"Read all about it"

Posts Tagged ‘Us senate’

Lamar Alexander voted for Obamacare, but said he didn’t

In Government on July 11, 2014 at 6:46 AM

Lamar Alexander voted for Obamacare, but said he didn’t

07/11/14
0637 am

Lamar Alexander voted for Obamacare!

No amount of trickery can deny this fact. The man is not being forthright in his dealings with the citizens of TN and the United States.

A recent TV ad touted by the Alexander campaign shows Alexander banging it out with Obama on Obamacare in 2010. This is where the opposition ended.

He even stated he was right for this decision to oppose Obamacare. But sadly the ad failed to mention his continued funding of and support for  the Presidents failed and highly unpopular policy on healthcare since that time.

Hiding these issues does not settle well with voters as eventually the truth surfaced and many turned their heads on a politician that speaks out of both sides of his mouth. It’s double talk and severely underestimates the citizens of TN and their ability to see through the lies and deception.

This deception seems to be the establishments plan for Alexander. He has recently also denied he voted for the Amnesty bill yet voted with the Gang of Eight to move it forward for a vote.

“The Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF) responded (recently) to the television ad released by the re-election campaign of U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), which says he stood up to President Obama on Obamacare. Alexander’s TV ad includes a clip of an exchange he had with the President at the White House health care summit on February 25, 2010. 

“However, it conveniently leaves out any mention of Alexander’s vote to fund the implementation of Obamacare on March 20, 2013. It also leaves out his support for the Wyden-Bennett health care bill, which included an unconstitutional individual mandate to force Americans to buy government-approved health insurance.”

“Lamar Alexander is doing everything he can to hide his liberal record on health care,”said SCF Executive Director Matt Hoskins. “He wants voters to think he’s fighting to stop Obamacare, but he supported the individual mandate and he voted for a bill that funded Obamacare earlier this year.”

The SCF reports that on “On August 2, 2007, Lamar Alexander cosponsored the Wyden-Bennett health care legislation, which included an individual mandate to force Americans to buy government-approved health insurance plans.”

“On March 20, 2013, Lamar Alexander voted in favor of the FY2013 continuing resolution, which included funding for the implementation of Obamacare!”

The SCF report further states “The U.S. Senate will vote on the FY2014 continuing resolution in September. Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) needs 60 votes to fund the implementation of Obamacare, but there are only 54 Democrats in the Senate. If Republicans like Lamar Alexander oppose it, they can stop it.”

“Lamar Alexander can’t have it both ways. If he votes to fund Obamacare, he’s for Obamacare.” added Hoskins. “He needs to stop misleading his constituents and pledge to oppose all funding for Obamacare.”

In summary, 

1) Lamar Alexander put on a dog and pony show for the cameras and showed a little opposition to Obamacare in 2010.

2) He voted to fund Obamacare in 2013.

3) He voted for the individual mandate.

4) He voted for the Wyden-Bennett health care bill, that forced you to buy healthcare insurance and the individual mandate.

5) He will more than likely vote to continue funding for Obamacare in September 2014.

5) Yes, he voted for Obamacare!!!

Hopefully, Liberal Lamar Alexander will be retired after this next primary  and true conservative leadership will have been established.

Id give my vote to Joe Carr, if I were you.

Source of info:

Please visit this site below frequently. There are many other stories inside their site that you may be interested in. Share the link below and visit frequently.

http://www.senateconservatives.com/site/post/2248/lamar-alexander-tries-to-hide-health-care-record

Advertisements

Lamar Alexander defends vote for Amnesty citing we have “perpetual Amnesty” already

In chamber of commerce on July 11, 2014 at 6:03 AM

Lamar Alexander defends vote for Amnesty citing we have “perpetual Amnesty” already

07/11/2014
0559 am

As hoardes of illegal immigrants stream into the United States, Americans are being put at risk of danger as Lamar Alexander continues to support Amnesty as the answer to our illegal immigrant woes.

US Senator Lamar Alexanders vote for Amnesty, supporting the gang of Eight, Chuck Shumer and John McCain is clearly not in line with how the majority feels on this issue in Tennessee.

Sure, Alexander can shrug this off easily from his office in DC. it’s real easy to see the disconnect from his constituency as parts of TN readies for an onslaught of illegals resettling to mainly Nashville and Bristol.

Alexanders votes for amnesty is taking away our jobs and using our tax dollars to disseminate illegal immigrants into our state and across the nation.

It has been reported that Alexander supported the Amnesty bill because in his liberal mind, he believes it’s already here, so I guess it’s ok for them to continue to break the law? 

According to Brietbart.com “We have amnesty today,” Alexander said. “Turning your head while 11 million people are already here illegally is perpetual amnesty. I voted along with 67 other United States senators to end perpetual amnesty.”
Alexander voted with 14 other Republican Senators in favor of the “Gang of Eight,” immigration bill led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)”

This bill to citizenry for an estimated 11 million is a huge mistake and sets a dangerous precedence that laws do not matter as long as politicians vote opposite of the law.

TN US Senate Candidate Joe Carr has been a staunch critic of Liberal Lamars amnesty views and has led the charge to expose the Alexander campaign of these issues as well as his vote for Obamacare.

In a statement to Brietbart.com he had this to say about Lamar Alexander, “There’s this arrogance about these people who stay in Washington,” Carr said, referring to the border crisis and the immigration reform debate. “The arrogance that they say – you know what, it doesn’t matter that they are flooding our labor markets with unskilled labor and driving down American wages, it doesn’t matter as long as we cater to the United States Chamber of Commerce.”

“Alexander insisted that the bill he voted for identifies illegal immigrants and requires them to pay a penalty, payment of back taxes and required them to work.”

Lamar Alexander seeing illegal immigrants as a way to expand our tax base, provide amnesty for millions, take away jobs for Americans and pay penalties for breaking the law is the mind of a man that is not thinking logically and is worlds apart from the conservative base that has supported him in past races.

A trick of Alexanders and many lifetime politicians is to vote for a bill on cloture, or bring it up for a vote and move the bill forward, then vote against it so he can tell his constituency that he didn’t vote for it, when in fact he did. 

As Brietbart reported, Lamar Alexander, in this case, voted to advance debate on the bill — in the initial cloture vote to begin consideration that passed 82-15 — before the border security amendment was introduced. 

This is sneaky and underhanded and  gives we the people the opportunity to say enough is enough Lamar!

If you remember, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary race in Virginia based on this same premise and for his support of amnesty when many voiced they did not want it. This move refueled the Tea Party base in Virginia and acrosst the nation as a defeat of liberal Lamar Alexander will do the same for Tennessee.

Brietbart states further that “Carr signed the FAIR pledge live on conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham’s radio program, and challenged Alexander to do the same.”

“The pledge asks candidates to vow to oppose amnesty, increases in legal immigration, and increases in the number of guest workers.”

“But Alexander defended the bill as one that would encourage jobs and economic growth in the United States by allowing “talented people and essential workers” to come to the United States legally.”

“I chose to secure the border, end perpetual amnesty and encourage jobs, rather than do nothing,” he said.

Despite his support Presidents idea of illegal immigration reform and amnesty, in the last 24 hours, he has called for sending TN National Guard troops to the  Mexican border to stop the flow of illegals into this country.

Hello McFly? Alexander? A little late! A resettlement package has already been sent to TN and they are now on their way to Tennessee.

It’s time for a change! We need real leadership in Tennessee.

Get out and vote! Otherwise, it will not matter and things will stay the same. 

The alternative is Joe Carr for US Senate, Tennessee.

