News

Michele Bachmann beats RINO Mitt Romney in fundraising

1 Comment
Rep. Michele Bachmann
Rep. Michele Bachmann

From the left-wing Politico.

Excerpt:

Michele Bachmann became the queen of 2011 fundraising this quarter, bringing in a combined $2.2 million for the quarter – bigger than the $1.9 million that frontrunner Mitt Romney reported bringing in, officials confirmed for POLITICO.

Bachmann raised $1.7 million for her congressional committee, and another $500,000 for her leadership PAC, Bachmann adviser Andy Parrish said.

The numbers are sure to roil the early presidential-watching, as the Minnesota congresswoman gears up for a likely run for the White House in 2012.

Much of her donations are reportedly small checks.

Bachmann, a tea party favorite, has been getting increasing attention as Sarah Palin appears increasingly unlikely to run.

Michele Bachmann is my pick to be President in 2012. Looks like she is off to a good start.

Just so you know, Mitt Romney is not a strong conservative. He enacted socialized medicine, with an individual mandate, in Massachusetts when he was the governor. It is suffering from enormous deficits. And in my opinion, he is pro-abortion, although he claims not to be when he is running for President.

Related posts

News

Harper would ban political contributions from unions and corporations

Leave a comment
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

From PostMedia News.

Excerpt:

Stephen Harper says scrapping taxpayer subsidies for political parties could help break Canada’s cycle of holding federal elections every few years, but his political foes say it’s another attempt to financially cripple the other parties.

On Friday, Day 7 of the campaign, Harper said he will ban the subsidies if the Conservatives win a majority government on May 2. Any party that receives more than two per cent of the vote in a general election receives a subsidy of roughly $2 per year for each vote the party received.

Harper said the system funnels taxpayers’ money to political parties they don’t necessarily support, and allows parties to operate in perpetual campaign mode.

“We think money should come from voters. Not from corporations, not from unions and not from government. (It) should come from the voters,” he told reporters.

[…]In January, Harper revealed for the first time, in an interview with Postmedia News, that a ban on the subsidies would be a “clear plank” in his party’s platform for an election.

Shortly after winning the 2008 election, the Tories proposed to end the subsidies, but that sparked anger from the opposition parties and they rallied to form a coalition that nearly defeated Harper’s government. On Friday, Harper made it clear he hasn’t changed his mind. However, in an apparent bid to take some of the sting out of the move and to reduce criticism, he revealed there would be a three-year transition.

“I’ve wanted to change this, but we’re very clear: Unless we have a majority government, we’ll never attempt to change it, because we know that in a minority government you could never move this forward. So if we get a chance to change it, we will,” Harper told reporters.

Basically, there should only be ONE WAY for parties to get money in my view. Individual contributions from workers and small businesses. Anyone who can use government to grant it a monopoly (unions, big corporations) should NOT be allowed to contribute money to politicians. Get the big money from left-wing unions and left-wing big corporations out of politics.

Here’s the latest poll, showing the Conservatives steady at 41.3% support. (H/T Jeanie)

News

Republican lawmaker introduces bill to protect questioners of Darwinism

7 Comments

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Excerpt:

An Arlington lawmaker has filed a bill aimed at protecting Texas college professors and students from discrimination because they question evolution.

The measure from Republican state Rep. Bill Zedler would block higher education institutions from discriminating against or penalizing teachers or students based on their research into intelligent design or other theories that disagree with evolution.

Zedler said he filed the bill because of cases in which colleges had been hostile to those who believe that certain features of life-forms are so complex that they must have originated from a higher power.

“We can have the academic freedom to have all kinds of ideas and philosophies but, lo and behold, even mention intelligent design and there are people that want to run you out of town on a rail,” Zedler said.

Zedler said fear of workplace discrimination is preventing evolution critics in colleges from speaking their minds.

“I do believe there are people that want to say something but … they’re afraid to because there are people around the country that have been discriminated against,” Zedler said.

Secular leftists place a great premium on getting “consensus” for whatever ideas provide maximum autonomy from moral obligations, whether the ideas are true or not. They don’t care whether the consensus is true, just that everyone agrees on it and that it produces good feelings. They just don’t handle differing points of view well… it confuses them and makes them anxious and frustrated. They are uncomfortable with concepts like being judged, or being punished. The don’t want anyone to disagree with their religion of materialism, which allows them to pursue pleasure apart from any objective moral obligations. Since the religion of materialism, which is so popular on the left, does away with morality, we have to be very careful to enshrine into the law protections for those who would dissent from this denial of objective morality. Otherwise you end up with cases like the Guillermo Gonzalez case or the Richard Sternberg case. There are no limits to what a materialist will do in order to keep up the illusion that no one is there to hold them accountable. They’ll believe anything. They’ll do anything. There isn’t anything in their materialism to stop them from committing atrocities. That’s why we need laws to contain their abuse of power.

A quotation from Martin Luther King, Jr. illustrates the point:

“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”

Until the time where those on the secular left learn to accept dissent, and allow debate, without resorting to insults and personal attacks, laws that protect dissenters will be necessary.