Get E-mail Updates
RAEFORD, NC – Tim D’Annunzio, Republican candidate for Congress in the 8th district, today made his candidacy official by filing in Raleigh. Today was the first day of the filing period for federal, state, and local offices.
“I want voters in the 8th district to know that I am committed to running for Congress and looking forward to the race ahead,” Tim D’Annunzio said as he filed at the state Board of Elections office in Raleigh.
“I’ve been spending the last five months listening to voters from Fayetteville to Charlotte about the issues that concern them, and letting them know that I am the true conservative candidate in this race. I will work to put an end to out-of-control spending and borrowing against our children’s future.”
As of December 31, Tim led the field with $372,520 cash on hand, putting him in the best financial position of any North Carolina candidate challenging an incumbent Member of Congress.
# # #
A U.S. Army veteran, Tim D’Annunzio was an infantryman, parachute rigger, and member of the prestigious Golden Knights parachute team. He has lived in the 8th district for 30 years. As a businessman and owner of Paraclete XP SkyVenture, the world’s largest indoor skydiving facility and wind tunnel, he has created jobs in Hoke County and stimulated the local economy. Tim is a conservative Republican supporting smaller government, lower taxes, and a stronger military. Visit www.TimVote.com.
Tim D’Annunzio, Republican candidate for Congress in North Carolina’s 8th district, today made the following statement on the recent decision by the Obama Administration to end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy regarding homosexuals in the military:
“I oppose the normalization of homosexuality that is in the process of being forced on our military.
“It will turn our military bases into social experiments, while forcing states to accept unnatural and government-created special rights. The military will have to recognize same sex marriages from states where it is legal. This will extend to all aspects of military life including housing and survivor benefits.
“Every person in the US has the right to be married to one person, not of their family, of a legal age, of the opposite sex. No one is being denied any right. Overturning the current policy constitutes a new right that will cause acceptance of the unnatural.
“Before any change is made to the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, we must first realize the implications this will have on states’ rights, and oppose the Obama Administration’s newest assault on our Constitution.”
RAEFORD, NC – A new poll released today by Public Policy Polling shows that Tim D’Annunzio, Republican candidate for Congress in the 8th district of North Carolina, has a clear advantage over his primary challengers.
“Tim D’Annunzio leads the pack with 35% name recognition, followed by Harold Johnson at 31% and Hal Jordan and Lou Huddleston at 26%,” according to a press release by Public Policy Polling.
Tim has been actively campaigning across the 8th district, holding town hall meetings in every county, in addition to running district-wide television ads that began on Monday, January 4th.
“As the only true conservative in this race, voters across the 8th district are beginning to realize that I am the only candidate who will create jobs, lower taxes, and restore the American Dream for future generations,” Tim said. “I’ll continue to fight to replace the politicians in office and bring a true conservative voice to Washington in 2010.”
The television ads will run through the end of January on Fox News and Time Warner’s News Channel 14.
# # #
A U.S. Army veteran, Tim D’Annunzio was an infantryman, parachute rigger, and member of the prestigious Golden Knights parachute team. He has lived in the 8th district for 30 years. As a businessman and owner of Paraclete XP Skyventure, the world’s largest indoor skydiving facility and wind tunnel, he has created jobs in Hoke County and stimulated the local economy. Tim is a conservative Republican supporting smaller government, lower taxes, and a stronger military. Visit www.TimVote.com.
As a constitutional conservative, I believe that we need to return this country to the principles it was founded upon. Recently, I’ve taken fire from the media due to my constitutional interpretation of “marriage” and the Defense of Marriage Act. I am opposed to same-sex marriage and believe that marriage is between a man, woman, and God.
The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 by both houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. This Act affirms that no state, territory or district within the United States needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. The Act also defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. I support the law because it is based on the constitution – and its basis is the general welfare clause, included in the Constitution to promote a state of general well-being among Americans.
When individual states began defining marriage as something other than its traditional, Judeo-Christian based definition as a union between a man and a woman, the federal government was forced to step in.
The fact that some states were defining marriage in a way that was unacceptable to other states, taken into account with the Full Faith & Credit clause, created disharmony between the states. Had it been allowed to continue, the general welfare would have been disrupted.
