Ovide Lamotagne does not have the funding to go all out against the much better funded Ayotte or Binnie, so he has been forced to sit back and bide his time his until now–while running a grassroots campaign and connecting with the people.

  I feel that people are getting tired of the negative ads that both Ayotte and Binnie are running and Ovide Lamontagne may be able to parlay that–along with a good showing in the debate on September 9th–into a surge at the polls on September 14th.

  Ovide Lamontagne has been running a grassroots campaign and he will have his chance to show the undecided voters of New Hampshire who he is and what he stands for on September 9th.

  I ask all of those who are still undecided–as well as those who are tiring of the ongoing war between Ayotte and Binnie–to take a closer look at the man that Laura Ingraham called the “only true conservative in the race.”

  But so far the Tea Party activists have proven to be nothing more than peaceful protesters who long for the day when we can reign in the out of control federal government–through the peaceful process called elections– and return the power back to the people. Yet this has not stopped the leftists–with help from their friends and brothers in arms, the media–from continuing the mantra about the potential dangers of the Tea Party activists–who are still trying to claim that we are no better than the Ku Klux Klan.

  While we have remained a peaceful people, the desperate left who feels their power slipping away has grown more and more vitriolic and dangerous and earlier today we learned that one such leftist–John Cusack–has gone on record as hoping for a “satanic death” to overcome Fox News and Republican leaders such as Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey. This sounds almost like a call to arms if you ask me, so much for the all encompassing and tolerant left.

  But that isn’t the biggest news coming from the radical left today–not by a longshot.

 Because today a radical environmentalist stormed into the Discovery Channel building and took hostages in a lame attempt to move the global warming agenda forward before being gunned down by police. Maybe, just maybe, John Cusack’s statement is what pushed him over the edge.

  Thankfully nobody else was hurt in this attack, but this goes to show us that it is the radical left–not the right–that has the true proclivity towards violence if their agenda is not realized in what they consider a timely manner.

  For all of the hoopla surrounding the Tea Party it is interesting to learn that it is the far left that is actually the group of people that one needs to be concerned about. It is the radical left that has a tendency to become violent, and now that tendency is more than just a concern because today it turned into a reality.

  For all of those out there who would claim that I am being unfair by lumping all environmentalists and leftists in with an obvious lunatic who was acting alone, I have just one word for you–exactly! Now you know how it feels to be unfairly categorized just because you differ on the issues.

  It is unfair to lump all leftists in with James Lee and I did it simply to make a point. The point being that it is unfair to label a whole group of people based on preconceived bigotry toward that group. But this is precisely what the left and the media have done in regards to the Tea Party movement. Leftists such as Janeane Garofalo basically called all Tea Party members racists who just hate the fact that a black man is in the White house.

  The list of examples of this anti-Tea Party bigotry is long and has been well chronicled since the Tea Party’s inception all across the blogosphere, there is no need to list all of the examples here. Anyone that is honest with themselves will admit that the Tea Party members have all been labeled as dangerous racists who represent a real chance of inciting violence directed at the White House.

    It is wrong to tie in all leftists with James Lee, but it is also just as it is wrong to tie all Tea Party members in with people who might be racists with violent tendencies.

   Sure there may be people who have joined the Tea Party that harbor violent racists beliefs, but they are the fringe minority and it is wrong to label all of us as racists based on the actions–if any violent actions are taken, so far there have been none–of a select few people who just happened to join the Tea Party. If some violent act occurs from a member of the Tea Party it will not be representative of the Tea Party as a whole.

  As environmentalists rightfully begin to distance themselves from the actions of James Lee perhaps they will begin  to question whether or not they should be labeling all of those that disagree with them on the issues as racists because it is unfair, just as it is unfair to lump all environmentalists in with James Lee.

  Perhaps this can be used as a teachable moment for the left and they will realize how wrong their portrayal of their political adversaries has been.

  Before I go any further, I would first like to thank our troops; your courage, patriotism, dedication, sacrifice, and unselfishness are appreciated more than you will ever know and I cannot put into words how much you are loved and admired here. Thank you for all that you do. Without you I would not be free to sit here and do what I do on a daily basis.

