Republican Presidential candidate Congressman Duncan Hunter will be making a stop in Northern Nevada on December 27 and 28, 2007. He will be accompanied by his Honorary Campaign Chairman General Chuck Yeager. Congressman Hunter and General Yeager will be in the area after the Christmas holiday to get the message out about Duncan Hunter’s vision for our nation as President. The public is invited to attend this event and have the opportunity to voice their questions and meet with Congressman Hunter and General Chuck Yeager.
A townhall meeting is scheduled in Reno, NV on December 27, 2007 from 5-6pm at the Airport Plaza Hotel in the 2nd floor ballroom. Congressman Hunter will be discussing issues like immigration and border control, 2nd amendment rights, trade with China, national security, Christian values and other topics that are important to our nation.
The Carson City County Republican Party is hosting a townhall meeting in Carson City, NV on December 28, 2007. This event will be held at the Gold Dust West Casino in the conference room located at 2171 Hwy 50 East from 5pm – 7pm. The public is also invited to attend this event and meet with Congressman Hunter and General Yeager.
If you would like to schedule an interview with Congressman Hunter or General Chuck Yeager while he is visiting Northern Nevada, you can reach Gary Becks at (619)334-1655 or dlhunter08@yahoo.com
If you would like more information or to speak with a campaign representative from Nevada please contact Tim Shepard at 775-997-5918 or tim.shepard@gohunter2008.org or Kristie Parker at 775-313-7206 or kristie.parker@gohunter2008.org
(http://www.washoecountygop.org/2007/12/24/congressman-duncan-hunter-general-chuck-yeager-making-campaign-stops-in-northern-nevada/)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
DUNCAN HUNTER endorsed by Terry Anderson
There has been no one more steady and true on the illegal immigration issue than Radio's own Terry Anderson in Los Angeles. Last night on his program he stated in his unmistakable fashion, "DUNCAN HUNTER IS MY FIRST GUY!" and "The only one I would consider is Duncan Hunter!"
To candidates Romney and Huckabee, Terry had this thought about their 'registration' or 'touch back' schemes for illegal aliens. "Register them as they're leaving the country so we know who to NEVER let back in!" and "Anything short of deportation is amnesty"
From the show, Sunday, Dec. 23, 2007 Does "Peace on earth, good will toward men" mean amnesty?
(excerpt...see http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/12/duncan-hunter-endorsed-by-terry.html)
To candidates Romney and Huckabee, Terry had this thought about their 'registration' or 'touch back' schemes for illegal aliens. "Register them as they're leaving the country so we know who to NEVER let back in!" and "Anything short of deportation is amnesty"
From the show, Sunday, Dec. 23, 2007 Does "Peace on earth, good will toward men" mean amnesty?
(excerpt...see http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/12/duncan-hunter-endorsed-by-terry.html)
NumbersUSA’s Roy Beck Assesses Republican Presidential Candidates On Immigration Issues
SOURCES & EXPLANATIONSASSESSMENTS CHANGE WITH THE CANDIDATES: The NumbersUSA staff updates the candidate information pages every day. NumbersUSA Founder and CEO Roy Beck looks at those updates and adjusts his grading of the candidates based on the newest information of changes in candidate comments.
ROY BECK’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING: “I look at these candidates ONLY in terms of what they have done about immigration and what they are promising to do on the issue.
“I grade all these candidates on how well they promise to carry out the recommendations of two national commissions in the 1990s and on other widely accepted goals for reducing overall illegal and legal immigration.
“I know that citizens choose to support a candidate based on many issues and on character and on past experience. I don’t endorse candidates because I don’t consider all those other aspects of the whole candidate. But I do candidly assess how each of them stacks up on immigration issues.
“I give the most weight to an official statement of promises, unless the candidate has said or done something since stating the policy to cast doubt on the promise.
