Together,
we fought the good fight and did it the right way. Your devotion to our
campaign based on our shared belief in solving our nation’s challenges
by uniting people and lifting them up will forever remain in the hearts
of my family and me. While our campaign is ending, our work is not over.
We need to continue strengthening our families and our communities
because that is how we strengthen our country.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina 2016
http://www.cruzcarly.com
Here Comes Ted Cruz’s Third-Party Candidacy
Cruz has indicated that even if he loses the
nomination, he’s going to be a general election candidate. After all,
why wouldn’t he?
To many, Ted Cruz’s recent announcement of Carly Fiorina as his running mate seemed puzzling
in the extreme. Why would someone select a Vice Presidential nominee
when they haven’t yet won the nomination? Why would they do this when,
according to all the numbers, they’re about to lose that nomination
badly? Do people who lose get running mates? What could be the purpose
of such an act? Certainly, there were explanations
for why Cruz would select Fiorina in particular as a running mate. Cruz
would like to capitalize on Donald Trump’s unpopularity with women, and
blunt the significance of Hillary Clinton’s gender in the general
election. Right-leaning women could vote for Cruz over Clinton,
confident that voting for a conservative did not entail having to hurt
the national advancement of female politicians. But while there are plausible political reasons for having Fiorina as
a Vice Presidential nominee, these explanations fail to answer the
fundamental question, which is what a campaign that has just lost the
Republican nomination is doing taking a step that is only relevant for
general election candidates. Make no mistake: Cruz has lost. He’s been mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination outright. His delegate gap against Trump is vast; Trump already has 81% of the delegates he needs to reach the nomination. Thanks to his recent devastating sweep of the Northeastern states, Trump can even afford major losses
and still reach the nomination. Cruz needs many more delegates than
there are delegates available. When it comes to the Republican
nomination, Cruz is toast. (The prediction markets have his chances of
being nominated at slightly this side of bupkis.) So why has Cruz just unveiled a new logo and announced a running mate? Pundits have professed themselves baffled;
after all, even if Fiorina could pick off some female Republicans here
and there, and help somewhat with California, the dynamics of the race will remain fundamentally unchanged. The consensus seems to be that this is an act of desperation by Cruz, a Hail Mary pass with zero chance of success. Jim Newell of Slate confidently announced
that he expects “pulling a Cruz” to become a synonym for delusional
political gambles. After all, Newell says, this move is “unfathomable.” But Ted Cruz, while he may be Lucifer in the flesh, is not a total strategic dunce. His intelligence may frequently be overpraised,
but the likelihood is small that Cruz has simply made some wild
flailing maneuver of no conceivable purpose. It may be satisfying for
those of us who detest Cruz to think he has suddenly lost his mind, and
that we can all point and laugh at his desperation. But in writing the
Fiorina selection off as the irrational spasm of a campaign in its death
throes, we may be wishfully overlooking a far more sensible explanation
for the act: Cruz has simply announced his intention to run in the
general election, Republican nomination or not. For some reason, Cruz’s behavior hasn’t been interpreted this way,
perhaps because the idea of him continuing to run after losing the
nomination is somehow inconceivable. But when the situation is examined
carefully, it makes perfect sense for Cruz to run as an independent. It
serves Cruz’s aspirations and fits with his character, and more
importantly, carries no real downsides. First, there is no reason for Cruz not to continue to
run. The main reason why a losing primary candidate wouldn’t run as an
independent in the general election is party unity: an independent
splits the party’s votes, thereby damaging its chances. This is why
Bernie Sanders is very unlikely to run in the general election if
Hillary Clinton gets the Democratic nomination. Whatever the internal
differences in a primary may be, they can be set aside when a party
needs to come together to win the office. In Cruz’s case, however, there’s no reason for him to care at all
about damaging the Republican nominee’s chances. First, the Republican
nominee is going to be Donald Trump, who isn’t really a Republican at
all, and who conservatives have been urgently
trying to stop. Second, Cruz has zero loyalty to the Republican Party
itself, whose leaders detest him and whom he detests equally in turn. In fact, Cruz doesn’t even reallycare about “Republican” as a label to begin with. This fact becomes starkly evident in his autobiography,
in which he spends page after page distancing himself from the party,
proudly proclaiming his willingness to stand with conservative
principles and the American people against “the
duplicity of the Republican establishment.” Cruz has never shown the
slightest interest cultivating good relations with the party, and it’s
unlikely that he would now set aside his personal ambitions so that he
could help get a president with an “R” after his name. It’s not as if
Cruz’s relationship with Republicans could get much worse, or as if
hurting Trump does damage to the conservative cause. The main reason to be skeptical that Cruz will run in the general
election is that he would have little chance of winning. He wouldn’t be
on the ballot in a number of states, and Cruz’s narrow base of hardcore
conservatives are hardly sufficient to give him any shot at success. If
Ted Cruz is a man who hungers for political power and victory, this sure
doesn’t seem the way to go about it. But this kind of thinking both misunderstands the nature of Cruz’s
motivations and ignores the long-term benefits of the strategy. First,
despite appearances, Cruz is not necessarily concerned with the pursuit
of immediate political gain. A man who wants to become a traditional
power broker does not begin his Senate carer by pissing off
every one of his natural allies. A Senator does not gain political
influence by alienating himself from his colleagues so much that they
not only refuse to work with him, but joke about murdering him.
