Things are heating up Bie-lat is responding to Elizabeth Childs support of Obama...
June 5, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Bielat Responds to False Attacks from Opponent Calls for Ms. Childs to Correct Misinformation on her Website
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. - Sean Bielat, Republican candidate for Massachusetts' Fourth Congressional District, issued the following statement today in response to repeated false public attacks by one of his primary challengers:
"Ms. Childs has apparently decided to base her campaign largely on four months that I spent in Pennsylvania, as she can't seem to issue a press release that doesn't mention it. I was public in my decision to spend some time away for family reasons.
"After we experienced some medical complications during the birth of our first child, Hope and I had concerns that we might have difficulties once again. We went to Pennsylvania last September tospend some time near family for the birth of my daughter. We intended to return and maintained our Massachusetts residency. Thankfully, everything went well and in November, we welcomed a beautiful, healthy little girl into our family, returning to Massachusetts after celebrating our first Christmas as a family of four.
"This was the right decision for my family and I do not regret any part of it. Sadly, it is not surprising that someone might attempt to turn this into a political attack, but protecting my family will always trump political ambitions.
"Ms. Childs has also repeatedly made public allegations that I, or my campaign, made some sort of partisan attack on her. In fact, until today, we have never mentioned her in a single press release. I have almost never discussed her unless asked directly, remaining focused on winning in November through our strong volunteer infrastructure and the ever increasing number of voters who are becoming engaged in our effort to bring new ideas and new names to Washington.
"Nevertheless, since Ms. Childs seems determined to raise the issue of Republican credentials, here are some facts:
Ms. Childs did not switch her registration to Republican until July 21, 2011, approximately one month after declaring herself a candidate (she filed a Statement of Organization with the Federal Election Commission on June 20, 2011).
According to the Boston Globe, Ms. Childs "has been either a registered Democrat or an unenrolled voter for the last two decades. And she has voted in 11 Democratic state and presidential primaries since 1996, according to a review of her voting records...Not once has she opted for a Republican ballot."
Since Ms. Childs voted in the Democratic primary in 2010, she must have voted for either Barney Frank or Rachel Brown, rather than a Republican candidate.
Likewise, despite her stated "proud support" of Governor Mitt Romney, Ms. Childs voted in Democratic primaries every year Romney was on the ballot before now, including both of his gubernatorial elections and the 2008 presidential election.
Her most recent political contribution was in 2010 to Cynthia Creem, a Democratic State Senator.
An active Obama supporter who is encouraging people to "get involved to take real action for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket" recently coordinated with the Childs campaign to host a fundraiser. Ms. Childs' campaign had represented that if it turned out Ms. Schwartz was an Obama supporter, she would cancel the event. Her own statement now admits that Ms. Schwartz is an Obama supporter but it "really shouldn't matter," making no mention of cancelling the event.
Ms. Childs' positions on many issues are widely considered to be at odds with the Republican party platform.
"There is obviously nothing wrong with being a Democrat and, like many other Massachusetts Republicans, I used to be a Democrat too. There is definitely nothing wrong with being an Independent and it is only because I won a clear majority of the Independent vote that I achieved the success that I did in 2010. Ms. Child's problem is that this is a Republican primary and Republican voters have a reasonable expectation that candidates in our primary are actually Republicans. I believe the onus is on Ms. Childs to demonstrate that she does in fact meet that criterion by virtue of something other than her fewer than 12 months as a registered Republican.
"I find it regretful that this statement has been necessary but at some point false accusations must be addressed. I expect that Ms. Childs will do the honorable thing and correct the misrepresentations on her website, and cease making such false attacks in the future.Our campaign looks forward to getting back to discussing the issues that are actually important to the residents of the Fourth District, such as restoring America's economy and finding real solutions to the national debt."
###
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Sarah Rumpf
(508) 399-1409
sarah@seanbielat.org
Things are heating up Bie-lat is responding to Elizabeth Childs support of Obama...