“Absent an official policy, I give considerable weight to recent public statements. I leave room for candidates to shift positions; I don’t forever label them based on past statements or actions. The point here is what a candidate is most likely to do in the future as President, not grade them on past performances. But when current statements are ambiguous, contradictory, less than enthusiastically embraced or non-existent, I use past actions to help assess.
"If a candidate has said or done something new that calls into question a rating in a category, we will place black question marks (? ? ? ?) until we have sorted out where the rating should be."
“If you don’t like my assessment of a candidate because you think I have used faulty information, contact us with your information. If you want your favorite candidate to get a better assessment from me, work to get that candidate to make better, more convincing promises on immigration.”
Comparison Chart:
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
Duncan Hunter:
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/HunterPres08.html
ROY BECK’S CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING: “I look at these candidates ONLY in terms of what they have done about immigration and what they are promising to do on the issue.
“I grade all these candidates on how well they promise to carry out the recommendations of two national commissions in the 1990s and on other widely accepted goals for reducing overall illegal and legal immigration.
“I know that citizens choose to support a candidate based on many issues and on character and on past experience. I don’t endorse candidates because I don’t consider all those other aspects of the whole candidate. But I do candidly assess how each of them stacks up on immigration issues.
“I give the most weight to an official statement of promises, unless the candidate has said or done something since stating the policy to cast doubt on the promise.
“Absent an official policy, I give considerable weight to recent public statements. I leave room for candidates to shift positions; I don’t forever label them based on past statements or actions. The point here is what a candidate is most likely to do in the future as President, not grade them on past performances. But when current statements are ambiguous, contradictory, less than enthusiastically embraced or non-existent, I use past actions to help assess.
"If a candidate has said or done something new that calls into question a rating in a category, we will place black question marks (? ? ? ?) until we have sorted out where the rating should be."
“If you don’t like my assessment of a candidate because you think I have used faulty information, contact us with your information. If you want your favorite candidate to get a better assessment from me, work to get that candidate to make better, more convincing promises on immigration.”
Comparison Chart:
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez08_gop1.html
Duncan Hunter:
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/HunterPres08.html
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Vision vs. Pandering: Why Duncan Hunter is the ONLY choice – Part 1
I had a recent opportunity to have some holiday cheer and briefly talk politics with two longtime conservative associates; one a Mike Huckabee leaner and the other a Fred Thompson guy. The arguments (paraphrasing) went like this:
Huckabee guy: Huck is the one who can truly re-energize the Christian Conservatives in the party, he has a good sense of humor, presents himself well and his personality surely will attract moderates, not scare them off. His recent ‘surge’ is evidence of a winning political ear, which we will need to beat Hillary. He also was a successful governor from a Southern state, and despite a few missteps that all politicians have, he has a solid, conservative platform, just check out his website. Besides, Hunter does not have traction.
Thompson guy: Fred is the guy to beat Rudy McRomney. His record on fiscal issues and government reform and federalism is impressive and no one ever considered him a liberal, like some of these other schmucks. And his endorsement by the National Right to Life organization last month over Huck and Hunter shows that he is fully capable of carrying the values voters. And his recent position papers on social security and Illegal immigration are the type of clearheaded thinking the country needs in a President.
Me: Just look at their records in totality. Hunter is strongest and most consistent on borders, military affairs, foreign policy, sovereignty, tax cuts, anti-communism, all the most important things we need in a commander in chief right now. Hunter’s warnings about China and porous borders and losses of industrial might have all come home to roost, and most of the other candidates have been far less than helpful in these areas throughout their careers.
Three reasonable arguments for three Republicans in good standing? So it would seem.
But there is a significant difference that my friends both grudgingly admitted to: Hunter has been the most consistent of the three throughout their careers. However, both stressed the ‘here and now’, using Huckabee’s recent “strong” position on enforcing our borders and Fred’s willingness to tackle entitlements, respectively, as more proof of their candidate’s veracity and viability.