  I have to admit that Barack Obama’s speech tonight was better than I had expected it to be–but then again, I didn’t expect much.

I was glad to see Barack Obama pay a tribute of sorts to President Bush–mentioning the former president’s patriotism, love of country, and admiration of the troops–however he fell short of giving President Bush the credit that he deserved for both the surge strategy–that Barack Obama admittedly opposed– which secured this victory, or President Bush’s timetable for withdrawal that Barack Obama adhered to in order to officially declare this war over.

   In light of how freely he falsely reminds the American people that this economy is all Bush’s fault, it would have been nice to see him give full credit where credit is due for the success of the Iraq war. It is true that President Bush waited too long to send the proper amount of troops to Iraq, but once he did the successful conclusion of this war was all but assured. For someone who is so willing to point the finger at others for the problems he is now coping with, he was unwilling to point the finger toward the man that ultimately made tonight’s speech possible.

  He did however try to compare his Afghanistan war policy with President Bush’s surge policy in Iraq by admitting that he is basically following the same plan in Afghanistan, so I suppose that this is an admission of sorts that it was President Bush’s decision to send in more troops that ultimately led to Barack Obama’s declaration of victory. 

  I also found it a little disingenuous for Barack Obama to talk about the trillion dollars this war cost and the deficits rendered because of the war, when we learned last week that Barack Obama’s stimulus package cost more than almost ten years of war and added even more to the deficit. There was no mention of the costs of his own policies in his speech tonight, nor did I expect there to be.

  Barack Obama spoke glowingly of our brave heroes in the field, mentioning the fact that they met every challenge and mission  that was assigned to them head-on, never wavered even as support at home did, and achieved all that was asked of them. He talked about their valor, honor, committment, and unselfishness, and in this regard I could not agree with Barack Obama anymore.

  Once again I would like to thank all of those who serve this country, and say to all of those who have fought in Iraq–thank you and congratulations on a job well done!

  The point in question here is whether House members have misused their per diems, which are meant to pay for meals and travel expenses while these politicians are carrying out official state duties while traveling.

  The problem here is that many of these expenses are picked up by the head of state of the country in which the House member is visiting, meaning that there is excess money that is supposed to be returned to the federal government. That does not appear to be happening in all cases.

  Once the travel expenses are picked up by a head of state it appears as if certain politicians are keeping the per diem money and spending it for unauthorized purchases–such as gifts for staff members and the travel expenses of their spouses. This is in direct violation of House rules.

  I hope this signals a turning point in regard to the over-spending of the federal government and I hope that this serves as notice to politicians that the people are sick and tired of seeing our tax dollars abused for politicians’ private uses. But I fear that with growing sentiment against the government’s spending that this is nothing more than an election year probe designed to prove to the American people that politicians are finally going to take this issue seriously, only to see this investigation fall by the wayside after the elections are over.

  I apologize for sounding so cynical, but we have read this story before and nothing ever seems to come from it. I hope that it is different this time but why should I expect a different outcome when people like Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters are not required to step down once it has been revealed that they have abused the positions that they were entrusted with?

  The American people are fed up with this type of abuse by our elected officials and this is not limited to one party or the other–both parties are guilty of this abuse. And if the ethics panel and the politicians are unwilling to do anything about it we will serve notice to them in November that the gravy train has derailed, because in November we begin the long process of taking our country back!

 U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson awarded eight scholarships last year to her grandsons and a top aide’s children – bringing to 23 the number of awards she handed out since 2005 in violation of Congressional Black Caucus Foundation eligibility rules.

  Since 2005, she has handed out 23 scholarships that violated the Congressional Black Caucus’s anti-nepotism rule and she still is trying to tell us that she didn’t realize that she was doing anything wrong?

 I did not intentionally mean to violate any rules in the process,”

  I have a major problem with this statement because even if this was not a strict rule–which it was–there is still a major ethics problem here. The mere fact that this woman did not have a problem–and found nothing wrong with–using her position to create a slush fund of sorts in order to hand out money to friends and family shows a real lack of integrity.