Please read and support Brietbart.com, use the link below to see other great stories of interest to you. Share and tell others.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm…gration-Reform

Joe Carr picks up huge Tea Party Patriots Fund endorsement in TN US Senate race

In Government on July 11, 2014 at 4:49 AM

Joe Carr picks up huge Tea Party Patriots Fund endorsement in TN US Senate race

07/11/2014
0438 am

Tennessee US Senate candidate Joe Carr has picked up another very hearty conservative Tea Party endorsement yesterday.

The Tea Party and conservative support continues to pour in across the state in his bid for the US Senate Seat currently held by liberal Lamar Alexander.

Jenny Beth Martin and the Tea Party Parriots Citizen Fund have put their support behind Joe Carr.

It is obvious he is a viable candidate to knock off a Democratic and establishment GOP favorite.

Lamar Alexanders support continues to dwindle in TN as Tennesseans begin to wake up and see the long time “career politician” is leading the state in a direction that is the opposite of it’s citizenry’s needs and wants. 

Voting 63 percent of the time with Barrack Hussein Obama and in favor of Amnesty and Obamacare is not in line with what Tennesseans believe is in the best interest of the state.

Tea Party Patriots Citizen Funds Jenny Beth Martin spoke highly of Joe Carr when questioned in an interview with Brietbart.com,  “Joe Carr embodies the values of personal freedom, economic freedom and a debt-free future,” TPPCF Chairman Jenny Beth Martin said in a statement. 

“In contrast to his incumbent opponent, Joe is willing to take the fight to both liberal Democrats and establishment Republicans in defense of liberty.”

Martin highlighted Carr’s anti-amnesty record on illegal immigration, citing the issue as a critical one for the Tea Party in the 2014 elections.

“While Joe Carr has been a genuine leader – not just a reliable vote – in the fight against illegal immigration, Lamar Alexander voted with Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and John McCain for the Gang of Eight amnesty bill,” Martin said. 

“Joe wants to preserve American sovereignty; Lamar Alexander’s policies are producing a human wave of criminality and disease on the Rio Grande.”

Martin also pointed out that Alexander sought to work with Harry Reid on Obamacare, voting for cloture to bring the bill to the Senate floor.

“Lamar Alexander is wrong on Obamacare and wrong on amnesty,” Martin added. “Fortunately, conservatives in Tennessee have a choice, and we urge them to give Joe Carr their vote and their support. We’re proud to endorse him.”

“I am very proud that the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund has joined with us in our fight against a broken Washington establishment led by Lamar Alexander, who put the interests of 11 million illegal immigrants ahead of our working families,” said Carr in a statement. 

In parting, if you don’t get out and vote, the establishment wins and you lose! Encourage friends and family to get behind the vest choice to lead this state and this country.

I want to thank Breitbart.com for their most excellent reporting on this subject. Please go to the link below for many other interesting stories that affect you. Please support them heavily.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/10/Tea-Party-Patriots-Fund-Endorses-Joe-Carr-in-Tennessee-Primary

Budget deal cuts veterans pension, illegal immigrant benefits safe, Alexander votes yes to both

In Uncategorized on December 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Budget deal cuts veterans pension, illegal immigrant benefits safe, Alexander votes yes to both

12/18/2013
0936 am EST.

TN US Senator Lamar Alexander has voted “Yes” to the  bipartisan budget bill yesterday that leaves wounded vets and retirees without 6 billion in retirement benefits over the next 10 years, interestingly enough and in contrast at the same time voted “Yes” to extend illegal immigration benefits. In addition, TN Congressman Chuck Fleischmann, (R) 3rd, voted “Yes” and Congressman Scott Dejarlais, (R), 4th District, voted against the measure.

An effort by a handful of Republicans in the US Senate failed to drum up enough support to halt cuts to pensions for our wounded warriors.

This controversial vote was a test run for the final vote in the Senate House, the final vote is expected to come this week, perhaps today.

US Senator R, Ala, gave his best effort to push an amendment through that would halt the veterans cuts by using a parliamentary procedure to force a vote on and undo the cuts for the military veterans. The move proved unsuccessful based on the likes of Lamar Alexander in the Senate and Congressman Chuck Fleischman in the House.

This move by our distinguished politicians from the great state of TN left the provision intact which takes 6 billion out of veterans hands over the next 10 years. Reminder, this is a hard earned reward for our veterans who sacrificed life and limb to finally one day retire with this benefit and now these politicians are voting to take this away? Shame on you!

In a much warranted move Sessions from Alabama wanted to eliminate 4.2 billion in aid to illegal immigrants in IRS credits. The sadness in this is our politicians have towed the PC crowd enough to wave benefits and pensions of veterans in favor of those that are not here legally.

Oddly enough at least on this cloture vote TN US Senator Bob Corker, Mr “I spend more time in the other aisle than my own” Corker voted “N0.”  There must not have been enough money available to shift his vote to the yes aisle, but there is still one more vote!

Sessions argued unsuccessfully to get other Republicans and Democrats off the fence and in typical bipartisan love fest with libs, the veterans get the shaft in
place of an illegal immigrant benefit package. In defeat mode, Sessions was quoted, “It’s not correct, and it should not happen,” he said from the Senate floor before the vote.

“By blocking my amendment, they voted to cut pensions for wounded warriors,” he said afterwards.

 “Senators in this chamber have many valid ideas for replacing these pension cuts, including my proposal to close the tax welfare loophole for illegal filers, and all deserved a fair and open hearing. But they were denied.”

He went on to add “we have cut military pensions instead of cutting welfare for illegal immigrants.”

The most upsetting comment came from Super Uber RINO Paul Ryan and his cohort Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash. when they argued “the GOP effort was really an attempt to kill the entire bill.” 

Wrap your heads around this ladies and gentleman. The gentleman who nearly was our Vice President on the R side of the aisle standing defiantly with liberals arguing that the only reason Sessions was being defiant and standing in the gap for veterans was because he wanted to shut down government and kill the whole bill. This is what happens when statesmen get in the way of the machine getting what they want. A merciful slaughter at the feet of our veterans.

Congressman Chuck Fleischmann and Senator Lamar Alexander have disappointed once again and have shown that protecting veterans rights is not on their minds and preserving benefits to those here illegally is a bigger concern. It was an amendment for Gods sake guys, not a change to or attempt to kill the whole bill.

We must act before it’s too late. Our country is being annihilated. Please share this information, comment below and let’s get this information out to a unknowing and seemingly uncaring society of people who prefer to ignore.

Information and the assimilation of it is our biggest weapon and a tool heavily underutilized in society today!

Hall of shame:

The 67-33 roll vote Tuesday by which the Senate advanced a bipartisan budget bill that essentially  extends spending and very few overall cuts. The vote removes the final hurdle to Senate passage. The Democratic-led chamber is expected to approve the bill on Wednesday.

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 53 Democrats, 12 Republicans and 2 independents.

Voting no were 0 Democrats and 33 Republicans.

Democrats Yes

Baldwin, Wis.; Baucus, Mont.; Begich, Alaska; Bennet, Colo.; Blumenthal, Conn.; Booker, N.J.; Boxer, Calif.; Brown, Ohio; Cantwell, Wash.; Cardin, Md.; Carper, Del.; Casey, Pa.; Coons, Del.; Donnelly, Ind.; Durbin, Ill.; Feinstein, Calif.; Franken, Minn.; Gillibrand, N.Y.; Hagan, N.C.; Harkin, Iowa; Heinrich, N.M.; Heitkamp, N.D.; Hirono, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kaine, Va.; Klobuchar, Minn.; Landrieu, La.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Manchin, W.V.; Markey, Mass.; McCaskill, Mo.; Menendez, N.J.; Merkley, Ore.; Mikulski, Md.; Murphy, Conn.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.V.; Schatz, Hawaii; Schumer, N.Y.; Shaheen, N.H.; Stabenow, Mich.; Tester, Mont.; Udall, Colo.; Udall, N.M.; Warner, Va.; Warren, Mass.; Whitehouse, R.I.; Wyden, Ore.

Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Blunt, Mo.; Chambliss, Ga.; Collins, Maine; Flake, Ariz.; Hatch, Utah; Hoeven, N.D.; Isakson, Ga.; Johnson, Wis.; McCain, Ariz.; Murkowski, Alaska; Portman, Ohio.

Republicans No

Ayotte, N.H.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Coats, Ind.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Enzi, Wyo.; Fischer, Neb.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Heller, Nev.; Inhofe, Okla.; Johanns, Neb.; Kirk, Ill.; Lee, Utah; McConnell, Ky.; Moran, Kan.; Paul, Ky.; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Rubio, Fla.; Scott, S.C.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Thune, S.D.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.

Independents Yes

King, Maine; Sanders, Vt.

Source of info: Please visit these sites and often.  They are chocked full of useful information!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/18/senate-gop-fails-in-final-bid-to-restore-military-pension-cuts-to-budget-bill/

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=21252447&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bing.com%2Fsearch%2F%3Fq%3Dus%2Bsenate%2Bwho%2Bvoted%2Bfor%2Bbipartisan%2Bbudget%2Bbill%26a%3Dresults%26MID%3D2500

Under fire from Conservative Joe Carr, Lamar flip-flops on Sebelius

In Uncategorized on November 2, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Joe vs Alexander on Sebelius
 
TN US Senator Lamar Alexander has flip-flopped his stance on Sebelius after he was called out on it by US Senate Candidate Joe Carr.  Carr is attacking Alexander on his statements and votes and it’s way past overdue. This is Alexanders weakness, because he doesn’t vote with his party but around 37 percent of the time. We need real representation in DC, Joe Carr is that man!

Please go to Lamar Alexanders website or FB site and comment on his change of mind, be civil!

Under fire from Conservative Joe Carr, Lamar flip-flops on Sebelius

Nashville, TN –Just one day after Conservative Senate candidate Joe Carr criticized Senator Alexander for his refusal to call for Secretary Sebelius’s dismissal, Senator Alexander dramatically reversed his position.

“I’m glad that Senator Alexander has reversed his position and now admits I was right.” ” But its unfortunate he only did the right thing after political pressure.” “Unlike Senator Alexander, I’ll fight for our conservatives principles from day one.”, ~~~Joe Carr~~~

Last week, Senator Alexander gave an interview to Fox News in which he was asked if Sebelius should be fired. Alexander responded: “Well, that’s up to the President. I think he should make that decision.”

On Monday, Carr released the following statement:

“ObamaCare is a disaster and the implementation is even worse. It’s time for Kathleen Sebelius to be held accountable for the debacle she helped create. Senator Alexander’s refusal to call for her ouster is further proof he is well to the left of the conservative mainstream,” said Carr.

This week Lamar reversed his position. 

Rosine Ghawji
 

Democrat Party disavows its nominee, the voters love this guy

In Uncategorized on August 10, 2012 at 8:03 AM

In what could be called one of the strangest races in a while has yet the opportunity to be a huge upset with perhaps the greatest opportunity for the Democratic Party and they disavow their strongest candidate.

Mark Clayton has won the democratic nomination by obtaining 30 percent of the vote and nearly 50,000 votes and the Democratic Party tosses him because he happens to be rooted in his faith that states that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is getting extremely hard to believe.

One party, any party, but this time happens to be the Democratic Party throwing away 50,000 legitimate citizens votes, calling for a new election to get “the right man” in office is probably the saddest statement I have heard in a long time.

I will dare say that not everyone in the Democratic Party is gay or believes in same sex marriage. Then I will further that statement and say I can dare say that not everyone in the Democratic Party agrees with Forrester and Bilbo that if you happen to believe that when anyone marries they would marry the same sex. I can also say with great certainty the majority or at least a great percentage of Democrats are married to the opposite sex and perhaps all or most within leadership positions married the opposite. Its about personal choice as long as you dont say it?

Does this make them complicit with the hate groups of which they associate Mr Clayton of being involved in? Just because they “discriminated” against gay people and married the opposite sex, doesn’t that qualify them as a “hater” too?

Mr Clayton made a very strong and interesting statement at a recent press conference where he was rebutting his disemboweling, I mean disavowing where he made the following statement and it’s from memory but it went something like this, referring to the TN constitution, “doesn’t this make the state of Tennessee a hate group because the state of Tennessee has it in their state constitution that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman? What a profound statement. Let’s take that to another level! Does going to church make you a part of a hate group? Does getting married to the opposite sex in a church make you part of a hate group ? Is the Church of God a hate group? The Baptist convention? Mormons? Latter Day Saints? Being a Christian in most churches? Is Jesus Christ himself the hate group leader? You can tell how distorted and listless our society has become when you contemplate the preceding questions and scenarios. We label everything hate that doesn’t meet someone else’s views of how we see things, doesn’t that make us all haters? If I personally believe that you can marry anyone they want yet my church and state says I should marry the opposite sex does that mean I hate myself?

Who died and left any party with enough power that they can feel they can negate tens of thousands of votes by clearly likeminded voters? Who became the self appointed ethics guru that says unless you vote for gay rights or non gay rights for that matter that you can all of a sudden tell me my vote doesnt count. If I like a man or a woman, my vote should count and if a large percentage as in Mr Mark Claytons case vote for and happen to stand behind a candidate that doesn’t believe the way you believe or the way that you think they should vote should have no bearing on whether my vote is legitimate or not. My vote that wa cast is mine and you can’t take that simple fact away.

Have you heard of the recent “Chick fil A” phenomenon? All parties can learn something from this. The message was loud and strong, ” I can and will cast my vote for any issue or candidate that I darn well please and you or a paid lobbyist or activist within a devisive group are not going to tell me what to do because you happen to have a strong viewpoint of how you want your world to look. I have a choice and I can still make it as long as America remains free. So take your own narrow minded ethical sliding scale of what you feel America should look like and stuff it where the sun don’t shine.”

I personally think you should have a choice in who you choose to be your mate, just as Mark Clayton has done and stated and as well as Mr Forrester and Bilbo. The conflict comes when you wanna say I am wrong when I do make up my own mind and choose! See the double standard here? I like it as long as it’s my viewpoint or your wish?

All that said to say this! The Democratic Party is bypassing the greatest opportunity to win the US Senate seat in a long time. Personally, and according to his voting record, Bob Corker is just as much, if not more of a Democrat as he is a Republican and that goes for Lamar Alexander too. But they are all Americans which gives us a choice to vote for who we want despite the parties perceived notion that they know how you should vote.

The Democratic Party had an excellent opportunity to capitalize on a large block of grassroots voters on both sides of the aisles that are attempting to let their parties know we still have a choice regardless of what lobbyist is blowing in your ear to make your leg tingle. We vote for who we want in office and we don’t want you to interfere with that process.

