Leftist Groups Start to Attack Ben Loyola

When socialist groups like CREW and Public Option start attacking you, you know that the Democrats must be taking notice and they are scared. The one of the smartest doctrines of war dictates that you attempt to eliminate your strongest opponent as quickly as possible and this is an attempt to do just that.

Ben, like any good businessman made a good business decision and sold part of his company. The Dems are seizing upon a penumbra of an emanation of nothing to try to nail Loyola. These charges clearly make no sense because the value of a privately held item is really only what someone would be willing to pay for it. The only business expert quoted in The Hill article, said the following:

There is little concrete evidence that Loyola low-balled the value of his company and, in fact, it is a difficult process for a private company to undertake accurately, said University of Wisconsin business Professor Terrance Maxwell, an expert in the valuation of companies.

“Values can change dramatically over time based on a lot of factors; just look at the stock market in the last year,” Maxwell said. “And in the [case] of a privately held company, no one can be sure what the value really is until the company is actually sold.”

A spokesman for the Loyola Campaign had the following statement:

“This is nothing more than a pointless attack from liberal special interest front groups pushing their own agenda, pathetically intended to taint Ben and push him out of the way for a weak Republican candidate in the 2nd. Loyola is the GOP’s best chance to defeat Nye in the 2^nd and the liberals know that, hence their made-up attacks on him and his business.

Public Citizen is widely known for promoting Obamacare and CREW has a long history of specifically attacking Republicans. There is absolutely no merit to their politically motivated claims.”

Looks like the Democrats consider Loyola to be the frontrunner, otherwise, why attack him?

Ben Loyola Adds Eric Cantor’s Consultants to His Team

The following is taken from a press release:

VIRGINIA BEACH – Ben Loyola, 2nd District Congressional Candidate, announced new additions to his campaign team today.

“I am very pleased to announce that Boyd Marcus and Ray Allen who have served as Republican Whip Eric Cantor’s political consultants for over 18 years have joined my campaign team.

In addition to Eric Cantor they have helped elect George Allen, Jim Gilmore, Thelma Drake, Bill Bolling and numerous other state and local officials.

Joining them in directing my campaign are Chris Woodfin and Aaron Gulbransen of ACT Consulting. Chris and Aaron have worked on numerous campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels over the past 20 years and have a tremendous local knowledge of Hampton Roads and the grassroots of our Party.

Additionally, we have also retained Creative Direct, a nationally known political mail firm that has handled numerous Governors, Senators and Congressmen across the nation. They also currently provide mail services for Congressmen Cantor Va-7, Wolf Va–10, and Wittman VA–1, here in Virginia.”

“I knew when I first met Ben that he was the kind of committed, conservative we need in Congress. From fleeing Cuba as a child to graduating from Annapolis and serving as a naval aviator and now a successful small businessman, Ben has lived the American Dream.” Chris Woodfin said.

“Ben Loyola is the kind of passionate, exciting candidate we need to win in the 2nd District. I am looking forward to working with Chris and Aaron and our whole team.” Boyd Marcus said. “This is a race we can win.”

Ben Loyola is a candidate for the Republican nomination in Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District. He’s a 25-year resident of Virginia Beach, 30-year Navy combat veteran, successful businessman, and Conservative Republican.

Foster Files Most Delegate Forms in Virginia Beach

Yesterday was the filing deadline to be a delegate from Virginia Beach to the 2009 Republican Party of Virginia Convention.

There were a total of around 440 Delegate forms filed. Well over 200 were filed by the Bolling campaign.

As for the Attorney General candidates: While Dave Foster claimed victory first, utilizing typical political gamesmanship, Cuccinelli disputed that by claiming victory on his own. Then today, John Brownlee claimed victory in Virginia Beach, stating that Foster finished second.

Here’s the truth: Our sources tell us that Dave Foster filed the most delegates of the candidates for Attorney General, followed by John Brownlee. Ken Cuccinelli’s filings placed him in a distant third. Given the veracity of the Bolling filing numbers, Cuccinelli’s and Brownlee’s claims are statistically impossible.

Brownlee did, however, narrowly file the most number of pre-forms to be a delegate in Hampton. Foster and Cuccinelli were even.