As for the foundational belief that our rights come from God, and governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, this foundation demands that the only right to marriage is as defined by God and therefore being between a man and a woman.
The Defense of Marriage Act was both necessary and constitutional, in order to recognize an individual states’ right to refuse to be imposed upon by an extra-constitutional action taken by another state, and thereby promoting the general welfare between the states.
The Economy, Terror Trials in NYC, and Backing Away from Copenhagen
When trying to understand people’s (this is assumes that politicians are people) actions, rather than merely examining the individual event, I look for the deeper meaning. Motivation is usually found in patterns that develop and manifest over longer times and consistently through many actions.
The pattern I am about to define was evident to all who would see it, even during Obama’s campaign for the presidency. During the campaign his handlers were able to suppress it in him, but it was unavoidably exposed in all of his past associations. These actions and associations showed his loathing of the United States and his belief that the U.S. is the cause of all the evil in the world. In understanding this, we who saw it knew what kind of “change” was coming.
Once Obama was elected, he finally capsulated his belief in one statement while on his world apology tour. During the summer of 2009 in Cairo, Obama said, “Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.”
Obama believes that the world’s problems are due to the U.S. as a nation, unfairly in his eyes, being elevated above all the nations of the world. When he says that we must not be a prisoner of that past, after stating his belief that is a bad thing, he is informing us that even if we disagreed with his assessment he is going to free us from our past misunderstandings and transgressions.
I have called this Obama’s Cairo Doctrine.
The Cairo Doctrine brings the United States down to a position where we are not only level with the rest of the world, but also subject to subordination and restitution by other nations due to our past sins.
It is through this that we see why Obama can be the only president to ever bow to other world leaders – the Emperor of Japan on this trip and previously to the Saudi King. We understand why he feels more comfortable agreeing with the despots and dictators of the world rather than our traditional friends and allies. In this pattern, we understand why he backs away from the Copenhagen climate summit after China’s assessment that our fiscal policy has created a world asset bubble. To President Obama, the devastating effects on our economy that would come with agreeing to the Copenhagen proposals were acceptable until China protested based on the effect it would have on them.
The pattern repeats itself in the decision to bring the Guantanamo terrorists and masterminds of September 11th to New York for trial. Understanding this is easy if you understand the pattern. This is a venue that can’t be resisted by the Administration. This is their chance to finish the destruction of our world standing and now bow us before the entire world.
In their minds, it is an opportunity to show the world that they were right. They hope to prove that the United States is evil, we brought attacks on ourselves and we are the cause of all the world’s troubles. Obama will try and show the world that he has come to correct all of our past evils. It all comes full circle, with Obama bowing and yielding the United States and our democracy to the world.
According to CNN, the White House is fuming about an independent analysis released Wednesday at Edmunds.com that shows the Cash for Clunkers program ended up costing taxpayers $24,000 per increased sale. Also to the administration’s dislike is that the Edmunds study shows the program accounted for about half of the economy’s growth for the third quarter and will cause decreased sales, therefore decreased growth, in the fourth quarter.
The Clunkers program was plagued from the start – first by gross underestimates of the cost and then by a temporary shutdown due to the total depletion of the allocated funds just a week after it began. Bureaucracy and inefficiency also cased major glitches in government payments to dealers. This resulted in many additional interruptions as dealers were unable to carry the mounting financial burden caused by the excessive delays.
Yesterday, AP reported on their analysis that shows the administration has inflated the stimulus job numbers and in some cases overstated by ten times the actual number created.
An early reporting of the figures put the number of jobs created by the stimulus at 30,000, and even that may be overstated. As of October 30, the administration put the number of jobs created or saved at 650,000. If this accounting used the same formula as the earlier number of 30,000, then we already know the numbers are flawed. Therefore, at best, the $757 billion stimulus package cost American taxpayers $1.1 million per job created or saved, and at worst, $25 million. Even if the stimulus creates or saves 3.5 million jobs as the administrations claims it will, some day, that is over $216,000 a job.
The truth is, when the stimulus was passed the administration told us that it was urgent and if we didn’t do it the unemployment rate could climb an additional 2%. Since the stimulus was passed unemployment has risen about 3%. The reality is that the because of the stimulus, the administration destroyed or didn’t create 3 to 4 million jobs at a cost of about $200,000 per job destroyed or not created.