The Democratic party would be so much stronger and influential in this area if it listened to it’s constituency and at least acknowledged. Not everyone is anti gay or gay for that matter. There are still a great deal of people who just believe the way they believe and they don’t want you forcing your agenda and creating an environment of choosing your ethical standard over my own beliefs. We need to restore the party of old! The party my grandpa was proud to wear! One that was respectful of people and if we differed, we agreed to differ yet realize we were going to the same place!

http://www.claytonforus.com/#!home/mainPage

The Democratic Party released this statement in response to Clayton’s press conference. 
“We are committed to reforms that makes candidate vetting more proactive and more transparent so that we can prevent candidates who are not Democrats from ever getting on the Democratic ballot in the future,” said TNDP Executive Committee member Jim Bilbo
“We have already begun our review of the process that failed us this year and nearly failed us in the past, and we pledge to fix it,” Bilbo said. “We owe it to Democratic supporters, candidates and volunteers to enact reforms so that extreme candidates who don’t represent our core Democratic, middle class values may never take advantage of our open elections again.” 
http://mobile.newschannel5.com/wap/news/text.jsp?targetUrl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newschannel5.com%2fstory%2f19219910%2fdisavowed-candidate-clayton-challenges-democratic-party

Clayton gets grilled again by local press and within gis own party!

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/aug/08/tn-democrats-may-be-stuck-with-clayton/

Truth be known, polish this guy a little, give him his voice back and he could win you a US Senate seat. Stripping him of legitimate votes and replacing it with your own ethical bias and narrow-mindedness just lost you the seat. The grassroots within the Democratic party stopped growing when a few elitist are left calling the shots for a vast majority of constituents. Sounds to me new leadership is needed to listen to the people that are loudly saying “I like this guy!”

Again, just my opinion and we all know what opinions are like? Right?

RINO/Conservative Analysis of Corker and Poskevich provides many answers

In Government on July 13, 2012 at 11:19 AM

In a political landscape where everyone just right of the middle wants to be a conservative. Everyone claims to love the Constitution and in some way speak of an admiration for the founding fathers.

We laud politicians for these values because we tend to believe what they say or allow a liberal press to place the tag on them to cover up the more progressive side of a candidate to make them more palatable to a growing “conservative” citizenry!

One true mark of a real conservative is his actions once in office and that is his or her voting record. You can boast all day but the proof is often in the pudding. A RINO, a Republican In Name Only is identified and exposed as non conservative with their voting record, regardless of how loud they yell they are. That voting record is the tell tale sign that labels them forever.

Recently, I was asked to evaluate and compare US Senator Bob Corker, the incumbent and Zack Poskevich, the challenger. I said great! I will just pull their voting records and see how they have voted in the past. The dilemma is one has ever ran for office and currently holds the US Senate seat in Tennessee the other has never held an office and has never been on the DC stage. So how could I compare the incumbent Bob Corker and the challenger Zack Poskevich?

I beat my noggin on a wall for a few minutes, I came to this conclusion. Besides a headache, let’s look at Bobs voting record and then ask Zack to give us honest answers as if in office and pseudo cast a vote on the same issues as Mr Corker.

I sent a sample of key issues and personal questions to Poskevich campaign and asked him to answer them accordingly and then compare and see how they measure up side by side! This turned out most interesting.

The Corker camp did not respond to many questions, just replied with a campy form letter briefly explaining to me what he thought the bill meant. Regardless, I figured the survey to Zack and Bobs voting record would be ample enough to draw the comparison I desired.

WWZD or WDBD? What would Zack do or What did Bob do? Ok, I did claim I would have fun with this. Now follow me cause I think I’m going somewhere! Where? Oh yeah, to see if Bob or Zack can call themselves a true conservative and fairly represent Tennessee in a US Senate seat and give you sufficient information to make an educated decision of who should be representing us in DC. Simple enough?

What to ask? What to pull out of the voting records? You think writing a blog is easy!

Let’s ease into this like a snake shedding its skin, slow and deliberate with the act and feeling prettier on the other side.

Healthcare? A topic on every bodies mind. A huge tax burden placed on every business and person in the US and get rid of one of the most effective healthcare systems in the world! Who would vote for that? Right?

Repeal Obamacare?
Poskevich: Yes, Full Repeal and Defund until it is repealed, would be a top priority.
Corker: Several emails over the last few months have dodged the question and a patented cookie cutter response given. I understand in the last few days he has said he would repeal the bill.

Answer the question already Corker! The answer is YES because its the right thing for Tennesseans!

Vote against LOST treaty?
Posekevich: Would vote NO on L.O.S.T., states would be a top priority.
Corker: Has dodged this question numerous times by email and documented on video many of which is posted on You Tube.

Why would we hesitate on the largest bill ever promoted by the United Nations to give away our sovereignty and not to mention trillions in fuel reserves to a foreign entity? Why not just say NO and quickly? No brainer!

NDAA?
Poskevich: No
Corker: Yes

Wow! The Bill of Rights just voted away by Mr Corker! This bill does it for me and makes my decision on who to vote for very easy! He gave the US GVT the authority to detain any citizen for any reason!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/02/1041911/-National-Defense-Authorization-Act-Detention-of-US-Citizens-Feinstein-Amd-Text-Debate

Stance on abortion?
Corker: Was for it and then against it!
Poskevich: 100% Pro-Life, No tax dollars for abortion or for abortion providing facilities such as Planned Parenthood; would sponsor or co-sponsor an Amendment to the US Constitution making abortion illegal

An analysis of Bob Corkers voting record on abortion:
Abortion: In the 2006 primary campaign, Corker’s opponents said that he has changed his view on abortion since his first Senate campaign in 1994.[54] Corker responded that he “was wrong in 1994” when he said that the government should not interfere with an individual’s right to an abortion, stating that he now believes that life begins at conception.[54] Corker now says he opposes abortion rights except when the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape and incest.[54] In the 2006 general election, Corker received the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee, but the state branch of the group, Tennessee Right to Life, refused to endorse him, calling him a “pro-abortion” politician.[55]

Any real estate issue or controversies outstanding?
Poskevich: No
Corker: Yes
 
Any ongoing lawsuits?
Poskevich: No
Corker: Yes
 
Would he ever use a gvt position for personal gain?
Poskevich: No
Corker: Yes and he did!

An analysis of Bob Corkers problems as mayor and now as a US Senator:
On September 18, 2006, a Memphis, Tennessee newspaper, The Commercial Appeal, reported that Corker’s attorneys acquired city authorization to cut a road through the protected property owned by Corker in July 2003 while Corker was mayor.[68] City records show that Corker’s attorneys won concessions from the city as details of the deal were worked out, much of which was done in private.[68]

Corker’s campaign manager has said that a blind trust kept Corker from the details of the project.[68]

On October 13, 2006, lawyers involved in the case announced a settlement agreement. Details of the settlement were not announced, but court records indicate that a portion of the settlement involved a 45-day option for the Tennessee Environmental Council to purchase over 13 acres (53,000 m2) of the land in dispute that the Council hopes to dedicate for public use.[69]

Has Zack ever hid any papers to hinder an investigation?
Poskevich: No
Corker: Yes

Missing papers

On September 9, 2006, The Commercial Appeal reported that official records from both Corker’s 2001 to 2005 service as mayor and his 1996 service as state finance commissioner are missing.[70] The missing records include letters written and received by Corker during a six month period in 1996 and e-mails written and received by Corker in his official capacity as mayor between 2001 and 2005.[70]

Some of the e-mails were discovered on his former assistant’s computer by The Commercial Appeal in October 2006.[71]
 
Any blind trusts that we don’t know of?
Poskevich: No
Corker: Yes

Blind trust
On October 11, 2006, The Commercial Appeal reported that the blind trust that Corker set up to run his businesses to avoid conflicts of interest while he was mayor “may not have been all that blind”.[71] According to e-mails discovered by the Appeal (some of which had previously presumed to be lost):

“Corker met often with employees from his private companies while mayor from 2001 to 2005, and he shared business tips with others. Corker also got help organizing his 2001 mayoral campaign from City Hall, where a government secretary passed on voting lists and set up meetings for the millionaire commercial real estate developer.”[71]

The e-mails show that Corker often met with officials from his private company, the Corker Group, which was part of the blind trust, while he was mayor.[71] When asked about these e-mails by the Appeal, Corker said that he thought the blind trust had “worked very well” and that he had sold most of his business holdings so that he could avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest in the Senate.

