Where do California candidates stand on private property rights?
The Alliance sent the 2012 Property Rights Protection Questionnaire to all California candidates running for Congress and the State Legislature to determine who shares a strong commitment to protecting private property rights.
The Voter Guide takes into account where candidates stand on limiting government’s power of eminent domain to forcibly seize homes, businesses and places of worship from unwilling sellers. It also takes into account whether a candidate believes your hard earned tax dollars should be used to finance private development like luxury hotels, golf courses, and professional sports arenas – otherwise referred to as redevelopment.
“Defenders of Private Property Rights” embrace the following principles:
- Government’s power of eminent domain should be limited to legitimate public projects, and not used to advance private development.
- Will support legislation reforming eminent domain abuse.
- Opposes taxpayer dollars being used to subsidize private development.
We hope this voter guide serves as a useful tool when casting your vote!
US Representative District 47
Sen. Allan Lowenthal (D)
Peter Mathews (D)
Jay Shah (D)
Usha Shah (D)
Gary DeLong (R)
Steve Foley (R)
Sanford W. Kahn (R)
Steven T. Kuykendall (R)
On June 5th, voters in California will be faced with another Big Budget Pet Project on the ballot. Former Senator Don Perata’s Proposition 29 will ask voters to approve a one dollar per carton tax on tobacco products. This tax will do nothing to deal with California’s $10 billion budget deficit or create any new jobs. In fact, these tax dollars don’t even need to stay in California, but can be used to fund projects in other states, or even out of the country.
In Massachusetts, as Professor Elizabeth Warren’s controversy continues, the Boston Herald reports that Harvard has refused to say if they listed Ms. Warren as a minority. Harvard Law School lists one lone Native American faculty member on its latest diversity census report — but school officials and campaign aides for Elizabeth Warren refused to say yesterday whether it refers to the Democratic Senate candidate. Warren — who has been dogged by questions about whether she used her claims of Cherokee lineage to further her career — has insisted she never authorized Harvard Law to count her as a Native American in the mid-1990s, when the school was under fire for not having enough minority professors.
- Meanwhile, Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics tells the Herald that it’s clear Warren was using the minority listing for career advancement. “This takes her biography into a bizarre dimension,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “It has derailed the effort to define Warren in a voter-friendly way.” Sabato also said that Warren’s claim that she didn’t list herself as a minority to gain an employment advantage is not believable. “This is what happens when candidates don’t tell the truth,” he said. “It’s pretty obvious she was using (the minority listing) for career advancement.”
- Also, Michael Graham at the Herald writes that Warren’s controversy is just another sign that the Democrats’ hand-picked candidate is sinking in the Bay State. On Fox News Channel yesterday, Megyn Kelly asked me if this story was relevant and why. I told her the fact that the Democrats’ hand-picked candidate is sinking in deep-blue Massachusetts shows it’s relevant. And the reason her story resonates isn’t simply because she tried to pass off some political peyote as the real deal. It hits a nerve with the many working Americans who know what it’s like to fight for a desperately-needed job, aware that their lack of any special standing could mean that a job they’re qualified for could end up going to someone else. Like with Martha Coakley in 2009, the whiff of liberal entitlement is in the air, and voters don’t like it. Sorry, Princess IsItFall–Yet. This time, you have to earn it.
Additionally, Fox News called Elizabeth Warren out for listing herself as a minority.
Finally, Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post writes that Professor Warren had the worst week in Washington. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. That lesson is taught on the first day of candidate school. Elizabeth Warren must have skipped class that day. … Elizabeth Warren, for turning a small hole into a yawning political ditch, you had the worst week in Washington. Congrats, or something.
Just in time for Mothers Day!
Cut through the “Red Tape” by having the mom’s closest to you participate in Government Cluster Fudge’s “Cash for Clusters” program!
Alisa Shakespeare decided to create a product that would “go down” much easier. The concept for the company came, as my partner and I were thinking about what would take the sting out of all that was happening around us politically, and there it was: Government Cluster Fudge.