Ted Cruz has intentionally avoided the pursuit of traditional political
dominance in the Senate. He is a kamikaze conservative, perfectly
willing to destroy opportunities for favor and influence; the government shutdown saga
demonstrated definitively that Ted Cruz is a man who does not have any
qualms about undertaking doomed efforts if they suit him. This may, of course, be because Ted Cruz will sacrifice strategic
goals for ideological purity. But there is another sense in which Cruz’s
actions make long-term political sense. He won’t win the Presidency as
an independent, it’s true. But he wouldn’t have won it as a Republican,
either. And an independent candidacy puts Cruz in a very comfortable
position: as the Republican party collapses, having nominated Trump,
Cruz can position himself as the man who stood up for traditional
conservative principles while the Republicans ran around with their
heads cut off. This is, in fact, precisely how Cruz has positioned
himself since arriving in the Senate: as the independent outsider who
remained faithful to the conservative creed even as the Republican Party
betrayed it. Cruz will get to stand on a debate stage next to Clinton
and Trump and claim to speak for the American right, “ensuring a
meaningful conservative alternative” in the race. He may even believe
that his running will mitigate some of the damage done to conservatives in congressional races by having Trump as the face of the right. An independent run presents an excellent opportunity for Cruz to
seize the mantle of American conservatism from the Republican
establishment that he hates. It would bolster Cruz’s national status,
and set him up as exactly what he wants to be: the recognized leader of
the American right wing. From Cruz’s perspective, there is no downside whatsoever to
continuing to run even after losing the Republican nomination. Bear in
mind what the alternative for Cruz is here: to sacrifice the spotlight,
to gracefully cede the race and watch Clinton/Trump from the sidelines.
To go away quietly. Does this fit with his character? Why would he do
it, anyway? Why wouldn’t he run as an independent? If all goes
well, a new conservative movement will rise from the ashes of the
Republican Party, with Ted Cruz as its head. As the party itself falls
apart, Cruz will establish himself as the de facto national spokesman American conservatism. Given the option to either do that or withdraw, who would withdraw?
With some appealing potential advantages, and zero real
disadvantages, the choice seems clear, and announcing Fiorina suddenly
makes perfect sense. Ted Cruz may be running in the general election,
nomination..
