Rss

Transcript of interview for Michael Vasquez and WUTQ Mark Piersma and Frank Elias of Talk of the Town

The following is a full transcript of the entire interview on 11/21/13 @ 7:20am, on 100.7FM WUTQ “Talk of the Town” with Mark Piersma and Frank Elias. The full audio of the interview can be found at http://wutqfm.com/interviews/79893

This transcript has not been edited.
*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Mark Piersma: On the phone right now, he is the…I guess he is labeling himself as the Conservative Republican candidate for the primary for the Congressional 22nd District race, on the phone right now from Binghamton it is Michael Vasquez. Good morning sir, how are you?

Michael Vasquez: Good morning Mark, How are you doing today?

Mark P: Ah, it cold but at least the sun is shining bright. So that’s always a plus right?

Michael Vasquez: Always

(laughter)

Mark P: So Mike, give us your background and why you decided to jump in this Congressional primary?

Michael Vasquez: Well I’m a 45 year old homeowner here in Binghamton, and a small business owner as well as working a full-time job; and what I’ve been doing for the last 7 years is political commentary. I’ve covered every issue that’s out there on the news, I’ve spoken to just about everyone of the politicians in the lower Central NY and Southern Tier, and I just seen… we’re not getting represented properly in Congress.

I think that’s true. I mean look at the approval rate, 8.5%. Everyone agrees on that. It’s time we start getting that because we have too many serious decisions facing Congress, we’re not getting the serious answers.

Mark P: 6240870, give us a call, 6240870. So Mike, what kind of are the key issues that feel that Congressman Hanna has failed to represent his constituents to the fullest?

Michael Vasquez: Well, just in this year he’s been…he’s flipped positions on immigration, on the NSA, he’s failed to provide opinions and direction or representation on Syria.

I know this is not something that’s new, I mean if you look back at his history, going back into 2010 Time Magazine was noting how he’s flipped on positions since that time. And it’s consistent, you can find that throughout his entire history. It doesn’t take more than a Google search to find all the times he has flipped positions. That’s not a proper representation for the public. How can we trust our Representative and know that he is putting our issues first if we can’t trust where he stands on the issues.

Frank Elias: Michael, good morning. This is Frank…

Michael Vasquez: Hey Frank.

Frank: Hey Michael, question. You mentioned flipping positions on immigration, NSA, and even Syria. Can you give us your position on immigration, NSA and then Syria as the 3rd and final question.

Michael Vasquez: Sure.

In terms of immigration, I have strong concerns about just giving a… as its written now the proposals are being looked at are looking to reward criminal and… well criminal activity, let’s call it what it is. These are people who have actively pursued violations of our law and right now the proposal is give them jobs [actually citizenship]. That’s not something I’m for, I’m against that. I understand we have to do something to address the issue, but I don’t thing giving them citizenship is going to help us. In addition I disagree with Mr. Hanna that we need to add 90,000 STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) jobs for immigrant workers instead of giving them to US citizens. That’s a proposal he is working on right now and I disagree with that. I believe its HR 2131.

The second question, was in terms of the NSA. I’m in favor of the Amash Amendment (H Amend 413) that was put out and Mr. Hanna voted against it. That was something to protect the average citizen. It didn’t change them [NSA] in their ability to protect the nation, it only stopped them from doing the abuses that we are seeing happen rampant in that organization and no one has addressed.

The law would have actually said and protected the average citizen. Mr. Hanna voted against that. That’s…that’s very telling. That’s our 4th Amendment.

In addition, the last one was in Syria. While the entire world, I mean in England, Germany, 70% of Americans had a firm position on what we should… what our President was doing, our unilateral decision to take action that could have taken us into another war; Mr. Hanna at the same time the rest of the world had a definitive answer couldn’t come up with one. He needed to keep looking into it.

Mark P: um hmm

Michael Vasquez: That’s…That’s someone that I take a more political approach to this, and when I say political I mean politician. Waiting to see where the winds blow to take a position.

Now I could be wrong. I don’t know Mr. Hanna, but I can only go by what he has reported and what I am seeing across the nation at that time. There is more… I could go into drones. There are many other issues that have serious concerns.