Government Cluster Fudge a decadent over the top line of candy and confections and comes in a variety of flavors such as Peanut Butter, Cookies and Cream, Triple Fudge to name a few. All of our packages are wrapped in “hard to deal with” red tape. According to Shakespeare, the company is bipartisan in their attack on politicians. Along with the current line of “cluster fudge” you can also purchase Chocolate Lies, Little White Lies and Broken Promises Candy Bark or you can participate in Government Cluster Fudge’s “Cash for Clusters” program! Not only does it feel good going down, it sends a message to Washington that we are stick of their bureau-crap! We are unapologetically capitalist, in a time when you can’t depend on government to do anything but make matters worse.
Our company provides jobs, economic stimulation as well as a delicious and humorous look at what a huge “Cluster Fudge” the Federal Government has become.
The Minority Report welcomes the following Op-Ed by Thomas Pyle
Not since the days of President Carter’s self-imposed “Gas Crisis” and the long service station lines of the 1970’s has energy been a more important election year issue in the minds of voters. New survey results indicate that voters in this election cycle clearly want more energy production in the United States and that large numbers of voters believe that the federal government can do much more to help our energy industry moderate gasoline prices.
The American Energy Alliance has just launched a robust campaign to educate citizens, policy makers, and the news media on a wide variety of energy and manufacturing issues and the impact of over-regulation. “American Products. American Power.” will take the story of the benefits of increased domestic energy production and manufacturing directly to the American people.
A recent survey of one thousand self-described likely voters reveals that a majority of Americans believe that increasing domestic energy production can have a meaningful effect on gas prices, that a strong energy manufacturing industry is important to the U.S. economy and our future, and that our country is stronger when we make things here in the U.S.
The April survey commissioned by the American Energy Alliance reveals that 77% of Americans agree that increasing U.S. production would put downward pressure on gasoline prices. Even 52% of moderates and 38% of liberals think that additional production of oil would help gas prices “quite a lot.”
Further, 62% believe that, with the right energy policy, gasoline would cost $2.50 per gallon. Even liberals agree (46% to 44%) with the proposition. And when asked if we should produce more oil from the United States or ask the Saudis and OPEC to produce more oil, 87% said they want to produce more oil here at home.
The survey also revealed some startling news for government policy makers and regulators. Voters believe that the federal government needs to properly balance the need for economic growth with the need for environmental protection. Indeed, America’s energy and manufacturing industries and government can work together to avoid policies that have created high costs and provided few benefits. Sixty-five percent of the people surveyed agreed that federal regulations result in more costs than benefits. 64% of moderates and 49% of liberals think that federal agencies sometimes demand changes that result in little or no environmental benefit. Less than a third of likely voters (28%) said that EPA properly balances the need for economic growth with the need for environmental protection.
Remarkably, 83% of total respondents agree that increased U.S. production would reduce our reliance on imported oil, and almost two thirds (64%) believe the President would rather focus on alternative energy instead of oil and gas. That is sobering news for this Administration regarding the direction of this administration’s energy priorities.
When 78% of self-described moderate voters and 55% of liberal voters think that the federal government must adopt a more reasonable approach to regulations, it’s time to begin reversing public policies that are undercutting energy production, job creation, and our economic growth.
As this Presidential campaign unfolds and the candidates fan out across the nation to discuss the economy, the job market, and their plans for meeting America’s energy needs, perhaps they should listen to what the American people want – very simply, more energy and manufacturing here at home.
(Thomas J. Pyle is President of the American Energy Alliance)
From the Indianapolis Star:
With so few competitive races on their primary ballot, Hoosiers who typically vote Democratic might be tempted to ask for a Republican ballot in Tuesday’s primary election.
In fact, at least one group backing Sen. Richard Lugar is encouraging Democrats and independents to vote in the GOP primary.
Mailings from the Young Guns Network — a Virginia-based group set up by former aides of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor — sent to Hoosier homes remind voters that Indiana does not register voters by party.