June 5, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Bielat Responds to False Attacks from Opponent Calls for Ms. Childs to Correct Misinformation on her Website
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. - Sean Bielat, Republican candidate for Massachusetts' Fourth Congressional District, issued the following statement today in response to repeated false public attacks by one of his primary challengers:
"Ms. Childs has apparently decided to base her campaign largely on four months that I spent in Pennsylvania, as she can't seem to issue a press release that doesn't mention it. I was public in my decision to spend some time away for family reasons.
"After we experienced some medical complications during the birth of our first child, Hope and I had concerns that we might have difficulties once again. We went to Pennsylvania last September tospend some time near family for the birth of my daughter. We intended to return and maintained our Massachusetts residency. Thankfully, everything went well and in November, we welcomed a beautiful, healthy little girl into our family, returning to Massachusetts after celebrating our first Christmas as a family of four.
"This was the right decision for my family and I do not regret any part of it. Sadly, it is not surprising that someone might attempt to turn this into a political attack, but protecting my family will always trump political ambitions.
"Ms. Childs has also repeatedly made public allegations that I, or my campaign, made some sort of partisan attack on her. In fact, until today, we have never mentioned her in a single press release. I have almost never discussed her unless asked directly, remaining focused on winning in November through our strong volunteer infrastructure and the ever increasing number of voters who are becoming engaged in our effort to bring new ideas and new names to Washington.
"Nevertheless, since Ms. Childs seems determined to raise the issue of Republican credentials, here are some facts:
Ms. Childs did not switch her registration to Republican until July 21, 2011, approximately one month after declaring herself a candidate (she filed a Statement of Organization with the Federal Election Commission on June 20, 2011).
According to the Boston Globe, Ms. Childs "has been either a registered Democrat or an unenrolled voter for the last two decades. And she has voted in 11 Democratic state and presidential primaries since 1996, according to a review of her voting records...Not once has she opted for a Republican ballot."
Since Ms. Childs voted in the Democratic primary in 2010, she must have voted for either Barney Frank or Rachel Brown, rather than a Republican candidate.
Likewise, despite her stated "proud support" of Governor Mitt Romney, Ms. Childs voted in Democratic primaries every year Romney was on the ballot before now, including both of his gubernatorial elections and the 2008 presidential election.
Her most recent political contribution was in 2010 to Cynthia Creem, a Democratic State Senator.
An active Obama supporter who is encouraging people to "get involved to take real action for President Obama and Democrats up and down the ticket" recently coordinated with the Childs campaign to host a fundraiser. Ms. Childs' campaign had represented that if it turned out Ms. Schwartz was an Obama supporter, she would cancel the event. Her own statement now admits that Ms. Schwartz is an Obama supporter but it "really shouldn't matter," making no mention of cancelling the event.
Ms. Childs' positions on many issues are widely considered to be at odds with the Republican party platform.
"There is obviously nothing wrong with being a Democrat and, like many other Massachusetts Republicans, I used to be a Democrat too. There is definitely nothing wrong with being an Independent and it is only because I won a clear majority of the Independent vote that I achieved the success that I did in 2010. Ms. Child's problem is that this is a Republican primary and Republican voters have a reasonable expectation that candidates in our primary are actually Republicans. I believe the onus is on Ms. Childs to demonstrate that she does in fact meet that criterion by virtue of something other than her fewer than 12 months as a registered Republican.
"I find it regretful that this statement has been necessary but at some point false accusations must be addressed. I expect that Ms. Childs will do the honorable thing and correct the misrepresentations on her website, and cease making such false attacks in the future.Our campaign looks forward to getting back to discussing the issues that are actually important to the residents of the Fourth District, such as restoring America's economy and finding real solutions to the national debt."
###
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Sarah Rumpf
(508) 399-1409
sarah@seanbielat.org
America could pay off the national debt if our government directly issued our currency and controlled the quantity of our money rather than paying interest to the Federal Reserve on every dollar printed. If we can issue a U S Bond, we can issue a United States Note. Our national debt is over $14 trillion dollars. Interest on debt is $207 billion dollars a year. The real problem is too much government spending. This year's federal budget is 3.8 trillion dollars and the deficit is 1.6 trillion dollars in new debt.