Mark P: 6240870, we are talking with Congressional Republican candidate from Binghamton Mike Vasquez, go ahead Frank…

Frank: Mike you did a good job responding to those questions. Can you educate us more, a little bit about yourself? Tell us your education, your work history, could you please?

Michael Vasquez: Sure. In terms of my, you asked first about my education… I went to Evander Childs High School in the Bronx. I don’t think anyone knows about that school out here.

(laughter from DJ’s)

I’m originally from New York City, I’ve been up here about 10 years

Mark P: OK

Michael Vasquez: In terms of college I went to Rutgers University. I studied English, Philosophy, and Chemistry. I did not get a degree. I wasn’t blessed with the money to finish, and instead started working.

I’m a former stockbroker. I’m a fully licensed auto insurance agent. I own my own company, which is M V Consulting, Inc

Frank: Is that M V or N V

Mark P: M V

Michael Vasquez: M as in Mike, V as in Victor.

Mark P: You know Mike, you call yourself a Conservative Republican, is that correct?

Michael Vasquez: Yes.

Mark P: How do you translate Conservatism to the general voters? People hear the word Conservative and they get very afraid and they think its the old stogy white guy with money that hates gays, hates abortion, and hates immigrants. How do you translate that to the voters and to really get the ideals of Conservatism to the general populace so they understand what it is to be a Conservative?

Michael Vasquez: OK. I find it funny. I’ve never been… no one has ever looked at me an mentioned old white..

(Laughter from DJ’s and then Mr. Vasquez)

For those that are the listeners that don’t know, I am a Black Puerto Rican.

Mark P: Right.

Michael Vasquez: But I understand that’s the image that’s been sold to America about what it is to be a Conservative. What a Conservative is, is what most people in America tend to be. These are people who are law-abiding, they have a strong faith in our nation, they believe strongly in the Constitution as has been written, and the laws that are in there.

A fiscal Conservative, which I am definitely, wants to make sure that our Government spends out money wisely, does not waste it, and has the foresight to say ‘we’re not going to keep spending money that we do not have, causing the nation to go into a death spiral of debt that will ultimately hurt us.

If you compared our Government to any… to the same way we are using our funds, compare that to a corporation or an individual. That’s a person that would lose their house. That’s a corporation that would be sued by every single shareholder for abuses. You can’t just keep spending.

That’s $17 trillion in debt, we have a $15 trillion GDP. In just 3 years the numbers are going to become, $22 trillion in debt, $18 trillion GDP, and that’s assuming interest rates don’t move. Which is almost incredible to see.

We can’t survive like that. No business can, no people can.

Frank: Michael, this is Frank. Again I’d like to say refreshing interview. I think you are… speaking well.

Yesterday we had on Mike Kicinski, who is also going to be challenging Congressman Hanna in the upcoming primary. A couple of things that he highlighted, similar to what you just said, debt and spending. He also Identified the health care issues, specifically the health care act. What would your positions be in regard to… well we ask Mr. Kicinski would you raise the debt ceiling… as was done recently? And what would you have done differently with the Affordable healthcare Act? if anything?

Michael Vasquez: Starting with the Health Care Act, I have been writing about this and covering as a political commentator and a member of the press since 2009. This was always a flawed law, it was admitted to be a flawed law, this was passed as a partisan action that was NOT read. many of the Democrat were proud of it. And as we have come to find out many of the aspects of the law that are outright lies have been known.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand admitted such on ABC News. That Democrats knew this was going to happen and voted for it anyway and decided to never tell anyone. I don’t agree with any of that.

There are aspects of the law that are good, and I think that’s great. We should keep them. But I believe at this point, because it is so messed up it needs to be repealed and replaced with an actual bipartisan that takes into account things that actually improve the cost of healthcare.

Like malpractice. Capping the malpractice amounts. That’s one of the biggest, one of the highest cause of increases of healthcare costs across the nation. Which ACA [Obamacare] doesn’t address.

Or how about have actual interstate trade. Not just within one State, but if Alaska has a plan that qualifies for New York State and it’s cheaper why can’t I buy that program? That’s an issue that was brought up, Democrats rejected it outright. I don’t know why. I believe that’s something.

If we can actually get a bipartisan law, we can get a law that’s actually good. You’re other question… that was the healthcare, the other one was, I’m sorry?