But if we are to give great weight to what a politician says during the course of a campaign for the GOP nomination, then one could argue that Rudy and McCain and Romney also deserve accolades and support for their candidacies. And indeed, they do have a fair amount of support and accolades at this time. If you read the position papers and policy statements and see the debate answers from each of these men, it is possible to coherently argue for any one of them being the superior man for President.
Though both of my friends were more than happy to rake Rudy and Romney and McCain over the coals for their past ‘sins’ against conservatism, they were able to minimize and basically ignore the less savory aspects of their chosen man’s record with ease. I do not argue that all transgressions against conservatism are equal, they are not. But giving undue weight to the rhetoric of a candidate’s stump speech or policies posted on a campaign website is an exercise in rationalization, not prudent evaluation.
So how do we separate them as they all dash for the title of ‘strong conservative leader’? The answer: Vision.
Vision is what separates a man like Ronald Reagan from a man like his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush. Vision provides the ability to see what lies over the horizon, the courage to confront it before it spins into chaos, and the wisdom to apply conservative solutions, regardless of how tantalizing or expedient a more liberal remedy may be. Vision also entails the ability to clearly recognize history for what it truly is, including the underlying wisdom our founders espoused, and including the knowledge of man’s nature. Vision is what separates those whose values are anchored like roots of a 200 year old oak tree from those who use a moistened finger to assess the political winds.
Vision is what sets Duncan Hunter apart from ALL of the others. That vision is reflected in his consistency, his record, his press statements, his long held beliefs and his current platform. No other candidate, other than Ron Paul (who espouses an odd hybrid of libertarianism and leftism), comes close to the having a rock solid vision that has animated his entire life and public service. The winds of change may have devastated large swaths of the Republican Party in recent years, but they just caused Hunter to dig in deeper and to fight even harder. While others pander to the current circumstances of a Republican primary and to subgroups within the GOP, Hunter is as he was; an America-first, conservative patriot with the unflinching vision of what our country stands for.
This article compares Hunter to the other candidates on China & Trade, Tax Cuts, and Bureaucracy and the Nanny State. It's a different format from other articles posted, and it is well done. Other of Mr. Madison's essays for Duncan Hunter have been posted here, and they are all phenomenal. (excerpt...seee http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/12/vision-vs-pandering-why-duncan-hunter.html)
Huckabee guy: Huck is the one who can truly re-energize the Christian Conservatives in the party, he has a good sense of humor, presents himself well and his personality surely will attract moderates, not scare them off. His recent ‘surge’ is evidence of a winning political ear, which we will need to beat Hillary. He also was a successful governor from a Southern state, and despite a few missteps that all politicians have, he has a solid, conservative platform, just check out his website. Besides, Hunter does not have traction.
Thompson guy: Fred is the guy to beat Rudy McRomney. His record on fiscal issues and government reform and federalism is impressive and no one ever considered him a liberal, like some of these other schmucks. And his endorsement by the National Right to Life organization last month over Huck and Hunter shows that he is fully capable of carrying the values voters. And his recent position papers on social security and Illegal immigration are the type of clearheaded thinking the country needs in a President.
Me: Just look at their records in totality. Hunter is strongest and most consistent on borders, military affairs, foreign policy, sovereignty, tax cuts, anti-communism, all the most important things we need in a commander in chief right now. Hunter’s warnings about China and porous borders and losses of industrial might have all come home to roost, and most of the other candidates have been far less than helpful in these areas throughout their careers.
Three reasonable arguments for three Republicans in good standing? So it would seem.
But there is a significant difference that my friends both grudgingly admitted to: Hunter has been the most consistent of the three throughout their careers. However, both stressed the ‘here and now’, using Huckabee’s recent “strong” position on enforcing our borders and Fred’s willingness to tackle entitlements, respectively, as more proof of their candidate’s veracity and viability.
But if we are to give great weight to what a politician says during the course of a campaign for the GOP nomination, then one could argue that Rudy and McCain and Romney also deserve accolades and support for their candidacies. And indeed, they do have a fair amount of support and accolades at this time. If you read the position papers and policy statements and see the debate answers from each of these men, it is possible to coherently argue for any one of them being the superior man for President.