Corker supports broad Second Amendment rights and “appointing Federal judges who practice judicial restraint.”
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Corker#section_7

Arms Trade treaty?
Corker: has avoided the question!
Poskevich: No on the Small Arms Treaty, he will always vote No on any treaty that is unconstitutional or destroys American sovereignty
 
Corker analysis:
Why can’t he just say no! Hesitation tells me he sees something he likes and wants to take advantage of it!
Senator Moran and his co-signatories have made an important and serious contribution to the debate over the Arms Trade Treaty. As the treaty moves forward in 2012, the Administration and the other nations negotiating it will have to bear these concerns in mind.
http://bobcorker.com/news/?id=217

Would you vote 61 percent of time with OBAMA?
Corker: Yes and he has.
Poskevich: Me and Obama are polar opposites; I will never compromise Constitutional Principles to reach across the aisle, it would be Obama who would have to compromise if the two end up voting the same
 
Voted down the line with Obama 61 percent of the time! RINO? duh!
http://m.bizjournals.com/nashville/#/articles/view/page_7227481
 
TARP?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Corker voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, raising the debt ceiling
Corker voted to ratify the START Treaty with Russia and so far has not committed one way or the other on how he stands on the LOST Treaty. 

Bob Corker also voted to confirm Eric Holder and recently confirmed Jesse Furman and anti-2nd amendment judge to the federal bench
Corker has voted with Obama 61%.
His rhetoric just doesn’t match with his record.  He also co-sponsored a bill with Lamar Alexander to designate more of the Cherokee National Forest as Wildlands.  

Cash for Clunkers?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Cash for Clunkers Funding.
H.R. 3435 would authorize an additional $2 billion for the “Cash for Clunkers” vehicle trade-in program. Under the “Cash for Clunkers” program, consumers would trade in their old cars for more fuel efficient vehicles. (Congress passed the original Cash For Clunkers in June (see our July 20, 2009 issue). After running out of funds almost immediately, Congress quickly introduced yet another bill (H.R. 3435) that would provide an additional $2 billion for the “Cash for Clunkers” program. Under the program consumers were offered rebates of up to $4,500 if they traded in their old cars for more fuel-efficient ones. The vehicles traded in were destroyed, meaning cars not ready for the junkyard would be taken off the road, reducing the stock o
used vehicles and inflating the prices of used cars.) The Senate passed H.R. 3435 on August 6, 2009 by a vote of 60-37 (Roll Call 270). The federal government should not be subsidizing the car industry and because it is unconstitutional and wasteful.
Bob Corker voted YES.
 
START treaty with Russia?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

With Russia? Need I say more?
 
Vote to confirm Eric Holder?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No
 
Hello? Fast and Furious?

Would Zack confirm a federal judge that is a known anti second amendment advocate?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No, Zach would have never voted to confirm Jesse Furman, or any activist judge

Maybe the hesitation on the Arms Trade Treaty?
 
Would Zack authorize war without approval of Congress?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Funds for War, Welfare, Etc.
The Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 2642) was agreed to 92-2 (Roll Call 162) on June 26, 2008. Such bills fund unforeseen needs after an annual budget has been approved. However, regular use of emergency supplemental bills to pay for never-ending wars, domestic welfare, and infrastructure programs has made the annual budget a misleading indicator of spending intentions. This $186.5 billion measure includes $161.8 billion of additional funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The remaining $24.7 billion is for domestic programs including tornado, flood, and hurricane relief efforts. It would also expand veterans’ education benefits, expand unemployment benefits, and delay shifting some Medicaid costs to the states. Congress continues to fund a war it never authorized under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. Also, the federal government is unconstitutionally involved as an individual and corporate insurer at taxpayer expense.
Bob Corker voted YES.

Authority for Military Action.
During consideration of a small-business bill (S. 493), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved to send the bill to the Foreign Relations Committee with instructions to insert his amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Paul’s amendment was in response to President Obama undertaking U.S. military action in Libya without congressional authorization. The Senate tabled (killed) Rand Paul’s motion on April 5, 2011 by a vote of 90 to 10 (Roll Call 50). The U.S. Constitution assigns to Congress the power “to declare war.”
Bob Corker voted YES  ( To Table or Kill the bill)
 
Peru Free Trade Agreement?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Peru Free Trade Agreement.
The Peru Free Trade Agreement (H.R. 3688) is another in a series of free-trade agreements to transfer the power to regulate trade (and other powers as well) to regional arrangements. A prime example is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). However, as noted by the House Ways and Means Committee report on H.R. 3688, the Peru Free Trade Agreement is the first U.S. FTA to include “in its core text fully enforceable commitments by the Parties to adopt, maintain, and enforce basic international labor standards, as stated in the 1988 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.” The ILO, or International Labor Organization, is a UN agency. The Senate passed the Peru Free Trade Agreement on December 4, 2007 by a vote of 77-18 (Roll Call 413). So-called free trade arrangements threaten our national independence and harm our economy.
Bob Corker voted YES.

Warrantless searches FISA?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Warrantless Searches.
S. 2248, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed 68-29 on February 12, 2008 (Roll Call 20). The bill would amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to effectively give the executive branch of the federal government a blank check to eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mail messages between people in foreign countries and those in the United States. The bill includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that have collaborated with federal agencies in the warrantless surveillance of American citizens. Warrantless wiretaps are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that any searches be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant under conditions of probable cause. Moreover, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution forbids “ex post facto laws” – laws having a retroactive effect.
Bob Corker voted YES.

Warrantless Searches.
H.R. 6304, the bill to revamp the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), would allow warrantless electronic surveillance, including monitoring telephone conversations and e-mails, of foreign targets, including those communicating with American citizens in the United States. The final version of the bill would not explicitly grant immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program. But it would require courts to dismiss lawsuits against such companies if there is “substantial evidence” they were insured in writing the program was legal and authorized by the president. The provision would almost certainly result in the dismissal of the lawsuits. The Senate passed H.R. 6304 on July 9, 2008 by a vote of 69-28 (Roll Call 168). Warrantless searches are a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires that any searches be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant under conditions of probable cause. Moreover, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution forbids “ex post facto laws” laws having a retroactive effect.
Bob Corker voted YES.
 
Min wage?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Corker analysis of Minimum Wage.
The minimum wage bill (H.R. 2) would raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over the course of two years. The bill would also provide $8.3 billion in small-business tax incentives. The House passed its version of H.R. 2 on January 10. The Senate passed the minimum-wage increase by a vote of 94-3 (Roll Call 42) on February 1, 2007. It is unconstitutional to prohibit citizens from working for less than a government-set wage.
Bob Corker voted YES. 

COPS funding?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

COPS Funding.
Joseph Biden (D-Del.) offered an amendment to the fiscal 2008 budget resolution (Senate Concurrent Resolution 21) that would authorize a $1.2 billion increase in federal funds to support the Community-Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. The Senate passed the Bide amendment by a vote of 65-33 (Roll Call 110) on March 23, 2007. Providing federal aid to local law enforcement programs is not only unconstitutional, but it also further federalizes the police system.
Bob Corker voted YES. 
 