That means there’s little to stop anyone from either party, or independents, from asking for a Democratic ballot in one election and a Republican ballot the next — or from voting in the general election against the candidate they’d crossed over to support in the primary election.
While voters can be challenged by someone who just doesn’t buy that they’ve had a primary election conversion to the other party, all voters have to do is sign an affidavit saying they’re going to support a majority of that party’s candidates. As an election guide issued by the Indiana secretary of state’s office notes, because ballots are secret, “there is no way to prove that the voter has made a false statement.”
It’s not unheard of, but leaders in both parties think it’s rare for true party faithful to ask for the other party’s ballot. In 2008, in fact, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh urged Republicans to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton over Barack Obama in the Democratic primary election.
From the Boston Herald:
Harvard Law School lists one lone Native American faculty member on its latest diversity census report — but school officials and campaign aides for Elizabeth Warren refused to say yesterday whether it refers to the Democratic Senate candidate.
Warren — who has been dogged by questions about whether she used her claims of Cherokee lineage to further her career — has insisted she never authorized Harvard Law to count her as a Native American in the mid-1990s, when the school was under fire for not having enough minority professors.
Prior to that, from 1986 to 1995, Warren had listed herself as a minority in a law school directory administrators then used as a tip sheet when making diversity hires. But by 1996, when Harvard Law was boasting that Warren was the faculty’s first minority female, she had stopped appearing in the law school directory.
Harvard Law’s 2011 diversity report does not indicate who the Native American professor is. And the school refused to say whether it’s Warren.
Warren spokeswoman Alethea Harney brushed off the question, saying only, “Elizabeth has been straightforward and open about her heritage while the people who recruited her have made it clear it was because of her extraordinary skill as a teacher and a ground-breaking scholar.”
The 2011 report indicates that “Race/Ethnicity designations are from self-report data,” meaning whoever is listed as a Native American told the school of their tribal lineage.
From the Washington Times:
If longtime Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana loses his Republican primary Tuesday — which polls show is highly possible — several factors invariably will be blamed for his downfall: His advanced age (80); the aggressive campaign of his challenger, state Treasurer Richard Mourdock; and the lawmaker’s moderate views, which increasingly rub against a party pulling to the political right.
But another key force behind Mr. Lugar’s troubles is the fiscally conservative, free-market Club for Growth, which relentlessly has pushed to oust the six-term senator.
“I think Dick Lugar is a fine man, but that doesn’t make him a fine senator at this point in the current political environment,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola, a fellow Indianan.
Mr. Lugar is just one many incumbent or party-backed moderate Republicans the influential group has targeted in recent congressional elections — with varying degrees of success.
In 2010, it backed Marco Rubio’s seemingly long-shot campaign for the Senate Republican nomination in Florida against then-Gov. Charlie Crist, the party’s early favorite. Mr. Crist’s campaign stumbled so badly he dropped out of the primary to run as an independent, and Mr. Rubio emerged victorious in the three-way general election.
We’re here on the floor at the Samsung Galaxy S III launch and we’ve just managed to get some alone time with the unit to get some benchmarks. Now, let’s stress that the handset is a pre-production model, so we can’t take these as gospel truth, but it’s a good indication of how powerful that Quad-Core Exynos really is. The only thing that isn’t working is SunSpider, since our results just didn’t tally with the other tests available, so hopefully it’s just a quirk. Head on past the break for a dose of nitty and a sprinkling of gritty.
The iPhone 5 rumors keep coming.
Apple’s upcoming smartphone will come with a 4-inch screen, due mainly to a thinner, taller body, according to Apple-focused site iLounge, citing an unnamed source. The site’s source claims Apple’s new iPhone will be 10mm taller than the iPhone 4S, and about 2mm thinner. By keeping the same width and tossing in the display to fit the new form factor, Apple is able to deliver more screen space than what’s available on 3.5-inch-equipped iPhones, according to the source. More