Does anyone see a pattern developing? Government is the anti-solution and the only gain is in the size, scope and control of the government.
That brings us to the economy. CNN is running a poll online asking, “How strong is any economic recovery in your area?” The results are, 5% said very strong, 30% said small signs of a rebound, and 65% no recovery here.
My guess is the 5% are heavily invested in the stock market; the 30% have recently traded in a clunker and or bought a house using the government $8,000 first time buyer program (who knows how much that will actually cost tax payers per house sold) and the 65% are all the others.
Most economists are expressing concern that the economic growth of the third quarter is fully due to emergency government deficit spending. Take that out, and there is no growth. In fact, in the long term, it will have devastating effects on the economy. Add this to the fact that unemployment continues to rise and the conclusion must be that the Obama administration is continuing in its pattern of spending vast amounts of money to destroy jobs and devastate the economy.
On to health care, and what else do I need to say? Democrats want to spend another trillion dollars. If it follows the pattern, it will be riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse, and it will cost much more than proposed. If the outcome holds to the administration’s past performance of $200,000 for every job destroyed or not created, they will destroy or not create at least 5 million jobs with their health care takeover.
How is that “hope and change” working out for you?
Have I mentioned there is no Constitutional authority for any of these programs?
Larry Kissell voted for the stimulus. Will he continue to vote in lock step with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama and for the government takeover of health care?
More troops die while Larry Kissell, still, has no position.
Today I read a story from FoxNews.com about Obama’s comments this week at NAS Jacksonville. The comment that has provoked this response also reiterates Obama’s ineptitude as Commander- in-Chief and our national leader.
This is the comment from the article, “”I won’t risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,” Obama told service men and women at Naval Air Station Jacksonville on Monday. He promised a “clear mission” with defined goals and the equipment needed to get the job done.”
If the most basic critical thinking is applied to these comments and the fact that there are troops on the battlefield already, the conclusion can only be Obama is incompetent as a Commander and doesn’t, but should, think of all the ramifications before he speaks.
Obama campaigned on the importance of focusing on Afghanistan and once elected implemented his strategy and increased troop levels. In this article from CNN in July 2008, Senator Obama explained his position on Afghanistan. The article is well worth reading again. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/20/obama.afghanistan/
In the article, Obama is quoted stating his official position. Many of the comments show the contradiction between Obama the candidate’s position and the present.
He said, “We have to understand that the situation is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan. And I believe this has to be our central focus, the central front, on our battle against terrorism.”
And, “I think one of the biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq.”
Obama the candidate goes on to tell about his strategy for changing focus to Afghanistan and sending two more brigades, and uses this needed strategy shift as justification for a firm timetable for withdraw in Iraq. This approach was firmly denounced and confronted by Candidate McCain.
The President’s statement at NAS Jacksonville, combined with his statements in July, require all of us to ask the question: Mr. President, do you believe that there is a “clear mission” in Afghanistan and that it is “absolutely necessary” for the US to not just be there, but to prevail?
The truth is, the Commander-in-Chief isn’t interested in anything other than his domestic agenda, just as what he said back in July 2008 was only to get elected.
McCain was right on the Iraq strategy; Obama was wrong and had an post-election conversion. Obama’s Afghanistan strategy was implemented and is being shown to be flawed and failing. Now he wants us all to forget it’s his and he is trying to define it as someone else’s failure that he must correct. In this way, he ineptly tries to position himself to take credit for whatever he decides as the future direction for Afghanistan. He is actually positioning himself as the deserved owner of the current failure.
In saying that he will not commit troops unless it is absolutely necessary, he either has to say it isn’t “absolutely necessary” to justify not sending more – but then he contradicts his previous statements of it having to be “the central front, on our battle against terrorism,” and “biggest mistakes we’ve made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here.”
If he doesn’t “finish the job” by implementing the McChrystal plan, then he has told the troops on the battle field that they are there, by his order, unnecessarily with no clear mission. He also becomes responsible for the National Security failure if there are any future terror attacks.