UN funding increase?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich:No, “We need to get the UN out of the US and the US out of the UN.” Zach Poskevich http://youtu.be/04mm1MqqoCA
 
UN “Peacekeeping” Increase.
During consideration of the foreign-aid appropriations bill (H.R. 2764), Senator John Ensign (R- Nev.) introduced an amendment to strike a provision in H.R. 2764 that would increase the limit on the U.S. share of UN “peacekeeping” operations from 25 percent to 27.1 percent. The Senate rejected the Ensign amendment to H.R. 2764 on September 6, 2007, by a vote of 30-63 (Roll Call 317). The United States should not be funding UN “peacekeeping” period — let alone increasing the amount.
Bob Corker voted NO.

Protect America Act?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Protect America Act.
The Protect America Act (S. 1927) would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow warrantless electronic eavesdropping on communications where at least one individual is based outside of the United States. The Senate passed S. 1927 on August 3, 2007, by a vote of 60-28 (Roll Call 309). Warrantless surveillance of American citizens is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition “against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Bob Corker voted YES. 
 
Debt limit increase?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Debt Limit Increase.
This bill (House Joint Resolution 43) would increase the national debt limit to an astronomical $9.8 trillion, an $850 billion increase. This increase would be the fifth time the national debt was raised since 2002, representing about a $3 trillion increase in just the last five years. The Senate passed House Joint Resolution 43 on September 27, 2007, by a vote of 53-42 (Roll Call 354). Raising the public debt limit by $850 billion facilitates continued, gross fiscal irresponsibility.
Bob Corker voted YES. 

Bail out wall street?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Bailout Bill.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (H.R. 1424) passed 74-25 (Roll Call 213) on October 1, 2008. (This bill authorizes the Treasury Department to use $700 billion of taxpayer money to purchase troubled mortgage-related securities from banks and other financial-related institutions, on terms set by the Treasury Secretary, who now has authority to manage and sell those assets. The bailout plan also expands FDIC protection from $100,000 to $250,000 per bank account, extends dozens of expiring tax provisions, expands incentives for renewable energy, provides a one-year adjustment to exempt millions of Americans from the alternative minimum tax, and requires health insurers who provide mental-health coverage to put mental-health benefits on par with other medical benefits.) The bill establishes an unconstitutional merger of government with big business — in other words, fascism — and greatly increases the national debt and monetary inflation by forcing taxpayers to pay the price for the failures of private financial institutions.
Bob Corker voted YES.

Farm Bill?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Farm Bill.
The version of the five year, $289 billion farm bill is considered here. (H.R. 2419 would authorize the nation’s farm programs for the next five years, including crop subsidies and nutrition programs. The final version of this legislation worked out by House and Senate conferees (known as a conference report) provides $289 billion for these programs, including a $10.4 billion boost in spending for nutrition programs such as food stamps.) The Senate passed the final version of H.R. 2419 by a vote of 81-15 (Roll Call 130) on May 15, 2008. Federal aid to farmers and federal food aid to individuals are not authorized by the Constitution.
Bob Corker voted YES.

Farm bill override?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Farm Bill (Veto Override).Flip Flop Bob?
H.R. 6124 would authorize the nation’s farm programs for the next five years, including crop subsidies and nutrition programs. The final version of the legislation provides $289 billion for these programs, including a $10.4 billion boost in spending for nutrition programs such as food stamps.  After this five-year, $289 billion farm bill was vetoed by President Bush, the Senate passed the bill over the president’s veto on June 18, 2008 by a vote of 80-14 (Roll Call 151). A two thirds majority vote is required to override a presidential veto. Federal aid to farmers and federal food aid to individuals are not authorized by the Constitution.
Bob Corker voted YES.
 
IMF funding?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

IMF Funding.
During consideration of the Fiscal 2009 Supplemental bill (H.R. 2346), Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) offered an amendment to delete $5 billion provided by the bill for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF is an adjunct of the United Nations and grants foreign aid to qualifying countries. The Senate rejected the DeMint amendment on May 21, 2009, by a vote of 30-64 (Roll Call 201). Foreign aid is unconstitutional, and this is deficit spending.
Bob Corker voted NO against the amendment to delete funding.

Bernanke confirmation?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Bernanke? Really? Bernanke Confirmation.
On January 28, 2010, the Senate voted 70 to 30 to confirm Ben Bernanke to a second four-year term as Federal Reserve Chairman (Roll Call 16). With Bernanke at the helm, the Fed, which can create money out of thin air, has pumped trillions of newly created fiat (unbacked) dollars into the economy, even though this reckless expansion of the money supply (inflation) will diminish the value of the dollar and further hurt the economy in the long run. Bernanke’s Fed has also kept interest rates artificially low, encouraging excessive borrowing and malinvestments. And Bernanke has called for the Fed — which already possesses the power to create booms and busts through its control of the money supply and interest rates — to be given new powers to manage the financial sector. Bernanke is accountable for the economic havoc at the Fed; which is a central bank that should not even exist.
Bob Corker voted yes!

Audit the fed?
Corker: No
Poskevich: Yes

Audit the Fed.
During consideration of the financial regulatory reform bill (S. 3217), Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) offered an amendment to audit the Federal Reserve. The Senate rejected the Vitter amendment on May 11, 2010 by a vote of 37-62 (Roll Call 138), after unanimously adopting a watered-down audit-the-Fed amendment offered by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Sanders had much earlier introduced legislation in the Senate that mirrored the audit-the-Fed legislation in the House championed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). When Sanders caved and offered his watered-down amendment, Vitter stepped in and offered an amendment for a full Fed audit along the lines of Paul’s (and Sanders’ earlier) proposal. The Sanders amendment allows for a onetime audit of the Fed’s emergency actions taken in response to the 2008 financial crisis. However, unlike the Vitter amendment, the Sanders amendment (in Paul’s words) “exempts monetary policy decisions, discount window operations, and agreements with foreign central banks from [GAO] audit.” The vote on the Vitter amendment is used here to rate Senators on their position on auditing the Fed.
The American people need to know what the Fed is doing and because this may represent a first step in eliminating the unconstitutional Federal Reserve.
Bob Corker voted NO.

SOPA?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Patriot Act?
Corker: Yes
Poskevich: No

Patriot Act (Firearms Purchase Records).
During consideration of the Patriot Act extension bill (S. 990), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who opposes the Patriot Act on constitutional grounds, offered an amendment that would have banned the use of Patriot Act searches for American citizens’ firearms records without the Fourth Amendment’s protections of probable cause, warrants, and particularity. Gun Owners of America, which supported this amendment, warned: “Without Paul’s exemption, it is possible that the BATFE could go to a secret (FISA) court, and, in a one-party (ex parte) proceeding, obtain an order to produce every 4473 [firearms transaction record] in the country, ostensibly because a ‘terrorism investigation’ requires it. If such an action were taken, the government would have a list of every gun buyer in the country going back decades.” The Senate tabled (killed) Rand Paul’s amendment on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 85 to 10 (Roll Call 82). Paul’s amendment would have prevented the Patriot Act from being used to violate the rights of gun owners.
Bob Corker voted YES  ( To Table or Kill the bill)

Patriot Act Extension.
This legislation (S. 990) extended for four years three provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire: the “roving wiretap” provision that allows the federal government to wiretap any number of a suspect’s telephone/Internet connections without specifying what they will find or how many connections will be tapped; the “financial records” provision that allows the feds to seize “any tangible thing” that has “relevance” to an investigation; and the “lone wolf” provision that allows spying on non-U.S. citizens without a warrant. These provisions violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that no warrants be issued “but upon probable cause” (a much higher standard than “relevance”), and that warrants must contain language “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Patriot Act even allows the FBI to issue warrants called “National Security Letters” without going to a judge, though this provision was not set to expire and therefore was not part of this legislation.  The Senate passed S. 990 on May 26, 2011 by a vote of 72 to 23 (Roll Call 84). The extended provisions, and the Patriot Act as a whole, violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Other non conservative votes by Bob Corker!