DONNA FIDUCIA does Not Know Vote to Vote For Just Like Sean Hannity But They Support Trumpy Read More About Here DONNA FIDUCIA gained international recognition when she was hired by The Fox News Channel, New York, NY in September 1999 as an anchor and live host. DONNA FIDUCIA has been guest on the Howard Stern Show In 2003, she was reassigned to overnight duty where she was both a
long-form and news update anchorwoman. In late 2006, she retired from
The Fox News Channel and relocated to Georgia. Prior to The Fox News Channel, she worked at Fox-owned WNYW in New
York City. In her four years at WNYW, she was a general assignment
reporter for the 10 o'clock news. She also anchored Good Day New York and Good Day Sunday
where she not only anchored the news but did celebrity and lifestyle
interviews. Fiducia gained national recognition as the host of Entertainment Watch on VH-1, featuring entertainment news and celebrity interviews from movie stars to musicians. She became New York's first television helicopter traffic reporter at WNBC-TV in 1995. She was also a general assignment reporter for Live At Five, the 6 and 11 o'clock news and Weekend Today. Fiducia began her career at Shadow Traffic in New York. She went on to report from WNBC Radio's "N Copter" where she worked daily with Howard Stern and Don Imus. She was also the news director and morning news anchor of the famed rock radio station WNEW-FM. Fiducia also has done some acting in the first rap-influenced feature length movie, Tougher Than Leather with Run DMC, and on the 1980 CBS television show The Equalizer in which she performed the role of a newscaster. In 2006, she was in the movie Being Michael Madsen in which she again played the role of a reporter. Fiducia graduated from Columbia High School in Maplewood, NJ in 1975, and subsequently graduated Magna Cum Laude from Seton Hall University
with degrees in both Communications and Political Science. She was
active in the college's radio station, WSOU-FM. She also studied flute
and piccolo during this time. Fiducia is an avid horseback rider and has won numerous state and
national championships in equestrian events as a hunter/jumper. In
addition, she is competing at barrel racing in rodeos. Currently,
Fiducia resides in Georgia where she owns, raises and trains champion
warmbloods and quarterhorses on her horse farm, Double D Ranch. In 2007, she founded her own Georgia-based production company, Donna Fiducia Productions, Inc.
which specializes in media production, soundtrack music, voice-over
talent, media training, and political campaigns marketing. She currently
serves as President and CEO of the company. In addition, Fiducia is in demand as a featured speaker, college
lecturer, and as a moderator. She is also a media coach and political
adviser.
DONNA FIDUCIA PRODUCTIONS
DONNA FIDUCIA PRODUCTIONS is a Media Consulting,
Radio Show Production Company and Media Distribution Company that
specializes in Conservative Talk Radio. We have developed and / or produced numerous highly rated shows such as The Denise Simon Experience, Black Man Thinkin', The Truth About South Africa, Squashing Liberalism, and Blowin' Smoke, as well as Cowboy Logic Radio. In addition, Donna Fiducia Productions works closely with shows such as REELTalk Radio with Audrey Russo and The Teri O'Brien Show through distribution to other Internet and Terrestrial Radio Networks. The continuous streaming player above features high quality
Conservative Talk Radio shows that we produce, have developed, or
distribute globally. The shows are updated weekly and are in a 24/7 rotation that will provide you as a listener a wide variety of programming. For Internet or Terrestrial radio networks that would like to add
some or all of this fine programming to your stations, please contact us
for the credential needed to relay our stream. Contact: CowboyLogicRadio@gmail.com
AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward: (…or, stated more simply) TO: The majority of America:
Note: If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role
models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you.
Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the
nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can
take us forward together. I want to tell you about four unsolicited conversations from the Fremont Wal-Mart this morning: **Retired union Democrat meat-packer: “What the heck is wrong with that city where you work? Why can’t they give us a normal person? Is it really so hard?”
Me: “Actually, it is for them – because most people in DC buy the
nonsense that DC is the center of the world. You and I, despite our
party differences, both agree that Fremont is the center.” Union Democrat (interrupting): “…Because this is where my grandkids are.” **Young evangelical mom:
“I want to cry. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on almost every single
thing – but I will vote for her before Trump. I could never tell my
kids later that I voted for that man.” **Middle-aged Republican male (more political than the other folks):
“It feels like the train-car to hell is accelerating. Why is DC more
filled with weirdos and yet more powerful at the same time? How do we
slow this down long enough to have a conversation about actually fixing
our country?” **Trump supporter (again, unsolicited):
“Please understand: I’m going to vote for him, but I don’t like him. And
I don’t trust him – I mean, I’m not stupid. But how else can I send a
signal to Washington?!” ________ I’ve ignored my phone most
of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and
politicos telling me that “although Trump is terrible,” we “have to”
support him, “because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.” This open letter aims simply to ask “WHY is that the only choice?”