Mark P: Yeah, Frank. I even forgot.

Frank: The other one was raising the debt ceiling.

Michael Vasquez: Debt and the debt ceiling is difficult. because you don’t want to cause international turmoil and cause the entire money markets to go into a tailspin. It would be worse than the recession that we saw. At the same time we can’t just keep spending.

So its not just a one sided approach. This is not… it’s spun sometimes or looked at as just being a independent thing by itself. That’s not correct. We have to have a budget. We don’t have and haven’t had,

Mark P: We haven’t had one for what, 12 years we’re going on? or something like that? yeah.

Michael Vasquez: Yeah, it’s incredible. You can’t run anything… businesses have difficulty planning, international trade is difficult when you don’t have a budget and people don’t understand what you are going to be spending. That’s part and parcel of the problem right there. We need a budget.

We get that in place, and if we have a budget that can go backwards in time. Not just the future spending, let’s actually cut actual spending. That’s not going to be pleasant, and not everyone will love everything that has to be cut. But if we cut back, let’s say just 10%, which there is more waste than that in the Government right now. If we just cut actual spending by 10%, at that point you don’t even need to raise the debt ceiling.

Mark P: Yup.

Michael Vasquez: It maintains itself, if not brings us back. That helps us address the debt, and that helps us deal with the interest rate on the debt. So you take both of them at the same time… But if I an caught in a catch 22, would I endanger the nation? NO. If I could freeze the debt ceiling without endangering the nation and the economy of the nation? Of course I would reject increasing it.

But I’m not going to hurt… I’m not going to go out there and sabotage ourselves just to be able to make a point.

Mark P: Frank, last question, we have to wrap up…

Frank: Michael, very much enjoying this conversation. I’d like to ask you, a final question. Your position regarding military conflicts throughout the world, specifically Iraq, Afghanistan, Middle East, other than Syria. You just addressed Syria, but Iraq, Afghanistan, a position on that?

Michael Vasquez: My positions are very strong positions. I’m a former Marine. Served in the Marine Reserve. I take a very serious approach to that as I understand, my father was a Viet Nam vet – came back with Agent Orange. So I understand what it is to put someone on the front lines, I understand the cots to families after they come back home.

Many of my friends from Afghanistan, Iraq, have has some issues. Serious ones. We need to take care of them, cause they put themselves in the ultimate position for our nation, because we asked them to.

I do not believe in giving away lives lightly. there are incidents across the nation [meant globe] that do require our intervention. Because it will ultimately comes back to our safety here at home, and 9/11 proved that. But at the same time we have to do it right.

I do not agree with, I do not agree with President Bush when he sent over troops initially, to start the war. But…the day the first boot lands on that foreign soil we have an obligation, as a nation, to have a winning strategy. We are there to win, not to draw not to retreat.

If we are going to lose our soldiers, lose our brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, then let’s get something for that.

Mark P: Mike, ah sorry to cut you off but my producer is telling me we are way over time, so we have to get going. Mike Vasquez, thanks so much for the opportunity to speak with you and to introduce you to our audience. We put all the links up to your websites on our Facebook, and looking forward to this coming primary Mike. Thanks so much for joining us today. Good Luck.

Michael Vasquez: Thank you and I look forward to doing it again.

Happy Thanksgiving

Michael "Vass" Vasquez

Michael “Vass” Vasquez

I want to wish everyone reading this the most wonderful Thanksgiving possible. I hope for you all to be surrounded by loved ones, without hunger, with warmth and security. I hope for the day to be one of mirth, and tenderness, and calm.

For those that serve our nation, overseas or at any base stateside, I want you to have a day of peace. A day without conflict. I hope you can receive good letters from friends and family, maybe make a call to your loved ones if possible, and have good cheer among your comrades.

As for myself, I have a great many things to be thankful for, my family (immediate and extended), my friends both far and near, my good health, the home I own, and the support I have received in my efforts to attempt this crazy/great thing of running for elected office.

I am thankful that I have a job that has generally not impeded my efforts to run for office. That I have had many good days – meeting great people across the NY 22nd District – and very few bad days or mistakes though I have never run in an election before.

