trust is actively buying as much airtime as possible. We are fully committed to continuing this fight until Election Day. Please help us keep this ad running as often as possible.

CLICK TO JOIN THE FIGHT!

GOP Trust—lightning conservative response!

We recognize the dire precipice the Democrat’s reckless agenda has put us on. We are on the front lines fighting to save our country, and you, our valued supporters, enable us to fight the fights that matter! We proudly combat the corrupt tactics of the left. We hit them where it hurts.

When other Republicans were too timid to attack Obama’s radical associates, we led the charge with our ‘Shock and Awe’ campaign that went after the venom spewing, anti-American minister, Jeremiah Wright.

Your donation means our nationwide and strategically targeted local ad campaigns deliver for conservatives, helping effect real change. We are the Republicans you can trust with the conservative cause.

HELP TAKE BACK AMERICA! CLICK HERE NOW!

The momentum is on our side! Join the surge!

As you read this, Republican Candidate Scott Brown is locked in a close battle against Martha Coakley and the Massachusetts Democrat Machine. Brown was down 30 points in the polls a few months ago. Last week he moved to within nine points. Earlier this week he pulled ahead by one point. This race remains too close to call. The momentum is on our side and there are just four days to go! Our ad campaign can keep this momentum going through Election Day.

They aren’t dismissing us anymore!

Democrats brag that Massachusetts is a One-Party State—their voters have not sent a Republican to the Senate in 37 years. Democrats dismissed the prospect of Brown winning as ‘wishful thinking whipped up by conservative commentators outside Massachusetts.’ Yet Scott Brown has all the momentum. And he can win.

DEMOCRATS COUNT US OUT - CLICK TO PROVE THEM WRONG!

Vicious, dirty fight—corrupt tactics must fail!

In the last days of this race, Democrats can now visualize their worst nightmare, the loss of ‘Ted Kennedy’s’ Senate seat, and they’re in a panic because their disastrous health care bill is slipping through their fingers.

The SEIU (I don’t recognize the initials but it might be a union—my addition) has just committed an additional $700,000 to defeat Scott Brown.

George Soros’ ultra-leftwing Moveon.org has recognized Brown’s surge, calling his potential win ‘catastrophic’ to the chances of passing health care legislation.

The Democrats will stop at nothing to foist this bill on America. Since the beginning of their ‘legislative process’ they have used every dirty trick in the book—a litany of ruthless and despicable tactics: attacking citizen opponents in town hall meetings, payoffs, and sweetheart deals.

The Boston Herald reports ‘It looks like the fix is in on national health care reform,’ referring to Senator Paul Kirk (the interim Senate seat holder chosen by the Clinton crony Governor Patrick) who has vowed to vote for the bill even if Scott Brown wins on January 19.

And unbelievably, the Democrats have publicly stated that even if Scott Brown wins, they will not seat him until after the final Senate Health Care Bill vote. If they try this, we will make them pay dearly for their rotten schemes in the Fall elections. The National Republican Trust will force the Democrats’ liberty-crushing tactics into the light of day!

CLICK HERE TO DEFEAT DEMOCRAT CORRUPTION!

Further outrage! Dirty tricks!

Their dirty tricks keep coming. The Massachusetts Legislature allowed Governor Patrick to change state law and appoint Kirk based on a promise that he would stay neutral in the Special Senate election. Of course he lied—he has endorsed Coakley. (By law, the vacancy was to be filled by a special election. The appointment was made to insure the 60th vote to break a filibuster. It’s nothing new. The Illinois General Assembly moved our primary back to the first Tuesday in February to help Barack Hussein Obama win the Presidential nomination in 2008. We are now in the middle of our first non-presidential primary with a February 2nd vote because of the change. To hold a primary in Illinois in early February is asinine!—my addition)

Massachusetts was one of the cradles of American independence. It is a sad irony that it is in danger of entering the history books as the state that, through corruption and dirty tricks, threatened our nation with Socialism.

Please help us keep this ad running as often as possible.

CLICK TO JOIN THE FIGHT!

Thank you for your tremendous support for the National Republican Trust.

Yours for America,

Scott WheelerExecutive Director
goptrust.com

Paid for by The National Republican Trust PAC. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

The National Republican Trust PAC
2100 M St. NW Suite 170-340
Washington, DC 20037-1233”

The second e-mail:

“Scott Brown pulls ahead to a 4% lead in Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate!

It is with great excitement that we are passing on to you this breaking news development from Massachusetts where a brand new poll has Republican Scott Brown surging to a 4% lead in the polls for the Special Election for U.S. Senate.

Scott Brown now leads liberal Democrat Martha Coakley by a 50%-46% margin. This is the first time Brown has hit the magical threshold of 50% in a poll, suggesting he has the momentum to win this race in this heavily Democratic state!

The Democrats are in a state of panic and have just dumped even more money into this race. (Note: All the national attention this is receiving from the mass media and the urgent, late appeals from Democrats like Dick Durbin for more money as well as Barack Hussein Obama campaigning in Massachusetts to “save the day!”!—my addition) We here at the Tea Party Express are countering with our own TV ad campaign for Scott Brown that is running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars—thanks to your support.

Tomorrow we are expanding our ad buy even more—and we need your support. The final deadlines for us to purchase advertising are the end of the day Friday, and then one last time for the end of the day Monday. This is it, there are no more tomorrow’s—we must make our final push now!

You can make a contribution to our campaign effort for Scott Brown - HERE.

We must take action, for if we can pull out a victory, we stop the Democrats dead in their tracks in their effort to secretly ram through their socialistic healthcare plan.

That’s because Scott Brown wholeheartedly opposes the Democrat’s government-run healthcare plan and has made his opposition to it a central part of his campaign.

If Brown wins then he will be the deciding vote to kill the socialistic healthcare monstrosity in the Senate!

You can contribute any amount you can afford, from as little as $5 to the maximum allowed $5,000 -- CLICK HERE to CONTRIBUTE –

If you prefer you may also mail in a contribution to our finance headquarters:

Tea Party Express
ATTN: Scott Brown for Senate
770 L Street #1020
Sacramento, CA 95814”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. No government has the right to force me to buy a product I don’t want to buy. No government has the right to tax me for not buying a product I don’t want to buy. If it tries, I will NOT pay. If necessary I will go to prison.

No government has the right to force me to help pay for the MURDERING of preborn children. No government has the right to allow the MURDER of preborn children. No person, male or female, has the right to MURDER preborn children. If the federal government tries to force its citizens to fund the MURDER of preborn children through nationalized healthcare or any other method, I WILL STOP PAYING TAXES!!! If necessary I will go to prison.

And these are just two of many reasons why this nationalized healthcare bill is a monstrosity. Fortunately, it seems the American public understands this bill is a disaster. Will the President eventually get the message? Will the Democratic Party eventually get the message? Or do we have to vote the rascals out of office? Kick them out before they ruin this nation!