Melissa and I got the kids launched on homework, so I’ve been sitting
out by the river, reflecting on the great gap between what folks in my
town are talking about, and what folks in the DC bubble are talking
about. I trust the judgment of this farm town way more than I
trust DC. And so I’d like to share a dozen-ish observations on these
Wal-Mart and other conversations today: 1. Washington isn’t
fooling anyone -- Neither political party works. They bicker like
children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest
issues we face. They’re like a couple arguing about what color to paint
the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire. They resort to
character attacks as step one because they think voters are too dumb for
a real debate. They very often prioritize the agendas of lobbyists
(for whom many of them will eventually work) over the urgent needs of
Main Street America. I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln -- and
I will work to reform and restore the GOP -- but let’s tell the plain
truth that right now both parties lack vision. 2. As a
result, normal Americans don’t like either party. If you ask Americans
if they identify as Democrat or Republican, almost half of the nation
interrupts to say: “Neither.” 3. Young people despise the
two parties even more than the general electorate. And why shouldn’t
they? The main thing that unites most Democrats is being
anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being
anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for -- but almost
everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems.
“Unproductive” doesn’t begin to summarize how messed up this is. 4.
Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that
we’ve not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation.
If we don’t get them to re-engage -- thinking about how we defend a free
society in the face of global jihadis, or how we balance our budgets
after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades, or how we
protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement –
then all will indeed have been lost. One of the bright spots with the
rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the
often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We
should encourage this rethinking. 5. These two national
political parties are enough of a mess that I believe they will come
apart. It might not happen fully in 2016 – and I’ll continue fighting
to revive the GOP with ideas -- but when people’s needs aren’t being
met, they ultimately find other solutions. 6. In the history
of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by
half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have
the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump
by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence
more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular
than these two “leaders.” 7. With Clinton and Trump, the fix
is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these
two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we
reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do. 8. Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice? 9.
So...let’s have a thought experiment for a few weeks: Why shouldn’t
America draft an honest leader who will focus on 70% solutions for the
next four years? You know...an adult? (Two notes for reporters:
**Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six
months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little
kids. **Although I’m one of the most conservative members of the
Senate, I'm not interested in an ideological purity test, because even a
genuine consensus candidate would almost certainly be more conservative
than either of the two dishonest liberals now leading the two national
parties.) 10. Imagine if we had a candidate: ...who hadn’t spent his/her life in politics either buying politicians or being bought …who didn’t want to stitch together a coalition based on anger but wanted to take a whole nation forward …who pledged to serve for only one term, as a care-taker problem-solver for this messy moment
…who knew that Washington isn’t competent to micromanage the lives of
free people, but instead wanted to SERVE by focusing on 3 or 4 big
national problems, such as: A. A national security strategy for the age of cyber and jihad; B. Honest budgeting/entitlement reform so that we stop stealing from future generations;
C. Empowering states and local governments to improve K-12 education,
and letting Washington figure out how to update federal programs to
adjust to now needing lifelong learners in an age where folks are
obviously not going to work at a single job for a lifetime anymore; and
D. Retiring career politicians by ending all the incumbency
protections, special rules, and revolving door opportunities for folks
who should be public “servants,” not masters. This really shouldn’t be that hard. The oath I took is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In brief, that means I’m for limited government. And there is no reason to believe that either of these two national frontrunners believe in limiting anything about DC’s power.
I believe that most Americans can still be for limited government again
-- if they were given a winsome candidate who wanted Washington to
focus on a small number of really important, urgent things -- in a way
that tried to bring people together instead of driving us apart. I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate. What am I missing? More importantly, what are the people at the Fremont Wal-Mart missing?
Because I don’t think they are wrong. They deserve better. They
deserve a Congress that tackles the biggest policy problems facing the
nation. And they deserve a president who knows that his or her job is
not to “reign,” but to serve as commander-in-chief and to “faithfully
execute” the laws – not to claim imperial powers to rewrite them with
his pen and phone. The sun is mostly set on the Platte River -- and the kids need baths. So g’night.
Trumpy is divided the Republican Party, this guy is crazy! And more! A
number of Republican voters who are flocking to the Democratic Party
has increased a lot. ___________________________ Trump really can't lead this country He is a clone of obama Donald Trumpy Endorses New Death Tax Hikes One Week Before Wisconsin Primary... So Here is Joe's morgue you drop them we plop them
If you're fortunate enough to give away substantial amounts of money
or property during your lifetime, your generosity may be subject to
federal gift tax rules.