Guest-worker Program.
Senator Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) introduced an amendment to strike the guest-worker provision of Ted Kennedy’s substitute amendment (S. Amdt. #1150) for the immigration reform bill of 2007 (S. 1348). Kennedy’s so-called guest-worker provision would create a renewable two-year guest-worker program, issue a guest-worker visa, and set an adjustable annual cap on the number of guest workers permitted in this country. The Dorgan amendment was rejected by a vote of 31-64 (Roll Call 174) on May 22, 2007. The guest-worker program would constitute a large increase in legal immigration for our country, which would ultimately displace more American workers from their jobs and depress wages.
Bob Corker voted NO.

Mukasey Confirmation.
When Michael Mukasey testified at his confirmation hearings for attorney general, he repeatedly refused to say that waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques reportedly practiced by the CIA constituted torture and were therefore illegal. (Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning.) He also stated, incredibly, that the president could operate outside laws passed by Congress if “what goes outside the statute lies within the authority of the president to defend the country.” The Senate confirmed Michael Mukasey as U.S. attorney general on November 8, 2007, by a vote of 53-40 (Roll Call 407). In so doing, the U.S. Senate demonstrated its willingness to tolerate torture — which is anathema to American values — and its willingness to allow the president to trump laws passed by Congress in the name of national security.
Bob Corker voted YES. 

SCHIP.
H.R. 976 would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to the amount of $60.2 billion for five years. The proposed amount would expand the program by $35.2 billion and cover an addition 6.1 million children. The Senate passed H.R. 976 on August 2, 2007, by a vote of 68-31 (Roll Call 307). Taxpayer-financed federal health insurance is unconstitutional. After successful passage of H.R. 976 in both the House and Senate, President Bush vetoed the measure on October 3, 2007.
Bob Corker voted YES. 

Amtrak Reauthorization.
This bill (S. 294) would authorize $11.4 billion for Amtrak funding over the next six years. That amount would include monies for operating subsidies ($3.3 billion) and capital grants ($4.9 billion). If passed, states would be required to provide a 20 percent match of funds. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) opposed the reauthorization of federal funds to Amtrak. According to DeMint, Amtrak routes are so unprofitable that each ticket is federally subsidized by hundreds of dollars. Amtrak was created in 1970 and has been operating under annual federal appropriation funds since 2002. The Senate passed S. 294 on October 30, 2007, by a vote of 70-22 (Roll Call 400). Spending billions of tax dollars for federal grants and subsidies for Amtrak transportation is unconstitutional.
Bob Corker voted YES. 

Fiscal 2009 Supplemental Appropriations.
The Senate version of the Fiscal 2009 Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 2346) would provide an additional $91.3 billion in “emergency” funding for the current fiscal year over and above the regular appropriations. The spending would include $73 billion for the Defense Department (including the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), $1.5 billion to address potential pandemic flu, and $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund, a UN agency that lends to qualifying countries. The Senate passed H.R. 2346 on May 21, 2009, by a vote of 86-3 (Roll Call 202). The spending is over and above what the federal government had already budgeted, Congress never declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the spending (e.g., foreign aid) is unconstitutional.
Bob Corker voted YES.

Children’s Health Insurance.
H.R. 3963, the five-year, $60 billion SCHIP Extension bill, passed 64-30 on November 1, 2007 (Roll Call 403) and then went to the president, who vetoed it. (H.R. 3963, a bill to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program, was rejected in the House, 260-152 on January 23, 2008 (Roll Call 22) when the House failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority of those present to override President Bush’s veto. The bill would have authorized the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) at nearly $60 billion over five years, expanding the program by $35 billion. It also would have put an additional tax on cigarette manufacturers, would have undermined private insurance plans, and would have pushed us further down the slippery slope to socialized medicine. ) The Constitution does not authorize federal involvement in healthcare, even for children.
Bob Corker voted YES. 

Head Start.
H.R. 1429, a bill to reauthorize the Head Start program through 2012, was adopted 95-0 on November 14, 2007 (Roll Call 409). (Head Start provides educational activities and social services for children up to age five from low-income families. The program received $6.9 billion in fiscal year 2007. $7 billion was authorized in the fiscal 2008 omnibus bill, but H.R. 1429 increased funding to $7.4 billion for fiscal 2008, $7.7 billion for 2009, and $8 billion for 2010. The income level at which families are eligible to participate was raised from 100 percent of the poverty level to 130 percent ($26,728 for a family of four). Some members opposed the bill because Head Start grants will not be allowed to faith-based organizations that hire employees on the basis of religious preference.) Having been adopted in both the House and the Senate, this legislation was cleared for President Bush, who signed it into law. Federalized educational system is an unconstitutional and wasteful bureaucracy. (there were no “nays”)
Bob Corker voted YES.  

Global HIV/AIDS Program.
This legislation (H.R. 5501) to authorize $48 billion to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria overseas.  (The bill would authorize $48 billion for fiscal 2009 through 2013 to combat AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis overseas. Currently one third of the funding for HIV prevention is required to go to abstinence education. The bill would change that allocation to balance funding between condom, fidelity, and abstinence programs. It would also authorize $2 billion to fund programs for American Indian health, clean water, and law enforcement.) The Senate passed H.R. 5501 on July 16, 2008 by a vote of 80-16 (Roll Call 182). We have assigned pluses to the “nays” because foreign aid is unconstitutional.
Bob Corker voted YES.

SCHIP.
H.R. 2 would reauthorize the “State Children’s Health Insurance Program,” commonly referred to as SCHIP, for over four and a half years and increase the funding for the program by $32.8 billion. (H.R. 2 would reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, commonly referred to as SCHIP, for over four and a half years and increase the funding for the program by $32.8 billion. SCHIP is designed to provide health insurance to children of families whose incomes are up to four times above the poverty level (and therefore would have too much income to qualify for Medicaid), yet would have little income to buy private insurance. Often SCHIP crowds out private insurance: the Congressional Budget Office found that between 25 and 50 percent of children who enroll in SCHIP dropped their private insurance to get “free care.” Because SCHIP, like Medicaid and Medicare, pays doctors and hospitals only a fraction of the actual cost of care, the unfunded costs get passed to holders of private insurance. Additionally, SCHIP would apply to 400,000 to 600,000 children of legal immigrants whose sponsors had agreed to cover the children’s healthcare needs for at least five years after arriving to the United States. ) The Senate passed H.R. 2 on January 29, 2009, by a vote of 66-32 (Roll Call 31). Federal healthcare programs are unconstitutional and would likely lower the quality of healthcare.
Bob Corker voted YES.

Supplemental Appropriations.
The final version (conference report) of the fiscal 2009 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 2346), would provide $105.9 in “emergency” funding. (This final version (conference report) of the fiscal 2009 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 2346) would provide an additional $105.9 billion in so-called emergency funds over and above the regular appropriations for 2009. This outrageous supplemental package would include $79.9 billion for defense funding (including for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), $10.4 billion for foreign aid programs, $7.7 billion to address the national flu scare, and $5 billion for International Monetary Fund activities. This supplemental bill would also include $1 billion for the Cash for Clunkers program. A day prior to the House vote, Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) urged his fellow lawmakers to reject the bill, stating, “I continue to believe that the best way to for discretionary spending for the two departments and their related agencies, a 25-percent increase from fiscal 2009 levels. The bill would provide $1.5 billion in federal grants for Amtrak and $18.2 billion for the Section 8 Tenant-based Rental Assistance program.) The Senate adopted the conference report (thus sending it to the President) on June 18, 2009 by a vote of 91-5 (Roll Call 210). The spending is over and above what the federal government had already budgeted, the United States never declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the spending (e.g., Cash for Clunkers and foreign aid) is unconstitutional.
Bob Corker voted YES.