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson Endorses Dave Foster

Former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson has made an official endorsement in the Virginia Attorney General’s race, endorsing Arlington native, Dave Foster.

“Dave Foster is one of the brightest legal minds I know. He will bring a solid legal resume and a wealth of experience to the Office of Attorney General.” -Ted Olson, Former Solicitor General of the United States

Ted has also been on the host committee of several fundraisers held for Foster over the past several months.

Ted Olson served as Solicitor General from 2001-2004. He also represented George W. Bush before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. Ted’s late wife, noted Conservative commentator, author, and activist, Barbara Olson, was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

Palin or Schwarzenegger Speaking at RPV Convention?

A well-placed source has informed HRGOP that negotiations are underway to bring either Gov. Palin or Gov. Schwarzenegger to speak at the convention this year.

“One of them will be speaking. Confirmation as to which one will occur sometime early next week.”

It is thought that bringing one of them to speak will increase turnout to this year’s convention.

Stimulating the Economy or Just Motivated Spenders ?

The proposed stimulus package which has been regarded to fillip our economy is facing resistance in the Senate by Senate Republicans. Senator John McCain, R-Az, has said as the bill presently stands he would not vote on it.

The stimulus package includes deplorable projects that Republicans find to be ineffective in boosting our economy and producing new jobs. After an unbalanced vote in the House of 244-188, the bipartisanship Obama was hoping for quickly faded.

House and Senate Republicans are standing firmly by their principles and want less spending and more tax cuts. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor stated that during a White House bipartisanship meeting the Republicans let those in the meeting know that they are focused on working families, small businesses, and how the government could sustain the jobs we have, stop the layoffs, and create new jobs. Cantor would go on to say that proposals such as sod for the National Mall, which is receiving four times the amount of money over small businesses, makes it evident that someone has their priorities backwards.

Although not all Senate Democrats are onboard with the proposed plan. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a top Obama ally, told FOX News that some of the spending is uncalled for in this package. 

“We’ve got to cut some of the spending for programs,” she said. “This is not the place to increase spending on programs.” She criticized billions for programs like alternative energy loans and the Census Bureau. 

“We may have to fund the Census Bureau but not in a stimulus bill,” she said. “That’s the problem here. We have got to be disciplined about making sure this bill does only two things: Get money directly into the economy and create jobs. Period. That’s it,” McCaskill said. 

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson also told Fox News he’s looking to remove “tens of billions” of dollars from the spending.

A lot of proposals in the bill are manifestations of pork barrel spending. This is the Democratic party pushing an agenda that has been long overdue and will inevitably lead to a failed economic plan instead of a successful one.

The GOP has released details regarding the proposed stimulus plan. Some of these were $75 million for “smoking cessation activities”, $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees, $1.2 billion dollars for “youth activities”, a $246 million dollar tax break for Hollywood producers to buy motion picture film, and $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings. This is only a small portion of spending in the $819 billion dollar plan. Out of just a few things I have listed here, what percentage of those, or any of the other proposals like honeybee insurance and the restoration of the Jefferson Memorial are going to create a large amount of jobs in this weakening economy ? These proposals are inadequate to what our nation is facing today. We need real proposals with firm possibilities of job growth.

A recent poll from Rasmussen indicated that only 37% now support the plan and many presume that it may do more harm than good. The Los Angeles Times reported that the administration is beginning to sense the danger. President Obama is talking to Republican Senators individually to try and win their support. A desperate time calls for desperate measures as it would seem for a man who promised so much during his campaign to be President of the United States.

Glenn Beck of Fox News would go on to say that “this package isn’t meant to stimulate the economy. It’s meant to reshape it”. He says this after revealing that only 16% of the stimulus plan will be spent by the time President Obama’s term is halfway through, apparently not the quick jolt for the economy he speaks of. He talks about creating “green” jobs and clean energy, yet only 2% is earmarked for clean energy. Only a seventh of that will be spent in the next 24 months. The Obama administration is “using fear to promote long term changes to the country.” How will we stand ?

Frederick Rumored to be Running for Re-Election

Sources within the General Assembly have told HRGOP that Speaker Howell has convinced the RPV Chair to run for re-election for his Prince William House of Delegates seat. The RPV Chairman is viewed as having the best chance to retain that seat.