"Who should control the quantity of money? Should it be our elected officials or unelected private bankers? "Why are we paying interest on our own currency?" We will never get out of debt with a debt based money system and our politicians able to get money from the Fed rather than face the taxpayers.
When Abraham Lincoln financed the Civil War, New York bankers demanded thirty percent interest rates. Fortunately, Lincoln said "No thank you" or we would still be paying for the Civil War. He issued $400 million dollars in debt and interest free United States Notes. Lincoln paid his troops and bought supplies with "greenbacks" a fiat paper money backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Lincoln wrote, "We gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had - their own paper money to pay their own debts"
The cause of inflation is printing too much money and artificially low interest rates. The boom is then followed with a bust. However, the real cause of a depression is the restricting and manipulating of the money supply and credit by the big banks to get what they want politically. Remember, the borrower is the servant to the lender.
Created in 1913, the Federal Reserve is made up of independent private banks, such as Chase, Bears and Stearns, National City (PNC), Warburg and five Rothschild banks. It is not part of the government. When our government needs more money, the Fed loans our money to the government at interest.
For our central bank to create a billion dollars, it buys government bonds, gold or other currencies, electronically transferring a billion dollars to the seller's bank account. Essentially creating money out of thin air, this amount is added to the national debt secured by our taxes. In fact, all federal income taxes are paid to the Federal Reserve.
The Fed gets the asset (the bond) and the taxpayers pay the interest on the debt. It is a debt based money system. The interest has to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes. It is like paying a mortgage with a credit card. Our government could pay off bonds as they matured with US Notes, the debt would be reduced and Federal Reserve Notes replaced.
The President can direct the Treasury to print US Notes by executive order. President Kennedy issued $4.5 billion in silver certificates and US Notes with Executive Order 11110 on June 4, 1963.
Similar to Lincoln's greenbacks, the international bankers worked to remove the US Notes from circulation after these presidents were gone.
Is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve more powerful than the president? This unelected banker decides the interest you receive on your savings. He decides how much money to print, which determines the value of the dollar. Practically worthless.
A weak dollar causes inflation affecting how your family lives. As our money becomes worth less, commodities, gas and oil become more expensive. This increases the cost of food, transportation, fertilizer and other products and hurts working people, businesses, emerging countries and governments all over the world. The rest of the world pays for oil in dollars only as long as the dollar remains the world's reserve currency. A weak dollar means high oil prices.
"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or the other, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." President James Garfield - assassinated in 1881.
I wish it weren't so, but the Ted Kennedy Shrine may get another $8 million if this Omnibus pork-filled Spending bill is passed by Congress. I am not joking!
Pentagon Money To Go For....Ted Kennedy Shrine?
Traditional Values Coalition Executive Director Andrea Lafferty issued the following statement regarding the Omnibus Spending Bill's $8 million earmark for a shrine to the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA).
'Just when Americans started to hope that the liberal leadership in the Senate had learned its lesson last November, they do something which is so blatantly hypocritical and offensive.'
(Go, Jeff, Go! - promoted by Paul "Cool Cal" Ferro)
According to the Jessica Van Sack, the Kennedys are staying keeping the family name out of politics this year.
Joseph P. Kennedy III will not seek election to U.S. Rep. William Delahunt's seat, a source tells the Herald.
Kennedy had been widely rumored to be considering a run, but a source close to the Barnstable county prosecutor says he will not run, whether or not Delahunt seeks re-election.
Nicely slipped in to the bottom of this brief article about low voter turnout today is the fact that the independent candidate named Joe Kennedy will be on the ballot in January.
An independent candidate, Joseph L. Kennedy of Dedham, also filed sufficient signatures yesterday to qualify for the special election ballot, Secretary of State William F. Galvin said.
Are Massachusetts voters so trained that they will vote for any Kennedy, especially "Joe"?