  She is now claiming that she will repay the money by the end of the week, but that simply is not good enough. She abused her position of authority and for that she must step down. This is exactly the type of behavior that people are sick and tired of.

  She had to have known that taking taxpayer dollars and spending it on family members was wrong but she did it anyway; if she didn’t realize that this wasn’t proper behavior, that alone should disqualify her from office because she apparently has a problem determining right from wrong.

  As if learning about Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters wasn’t enough to drive home the point that Democrats are no more ethical than their Republican counterparts, we now are learning about yet another embattled Democrat.

   It turns out that Dallas Congressman Eddie Bernice Johnson has used her position to award scholarships to four of her family members as well as two children of one of her aides. She has done this in spite of the fact that the rules of the Congressional Black Caucus–the organization which provides these funds–has strict anti-nepotism rules.

  Naturally, she is denying that favoritism played any role in the decision to hand out to these family members free money on the taxpayer’s dime. She does admit that she knew the people whose names were brought forth, but that she advanced their causes as she would any other who applied for these scholarships.

I recognized the names when I saw them. And I knew that they had a need just like any other kid that would apply for one.” Had there been more “very worthy applicants in my district,” she added, “then I probably wouldn’t have given it” to the relatives.

  But the fact remains that this was in violation of the rules, regardless of whether these children were deserving or not. Once she saw the names of family members she should have removed them from consideration because that is what the rules for the scholarships dictate she should have done.

  Yet she moved these names forward anyway, and she did so because she believed she would never be caught. This is yet another example of a politician using his or her position for personal gain or for the gain of his or her family, and this can no longer be tolerated because it has gone on far too long.

  It is time to drain the swamp–after all Nancy Pelosi promised to do so–and if Democrats are willing to overlook violations that occur within their own party than it is time to vote them out and put real reformers in power. The ethical problems of the Democrats are magnified because of their promises in the last election to rid Washington of exactly this type of politician if we entrusted them with power.

  While the Democrats transgressions appear more egregious because of their promises to drain the swamp, this goes for both Republicans and Democrats; as long as we vote into power people who are willing to flaunt the rules we will never have real reform. This is going to be a long process, but it must start this November.

  Included in this report is Arizona’s controversial immigration law and the lawsuit that was filed against Arizona in an attempt to stop the law from taking effect.

  Needless to say, Arizona’s governor–Jan Brewer–is taking offense to her state being mentioned as a violator of human rights.

In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is “downright offensive” that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.

“The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to ‘review’ by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional,”

  In what amounts to nothing more than a continuation of Barack Obama’s policy of apologizing to the world for America’s exceptionalism the government has defamed the integrity of a governor who is doing nothing more than trying to protect her constituents. For this action she has been labeled as a violator of human rights.

  This is yet another clear indication that the Obama regime’s priorities lay not with the country whose constitution he swore to uphold and defend but rather with the international community that he longs to rule.

  Jan Brewer is demanding that this portion of the United Nations report be removed and who can blame her? She has been ridiculed and slandered and for what? Protecting the citizens of Arizona? Jan Brewer is proving to be an extraordinarily tough leader on this issue in the face of lawsuits and threats by the federal government and she shows no signs of remorse or backing down even with the prospect of being singled out to the United Nations.

  If the United Nations wants to do something about human rights violations that are occurring to Mexican nationals they should start by looking at the president of that country whose abysmal policies have led Mexico’s own people to seek shelter and work in another country by any means possible–even illegally.

  There is no other country in this world that is going to be taken to task for trying to secure her borders; America alone faces this challenge in the United Nations. What Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the regime call human rights violations the rest of the country considers as a necessary tool in securing our borders against an illegal invasion that threatens the livelihood–and in all too many cases, the very lives–of our citizens.

  This is unacceptable and reprehensible. Barack Obama needs to realize that he is the president of the United States, not of the United Nations or of the world. His priorities lie first and foremost with us, but he just doesn’t seem to understand–or accept as fact–this simple concept.

  But there is another “divide and conquer” strategy that the left loves to play, and that is the game of class warfare. Democrats continue to try to drive a wedge of jealousy between Americans based on class and economic success. They love to divide Americans based on economic classes and–much like their divide and conquer strategy on race–this policy is intentionally divisive as they continue to try to arouse anger between Americans instead of trying to pull them together.