I am thankful for living in a nation that is so free as to provide me the opportunity to run for elected office without being a millionaire, or born to an elite class of family. I am thankful to live in a land where, faults and all, people believe in freedom and support one another in times of great need. A land where anything is possible, if enough effort is exerted.

Most of all, though I have no idea what tomorrow will bring, I am thankful for the chance to follow my passions and do what I think is best to help my family, friends, and those in the NY-22.

I give thanks for all these things and more.

I wish that everyone, far and near; those I know and those I don’t; my opponents in the election (Rep. Hanna and Mr. Kicinski, and whomever appears on the Democrat ticket); and those in nations not as fortunate as our own; to all have these things I’ve mentioned not just for today but every day going forward.

Sincerely
Michael Vasquez

Iran’s nuclear ambition and the deal to let it happen

Over the years there has been much said about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. One of the most consistent comments from across the globe has been that a nuclear Iran is a danger to world stability. Thus, the deal made in the early morning hours of November 24, 2013, are troubling.

The deal, which provides Iran with $7 billion and reduced international sanctions, is a 6 month pause to the nuclear program that the world has acknowledge that Iran is pursuing – though Iran denies this. The deal will increase International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to inspect Iranian sites, and report on the status of its nuclear program progress. In addition Iran has promised to stop its development of the Arak heavy water plant, and limit enrichment of uranium to no more than 5%. The heavy water and enrichment of uranium are critical to creating weapons grade nuclear material.

While this sounds positive, and is being lauded by the White House as a victory, and the first steps in a diplomatic solution to the issue of a nuclear Iran, I believe that Israel is correct in its determination that this is a bad deal.

Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu at UN

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu at UN discussing Iran’s nuclear ambitions

The first reason is that the negotiations and deal reached did not involve Israel. As the most immediate target of a nuclear Iran, their protection is an interest that must be included in any negotiation. The deal reached by Secretary John Kerry and other nations fails to achieve many of the key concerns of Israel. That in itself is a problem. As quoted by the Washington Post

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the deal “brings us to a nuclear arms race.”

A nuclear arms race in the Middle East is the worst possible outcome, on a global scale.

Second, Iran lies. Iran has never admitted that it has a nuclear weapons program, yet it has built multiple systems that are primarily for the purpose of creating a nuclear weapon. Iran has denied the existence of multiple projects, until proof from various nations confirms the existence for these projects. In fact, even as the deal requires limitations on enriching nuclear material below weapons grade, Iran is stating

“Let anyone make his own reading, but this right is clearly stated in the text of the agreement that Iran can continue its enrichment, and I announce to our people that our enrichment activities will continue as before.” – Iranian president Hassan Rouhani

The US denies the deal gives Iran a right to enrichment, which Israel believes it states clearly, but such conflicting views on the same text implies Iran justifying its future actions based on the way it feels it should interpret the deal – not on how other nations read it.

Third, nothing is gained in the deal by the US and other nations. Iran wins, having economic restrictions lifted and billions of dollars flowing into the nation. But Iran does not lose a single centrifuge needed to build weapons grade nuclear material. Iran does not need to dismantle a single facility that is required to produce nuclear material. In fact the only real action Iran needs to do is not activate the Arak heavy water plan – which some believe could not be activated for several more months anyway, and if it was could not be detected for a month or more. If active, international norms would deter the demolition of the plant by means of missile strike for fear of radiation impacting civilians.

Thus, if Iran does not activate the Arak plant – it can wait until it is more economically and logistically capable – which the deal made provides. If Iran does start the plant, by the time it is detected and can be inspected to be confirmed, it will become incapable of being stopped by international military action.

There are other problems with the deal (like the fact that Iran can continue to enrich uranium and only inspection after the fact can verify if the agreed levels are being adhered to), but these three reasons are all that are needed to understand that the deal reached on November 24th is not a good deal. This is not a victory for the Secretary Kerry, the White House, the US, or any nation other than Iran.

I agree with Israel that the US and all nations involved in talks with Iran must require that Iran dismantle its heavy water plant and uranium enriching centrifuges. I agree that Iran should turn over any enriched nuclear material that could be used for a “dirty bomb” or other nuclear weapon to the IAEA so that it can be disposed of independent of Iran’s control. These terms must be included in any further deals, and should be added to the current deal as soon as possible – with any delay in implementation causing all sanctions to be resumed immediately.