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

Autism Rally for HB1588

Check out the rally that occured Thursday in Richmond.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/local_govtpolitics/article/autism_rally_draws_200/180296/

Secretary of State Clinton Unconstitutional?

Is it unconstitutional for Hillary Clinton to become Secretary of State? According to Article I Section IV she is precluded from being appointed to any civil office. “No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.”

During Hillary’s term in the senate the Cabinet’s salary went from $186,600 to $196,700. Bush did so through an executive order. Which some have argued will not affect or bar senators or representatives because they did not vote on it.

Similar situations have happened in the past. In the past the way around it is to have Congress vote to lower the pay to what it had been before, this is known as the Saxby fix. It is named after William Saxby who was appointed Attorney General by Nixon, but Congress had to vote to lower his pay to its previous level. Its roots reach back to 1909 during the Taft administration with the appointment of Knox to Secretary of State. The Senate Judiciary Committee came up with the idea of setting the salary to what it previously had been. It was unanimously passed by the Senate, but faced some trouble in the House where it was once defeated. Clinton also used it when appointing Lloyd Bensten to Treasury of Secretary.

Since the beginning the constitutionality of the Saxby Fix has been questioned since. The actual language of the prohibition is precise and does not allow for any exceptions. The fix seems to solve the problem without addressing the constitutional issue. The addition of a time ban was considered during the Constitutional Convention but was never added. Under the Reagan administration it was not deemed an adequate solution. This was for the appointment of Hatch to the Supreme Court. The US Assistant Attorney General Cooper deemed that the Saxby Fix did not meet constitutional requirements.

In December 2008 the Senate passed Joint Resolution 46 which provided for decreasing the Secretary of State salary to its previous level. Which is effectively a Saxby fix for Hillary. However, groups have already said they will contest the matter in the courts.

Such a case would be very similar to the case that was dismissed, to make Obama produce his birth certificate. The issue is who would have standing to bring such issues to court? The court’s answer, no one. Which seems absurd and one would think any citizen of the United States should have standing.

Standing is used to determine if a person has the ability and required personal interest to bring a case before the federal courts. There are three constitutional requirements that must be met: injury, causation, and redressability. The injury must be real or imminent, this shows that there is a concrete interest in the outcome. The second requirement is causation in fact, which means that there must be a connection between the injury and conduct. The injury must be caused by the defendant and not a third party. Redressability means that the court must be able to remedy the situation, and also that they are likely too.

There are also prudential requirements, judicially created. Congress can override these requirements by statute. These were created to help lighten the case load of the federal courts. The first is that one cannot bring the claims of a third party. However, there are exceptions. Such as the overbreadth doctrine which allows a party to challenge a law on the grounds that it violates a third parties First Amendment rights, there are substantial obstacles to the third party asserting their rights and it is deemed that an advocate would effectively represent them, and if there is a close relationship between the advocate and third party. Secondly is that one cannot sue over a generalized grievance. A common example is that being a taxpayer is not standing to sue. Finally, it must be within the zone of interest which is protected by statute in question.

Basically the courts have used the standing requirement as a convenient way to dismiss cases they do not want to hear or have come to court. If a United States citizen lakes standing to bring a case then who is able to? Any citizen has a direct interest (injury) in who becomes our commander in chief and those who are appointed to his cabinet. As was stated in the Constitution, “we the people”, are supposed to be the ultimate source of authority and act as a check on the government. But the courts have effectively removed one of those avenues. It is just one example of how power is being taken from the people and handled over to the government.

Abortion of Common Sense in 2008

This past presidential election seems to have left many trying to appease their conscious. The largest group seems to be prolifers who voted for Obama. These people tended to declare themselves prolife and yet in the same sentence managed to say that politics, especially this election would not really affect that issue. Their reasoning was, we had a Republican president for eight years and still have abortion.

Issues of policy are not easily overturned. But take time based on their legislative and case history. Abortion will require steps to change and overturn. It is easier to expand than restrict. Before voting, people need to inform themselves about the candidate, and the positions of the parties, especially when they claim to believe in, or an issue is important to them. One should not vote because of the suave appeal of the candidate, history has repeatedly shown where that leads.