After
death, your money and property, known as your estate, may also be
subject to federal estate tax. However, you can give money away during
your lifetime or leave certain amounts to your heirs that are exempt
from taxation.
After years of congressional battles, the estate
tax was made a permanent part of the Internal Revenue Code, thanks to
the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, or ATRA, which was passed Jan.
1, 2013.
ATRA increased the amount of an estate that is not
subject to taxation, known as the exemption, to $5 million. The
exemption amount is indexed each year for inflation. For the 2015 tax
year, the estate tax exemption is $5.43 million. It increases to $5.45
million for 2016.
ATRA also increased the tax rate on estates in excess of the exemption amount from 35% to 40%.
The
estate tax law, however, does offer permanent portability between
spouses. This allows the surviving spouse the opportunity to take
advantage of any unused estate and gift tax exemption left by the first
spouse. The portability option must be selected when the estate tax
return of the first spouse is filed, even if no federal estate tax is
owed.
Annual gift tax exclusion
You can give the following
monetary amounts to each person and to as many individuals as you want,
without triggering the gift tax. The amount is indexed from time to
time for inflation.
Annual gift tax exclusion
Year made
Excluded from tax
2015
$14,000
2016
$14,000
In addition to the annual exclusion amounts, you also can give the following without triggering the gift tax:
Charitable gifts.
Gifts to a spouse.
Gifts to a political organization for its use.
Gifts
of educational expenses are unlimited as long as you make a direct
payment to the educational institution for tuition only. Books, supplies
and living expenses do not qualify.
Gifts of medical expenses are also unlimited, as long as they are paid directly to the medical facility.
Unified credit
In
estate planning, you also must consider the unified credit. It gets its
name because the federal gift tax and estate tax are integrated into
one unified tax system.
This is the credit for the portion of
estate tax due on taxable estates. For example, if you exceed the annual
gift tax exclusion amount in any year, you can either pay the tax on
the excess or take advantage of the unified credit to avoid paying the
tax. The unified credit enables you to give away $5 million (plus the
annual inflation adjustments) during your lifetime without having to pay
gift tax.
By using the unified credit during your life, you'll
reduce the amount available to offset the estate tax upon your death.
If, however, you pay the gift tax, such taxed gifts are added back to
your estate, and the estate tax is recalculated, with the gift taxes you
previously paid credited against any final estate tax due.
Veteran contributing editor Kay Bell writes Bankrate's tax stories from her Austin, Texas, home. She also writes two tax blogs, Bankrate's Taxes Blog and Don't Mess With Taxes. She is the author of the book "The Truth About Paying Fewer Taxes," and a co-author of the book "Future Millionaires' Guidebook."
Sharron Elaine Angle (born Sharron Elaine Ott; July 26, 1949) is an American politician who served as a Republican member of the Nevada Assembly from 1999 to 2007. She ran unsuccessfully as the 2010 Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in Nevada,[1] garnering 45 percent of the vote. On September 15, 2013 she was unanimously elected the fifth President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies.