Another bit of reality is shaking Iraq. Obama vacillation in Afghanistan has caused renewed violence. Iraq was won by listening to the generals and not Obama. All Obama has to do is finish the job, but he isn’t capable of subordinating his domestic agenda to this greater cause. He is trying to set himself as blameless if he orders withdraw in Afghanistan and in doing so, also jeopardizing victory in Iraq. The loser in both cases is the national security of the United States and the troops on the battlefield Obama has defined as cannon fodder, if he doesn’t send more.
I believe the answer is as simple as agreeing with the Joint Statement released 20 July 2008 by Senators Obama, Jack Reed and Hagel:
“We need a sense of urgency and determination. We need urgency because the threat from the Taliban and al Qaeda is growing and we must act; we need determination because it will take time to prevail. But with the right strategy and the resources to back it up, we will get the job done.”
And then, implementing the McChrystal plan.
Larry Kissell voted last week in lock-step with Nancy Pelosi and other liberals in Congress in support of moving terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to US soil. These are terrorists captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan who want nothing more than to kill Americans and destroy our way of life.
Bringing them to our country is a slap in the face to American soldiers fighting for our freedoms overseas – especially to the soldiers right here, at Ft. Bragg, that Kissell claims to “represent.” Transferring terrorists from the prison in Cuba imposes a security risk on the local communities that may be faced with housing these inmates, in addition to the challenges of keeping them separate from the regular inmate population.
Votes like this make all of us in the 8th district realize that Larry Kissell doesn’t represent our values or ideals for a stronger America. Little by little, his votes add to up weaken our national security and undermine the War on Terror.
Why I say – Pull the troops out of Afghanistan, now!
I have a copy of the McChrystal report, and it clearly lays out the changes needed for victory in Afghanistan. The Obama administration is vacillating on this war, while trying to calculate what impact it will have on their domestic socialization agenda. Secretary Gates refuses to stand against the political pressures and the Republican leadership seems willing to let the current administration flounder at home and abroad.
The truth is that Obama used Afghanistan as a straw-man argument during the election. He wanted to appear strong on national defense and only opposed the “unjustified” war in Iraq.
We have seen how quickly Obama shifted policies on Iraq. After taking office he quickly changed strategy on a defined timetable for withdrawal. Of course nothing had changed on the ground, his shift in position came after he began to deal in reality and not in political posturing.
I would assert that his new Iraq strategy came at a time when his approval ratings were high and he thought his charisma would overcome any negative repercussions he might face in reversing his previously stated position.
Now his Afghan straw-man has come to life and the charisma bank is almost insolvent. He needs his remaining resources of good-will to finish his domestic agenda of destroying the current US system. His priority has always been destroying this country and replacing it with a long desired leftist-socialist-utopia.
If he agrees to more troops in Afghanistan – as is needed – the US will achieve victory, but he will offend his base, which wants the US to lose. If he refuses the troop increase, he won’t offend his base, he keeps the support for his domestic agenda, but he will further stir up the opposition.
The longer we do nothing in Afghanistan, the more dangerous it becomes for the troops. I say Obama’s inability to make the hard decision is reason enough to pull the plug. If he can’t do the right thing and let the generals make war, we should call for an immediate withdrawal.
The politically safe thing for Obama is to leave the troops in place and do nothing. The politically safe thing for the Republican leadership to do is nothing except call for Obama to implement General McChrystal’s plan. Both of these have their priorities wrong because they use our soldiers in the field as political pawns and subordinate them to political agendas.
I say give the Commanders in the field everything they ask for and thereby enabling them to achieve victory. If the Obama Administration refuses, I would call for an immediate withdrawal of all troops; and I don’t care about the politics of it.
My conclusion is that the Obama administration and my Congressional opponent, Larry Kissell are using our troops as political pawns and refuse to make the hard, but right, decision. This is why I say, “Pull the troops out of Afghanistan, now!”
From the Raleigh News & Observer a quote from Kissell when asked for his position.
http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/kissell_gets_the_biden_treatment
“”I don’t want to be prejudging, or presuming anything,” said Kissell, a member of the House Armed Services committee whose district includes part of Fort Bragg.”
This piece also says that Biden and therefore the Obama Administration have decided to help Kissell in his battle against me.
Give the generals what they need to achieve victory. If not, pull the troops out now. This isn’t and shouldn’t be about politics or political battles.
Nationalization of the Health System
And it being falsely justified through The General Welfare Clause in the Constitution
On the night of August 25, 2009 I spent several hours watching a question and answer session on UNC-TV. There were five participants, four Democrat House Representatives from the four most liberal districts in NC and Senator Burr, a Republican. The format of the show asked for people to call-in, or email questions. I called many times, getting through twice, but never getting on the air.
The result of watching this was that it caused me to make my final decision about running for Congress.
The liberal guests were leftist-socialist types. When asked about rationing of healthcare, they didn’t deny it would happen, but responded with the unbelievable (paraphrasing) “We already have rationing, if you can’t pay for it you don’t get it. Isn’t that rationing?”
Their statements were indefensible and arrogant. Had they been made at town hall they surely would have caused eruptions.
First of all the statements were untrue. No one is denied “emergency services” and the impoverished and elderly are already provided for under the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
The more disturbing part was that our representatives equate affordability to rationing.
I have been blessed financially, but I haven’t changed my friends or my community. Every day I am among regular working people, some who have lost their jobs. All these people make choices about what they are going to purchase, and not purchase. Every one of them either chooses to buy health care or not to buy. (Most everyone I know has some form of health care.)
Here is an example: I know a local couple who have lower-paying jobs by choice. Neither makes much money, but like freedom and lifestyles their jobs afford. They both have newer cars, and like to spend money on entertainment and relaxation. They don’t have health insurance because they choose.
One needed a medical procedure. My wife and I very discreetly offered to pay for it. They declined saying that it was already taken care of. They choose to not have insurance because they choose other things instead, but in the end they were not denied the procedure.
There is no health care crisis. There is a crisis in government usurpation of power.
One of the questions I asked the night of the forum made it on the air and was read by Tom. The question was what Constitutional authority is the government acting on when proposing universal health care. The eventual brief answer was that (paraphrasing) “it has been upheld in the courts that it is under the authority of ‘promoting the general welfare.’”
This is a phony answer. The real answer should have been that these powers are not constitutional, but are a perversion that will result in the public detriment. My position on this subject does not come from thin air, but is rather based on the writings of the Founding Fathers.
FEDERALIST No. 41
General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution
James Madison
“They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.
That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.”
You should read Federalist 41, 42 and 43 because they go on to define each point and the limitation of the powers and authority to the US Government that is defined in the Constitution. These are the powers and there is no authority for any nationalized system.
You can read the Federalist Papers at: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/
Reading the defined points of these Papers and the relating Article of Confederation you can come to no other conclusion than “general welfare” is a term defining only to a relationship to be maintained between states and the responsibility to promote such. This term more than any other has been perverted in meaning and the only foundation for all the socialist policy that has followed the perversion.
There can be no doubt that the Founding Fathers never intended, or authorized, any form of nationalized system to provide for the social welfare of the people. Social welfare programs, if desired, are to be left to the States as per the Tenth Amendment.
Promoting the General Welfare is a general description defining the Constitution’s provisions regulating the interaction between the states which disallows any state from making laws that create unfair advantage over the other states in general.
The term “General” is meant to define the states which are united under the Constitution and the term “Welfare” is meant to define the relationship between them all. The action of one state must be consider as it affects the relationship between any, or all, states in general and the Constitution was designed to “promote” this positive relational condition.
The definition from FEDERALIST No. 42
The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
By James Madison.
“The powers included in the THIRD class are those which provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the States.” (See number 3 in the above quote from Federalist 41)
Under this head might be included the particular restraints imposed on the authority of the States, and certain powers of the judicial department; but the former are reserved for a distinct class, and the latter will be particularly examined when we arrive at the structure and organization of the government. I shall confine myself to a cursory review of the remaining powers comprehended under this third description, to wit: to regulate commerce among the several States and the Indian tribes; to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin; to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the current coin and securities of the United States; to fix the standard of weights and measures; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws of bankruptcy, to prescribe the manner in which the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each State shall be proved, and the effect they shall have in other States; and to establish post offices and post roads.
The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their un-commercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.
The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.”
I know it makes no difference to those who are law breakers. This is the great paradox; laws are only binding on the law abiding and only intended to bind the law breaker.
The detriment to our society caused by these Nationalized systems are that they always become means for the demagogue to gain power and then as a control to maintain it. These systems are unauthorized by our Constitution and should be returned to local responsibility.