To those who believed Bush did not have any effect on the abortion issue, and that Obama was not the most prochoice politician we have seen to date, pay attention to the coming years. Some of Bush’s policies on abortion were blasted across the news during his presidency. Bush passed and ordered numerous measures to curtail abortion.

In fact, he started within days of getting into office. One of the first things he did as president was to stop international funding for abortions. Bush did so through an executive order, in which he stated, “It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad.” Obama however, has twice voted against bills prohibiting tax funding to be used to fund abortions.

Within the same year, he issued another executive order restricting federal funding on embryonic stem cell research. (One should note he did not forbid such research. For those supporting such measure it is still open to public funding…). Bush issued two vetoes in the previous years to reject legislation that would ease restrictions on the funding. Obama has said he will reverse such a decision. What is to prevent creating fetuses merely for their stem cells? Abortion could thereby be encouraged and justified because it provides the needed fetuses.

Bush supported the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. If a baby is born alive it is given the legal rights of a human under federal law. This is regardless of what stage they were born in or if the birth occurred during an abortion. The bill was to provide medical treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion, and for babies (not those to be aborted) who were born prematurely. Only 15 members of the house opposed, and it unanimously passed in the senate. NARAL Pro-Choice American did not even oppose the bill. During this same time, Obama was a state senator, and a similar bill came forward on the state level. Obama refused to support such legislation, his reasoning was he did not want to admit that such babies were people. Because if these babies, which were fully born and outside of the womb, where considered people, they would be protected by the Constitution under the 14th amendment.

The bill came before the Judiciary Committee, on which Obama was a member. The first time he voted present and the second no. The bill was then sent to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired and he never called the bill up for a vote. Obama explained in 2001, “It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute.” However, this bill just like the federal one did nothing to overturn or even oppose Roe. Obama (along with numerous others) had been assured of, but still continued to use it as an excuse to oppose the bill and later to justify his opposition.

What Bush is best known for is the partial birth abortion ban. This was, and still is, a very controversial and contested issue in the media. It was immediately contested in various state courts, the main one in Nebraska. But in April 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban. The bill stops doctors from performing abortions on second and third trimester fetuses. The procedure this late in the pregnancy involves delivering everything but part of the fetus (usually the head), and at that point the horrid act is performed. Such a bill had been raised by the Republicans twice during the Clinton years but twice he vetoed it. Once the bill was finally passed under Bush the fight was far from over. Bush however, was not going to bow down to the courts and let liberals once again have their way. He stated, “the facts about partial-birth abortion are troubling and tragic and no lawyer’s brief can make them see otherwise. The executive branch will vigorously defend this law by any who would try to overturn it in the courts.” Finally they were victorious, but the fight is far from over.

Given Obama’s record measures to overturn will most likely be taken during the Obama years, and similar cases could overturn or modify this decision since the members of the Court are likely to change. Michelle Obama even sent out a letter in 2004, explaining how partial birth abortion was an important medical procedure and needs to be protected. When the partial birth abortion ban was up in the Illinois Senate he voted present twice.

Bush also signed the Unborn Victim’s of Violence Act of 2004. The bill is also known as Laci and Conner’s Law, after Laci Peterson and her unborn son. The bill lays out 60 federal crimes in which an unborn child can be considered a legal victim. An example was Scott Peterson, he was charged with double homicide, Laci and her unborn son. At its signing ceremony Bush said, “Any time an expectant mother is a victim of violence, two lives are in the balance, each deserving protection, and each deserving justice. If the crime is murder and the unborn child’s life ends, justice demands a full accounting under the law.”

Bush also appointed judges to the various courts that would uphold these positions, and largely those of his party. The Supreme Court appointments were a fierce battle in Congress because the democrat senators fight to keep anyone, no matter how qualified, off of the bench who may, even slightly, lean to the prolife side.

For those who used Bush’s abortion record to justify voting for Obama, I challenge you to look at what Bush accomplished and Obama’s opinion on these policies (most he has said he will reverse). There are reasons he was considered the most liberal member of the senate.