Angle was born in Klamath Falls, Oregon, and moved to Reno, Nevada, when she was three.[2] Her father is a Navy veteran of World War II and served in the Navy Reserve during the Korean War. She attended public schools in Reno and later obtained a bachelor of fine arts from the University of Nevada.[2] During her senior year of college in 1970, she married Theodore ("Ted") Angle, who worked for the federal government's Bureau of Land Management as a native seed and invasive species specialist.[3][4] Ted and Sharron Angle had two children and, as of November 2010, ten grandchildren.[5] Angle attends a small Southern Baptist[6][7] church in Reno.[8] After graduation, she worked as a substitute teacher
in Ely, Tonopah and Reno for 25 years, ran a family fitness gym in
Tonopah, tutored juvenile offenders for Nye County, and for two years
was the lead-teacher/administrator for a small "one-room" Christian school. She also taught art for five years as a lecturer at Western Nevada Community College in Winnemucca.[2] Angle is the author of Right Angle: One Woman's Journey to Reclaim the Constitution, which was published in 2011.[9]
Political career
Nevada Assembly
In 1992, Angle was elected to the Nye County School Board of Trustees
and served one term. In 1998, Angle won election to the Nevada State
Assembly and served until 2006.[2]
During her time in the 42-member assembly, she voted "no" so frequently
on matters of wide consensus that votes were often called as
"41-to-Angle".[10] In 2003, she hired John C. Eastman of the Claremont Institute to fight the Supreme Court decision when then Governor Kenny Guinn sued the Legislature to nullify the state constitution and allow a simple majority of the legislature to pass an $836 million tax increase in Angle v. Guinn.[11]
Angle used her personal funds to defend the state constitution's
two-thirds vote requirement to raise taxes and, with Eastman, took the
case to Federal District Court in Nevada, which referred it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and finally to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Legislature subsequently passed the $836 million tax increase by a two-thirds vote.[12] Angle ultimately prevailed in the suit; in 2006, the state supreme court reversed its 2003 decision and restored the Nevada Constitution's two-thirds vote provision.[13] In 2003, Angle attempted to arrange a trip to an Ensenada, Baja California prison to assess a drug treatment program implemented there. She also arranged to visit a prison in New Mexico to assess the "Second Chance Program", which licensed its materials from Criminon, a program for rehabilitating prisoners using methods developed by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.[14][15][16] Angle sponsored legislation aimed at placing this program in certain women's prisons in Nevada.[16] In 2005, she was the sole voter against a bill that split the property tax abatement by applying a 3% rate to residential and 8% rate to commercial property.[17] She stated that she voted no because the Nevada Constitution
states that taxation must be uniform and equal and so could not vote
against her oath of office to which she swore to "uphold and defend the
Constitution."[10]
On August 15, 2006 Angle narrowly lost the primary for U.S. Congress in Nevada's 2nd congressional district which was vacated by Rep. Jim Gibbons. Nevada Secretary of StateDean Heller received 24,781 votes to Angle's 24,353. Gibbons' wife Dawn, a former State Assemblywoman herself, finished with 17,328 votes.[18]
On August 25, Angle called for a new primary election on the grounds
that some poll workers showed up late for work, or didn't show up at
all, in Washoe County, where she was the strongest.[19] On September 1, the Carson District Judge denied her appeal for a new election.
Some prominent Republicans[30] opposed her candidacy. Immediately after the primary, the Republican mayor of Reno, Bob Cashell, who backed Lowden in the Republican primary, endorsed Reid for the general election, calling Angle an "ultra-right winger".[31][32] Other notable Republicans supporting Harry Reid included Sig Rogich, a former campaign staffer for Ronald Reagan and assistant to President George H. W. Bush;[31] Geno Martini, the Republican mayor of Sparks;[33] Republican State Senator and Minority LeaderWilliam Raggio;[34][35] Dema Guinn, the widow of Kenny Guinn, Republican Governor of Nevada;[36] and former Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner.[37] On October 3, Nevada's largest newspaper Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed her bid for U.S. Senate against Reid.[38] That same month, Nevada Tea Party candidate Scott Ashjian
released a tape to the media of a recorded conversation he had with
Angle where she asked him to drop out of the race. In the tape, Angle
speaks candidly about her campaign and says that she cannot defeat Reid
with Ashjian on the ballot.[39][40] One of Angle's campaign ads aired on television late in her campaign
entitled "The Wave" was cited as racist and despicable by Sen. Robert Menendez.[41] On election day, Reid defeated Angle by a margin 50.3% to 44.6%.