Energy-Water Appropriations.
The final version (conference report) of this 2010 spending bill (H.R. 3183) to appropriate $34 billion for energy and water projects ( The final version (conference report) of H.R. 3183 would appropriate $34 billion in fiscal 2010 for energy and water projects. The funds would provide $27.1 billion for the Energy Department, $5.4 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, and $1.1 billion for the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation.). The Senate adopted the conference report (thus sending it to the President) on October 15, 2009 by a vote of 80-17 (Roll Call 322). The Department of Energy is not authorized by the Constitution.
Bob Corker voted YES.

Do you really even need to read further? The RINO and the NON Conservative is very evident. I don’t need to research this any further! My vote is clear, we need change to protect our constitution and to clearly send someone to Washington that represents the people and will secure their rights!

Sorry Bob Corker but you gotta go. The above results are making me feel like our state and country has suffered because you are in office!

Get out there and vote starting today Tennessee!

The true Conservative in this debate is Zack Poskevich!
 
5 reasons we should vote for Zach Poskevich

1) Zach Poskevich is a man of principle, integrity and conviction.

2) Zach Poskevich has already put his life on the line to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States when he joined the Army at age 17; he will continue to do so while serving as our US Senator.

3) Zach Poskevich is a highly intelligent individual who understands our history, how we got to the place we are in as a nation, and how to get back on the right path.

4) Zach Poskevich has no desire to be a career politician and will return home after fulfilling his service to our country as a US Senator.

5) Zach Poskevich is one of ‘We the People,’ not a political player who is beholden to lobbyists or donors; he will take our fight to Washington.

Zack Poskevich is the easy choice in this debate! Didn’t you feel dirty witnessing the votes by Bob Corker…….yeah made me feel dirty too and much less of an American.

No more comparison needed! There is only one true conservative/Non RINO in this race and he ain’t the one that currently holds the office! Look at the votes by both and you can clearly see that our state could be going in another direction.

Thanks to these sources who made this analysis more thorough! These sites are chocked full of great information and I would suggest you visit them frequently!

MickeyWhite: source of info, http://mickeywhite.blogspot.com/2010/12/senator-bob-corker-voted-poorly.html?m=1

Why we should vote for Bob?
http://bluecollarmuse.com/2012/07/09/why-tennessee-should-re-elect-bob-corker-to-the-senate/

UN’s LOST Treaty debate begins on floor of US Senate tomorrow

In Uncategorized on May 22, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Tomorrow, on the US Senate floor a debate starts that will eventually lead to a vote on the UN’s Law of the Sea Treaty, known internationally as UNCLOS.

As Senators begin their preparation on a vote the UN and Environmentalist await the results. The results of which could have a devastating affect on our economy and our way of life for years to come. If the LOST treaty is ratified this week it will almost be impossible to stop or take away and will squander our nations oil and gas reserve fortunes to many unfriendly countries and deviant regimes.

By essentially giving away our rights to our own seabed to the ISA, a UN International Seabed Authority, we give most of the potential royalties that are “property” of the United States and it’s citizens, worth possibly trillions upon trillions to control of an international body, like the UN.

Redistribution of wealth! The royalties will be passed off to the international UN authorities and dispersed to poorer countries assisting with their poverty, a stated goal of the UN per Agenda 21 and other of it’s many policies.

Environmentalists have said that if the treaty passes and America is able to “tap” into unaccountable unmeasureable “hydrocarbon reserves” thus further degrading our environment with huge carbon loads lawsuits will ensue, further harming our economy and further contributing as a source to spread Americas wealth to the rest of the world against our will. This will only further our economic decline and drastically affect out way of life. Less for us and our economy means less in your pockets.

Our Sovereignty is at stake once again to the UN. No longer can the conspiracy theory negations hold up. We are under attack and if you take a minute to look around you, you will see that the United Nations under the guidance of NGOs (Non Governmental Organizations) via PPPs (Private Partnerships) using our local, State and Federal elected officials to implement and vote in the strategies needed to harm our country and spread the wealth to others instead of to where it belongs and that is in the hands of American Citizens.

President Reagan turned this down 30 years ago and our current sitting president is charging full steam ahead to ratify the LOST treaty thus complimenting his commitment to the concepts of Agenda 21 and the eventual turning over our sovereignty to an international body, the UNITED NATIONS.

Notify your individual US SENATORS TODAY and tomorrow! Please do not hesitate! This is crucial and needs immediate attention! Please do not delay! Please tell them not to ratify the LOST treaty.

Tennessee contacts:

Senator Lamar Alexander

Senator Bob Corker

Source of info:
http://heritageaction.com/stoplost/why-the-law-of-the-sea-treaty-is-still-a-bad-idea/

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
• Law of the Sea: UNCLOS—sometimes called the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (or LOST)—established a comprehensive legal regime for navigation and international management of oceanic resources, including the deep seabed.

• President Reagan Refused to Sign: President Ronald Reagan announced that he would not sign UNCLOS shortly after it was adopted in 1982. Reagan stated several objections to it, most of which dealt with its provisions on deep seabed mining. Reagan did, however, support the navigational provisions of UNCLOS, which reflected the customary international law of the sea.

The U.S. Has Much to Lose …
• Another Unaccountable International Bureaucracy: UNCLOS establishes the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a new U.N.-style bureaucracy located in Kingston, Jamaica. As only one of more than 160 countries in the ISA, the U.S. would have limited authority over its decisions regarding the deep seabed. Just like the U.N. General Assembly, proceedings at the ISA would be dominated by anti-U.S. interests.

• Redistribution of U.S. Wealth to the “Developing World”: The U.S. currently enjoys full sovereignty over its entire continental shelf. It can claim all its mineral resources (e.g., oil and gas) and can collect royalty revenue from oil and gas companies for exploitation. If the U.S. joined UNCLOS, Article 82 would require the U.S. to transfer a significant portion of any such royalties to the ISA for “redistribution” to the so-called developing world, including corrupt and despotic regimes.

• Mandatory Dispute Resolution: Under Part XV, the U.S. would be required to engage in mandatory dispute resolution for any claim brought against it by another member of UNCLOS. This may open the U.S. to any number of specious allegations brought by opportunistic nations, including allegations of environmental degradation or polluting the ocean environment with carbon emissions or even from land-based sources.

• U.S. Economic Interests at Risk: UNCLOS claims the deep seabed resources of the oceans as “the common heritage of mankind” and forbids mining unless permission is first received by the ISA, which, of course, takes into account the interests of “developing states” regarding the exploitation of those resources. UNCLOS encourages technology transfers from advanced mining companies to support the mining activities by developing states, which is likely to discourage U.S. companies from participating in such activities.

• The Convention Was Not “Fixed” in 1994: During the early 1990s the deep seabed mining provisions of UNCLOS were renegotiated in the “1994 Agreement.” This addendum to the convention was signed by the Clinton Administration in July 1994. While the 1994 Agreement improved many provisions of the convention, it did not secure “veto” power for the U.S. over the decisions of the ISA.

… and Little to Gain
• Navigation Rights Already Guaranteed: The navigational provisions of UNCLOS reflect long-standing customary international law, under which the U.S. Navy has operated since it was created. The navy has consistently demonstrated its ability to access key strategic straits and archipelagic waters and to protect its high seas freedoms—despite the fact that the U.S. has not ratified UNCLOS.