Nuclear weapons are too dangerous to be left to the mere equivalent of “I say I won’t”. Especially from a nation that has continuously denied actions it has been caught doing. A nation that has never stopped declaring its belief that Israel, and America, need to be removed from the face of the Earth.

I call upon Rep. Richard Hanna, Speaker Boehner, and all members of the House and Senate, to use their positions of power and influence to impress upon the White House and all members negotiating with Iran to support the more stringent requirements before any deal is accepted and funds released to Iran. Nuclear weapons are a Pandora’s Box, once opened it cannot be closed. Deals that require no burden of proof or assurance of compliance from Iran are not deals, but false hope based on nothing but the naive expectations of the parties that involved.

Sincerely

Michael Vasquez

***Note: Michael Vasquez is a candidate running for the 2014 NY 22nd Congressional seat. ***

The beauty of people doing what people do best

Last night, November 22, 2013, I had the pleasure to join about 100 people at the Lost Dog Cafe as we listened to Ayana D and Taina Asili perform with their band. The event was a fundraising event for the The Mimi and Louie Del Valle Latino/a Achievement Award, based at Binghamton University; and The Mimi Del Valle Scholarship, part of Binghamton High School’s Dollars for Scholars program.

Taina Asili (left singer) and Ayana D (right singer)

Taina Asili (left singer) and Ayana D (right singer) and band performing at Lost Dog Cafe


The scholarships are awarded to a graduating senior, and are based on the appreciation of the arts. They are funded through donations, of which 100% of the proceeds from the event went to these scholarships.

This reminded me of 2 things.

The first is how, when left to themselves without interference from the Government, people find ways to provide for the passions they believe in. In this case, the passion of song, music, and performance – handed down from Mimi and Louie Del Valle, the parents of the 2 singer/songwriters – plus the desire to share that passion with younger generations inspired the scholarships.

This wasn’t Government mandated. It wasn’t Government created or designed. It was not created from some study or a think tank or political poll. Which is why it is so beautiful and inspiring.

The second thing is that, based on the effect of Common Core on schools and the ever diminishing existence of the Arts in schools, the need is ever greater. The Arts are essential to growth of any society. It provides for the inspiration and creation of things that are sometimes completely unrelated to the art itself. A mind that can create something that can lift the spirit, does inspire others as their spirits are lifted in hearing or seeing that art, I believe.

Again, this is something that Government cannot do. Government does not lift the spirit, national pride aside. That is not the purpose of Government. Every attempt of Government trying to do so fails.

Most of all I have to say that for 2 hours, I like all that attended, enjoyed and shared a love of music and performance.

For those that would like to learn more about the scholarships, visit http://vocesdelvalle.com/

Why big government doesn’t work

Michael "Vass" Vasquez

Michael “Vass” Vasquez

As I have been speaking with people across the New York 22nd Congressional district, time and again the subject of the growth of government has come up. This has been a problem long before President Obama took office, but there have been drastic and dramatic increases in size and power during this presidency so far. It is something that I do not agree with, and have not for long before I ever considered a run for the House of Representatives.

On Nov. 20, 2008 – with President Bush still in office, I made a timely statement in an article published under my business name Michael Vass as part of my political commentary work,

“The Government has made a precedent of stepping into the markets and private industry, because they are afraid of the pain. And in each case it has proven one thing. The Government has no idea what it is doing.”

While this statement applies all to well to Obamacare and the fiasco that has been the rollout of the Healthcare.gov website, it was meant at the time to reflect upon the bailout of GM. At the time there was massive debate about TARP, and whether or not companies of any industry are to big to fail. Today the consensus is that there is no “too big to fail”, but in 2008 Democrats (and more than a few Republicans) had a different view.

The result was a bailout of $25 billion to automakers, far less than the $50 billion Chrysler and GM were asking for. This led to both companies failing, and the much hyped GM bankruptcy. A situation which was capitalized on by the Obama Administration to take ownership of GM. I said on June 1, 2009

“With the failure of GM, we now have Government Motors. A company owned 70% by the Government, which will ‘better manage the ownership stake on behalf of the American people’. Right. Because the Government is so smart it can’t even run a checkbook in my lifetime, even though I do it every month.