Though both of my friends were more than happy to rake Rudy and Romney and McCain over the coals for their past ‘sins’ against conservatism, they were able to minimize and basically ignore the less savory aspects of their chosen man’s record with ease. I do not argue that all transgressions against conservatism are equal, they are not. But giving undue weight to the rhetoric of a candidate’s stump speech or policies posted on a campaign website is an exercise in rationalization, not prudent evaluation.
So how do we separate them as they all dash for the title of ‘strong conservative leader’? The answer: Vision.
Vision is what separates a man like Ronald Reagan from a man like his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush. Vision provides the ability to see what lies over the horizon, the courage to confront it before it spins into chaos, and the wisdom to apply conservative solutions, regardless of how tantalizing or expedient a more liberal remedy may be. Vision also entails the ability to clearly recognize history for what it truly is, including the underlying wisdom our founders espoused, and including the knowledge of man’s nature. Vision is what separates those whose values are anchored like roots of a 200 year old oak tree from those who use a moistened finger to assess the political winds.
Vision is what sets Duncan Hunter apart from ALL of the others. That vision is reflected in his consistency, his record, his press statements, his long held beliefs and his current platform. No other candidate, other than Ron Paul (who espouses an odd hybrid of libertarianism and leftism), comes close to the having a rock solid vision that has animated his entire life and public service. The winds of change may have devastated large swaths of the Republican Party in recent years, but they just caused Hunter to dig in deeper and to fight even harder. While others pander to the current circumstances of a Republican primary and to subgroups within the GOP, Hunter is as he was; an America-first, conservative patriot with the unflinching vision of what our country stands for.
This article compares Hunter to the other candidates on China & Trade, Tax Cuts, and Bureaucracy and the Nanny State. It's a different format from other articles posted, and it is well done. Other of Mr. Madison's essays for Duncan Hunter have been posted here, and they are all phenomenal. (excerpt...seee http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/12/vision-vs-pandering-why-duncan-hunter.html)
Tancredo Backers Support Hunter Over Romney
Tom Tancredo may have thrown his personal support to Mitt Romney, but Tancredo's fans aren't buying it. Who are the Tancredo folks themselves backing now?
This from the TANCREDO FAN CAMPAIGN Blog. I am turning my endorsement to Duncan Hunter for President
Folks, the Primary is about conscience, not about who can beat Hillary. Duncan Hunter was always my second choice. For conscience sake, I must now turn my endorsement to Duncan Hunter.
It's been said, why would anyone endorse another candidate that is lower in the polls than the one that you supported (who dropped out)? Simple: for conscience sake.
Duncan Hunter is a true believer. We both happen to be Baptists too. He is a true Conservative. He will protect our sovereignty as a nation. He will fight Islamic terrorism. He's the only choice we have and he can still win if we get behind him.
I cannot dictate to you what to do with your own vote in the GOP Primaries. But, as the President of the TANCREDO Fan Campaign, I want you to know that I am endorsing Duncan Hunter for President.
How does this affect the TANCREDO Fan Campaign? It doesn't. I support Tom Tancredo. I am one of his biggest fans. And that is what this site was all about. So, I look forward to the next great thing that Tom does or plans and I am behind him 100%. Go Tom GO!
(http://redstaterusa.blogspot.com/2007/12/tancredo-backers-support-hunter-over.html)
This from the TANCREDO FAN CAMPAIGN Blog. I am turning my endorsement to Duncan Hunter for President
Folks, the Primary is about conscience, not about who can beat Hillary. Duncan Hunter was always my second choice. For conscience sake, I must now turn my endorsement to Duncan Hunter.
It's been said, why would anyone endorse another candidate that is lower in the polls than the one that you supported (who dropped out)? Simple: for conscience sake.
Duncan Hunter is a true believer. We both happen to be Baptists too. He is a true Conservative. He will protect our sovereignty as a nation. He will fight Islamic terrorism. He's the only choice we have and he can still win if we get behind him.