  The Democrats have continued to hammer into our heads this notion that the evil rich do not pay their fair share; they love to tell the average Americans that they are going to stick it to those successful Americans who have more than they do as payback for the sin of being successful.

  In order to drive that wedge of jealousy between the different classes of Americans, Barack Obama promised that he was going to repeal the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. Barack Obama made the asinine assertion that he could help save the economy–as well as pay for his healthcare reform–simply by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, while at the same time distorting the facts about who actually  got those tax cuts in the first place. This was a major plank in his election bid two years ago–and it worked to perfection.

  But every so often the Democrats will admit the truth about taxes and that is exactly what they have done if this story about Democrat leaders being willing to extend the Bush tax cuts on the rich is true–and I think it is.

  If this is true, Democrats are admitting that lower taxes have a better stimulating effect on the economy than does rasing taxes on the rich. This is contrary to everything the Democrats have said about the Bush tax cuts. The Democrat mantra was that there was no reason for the rich to hold onto their own money when the government could spend it better than they could. This was part of how they were going to stimulate the economy–by spending other people’s money.

  If raising taxes–as Barack Obama has done on several occasions since taking office–is a bad thing to do during a bad economy, why is raising taxes not also a bad thing during a good economy? The fact is that rasing taxes is always a bad idea and it always slows growth as people and businesses have less to spend.

  Democrats believe that when the economy is good the tax increases will be absorbed into that economy and nobody will even notice the adverse effects that those tas increases create. But in a slow economy where every move is magnified the effects can’t help but be noticed and Democrats know this and the last thing they can afford before the election is to implement yet another policy that will adversely effect the economy.

  This does not mean that they have seen the light on this issue and it does not mean that Democrats are suddenly going to be fiscally responsible tax cutters. It simply means that they are willing to change their “ideology” when re-election is on the line; in truth the only ideology to which they subscribe is the “doing whatever it take to remain in power” ideology, and if keeping the Bush tax cuts in place will help them achieve that ideology, that is exactly what the Democrats are going to do.

  That is why they are only willing to extend the tax cuts for one year–after they are re-elected they will once again push for a measure that will hurt the economy–raising taxes–only then it will be too late to stop them.

   They know their policies are bad for the economy so they will temporarily suspend what they still ultimately hope to accomplish but we can rest assured that once the election is over–if they remain in power–they will once again jump on the tax rasing bandwagon. They can’t help it, they know it hurts the economy but they still have so much they want to spend our money on.

  Democrat leaders have exposed themselves on this issue. Why else would they be willing to extend the tax cuts that they have railed against for so long if indeed these policies were unfair and hurtful to the economy? The Democrat leaders who are willing to extend the tax cuts have basically admitted to the American people that rasing taxes is never a good idea.

  Extending the Bush tax cuts on the rich should serve to further alienate the far left who really don’t give a damn what effect these tax increases would have on the economy as long as they can say the “stuck it too the rich,” but this should also serve as notice to the more moderate Democrats that raising taxes–even on the rich–does more harm than good. This reversal by the  Democrat leaders should be eye opening to many people for they are admitting something that we have been saying for quite a few years now.

  For all of the ”divide and conquer” tactics the Democrats have employed over the years, there is one issue that Americans can be united on; something has to be done to save the economy from total collapse, and Democrats may now be willing to admit that the first step would be to keep taxes low–even on the much maligned and hated rich.

Here is what the Union Leader said in its endorsement, reprinted in full:

Ovide Lamontagne is our choice for the U.S. Senate.

He is not the flashiest candidate. He certainly is not the richest. He isn’t the favorite of the bigtime professional pols or the Washington crowd.

Ovide is just a smart-as-a-whip, honest, hard-working son of New Hampshire who says what he believes. What he believes makes sense to save our nation from economic ruin; and he will stick to it come hell, high water, or demands from party bosses to “go along and get along.”

We have been impressed by the number of grassroots conservatives backing Ovide. They are not the best-known, prominent Republicans (those have tended to line up with one or another of the presumed “favorites”).