But the President and Democrats assured us that bigger government, and direct stewardship of a major private industry would lead to profits for the American people in jobs saved and funds to pay back the bailout/bankruptcy. In fact, we were promised at the time, it would provide for funds to lower the national debt and create ‘green’ jobs due to the requirement of producing the Chevy VOLT – an issue I also discussed but will not cover right now.

August 2, 2011, the Obama Administration was already talking about selling its stake in General Motors. By this time the IPO for the “new” GM had taken place and the net minimum to break-even on the public “investment” was $53/share. To date the stock price has never exceeded $38.50, and therefore is a net loss to the public and another factor increasing the public debt.

The reason for this abysmal result? The Government never bothered to fix the inherent problems at GM. Rather, it just violated the rights of bondholders, supported union efforts, and plowed ahead with plans for ‘green’ cars that the public did not want, were not as green as promised, and is significantly overpriced. All in the name of “helping” fight global warming and saving jobs.

As bad as all that may sound, the real kick in the buttocks is that the Treasury decided to sell the stake in GM. At a loss. Steadily the Government has wound down the position from 61% ownership to currently 2.2%. Thus, out of the $50 billion “invested” some $38 billion has been recovered. Estimates are that another $1.2 billion will be made in the final sale for approximately a total of $40 billion dollars.

The net result is a loss of $10 billion, plus the cost of interest, plus an increase in the national debt. Add to that the abject failure of the Chevy VOLT, and a worsening of global warming emissions. Perhaps the only thing that was achieved in the end were jobs saved (though it can be argued that a true private market restructuring would have had the same or better result), and the protection of union interests.

This is yet another example of why bigger Government is bad. Government cannot micromanage. It does not understand the needs and desires of the public. It cannot move in swift or fluid motions. Plus any action is always tainted by the political motivations of whichever group is in power at the time – further diluting any positive impact (if one exists).

The long term ramifications of big Government tends to lead to more debt, less solutions, and ever more power for the Government. Like the above failed social and private business experiment, Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) is now going through the same steps at failure. We need to have political leaders stand up for the people they represent, not just when politically convenient for political ratings and re-election fundraising efforts but at all times.

We can either do something now, such as repeal Obamacare and enact a bipartisan healthcare reform that actually addresses the cost of healthcare and not the wishes of a small partisan group of politicians enforced against the will of the public by the power of the Government, or we can wait for the ultimate failure – just like GM.

Press Release: What is Rep Richard Hanna hiding from voters?

On November 21, 2013, Michael Vasquez was interviewed on 100.7FM WUTQ. In that interview a discussion of the voting record of Rep. Richard Hanna was discussed. The emphasis of this discussion was on the discrepancies between what Rep. Hanna has said and/or written publicly and what his actual votes/actions were.

After the interview, at approximately 8am, a review of our records on the proof of the reported and recorded instances of flip flops by Rep. Hanna was conducted. This effort was part of our full disclosure on the claims made by Mr. Vasquez during the interview. That disclosure can be found at http://electmichaelvasquez.com/blog/2013/11/21/preview-of-100-7fm-wutq-interview-on-talk-of-the-town-with-mark-piersma/

During the review, it was discovered that at least one instance of altering the record exists.

  • On 7/24/13, Rep. Richard Hanna voted on H Amend 413 (Amash Amendment) – Rep. Hanna voted NO, against the proposal to restrict the NSA’s powers.
  • On 7/25/13, Rep. Hanna wrote on his congressional webpage (http://hanna.house.gov/vote-explanations1/showallitems/) about his vote on HR 2397 – Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014. In this summary of his vote, Rep. Hanna included the following (visible at 8:30am that morning)

    “Finally, I supported an amendment that ensures the National Security Agency (NSA) may not target a U.S. person or acquire and store the content of a U.S. person’s communications, including phone calls and e-mails. I will continue to support Constitutionally-protected civil liberties and the right to privacy for all American citizens.”

    This statement by Rep. Hanna is opposed by the facts of the actual vote on the Amash Amendment on 7/24. Mr. Vasquez wrote about this conflict on 7/25.