Avoidance of the press and disputes with them
Angle was criticized during the campaign for largely avoiding answering questions from the press, both local[42] and national.[43] In September, the Las Vegas Review-Journal sued her for copyright infringement after she allegedly posted entire articles from the publication on her campaign website without permission.[44] After the campaign ended, it was revealed that the campaign developed a code word to alert office workers if the media entered campaign headquarters: "It's time to water the plants."[45]
Scientology issue
During the primary campaign, Lowden took out a political ad criticizing Angle's alleged associations with Scientology[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] and claiming Angle "pushed a bill favored by the Church of Scientology." Although the Las Vegas Review-Journal said that "no bill was ever introduced,"[7] the Las Vegas Sun noted that Angle's website credited her with a successful bill against psychotropic drugs in schools, a position also supported by Scientologists, and that she had accompanied celebrity ScientologistsJenna Elfman and Kelly Preston to promote the bill in the U.S. Senate.[54] Angle herself promoted a similar bill in the Nevada Assembly but was not successful.[54] During a KVBC-hosted debate on Face to Face with Jon Ralston, Angle was asked about "recent whispers" that her legislative proposal to establish the Scientology-linked Second Chance Program in Nevada prisons was a "strange foray into Scientology",[55]
a reference to her 2003 proposal to study the program implemented in
Mexico and New Mexico. Angle responded, "This program had a recidivism
rate of less than 10 percent. They aren't massages. … it was more of a
karate chop. The sauna was a sweat box. When you're in there with 30
guys, it's not exactly a sauna."[55] Angle has repeatedly denied "the rumor that she's a Scientologist",[56] stating that the controversy had been "largely distorted".[57] Regarding these claims relating to Scientology, Angle told the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "The way to ruin a conservative is to pass them off as part of the radical fringe. They always try to marginalize me."[7]
Dearborn, Michigan controversy
In September 2010, Angle told a group of Tea Party supporters that "Sharia law" had taken over the cities of Dearborn, Michigan, and "Frankford, Texas", and that these locations represented a "militant terrorist situation." Dearborn mayor John O'Reilly
criticized Angle, saying, "There's no sharia law in Dearborn, Mich. …
It isn't even talked about in Dearborn," that Angle's claims were
dishonest, and that "Muslims
have been practicing their faith in our community for almost 90 years
without incident or conflict. To suggest that they have taken over
ignores the fact that Dearborn hosts seven mosques and 60 Christian churches."[58] Jim Mitchell, in an online editorial for the Dallas Morning News, clarified that "Frankford" was a town that had been included in Dallas in 1975, and didn't exist otherwise.[59]
Canadian border controversy
The Canadian ambassador to the U.S. Gary Doer has asked Angle to retract her baseless assertion that the hijackers in the September 11 attacks entered the United States through Canada.[60] Angle claims that the U.S.-Canada border
is the "most porous border we have" and "what we know is our northern
border is where the terrorists came through." U.S. law enforcement
determined that the hijackers entered the U.S. directly from third
countries with visas issued by the U.S.[61]
Patriot Caucus
On December 12, 2010, Angle announced the formation of a PAC named the Patriot Caucus to "organize a ground game across most battleground states for the 2012 election cycle".[62] According to Politico, Angle "[dropped] it in February ahead of a decision to run for the Republican nomination for a Nevada House seat."[63]
2012 elections
On January 26, 2011, while attending a screening of The Genesis Code
in Iowa, a reporter asked Angle if she was considering a run for the
White House. "I'll just say I have lots of options for the future, and
I'm investigating all my options," was her reply.[64] By February 10, she had decided against a run.[65] On March 16, she announced that she would run for the House seat then held by Dean Heller, who at the time was running for the Senate seat held by retiring John Ensign in 2012[66]
(a seat to which he was later appointed and subsequently elected). A
year later however, Angle announced she would not be running for any
office in 2012.[67]
National Federation of Republican Assemblies
Angle became a member of the Nevada chapter of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies
(NFRA) in 2006, and in 2007, while she was still polling third in a
three-way race, received the endorsements of both the state and national
organizations for her United States Senate run. After her general
election defeat, Angle became President of the Nevada Republican
Assembly, and in 2011, Pacific Region Vice President of the national
organization. In September 2013, Angle was unanimously elected NFRA
President at the group's national convention in Dallas, Texas.[68] Angle has said that she will "probably" run for office again and has not ruled out running for the Senate again in 2016 when Harry Reid will be retiring.[68]
Positions
Education
Angle believes that the U.S. Department of Education
should be eliminated and that the local approach yields the best
academic results ("[The] best education is the education that is
controlled closest to the local level as possible.")[69][70]
Angle also holds that the Department of Education is "unconstitutional"
and should not be involved in dictating educational standards from Washington, D.C.[71]
Angle supports the Federal Marriage Amendment
to define marriage as between one man and one woman. She believes that
households in which only one spouse works outside the home is the best