I cannot dictate to you what to do with your own vote in the GOP Primaries. But, as the President of the TANCREDO Fan Campaign, I want you to know that I am endorsing Duncan Hunter for President.
How does this affect the TANCREDO Fan Campaign? It doesn't. I support Tom Tancredo. I am one of his biggest fans. And that is what this site was all about. So, I look forward to the next great thing that Tom does or plans and I am behind him 100%. Go Tom GO!
(http://redstaterusa.blogspot.com/2007/12/tancredo-backers-support-hunter-over.html)
Congress cuts funding for Mexican trucks
But opponents believe Bush will find other ways to keep program rolling
Congress has passed a bill that cuts funding for the controversial Mexican truck program, but lawmakers expect the Bush administration to keep the foreign vehicles rolling on American roads amid safety and security concerns.
Joe Kasper, spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told WND that "without federal funding, it will be difficult to continue the program. However, we must expect that the administration will continue looking for ways to do so."
The newly passed 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibits the Department of Transportation from using the funds in it "to establish a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico."
(excerpt...see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59340)
Congress has passed a bill that cuts funding for the controversial Mexican truck program, but lawmakers expect the Bush administration to keep the foreign vehicles rolling on American roads amid safety and security concerns.
Joe Kasper, spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told WND that "without federal funding, it will be difficult to continue the program. However, we must expect that the administration will continue looking for ways to do so."
The newly passed 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act prohibits the Department of Transportation from using the funds in it "to establish a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico."
(excerpt...see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59340)
The China Threat Goes Unchecked
I may not agree with everything in this article, but it disucssues the impending threat of China that only Republican Candidate Duncan Hunter points out and mentions him being the best choice.
Churchill said in the British parliament that “democracy is the worst form of government,” and when the parliament gasped, he finished to its relief . . . “except all others” (that is, all other forms of government).
Churchill spoke after the victory over Nazi Germany (totalitarian dictatorship) to which victory he contributed as prime minister of Britain. But as of today the post-nuclear attack of China (totalitarian dictatorship) on the West (democracy) is within the realm of a future possibility, and so far the West has been barely aware of the existence of China, except recently, as a producer of toys, wonderfully cheap (slave labor), but sometimes toxic (absence of inspection).
Aristocracy (“the power of the best individuals”) as a form of government competed in ancient Athens with democracy (“the power of the people”). When John Stuart Mill published his “On Liberty” (in 1859), the form of government in the constitutional monarchy of Britain was still to some extent aristocracy. Even today, the prime minister, corresponding to the U.S. president, is elected by the parliament, which, in turn, was elected, at the beginning of the 19th century, by “the best,” accounting for a small percentage of the male population.
(excerpt...see http://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/china_threat_unchecked/2007/12/20/58618.html)
Churchill said in the British parliament that “democracy is the worst form of government,” and when the parliament gasped, he finished to its relief . . . “except all others” (that is, all other forms of government).
Churchill spoke after the victory over Nazi Germany (totalitarian dictatorship) to which victory he contributed as prime minister of Britain. But as of today the post-nuclear attack of China (totalitarian dictatorship) on the West (democracy) is within the realm of a future possibility, and so far the West has been barely aware of the existence of China, except recently, as a producer of toys, wonderfully cheap (slave labor), but sometimes toxic (absence of inspection).
Aristocracy (“the power of the best individuals”) as a form of government competed in ancient Athens with democracy (“the power of the people”). When John Stuart Mill published his “On Liberty” (in 1859), the form of government in the constitutional monarchy of Britain was still to some extent aristocracy. Even today, the prime minister, corresponding to the U.S. president, is elected by the parliament, which, in turn, was elected, at the beginning of the 19th century, by “the best,” accounting for a small percentage of the male population.
(excerpt...see http://www.newsmax.com/navrozov/china_threat_unchecked/2007/12/20/58618.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