  • On 11/21/13 it was discovered that all information for HR 2397, and the statement about the NSA vote, has been removed from the congressional webpage for Rep. Hanna. This would appear to be an attempt to retroactively prevent voters from accurately evaluating Rep. Hanna, and evading the correct conclusion that he had flip flop on this issue. There may also be other incidents of this nature, which we are reviewing.

    Mr. Vasquez states,

    “If this is a technical error, which would be highly suspect, then it should be corrected immediately. If it is something else, Rep. Hanna should own up to it and provide the voters with the truth of his record and statements. Either way, this should not be overlooked as the elimination can be taken as more manipulative than the flip flop itself.”

    If members of the press seek further comment on this or any item, please contact: Press@ElectMichaelVasquez.com or 6072429247.

    ***Update 4/4/2014 – at some point after February 2014 (the last time that I had checked) Rep. Richard Hanna finally put back the article referenced above. I count that as a victory, as Rep. Hanna can once again be held accountable for what he has voted as opposed to what he has said to the public.***

  • WUTQ Talk of the Town radio interview with candidate Michael Vasquez

    The following link is to the 100.7FM WUTQ “Talk of the Town with Mark Piersma” website. Vasquez1449

    Mr. Vasquez was interviewed on 11/21/13 at 7:30am via phone. The interview was 15 minutes 25 seconds long. It covered: background of Mr. Vasquez; issue flip flops by incumbent Rep. Richard Hanna; immigration; international policy; Obamacare; national debt/debt ceiling; reason for entering 2014 Congressional race.

    The interview can be found at: http://wutqfm.com/interviews/79893

    Visit www.MichaelVasquezforCongress.com for more information on Mr. Vasquez, events he will be at, and to make donations securely via Paypal.

    Press inquiries for interviews or questions can contact 6072429247 or Press@ElectMichaelVasquez.com

    To see the some of the proof of claims made in interview visit Preview of 100.7FM WUTQ interview on “Talk of the Town” with Mark Piersma

    Preview of 100.7FM WUTQ interview on “Talk of the Town” with Mark Piersma

    Today I was on the radio with Mark Piersma, host of “Talk of the Town” on 100.7FM station WUTQ, at 7:20am. It was a good conversation that delved into the reasons why I am running for elected office. A copy of that conversation will be available later today.

    Of course there is no way to fully cover all the reasons for my run in the New York 2014 Congressional race and issues facing this nation in just 18 minutes. The issues are too diverse, and need far more discussion. In fact that is one of the things that I take issue with; the fact that politicians today count on people only getting 30 second soundbites about the issues – one of the reasons that there was some interest in Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) though we have learned that there were many lies and hidden truths to that law that were never disclosed to the public.

    That of course is not the fault of Mark Piersma, or Bob Joseph of WNBF (whom I was on air with on Nov 19th), or many others in the media. There is only so much time for each candidate/elected official, and the onus is on the person running for office to impart what is at issue and where they stand. Which is why I am writing this article.

    The first question was who I am. As I have provided, I am 45 years old; a former Marine reservist; a homeowner in Binghamton, NY; the owner of M V Consulting, Inc.; a licensed auto insurance agent; a former stockbroker; and a political commentator. I like to think that you can sum that up as just a regular American. I work a full-time job, pay bills, have debt, and struggle just like every constituent in the NY-22 if not the nation. Which means I understand directly the concerns and issues we all face, everyday. Something that I feel Congress is far too detached from.

    The reason I am running, as you have read, is because effective connections to the people leads to better representation in Congress and better laws that actually deal with the issues facing us today, and the generations to come. I believe that currently we are not seeing that representation in the NY-22. We cannot count on our views being presented or defended if for no other reason than our current representative, Rep. Richard Hanna, has a history of taking multiple sides of issues and ultimately voting often in contradiction to what he has publicly said.

    I mention in the interview that this is a common facet of Rep. Hanna. I confirmed that with the article from October 5, 2010 by Time Magazine, where Rep. Hanna is noted for back-pedaling on the Islamic temple issue of the time. Further it delved into the nature of the then-candidate.

    “Hanna then walked back his seeming support for the project, saying that while its proponents have a constitutional right to proceed, to do so would be “insensitive.”… Hanna, a businessman who almost beat Arcuri in 2008, isn’t afraid to say he’s a moderate…When a local television news station suggested that House minority leader John Boehner…is more conservative than Hanna, the candidate replied, “Most of them are. I am not in the mainstream with most Republicans.”