For those too young to remember, Romney's role in an Indiana company came to light after private detectives hired by Sen. Kennedy brought to light that the firm had cut the pay of 350 union workers. It was this revelation that began to turn the tide against a surging Romney in 1994. Kennedy survived in a year that had Republican written all over it. No one looked into the fact whether Kennedy had invested in companies that did the same.
Does anyone believe that Pagliuca was not involved in any similar controversial Bain reclamation projects that cost employees their jobs and benefits? If so why haven't we heard about it? Why are Pagliuca's millions beyond reproach and Romney's fair game in what turned out to be a cheap one-sided political stunt?
Were Pag's millions so painless to labor? Did none of Pag's projects offend Big Labor's sensibilities? Some of us would like to know.
So many questions so little time.
Could it be that the liberal media rather not know the answers? Are rich "self-made" millionaires (who happen to be Democrats) not held to the same standard? (Why do I ask?)
UPDATE: On Wednesday, one day before my post, the Globe looked at Pagliuca's job-creation record. It raised the possibility as to whether Pagliuca's seat on the board of Gartner which outsourced jobs overseas would be a liability in the Democratic primary. Pagliuca brushed off the link saying that as a board member he doesn't manage "major strategic decisions." Obviously that tack didn't work for Romney. Are there no laid off workers to march into Massachusetts to sandbag Pagliuca?
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid was very, perhaps too, frank in summing up his thoughts on Kennedy's passing. Politico.com is reporting:
Q: How will U.S. Sen. (Edward) Kennedy's death affect things?
A: I think it's going to help us. He hasn't been around for some time. We're going to have a new chairman of that committee, it'll be, I don't know for sure, but I think Sen. (Chris) Dodd, (D-Conn.). He has a right to take it. Either him or (U.S. Sen. Tom) Harkin, (D-Iowa), whichever one wants it can have it. I think he (Kennedy) will be a help. He's an inspiration for us. That was the issue of his life and he didn't get it done.
Yesterday, the media reported that Senator Edward M. Kennedy has called for a change in Massachusetts law to ensure that their is no vacancy should his Senate seat become open.
At MassVOTE, we haven't hesitated to wrangle with lawmakers when we have disagreed. We fought former Speaker Tom Finneran over campaign finance reform and filed the federal redistricting lawsuit that ended his tenure. Pushing election day registration for the past two years has won us many friends, but there are legislators of both parties as an unwelcome risk factor to their re-election campaigns.
MassVOTE cares about a strong democracy -- which is exactly why we support this proposal.
Bloomberg has this story today and regardless of the premise it just doesn't seem the math makes sense.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...
July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy's health committee is proposing a government-run insurance program as an option to private coverage and an annual fee on companies that don't provide health coverage of $750 per employee.
I know from personal experience that today decent healthcare for a family of 4 costs somewhere in the neighborhood of 11-12k a year. You can get plans with high deductibles and co-pays for less (say 7-8k), but I fail to see how the difference can be made up. Even if they can achieve the Medicare savings they claim (by cutting services or lowering reimbursement rates) and by lowering overall costs of the system as a whole, it's still quite a stretch.
But on the local level, how is ABC manufacturing company that employees 30 people and makes tiny fractions of a penny for every widget they make going to react? "Let's see we can spend 7k per employee per year and offer insurance with a 5k deductible, or we can just take the $750 hit per employee and let them take the government option". Which makes more sense to the bottom line?
And don't think for a minute if this plan takes hold that those that use the government option won't complain about the disparity between "good" insurance and what they have. There will be mandates about what must be covered and who can not be denied...costs will skyrocket and there will attempts to shift more and more of the costs to employees (just as has happened in the private sector). I don't see how it can be done without either offering absolutely minimal insurance or very high deductibles (or both)....but they'll have insurance!
Then of course there will be monkeying with the tax code to compensate lower wage employees for out of pocket expenses and premiums because "That just isn't fair".
If they are looking to Mass for a model of healthcare, they shold look somewhere else. It has not achieved the overall goal of lowering the cost. That is what is missing in this whole big mess. Where did the fallacy of "Things will be cheaper if everyone has insurance start?". The goal should be lowering the overall cost, not insuring everyone.