way to raise a family.[73] Angle is pro-life and opposes abortion, including in cases of rape or incest.[74]
In a June 2010 radio interview, broadcast statewide in Nevada, Angle
stated that she had counseled young girls in "very at risk, difficult
pregnancies" to consider other alternatives, by which they had been able
to make "a lemon situation into lemonade."[75][76]
Angle favors the privatization of Medicare.[79] She voted against fluoridating drinking water.[80][81] Angle opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, saying that it is against God's "plan".[82] On several occasions, she has introduced legislation which would have required doctors to tell women that abortion is linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, a theory promoted by anti-abortion activists but dismissed by the medical community.[83] During the 2010 campaign, Angle told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that, as a state legislator, she had sponsored a bill to remove the requirement that health insurers cover mammograms and colonoscopies. In a debate among the Republican candidates, she repeated her support for lifting "mandates" on insurance companies.[84]
Social Security
Angle has said that the Social Security system should be "transitioned out".[85] In May 2010, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that Angle had claimed in a radio interview on KNPR
that "[her] grandfather wouldn't even take his Social Security check
because he said he was not up for welfare." The following month the Reid
campaign reacted with a television ad stating that "Sharron Angle would
end Medicare and Social Security. This is crazy." Angle has spoken
favorably of the program in Chile,
where current beneficiaries of the public retirement system were
allowed to continue but all others were compelled to pay into a private
system instead.[45][86]
Angle has stated that she opposes legalizing marijuana and has stated that she feels the same about alcohol.[88] When her spokesman, Jerry Stacy, was asked to clarify Angle's statement he responded that she doesn't want to bring back Prohibition,
saying "Sharron doesn't want to make alcohol illegal," and noting that
she has never introduced legislation along those lines, and even voted
against taxes on alcohol. "Alcohol is a legal substance, and adults can
choose to imbibe," Stacy said.[89]
Global warming
Angle does not believe in man-made global warming.[72]
"I'm a clean-air proponent," she stated. "I don't, however, buy into
the whole man-caused global warming, man-caused climate change mantra of
the left. I believe that there's not sound science to back that up."[72]
Energy policy
As a long-term policy, Angle believes America must expand its own
domestic energy supplies. She would legislate to repeal regulations that
prohibit offshore drilling, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and development of American-owned petroleum resources. In the Nevada State Legislature, she led efforts to reduce Nevada's high gas tax, which was the second highest in the nation. She would also have supported the three coal-fired plants in Ely.[69] After PresidentObama secured agreement by BP to commit $20 billion to compensate victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Angle denounced the arrangement, calling it a "slush fund".[90]
When she was criticized for her comment, however, she retracted the
term "slush fund" and said that BP should pay for the consequences of
the spill.[91]
Second Amendment
Sharron Angle has used the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms,
in her rhetoric on several occasions. Angle has said, "What is a little
bit disconcerting and concerning is the inability for sporting goods
stores to keep ammunition in stock … That tells me the nation is arming.
What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of
their government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty
in more Second Amendment kinds of ways?" and "That's why I look at this
as almost an imperative. If we don't win at the ballot box, what will
be the next step?"[92]
On Bill Manders' radio show, she stated that the Second Amendment is
"to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to
Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the
Harry Reid problems."[93] On Lars Larson's
radio show, she stated "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that
Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people
to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. In fact Thomas
Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20
years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this
Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward
those Second Amendment remedies and saying, 'My goodness, what can we do
to turn this country around?' I'll tell you the first thing we need to
do is take Harry Reid out."[94] Asked to comment on the latter, her spokesman Jerry Stacy said via
email: "Sharron Angle does not advocate a revolution. Her goal is to go
to Washington with other like-minded elected officials who understand
the proper role of the federal government as already defined by our
Constitution."[95] Congressman Jim Clyburn
said in January 2011 that "Sharron Angle's endorsement of 'Second
Amendment remedies' in her losing Nevada campaign against Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid contributed to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords."[96] Columnist E.J. Dionne did not blame Angle, but he did point out the connection between her call for "Second Amendment remedies" and the 2011 Tucson shooting.[97]CBS News,
in a "nationwide telephone poll" of 673 adults, with a margin of error
of 4%, found that "57 percent of respondents said the harsh political
tone had nothing to do with the shooting, compared to 32 percent who
felt it did.
The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network
liberalism + Socialism = Terrorism Thanks for your Support
LinkedIn
Delicious
Reddit
Stumbleupon
Email story