    In that one article we learn, and Rep. Hanna confirms, he is not a Conservative – though he ran on the Conservative ticket. This was later confirmed in the WKTV News interview – 4/8/11, published on Youtube 8/27/13 – Congressman Hanna on looming government shutdown – http://youtu.be/vnzeuqlv-2M – minute 2:42 – 2:52 – Rep. Hanna describes himself as “…one of the more independent people down here…”

    This is further confirmed by the conservative rating of Rep. Hanna by Ballotpedia – in 2011 he was rated 198th most conservative member of the House of Representatives (out of 435 members). In 2012 he was rated 211th.

    More recently there was his vote with the Amash Amendment (H Amendment 413) which would have placed limitation on the power of the NSA to abuse their power as they have been proven to be doing. Rep Hanna voted against this bill. But on his description of the vote Rep. Hanna said (which he has since pulled from http://hanna.house.gov/vote-explanations1/showallitems/)

    “Finally, I supported an amendment that ensures the National Security Agency (NSA) may not target a U.S. person or acquire and store the content of a U.S. person’s communications, including phone calls and e-mails. I will continue to support Constitutionally-protected civil liberties and the right to privacy for all American citizens.” – as written on 7/25/13 at 8:30AM and has since been pulled down from Rep. Hanna’s Congressional site

    It is up to you to decide if his decision to pull his stated comments or his flip flop on the votes are the more troubling aspect.

    There is far more that could be confirmed on what I said of Rep. Hanna, like his effort to turn women away from the Republican Party (5/22/12), or his actions in making “ceremonial” votes in the face of Republican alternatives he feels are “not viable” (Youtube, 2/10/11, posted by theplumlinegs – http://youtu.be/g-dxefhCfg4 minutes 1:21 – 1:49).

    I will simply say that my opinion has been formed after due diligence and research. My decision has been based on discussion with the constituents of the New York 22nd Congressional district. All I ask is for the public to hear me out, and weigh what I offer against that of Rep. Hanna, and voters can choose whom they think is the best option.

    First endorsement for candidate Michael Vasquez in 2014 Congressional run

    With the announcement of the intent to run for the 2014 New York 22nd Congressional seat on the Republican ticket just 2 days old, the first endorsement has already come forward. Confirmation of the endorsement came late on November 19, 2013, and can now be released.

    Anthony F. Miller, Republican Committee Member, 6th District, Town of Chenango in Broome County New York has taken his position for the upcoming primary race in the NY-22. The positive news was welcomed by candidate Michael Vasquez.

    Candidate Michael "Vass" Vasquez

    Candidate Michael “Vass” Vasquez

    “I am very happy to know that I have the support of Mr. Miller, as well as many individuals throughout the district. It’s a wonderful boost, and another confirmation that I made the right decision to run. I hope that legislators and County Executives across the district will take the opportunity to speak with me on why I am running, and what I want to do for the district, as Mr. Miller has so they can make an informed decision for 2014. I look forward to having those same conversations with voters, so they too can make an informed choice in the primary.”

    Previously, in April 2013, Mr. Vasquez announced his exploration for the run and sought out individuals, businesses, and organizations across the NY-22 on their views on the current representation in Congress. Mr. Vasquez announced he will seek a primary battle with Rep. Richard Hanna for the Republican ticket in 2014 on November 18, 2013.

    To date, media coverage continues to increase and public awareness is growing. To find out more, visit www.MichaelVasquezforCongress.com

    Candidate Michael Vasquez interviewed by Bob Joseph of WNBF News Radio on 11/19/13

    The following is the unedited audio of the interview that was on-air 11/19/13 at 9:30am. This was made into 2 videos due to time constraints of Youtube, no other change has been made.

    Candidate Michael Vasquez interviewed by Bob Joseph of WNBF News Radio – part 1

    Covers: Flip-flops by politicians, Government shutdown, Obamacare, reasons for running for election

    Candidate Michael Vasquez interviewed by Bob Joseph of WNBF News Radio – part 2

    Covers: 4th Amendment, drones (unmanned aerial systems), donations and fundraising, Obamacare fixes

    %d bloggers like this: