Tag Archives: Montana

Montana Senate candidate Jon Tester on judges, amnesty, abortion, tax cuts, spending, welfare

Heritage Action Scorecard for Democrat Jon Tester
Heritage Action Scorecard for Democrat Jon Tester Montana

A lot of American voters tend to approach elections like they approach food, clothes and entertainment. They choose what they like “in the moment”. But feelings about appearances is not the right way to measure a candidate. The right way to measure is by looking at the voting record. So let’s do that with Democrat Senate candidate Jon Tester of Montana.

Democrat Senate candidate Jon Tester of Montana

The Heritage Foundation is a respected Washington think tank, and they’ve collected together all the votes of the candidates.

Here are some of the votes that I found the most interesting:

For restricting choice in health insurance:

Disapproval of the Trump Administration’s “Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance” Rule10/10/2018The Senate voted on a Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 63) providing for congressional disapproval of the rule issued by the Trump administration related to “Short-Term, Limited Duration Insurance.” Sponsored by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), S.J. Res. 63 would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn a new Trump era rule that would expand the availability of affordable short-term, limited duration health plans to one year.

Against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

To confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court10/05/2018The Senate voted on the confirmation of D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh was nominated by President Donald Trump on July 9th, 2018 and was included in The Heritage Foundation’s original list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

For wasteful government spending:

Bloated $855 Billion CROMNIBUS Spending Package09/18/2018Back in March, President Trump nearly vetoed a $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill promising the American people that he “will never sign another bill like this again.” One of the President’s objections to the omnibus was its lack of conservative policy riders – particularly sufficient funding for border security – combined with increases in the Democrats’ spending priorities. Six months later Republicans and the President find themselves in a similar situation.

Against defunding Planned Parenthood:

Paul Amendment to defund Planned Parenthood08/23/2018To prohibit Federal funds being made available to a Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities.

For individual mandates in health care:

Motion to table Cruz, Cotton, Lee, Johnson D.C. Individual Mandate Amendment to Senate Minibus08/01/2018The Senate will vote on an amendment offered by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to Fiscal 2019 Interior-Environment, Financial Services, Agriculture, and Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act (H.R. 6147). The amendment would prohibit funding for the District of Columbia’s Health Insurance Requirement Amendment Act, essentially Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty applied to the district. Heritage Action supports the amendment and is opposed to the motion to table it.

For welfare entitlements without work requirement:

2018 Food Stamp and Farm Bill06/28/2018This month, the Senate could vote on the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (S. 3042), more commonly known as the “farm bill.” Despite repeated calls to enact work requirements for food stamp recipients and to reform runaway farm subsidies, the Senate Agriculture Committee approved a farm bill that maintains dysfunctional and distortive status quo welfare and agricultural policies.

Against cuts in government spending:

Rescissions Package to Cut Spending from Expired and Unnecessary Programs06/20/2018This week, the Senate will vote on the Trump administration’s rescissions request to cut spending by nearly $15 billion, titled the Spending Cuts to Expired and Unnecessary Programs Act (H.R. 3). Under current law, the Senate has until June 22nd to approve the House-passed bill under expedited rules.

For control of the Internet by left-wing IT corporations:

Repeal of the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” rule05/16/2018The Senate voted on a Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 52) providing for congressional disapproval of the rule issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) related to “Restoring Internet Freedom.” Sponsored by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), S.J. Res. 52 would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to reestablish draconian net neutrality regulations imposed on broadband internet service providers under former President Obama’s FCC. Those net neutrality rules were recently repealed by the FCC under the courageous leadership of Chairman Ajit V. Pai.

For amnesty for illegal immigrants:

Cloture for Schumer-Rounds-Collins Amnesty Amendment02/15/2018The Schumer-Rounds-Collins amnesty proposal, revealed by the “Common Sense Coalition” drew fire from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which said the bill would “effectively make the United States a Sanctuary Nation.” Entitled the “Immigration Security and Opportunity Act,” this legislation provides amnesty and a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants, fails to end chain migration and establish a merit-based immigration system for the 21st century, fails to secure the southern border, and undermines internal enforcement immigration policy.

Against Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act:

Cloture on Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act01/29/2018

Next week, the Senate will vote on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S. 2311), introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). This legislation would protect unborn children by preventing abortions 20 weeks after fertilization, at which time scientific evidence suggests the unborn child can feel pain. The House passed a similar bill last fall by a vote of 237 to 189.

Against tax cuts:

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Final Vote12/20/2017This week, the House and Senate will vote on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1), the most significant tax reform and tax cut legislative initiative since the 1986 tax reform package passed under President Ronald Reagan. The bill would make sweeping changes to the individual and corporate codes, and eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty.

Against tax-deferred education savings plans:

Expanding 529 Savings Plans12/01/2017The Senate could vote on an amendment (#1725) offered by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (H.R. 1) that expands higher education savings plans to include K-12 private school tuition and homeschool expenses. This amendment would help expand school choice by allowing families to use 529 account funds to help pay for private elementary and secondary education, including homeschooling.

Against repeal of government-run health care:

Repeal Title I of Obamacare10/19/2017The Senate will vote on an amendment (#1430) offered by Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) to H. Con. Res. 71 that would repeal Title I of Obamacare. This amendment expands the budget resolution’s existing deficit neutral reserve fund for legislation that repeals Obamacare to specifically include the repeal of Title I of Obamacare.

Against Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch:

Nomination of Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court04/07/2017

Later this week, the Senate is expected to vote on the confirmation of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Judge Gorsuch was nominated by President Donald Trump on January 31, 2017.

Against de-funding of Planned Parenthood:

Disapproval of Title X Funds for Planned Parenthood03/30/2017This week the House of Representatives is expected to vote on H.J.Res. 43, sponsored by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), a disapproval resolution of the final rule submitted by Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) relating to compliance with Title X requirements by project recipients in selecting sub-recipients. Title X of the Public Health Service Act provides federal funds to states for family planning grants. Once states receive the funds, they have the ability to prioritize sub-recipients, directing funds to organizations like community health centers and family health clinics. While federal law prohibits government funding for abortion, it does allows certain public dollars, like the Title X grants, to support abortion providers if the funds are directed to non-abortion related health services. Under this exception, Planned Parenthood has been eligible to receive Title X funds, per the states’ discretion.

If you live in this state, please consider sharing this article to let everyone know how this candidate has voted in the past.

If you would like to read something about his Republican rival, this article from Great Falls Tribune covers that.

Democrat Phil Bredesen’s staff say he is lying to Tennessee voters to appear moderate

Conservative Marsha Blackburn is running for Senate in Tennessee
Conservative Marsha Blackburn is running for Senate in Tennessee

I hope everyone knows about James O’Keefe, and the excellent undercover videos that he makes for his Project Veritas operation. One of the most important Senate races in the country is the race to fill an open seat in Tennessee. Regular readers know that I am a huge admirer of Marsha Blackburn – a pro-life conservative. She is running against a far-left progressive named Phil Bredesen.

Here is the latest from Project Veritas:

Project Veritas Action Fund has released a second undercover video from campaigns during this 2018 election season. This report exposes Tennessee staffers from Phil Bredesen’s U.S. Senate campaign revealing his willingness to court moderate voters through deceit. This was especially evidenced by Bredesen’s recent statement suggesting he would, if he was already in the Senate, vote to confirm now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

[…]Maria Amalla and Will Stewart, staffers in Bredesen’s campaign, both say on hidden camera that if he were in the Senate, Bredesen would not actually have voted to confirm then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh. They explained that the statement Bredesen issued in support of Kavanaugh was a political ploy to gain the support of moderate voters in Tennessee.

JOURNALIST: “Like he wouldn’t really vote yes [for Kavanaugh,] would he?”

AMALLA: “No, it’s a political move… He thinks that like we’re down like half a point right now. It’s like really close and we’re losing by a point or two. So he thinks that if like by saying this he’s appealing to more moderate republicans and he’ll get more of them to vote for us.”


JOURNALIST: “I was so confused because I just can’t believe he would actually vote [for Kavanaugh.]”

STEWART: “He wouldn’t. But he’s saying he would… Which I don’t know if it makes it worse or better. No, it makes it better…”

When asked to clarify that Bredesen is only saying he’d vote for Kavanaugh to “get the Republican vote,” Amalla, a field organizer for Bredesen’s campaign, affirmed, “Yes.” Amalla reiterated, “[Bredesen] thought that like by coming out in support [of Justice Kavanaugh] that it would get more republicans on his side. He wasn’t doing as well in the rural parts.”

Here’s the full video:

I have written about Marsha Blackburn 68 times since I started blogging in early 2009. She is one of my favorite conservatives. In all honesty, I would vote for her against pretty much anyone running against her. She is endorsed by the NRA , the Chamber of Commerce, and the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List.

Other Senate races: (current polls from Real Clear Politics)

Poll averages for critical Senate races
Poll averages for critical Senate races

The Tennessee Senate race is one of the most important races, but there are other close ones. If you live in one of these states, make sure you get registered and get out to vote. If you can put up a yard sign (I have three of them, one for each Republican candidate) then you should do that. I also got bumper stickers from the campaign office, and bought magnet stickers to stick them on, so that I can switch them back and forth between my cars.

Look, I believe that if we can get another 2-3 more conservative senators into the Senate, then we might see judges even more conservative than Brett Kavanaugh. My favorite candidate is Raymond Kethledge, but I’d like Amy Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. We could get these two justices on the Supreme Court, but only if we take Senate elections seriously. Yard signs are good. Bumper stickers are good. Going door to door is good. Making calls to get out the vote is good. Do all you can if you’re in one of these critical states.

Republicans introduce national right-to-work legislation

Sen. James Demint

From the Hill.

Excerpt:

Eight Republican Senators introduced a bill Tuesday giving workers a choice as to whether to join labor unions, which they argue will boost the nation’s economy and provide an increase in wages.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), introduced the National Right to Work Act to “reduce workplace discrimination by protecting the free choice of individuals to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities,” according to a statement.

Seven other Republicans signed onto the effort: Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), James Risch (Idaho), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and David Vitter (La.).

“Facing a steady decline in membership, unions have turned to strong-arm political tactics to make forced unionization the default position of every American worker, even if they don’t want it,” Hatch said. “This is simply unacceptable. At the very least, it should be the policy of the U.S. government to ensure that no employee will be forced to join a union in order to get or keep their job.

“Republicans cited a recent poll they said shows that 80 percent of union members support having their policy and that “Right to Work” states outperform “forced-union” states in factors that affect worker well being.

From 2000 to 2008, about 4.7 million Americans moved from forced-union to right to work states and a recent study found that there is “a very strong and highly statistically significant relationship between right-to-work laws and economic growth,” and that from 1977 to 2007, right-to-work states experienced a 23 percent faster growth in per capita income than states with forced unionization.

“To see the negative impacts of forced unionization, look no further than the struggling businesses in states whose laws allow it,” Vitter said. “It can’t be a coincidence that right-to-work states have on balance grown in population over the last 10 years, arguably at the expense of heavy union-favoring states.”

DeMint blamed the problems faced by U.S. automakers on the unions.

“Forced-unionism helped lead to GM and Chrysler’s near bankruptcy and their requests for government bailouts as they struggled to compete in a global marketplace,” he said. “When American businesses suffer because of these anti-worker laws, jobs and investment are driven overseas.”

If you want to attract businesses, then you need to have pro-business laws. That’s where jobs come from – businesses.

Here’s an article about states who are trying to pass these laws to attract more employers.

Excerpt:

Currently 14 states beyond Indiana and Wisconsin are considering legislation that would limit union benefits and/or collective bargaining power. They are: Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington (state) and West Virginia. In any number of these states, supporters have planned or held rallies against the measures. But public support might be less than deep. According to a Rasmussen Poll conducted late last week and released Monday, 48 percent of likely U.S. voters sided with Wisconsin Governor Walker whereas only 38 percent sided with his union opponents; the other 14 percent were undecided. And 50 percent of the respondents favored reducing their home state’s government payroll by one percent a year for 10 years either by reducing the work force or reducing their pay. Only 28 percent opposed such action.

This is how we are going to turn the recession around. Cut off the spending on left-wing special interests – NPR, PBS, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, Unions. They all will have to pay their own way, just like the grown-ups do.

Court validates student’s right to freedom of religion

From One News Now. (H/T Caffeinated Thoughts via ECM)

Excerpt:

Montana’s highest court has ruled in favor of a former Montana high school valedictorian who was banned from speaking at her graduation because her speech contained religious references.

Among Renee Griffith’s planned comments were such statements as: “I didn’t let fear keep me from sharing Christ and His joy with those around me” — and “I learned not to be known for my grades…but for being committed to my faith and morals and being someone who lived with a purpose from God with a passionate love for Him.” She was ordered by school officials to replace “Christ” with the words “my faith”; and to amend the other statement to say she “lived with a purpose, a purpose derived from my faith and based on a love of mankind.”

Griffith, a co-valedictorian of her 2008 senior class, refused to do so and, consequently, was prevented from speaking at the ceremony.

[…]The Rutherford Institute helped to argue the case on behalf of Griffith.  “Renee wanted to mention Christ and God in her graduation speech, and the school said she couldn’t do it — then she insisted that she be able to do it,” explains Rutherford’s president, John Whitehead.

“She was actually forbidden from even participating in the graduation ceremony at all,” Whitehead continues. “So I think this [ruling] sends a shot across the bow of all these other cases that have happened across the country — and it’s a reaffirmation that we still have some freedom in the United States.”

A lower court had ruled previously that Griffith’s civil rights were not violated, and the school district had argued mentioning Christ or God in a speech is a violation of the alleged “separation of church and state.”

“But the [Montana Supreme Court] actually addresses that and says that’s not true — this is just basically free speech and students should have a right, as other students have a right, to mention what’s important to them and their lives when they’re up before the students speaking about graduation,” says the spokesman for The Rutherford Institute.

Whitehead says the ruling affirms to Christian students that mentioning the name “Jesus” in a speech is not taboo.

W. William Leaphart dissented from the majority of the judges – he ruled against Renee Griffith. He was opposed to Christians exercising their religious liberty in the public square.

This is a good lesson about how the public school system tries to force their secular worldview onto Christians. Can you believe that? The National Butte School District #1 actually told her what to say so that she could sound like them. They wanted her to pretend to believe what they believe. And they thought that suppressing her views would cause her no harm at all. That it was OK for her to be suppressed. That is was a good thing to silence her. That her rights could be breached so that their feelings would not be hurt. So that they wouldn’t have to realize that Christianity isn’t stupid, that it might even be true, and that smart people believe it.

The best thing Christians can do is to encourage their children to do well in school and to study apologetics. The atheists really hate the idea that smart people can be Christians. They really hate being confronted by smart Christians. Dumb ones they can accept, but the smart ones make them very angry. That’s what we want.

By the way, this censorship by the public schools actually happens a lot. I blogged about the last time this happened here.

Sex education for kindergarteners proposed in Helena, Montana

From the Family Research Council. (H/T Muddling)

Excerpt:

Unfortunately, sex education that indoctrinates children into a liberal sexual ideology is no longer being found just in big cities and liberal “blue states.” It’s reaching even small cities in the heartland, like Helena, Montana–where Tuesday night, parents and other citizens will have their first chance to respond to an outrageous new K-12 health curriculum (pages 45-50) that’s been proposed there.

It would teach kindergarteners the names of male and female sex organs, first graders about homosexuality, and fifth graders about “oral or anal penetration.” It would also teach sixth graders about sex changes, and high schoolers would be taught to “understand erotic images in art.” These lessons aren’t age-appropriate, and may result in more confusion than understanding. For example, in elementary school virtually all children like their own sex better than the opposite sex–we should not be planting the idea that this might mean they are “gay.” In fourth grade they would learn that “taunting” and “teasing” may be illegal sexual harassment. Sadly, teasing and taunting are sometimes a fact of life for fourth graders, but they have nothing to do with sex. And here’s the kicker–the program’s implementation may be paid for with federal “stimulus” money.

You can kind of get an idea of what their goals are for your children. They want your children to oppose chastity and oppose traditional marriage, etc. and they think that these attitudes are healthy.They want your children to normalize behavior that you might think is unhealthy and immoral. And they don’t ask parents for permission to indoctrinate your children. They take your money, and change your children’s beliefs to match their worldview. And they tell the children not to tell their parents anything of what goes on in the classroom. In some places, there is no parental notification, and no opt out.

Here’s a video with a sex educator squaring off against an FRC scholar.

There are real people pushing this on children – your children – and they’re not sorry! And these are the people who decide how MY tax dollars will be spent, and the rules by which my kids and the neighbor’s kids will be educated. This is what you get when you vote for Democrats.

Remember Kevin Jennings, Obama’s safe schools czar. A vote for Obama was a vote to sexualize children.