The people backing Ovide Lamontagne have been in the trenches for conservative causes and principles. They know their man and consider him, by far, the most capable person to make the tough choices needed at a crucial time for our country. They also know he can win in November.

We agree. We hope you will, too.

  While Kelly Ayotte and Bill Binnie continue to hammer each other Ovide Lamontagne continues to run a grassroots campaign. He is still a longshot to pull off this victory but I honestly feel that he is the best conservative candidate in the race and I ask that all undecided voters please step away from the two frontrunners and take a look at Ovide’s oath before making your decision.

  We all remember Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpiao, he is the tough Arizona sheriff who has been defying an order from Homeland Security to stop arresting illegal aliens.

“I am the elected sheriff. I don’t take orders from the federal government”

  That defiance has come with a price tag–a price that Sheriff Joe was willing to pay–because the Justice Department is now conducting an investigation into Sheriff Joe’s department for alleged racial profiling and civil rights violations.

   Up until this point Sheriff Joe has refused to comply with requests for documents and yesterday the  Justice Department issued Sheriff Joe an ultimatum; comply with our requests by September 10th, or else.

If we do not receive clear and specific agreement for all of the [requests], we will conclude that completion cannot be achieved by voluntary means

  That sounds to me like they are threatening him with a contempt arrest.  Even as the department readies some type of response they are a little confused about what the actual investigation is about.

I now know after the meeting that they involve Hispanics, but they refuse to provide any specific allegations,” said Driscoll.  “This case is pretty unusual, I think. They don’t seem to have any evidence

  Basically, the federal government has nothing on Sheriff Joe but they do not like the fact that he is performing the job he was elected to do; the federal government is upset that Sheriff Joe is performing the job that the federal government does not have the will to do; the federal government is upset that Sheriff Joe is arresting illegal immigrants, and they are going to investigate him because they do not like what he is doing, not because he has actually done anything wrong.

  The federal government is hoping that if they look long and hard enough they will find something–anything–that they can use against this great man. They are doing all of this without probable cause just because they oppose him. This should outrage and frighten Americans all across this country.

  But the reasoning for the investigation is twofold; the first obvious reason is that the federal government is looking to make an example out of someone to show what happens when you oppose the federal government. The second reason is more encompassing than just one man, and could have wide-ranging repercussions not just on illegal immigration but on whatever the federal government decides to oppose next. The federal government is also using this investigation to up the pressure on the state of Arizona because if they find that Sheriff Joe committed wrongdoing they will be able to halt federal grant money to the state of Arizona. This in conjunction with the lawsuit against the state of Arizona is what this is truly all about.

  The federal government is trying to extort the state of Arizona by threatening her grant money. This is what happens when you have an over-reaching federal government whose powers have been expanded over many years. The states have given into the federal government because of the promise of easy money and the 10th amendment has been slowly made irrelevant. Now we have a state trying to uphold the law against the will of the federal government and they will argue that the 10th amendment gives them that right–which it does–but this comes after years and years of the 10th amendment being weakened to the point where it is virtually non-existent.

  I have to admit that I hope that both Sheriff Joe Arpiao and the state of Arizona do not back down, stand in the face of these lawsuits, and I hope they challenge the federal government all the way to its conclusion in the court system; because this will highlight several key issues that Americans need to see debated; state’s rights, illegal immigration, and the over-reaching federal government being among them.

  It is time to make a stand and Arizona is the first state to find out what happens if you do not become subservient to the will of the federal government but they will not be the last as states line up to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare. Investigations will be conducted, and the threat of halting federal grant money will be made toward any state that dares to challenge the supreme authority of the federal government as it looks to steal away the last vestiges of state’s rights still remaining–for there are not many left.

  Today it is illegal immigration, tomorrow it will be Obamacare, and up next will be cap and trade. With these three issues alone the federal government will be able to conclude its centralization and consolidation of power and the idea of 50 sovereign states bound by a common government will disappear into the annuls of history as we become one common government that just happens to be divided up into states on paper with no real power to stop the federal government from imposing its will on the people.