Rss

Our future, our voices, and your vote

justice
There is nothing quite like political predictions. Whether it’s Sarah Palin talking about Russia in 2008, or numerous Republicans and pundits talking about the retreat from Iraq in 2011, or even the polling for former Congressman Eric Cantor political predictions are always a matter of intense debate and attention. With the Republican Primary for the New York 22nd congressional district less than a week away, it seemed a good time to review the predictions made in this race.

One of the first things that should be noted is money. The first barrier to the race, mentioned in every meeting and many public speaking engagements that I had from April 2013 until I voluntarily exited the race to support Claudia Tenney. As many have heard me say, my predictions were:

  • 1) Rep. Hanna will spend 10-1 for his effort to get re-elected
  • 2) The race can be won by a challenger (implying myself at the time, and no different now) with $150,000

    Given those predictions, the reality is amazing on target.

    Rep. Hanna’s campaign, with the major help of his self-funding and a pro-gay marriage PAC, is spending $1 million on his re-election effort compared to the $111,000 of Claudia Tenney. With these figures, some estimates are calling the race even.

    The reason why I made those predictions, and why we are seeing them come true, is because Rep. Hanna is not (and I believe cannot) running on his record. He is refusing to debate because of what his voting record proves. He is avoiding presenting his record in his commercials (you can see that in my response to the Hanna’s Diner commercial – http://youtu.be/HANFCkolj5E). The public, and Republican voters, are noticing.

    Thus we have a race where Rep. Hanna has taken to mocking opponents, flippant disparaging remarks on his lack of response to challenges, and a general disregard for the will of the people who signaled their intense desire for comparison and choice when petitions were signed.

    In addition, predictions were made that this race would get national attention. As news media are now reporting, that is exactly the case.

    This race, in 2013, was considered a given for the incumbent. It was not seen as eventful. The expectation was a simple win for the incumbent based on the mere fact that he held a title and is independently wealthy. Neither of these reasons are credible reasons for anyone to be elected, let alone re-elected.

    Since that time, Rep. Hanna has revealed via his avoidance of his record, his votes for funding Obamacare, his push for immigration reform at the cost of 160,000 American jobs a year, his votes for late-term abortion, his votes to increase taxes and unlimited debt ceiling increases until 2015, Rep. Hanna has proven his liberal leaning and justified his rating as the 3rd most liberal Republican in Congress.

    This has lead to the interest of conservative groups, like an assortment of Tea Party organizations and the New York Conservative Party, the Gun Owners of America, Oathkeepers, NY Revolution and 2nd Amendment organizations, ShePAC, Fox News and more.

    That say nothing of individual conservatives like Laura Ingraham, Betsy McCaughey, Wendy Long, Carl Paladino and may others (of course including myself).

    At the same time, unexpectedly, Eric Cantor – another proponent of immigration reform like HR 2131 – lost his re-election bid to a massively outspent far more conservative opponent.

    National attention is firmly focused on this race.

    Lastly I predicted that Rep. Hanna is weak, and can be beaten.

    As I mentioned before, the Hanna campaign won’t discuss the record of a 2-term congressman in public. They won’t allow a debate on the issues and the voting record. In politics there is no greater signal of weakness.
    Which brings me to defeating Rep. Hanna. It is a reality ready to happen, needing only the active participation of Republican voters.

    There are some 160,000 Republicans in the New York 22nd District. In the past a mere fraction, less than 8000 votes, decided who would represent us in Congress. Apathy, lack of choice, the absence of a true conservative, accountable to the will of the people kept many away from voting.

    But on June 24th it can be different. There is a true choice. We have the 3rd most Conservative Assemblymember in NY State running. We have a mother of a Marine Officer, a small businesswoman, and a dedicated servant of the people available and willing to champion our causes on the floor of Congress.

    We just need to go and vote to put her there.

    I ask you, and the Republicans you know, to take a stroll on June 24th to your polling locations and take 5 minutes to vote. Make your voice heard across New York State and on the floor of Congress. Let’s, together, make a statement that money cannot buy an election, debates on the issues matter, and that re-election is a gift given only to those that have earned the privilege.

    Join me on June 24th, as we vote to elect Claudia Tenney and fulfill my final prediction.

    Sincerely

    Michael Vasquez
    Former NY 22nd Congressional District candidate
    Supporter of Claudia Tenney

  • Rep. Hanna asked NY-22 to look at his record, here is what I found…

    On May 2, 2014, Rep. Richard Hanna asked Republican voters listening to WIBX to review his record and decide who to vote for in the June 24th NY Primary, which without a Democrat running is effectively the congressional election.

    Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY 22)

    Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY 22)

    I took his advice, and this is what I found:

    1. Since 2010, Rep. Hanna has passed 2 commemorative coin Bills, and named a post office (from 2011 to present).

    2. Every other Bill that Rep. Hanna has created since 2011 is dead in the water with no significant support from Dems or Republicans – including the non-partisan Bill to give reservist who died serving our nation at war gravestones.

    Going no further, that raises the question of just how effective Rep. Hanna is in Congress. But moving on… Rep. Hanna is also ambivalent, and flip-flops, on a lot of major issues.

    According to the record, he has taken both sides on restricting the NSA. He has said he opposes abortion, but voted to support late-term abortions. He supports STEM jobs for Americans but is pushing to give 160,000 STEM jobs to foreign students instead of American students.

    But what does Rep. Hanna do when it really matters?

  • With the debate over the 1st Amendment on the line in 2012, via the Stop Online Piracy Act, Rep. Hanna had no opinion beyond listening to the debate.
  • With Syria, as President Obama sought to grab greater power and push America into a unilateral war, Rep. Hanna had no opinion until the issue was over.
  • After 40 votes on Obamacare – that Rep. Hanna has called “ceremonial” (as seen on Youtube) – when it mattered in 2013, he voted with Democrats to fund Obamacare without condition.
      He has also attacked the alternatives provided by Republicans since 2011.
  • While claiming to be fiscally responsible, Rep. Hanna voted to cut military pensions and provide Democrats with unlimited debt ceiling increases in spending, January 2014.
  • With the revelation of the White House lying to the public on Benghazi, as proven by a recent email disclosed this week, Rep. Hanna – according to his statements live on-air on May 2nd – either has no idea what is going on, or just agrees with former Secretary Hillary Clinton.

    So with just a cursory view of Rep. Hanna’s record, I conclude:

    1. Rep. Hanna has justified his rating as the 3rd most Liberal Republican in Congress (he calls himself a moderate).

    2. His talk of the benefit to constituents from his support for Democrats and their issues does not exist.
    3. He actively supports issues that his constituents oppose.
    4. Rep. Hanna supports a “bandwagoning” approach to his work in Congress – he says and does almost nothing until he can safely jump on the winning side of an issue, regardless of constituent opinion.

    When I look at the record, I see a New York City Democrat on the Upstate NY Republican ballot. I see someone who is either ineffective in the job, or otherwise inconsiderate of representing the voters that elected him.

    Thus I support Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney. Because she is the only consistent, accountable, voice of voters in the NY 22nd Congressional race.

    But don’t take my word for it.

    Follow the request of Rep. Hanna and actually look at his record yourself. Then ask yourself, are these votes and public comments reflecting the core values of the Republican Party? Is this action, and inaction, representing your values in Congress?

    Then go vote in the NY 22nd congressional district primary for Congress on June 24th.

  • How to really help the Southern Tier and NY-22

    On April 22, 2014, Rep. Richard Hanna decided to grace the Southern Tier with his presence – to discuss the ‘spent grain’ proposal by the FDA. But he has failed to answer why he is hurting the very same small businesses with his votes and support of other law/Bills.

    The event, held at the Water Street Brewing Company in Binghamton, NY, marks on of the very few times that Rep. Hanna has ventured into the Southern Tier of New York – especially without President Obama appearing at the same time. In fact, searching Google (Rep. Richard Hanna Southern Tier) identifies only 5 visits by Rep. Hanna since 2012 when the NY-22 fell under his watch – out of the first 10 pages of searching with 718,000 items in the search parameter. This includes appearing with President Obama but excludes when he opened his office in Binghamton. Oddly, the visits coincide directly with when Rep. Hanna is seeking re-election, other than appearing with President Obama.

    Still, given the apparent absence of concern when an election is not involved, Rep. Hanna has yet to explain how giving 160,000 jobs to foreign “students” (his qualification given on-air on 4/4, WUTQ) – and allowing US students to be unemployed – is a benefit to constituents or the national economy. Rep. Hanna, in the WUTQ interview, wasted no time to attack Michael Vasquez, a former candidate in the NY-22 race, but failed to address how the challenge by Mr. Vasquez was wrong – beyond clarifying that the foreigners are foreign students.

    Rep. Hanna has yet to explain how his “ceremonial” anti-Obamacare votes, or his support of funding Obamacare without condition (9/29/2013), is helping small businesses – that are cutting back hours and not hiring because they can’t afford it.

    “Whether that means he is the most liberal, the most moderate, or perhaps just the least conservative member of the GOP conference is in the eye of the beholder.” – Scott Bland, National Journal, 9/30/13

    Rep. Hanna has yet to clarify why he has not pushed forward any Bill to cut the corporate tax rate that would help small businesses. Or why he has failed to pass any Bill created by him – other than naming a post office and 2 baseball coin Bills, in 2010.

    Rep. Richard Hanna is trying to hide what he has done (or failed to do) with a dog & pony show that is supposed to make the Southern Tier feel like he is involved. I believe the people across the NY-22 are smarter than that.

    On June 24th, which with the Dems abandoning constituents will be the election for the NY 22nd Congressional seat, you can make the better choice and support Assemblywoman Claudia Tenney for Congress.

    It’s your choice. Why not choose the candidate that has a history of caring about the issues affecting you?

    2014 starts with a jolt of legal decisions

    Mere hours into the start of 2014 and already there have been legal outcomes that are going to affect millions of Americans. Some will be happy, but assuredly not all. Yet, to varying degrees, all of these decisions will affect the nation. Considering that 2014 is a mid-term election year, these legal actions and their results – as well as other issues – demand that we ask ourselves 3 questions (which I will ask at the end of this article).

    Starting in New York, the controversial NY SAFE Act was ruled as constitutional by Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny in Buffalo. At the same time, Judge Skretny also ruled that the limitations on magazines (to contain 7 rounds maximum),

    “…fails the relevant test because the purported link between the ban and the state’s interest is tenuous, strained, and unsupported in the record.”

    The NY Safe Act has been seen as a model of what President Obama has been pushing to have Congress enact nationally – and part of his Executive Orders issued in 2013, circumventing Congress. The argument being that in restricting certain types of firearms the ability of the criminal and criminally insane to engage in mass shootings will be diminished (though VP Biden admitted in February 2013 that the Executive Orders will have no impact – which was sadly proven correct later that same year). This flies in the face of the fact that the overwhelming majority of shooting deaths occur with handguns (like the Binghamton Civic Center shooting) and the 2003 First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws which determined,

    “The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.”

    As well as the overall result of a gun restriction ban of “assault” firearms I reviewed in an investigation of the data over 30 years in an article Jan 11, 2013,

    “…if the movement for gun restrictions as the primary safeguard to the public are correct, 75% of these kinds of tragedies will continue relatively unabated. Is the battle being waged against the 2nd Amendment, as some claim, and opposition like the NRA worth potentially stopping 1 – 2 events per year? To the families that have lost a loved one, of course. But if we are trying to increase the safety of the nation, shouldn’t the focus be on what is motivating the majority of these hateful crimes? Shouldn’t the resources be poured in to finding the root cause and eliminating it?”

    As I have stated before, the delusion of safety by restricting certain arbitrary definitions of “assault weapons” and reducing magazine size is both misleading and unequal to the infringement on 2nd Amendment Rights. I agree with Judge Skretny that the magazine ban is unsupported and tenuous, as I presented in an article published on March 13, 2013

    “… actively misleading the public into a false sense of safety based on pipe dreams and wishful thinking is as dangerous as any firearm ever made. We must also clearly state that using a preposterous fallacy meant to target the fear and emotion of the public to enact a politically motivated outcome is a tactic more akin to those wishing to shackle freedom than embracing or protecting it.”

    Surely the debate over the NY Safe Act is not over, and will reach higher courts. Other States and the Federal Government will be watching closely, with a slew of laws to follow the ultimate outcome. Whether or not this has any effect on mass shootings is debatable, and historically leans towards being ineffective. But the impact on the 2nd Amendment may be irreversible.

    On a larger scale, also on January 1, 2014, there is the news that the Government has been blocked in forcing the birth control requirement of the Obamacare law. US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor enacted an injunction in the late hours of Dec 31 2013, that prevents enforcement of this provision of the law. The reason is the infringement of religious freedom that is being argued Obamacare restricts.

    This is yet another factor that is adding to the obtuse and ever more convoluted impact of the Affordable Care Act. With each passing month more groups and classes of those required to be affected by Obamacare are being delayed or excluded from inclusion. This of course alters the projected mix of population that healthcare insurers have calculated into premiums, and projections of an increase in costs continue to become more reliable.

    This is yet another example of the rushed and poorly thought out ramifications of the Affordable Care Act long-term. It may well be just another factor that helps to establish that Obamacare will fail in its purported primary mission of reducing health care costs. The full impact of cancellations, the massive and still existing problems with the Healthcare.gov website, the yet to be determined inclusion of businesses (or their decisions to opt-out of providing healthcare), and the less than projected sign up of millions of Americans as well as other provisions of the law have yet to be felt in earnest.

    It is fair to say that as courts address the underlying components of Obamacare, and those excluded are mandated to be included in the wide berth of the law, the reality of what this law will mean to freedoms and costs will be seen later in the year. I hold little hope of clarity or price reductions.

    Lastly there was the decision in Florida, by Judge Mary S. Scriven of the United States District Court in Orlando, to strike down the requirement of drug screening for those seeking welfare.

    Judge Scriven stated,

    “The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied.”

    This of course will impact many States (29 States have considered such laws and 9 have enacted similar laws) as there is a growing view in the populace (who themselves are faced with drug tests to be employed) that such a requirement is valid and worthwhile. Many feel that those seeking public assistance should be held to the same standards as those paying for the assistance via their taxes (which I agree with). In addition, supporters point to the safety and welfare of the households where drug use does exist, that can potentially be aided by the enforcement of these drug tests as a condition of public aide.

    At the core of this argument is National Treasury Employees Union v. von Raab., US Supreme Court, 1989. This was the case that the Supreme Court reviewed and upheld that drug testing of Federal employees was constitutional. This lead to the widespread use of drug testing as a requirement in the private sector.

    I believe that the Supreme Court decision explains why drug testing of welfare applicants is valid – though the ruling had no private sector applications at the time. [emphasis added]

    “Petitioners’ contention that the testing program is unreasonable because it is not based on a belief that testing will reveal any drug use by covered employees evinces an unduly narrow view of the context in which the program was implemented. Although it was not motivated by any perceived drug problem among Service employees, the program is nevertheless justified by the extraordinary safety and national security hazards that would attend the promotion of drug users to the sensitive positions in question. Moreover, the mere circumstance that all but a few of the employees tested are innocent does not impugn the program’s [489 U.S. 656, 658] validity, since it is designed to prevent the substantial harm that could be caused by the promotion of drug users as much as it is designed to detect actual drug use. Pp. 673-675.”

    If you substitute “Welfare recipient” for “service employee” and remove “national security hazards” – almost the the same way that the private sector has done in its interpretation of the law to require drug testing – the reasoning remains intact. Thus the law, in my non-attorney opinion, is a valid law and Judge Scriven is wrong.

    As 2014 moves forward, and the number of those seeking public assistance increases (as has been the trend) – placing an ever larger burden on States and the taxes of residents of those States – there will be more focus on this ruling by the Supreme Court and how it applies to the private sector as well as those seeking public assistance.

    As a result of all 3 of these events, as well as many more issues, the nation will face tough decisions in 2014. Decisions that will affect the economy, freedoms, and pursuit of happiness of all Americans to some degree or another. The questions that I ask you are simple.

  • Where does your elected politicians stand on these important issues?
  • Is the position they hold the one that you (and a majority of constituent) have?
  • If it is not, why did you elect that politician?

    These 3 questions are the core reason of why I am running for the New York 22nd Congressional District seat in 2014. Many other politicians will be up for election in the mid-terms this year. But the key to re-election, in my opinion, should be the answer to these 3 questions – as opposed to the campaign promises and 30 second polispeak ads that are sure to fill airwaves.

  • Obamacare isn’t racist, but Melissa Harris Perry may be

    This is my personal opinion, you may or may not agree, but thankfully we are in America and it’s still ok to share what you think (unless you are Conservative, and then you are apparently just racist). Read at your own peril.

    I have just seen a video of MSNBC’s Melissa Harris Perry, expounding on the racist connotations of Obamacare. The word, not the Affordable Care Act itself. It has to be seen to be believed.

    Now I must admit that I am no fan of MSNBC. I rarely watch that cable news network, mostly for its visibly biased and inaccurate information. Thus I am unaware of Ms. Harris status as a journalist or if she is just a commentator. I will give the benefit of doubt and assume the latter.

    In just 4 minutes 29 seconds, Ms. Perry succeeded in embarrassing a swath of America, inflamed racial tensions, was blatantly cheerleading an Administration, and lowered the bar on whatever credibility MSNBC might presume to have.

    The embarrassment is not for Republicans and Conservatives. It’s for those of us that believe the “sista-gurl” stereotype is a caricature of Black women. Those of us that believe sophistication, education, and eloquence are 3 vital things missing from the youth and our modern culture of lowest-common denominator.

    Perhaps Ms. Perry was playing to the cheap seats. Those with the least expectations of standards in presenting opinions on the news. Perhaps she was hoping to elicit an emotional reaction. Whatever the reason, this was abysmal.

    To call the signature legislative accomplishment of a President by that President’s name is no more racist than Reaganomics. For those not shackled by the constraints of Common Core, a brief look at history will denote several President’s linked (good and bad) to their legislative agenda and political manifestos. Without another word, the premise for what Ms. Harris has to say ends there. But let’s go further – she sure did.

    Obamacare, or ACA, or Health Care Reform, whatever the name is without racial content. Healthcare is not defined nor confined to race – until now. To inject race in something that has no racial context is to be racist. This is especially true if the only purpose of such action is to inflame emotions and reap a political reward for such emotion-based action.

    Ms. Harris seeks to confuse and obfuscate valid, logical, and important debate on ACA (Obamacare) and the record of President Obama in a haze of racial prejudice. The theme appears to be that any retort must be in support of racial prejudice since Ms. Harris has now attached race to the subject. In fact she is trying to attack the 1st Amendment Rights of viewers, and eliminate political opposition at the expense of the very same group of people this is aimed at.

    Ms. Perry assumes that

    “The unwritten rule is that African Americans must be Liberal and/or Democrats. That they as a whole and as individuals must vote and speak in support of Democrats and President Obama in particular. That to do anything else is a betrayal of race, and akin to an atrocity.”

    I’m not sorry Ms. Perry, I have a mind. I can read the facts, can remember the promises made, and can assign blame without the help of a biased MSNBC commentator or an imaginary rule that denies me the Rights far too many died and bled to ensure I can exercise.

    The facts that Ms. Harris omitted. The Obamacare website is still not 100% operational; not for those signing up, and certainly not for the insurance companies on the back end. Obamcare does not address a primary factor affecting healthcare cost – frivolous malpractice lawsuits. Obamacare is not deficit neutral. Obamacare does not allow for true (interstate) competition. Obamacare is not healthcare, but catastrophic care. Most importantly of all, Obamacare places the right of Government over the Rights of the governed.

    To negate these real and important facts is to delude the public. Worse, to do so under a pretense of race is to actively incite part of the public for no reason other than to prop up a President who is rightly being blamed for the failures of his Administration, and his own words – “You can keep your doctor. Period.”

    What Ms. Harris has done, in her professional ebonics mash-up insult was the intelligence of all Americans, add yet another layer of complication to any discussion to remedy the failures of Obamacare, and reinforce maybe half a dozen stereotypes that millions of parents, professionals, and children are fighting against daily.

    President Obama is visibly Black (heritage aside for the moment). That does NOT mean that by default a well-reasoned, fact based, logical argument against his policies devolves to an oversimplification of racial-bias. Being Black did not cause President Obama to violate the War Powers Act in attacking Libya, nor was it a factor in trying to initiate hostilities unilaterally against Syria. Being Black was not a factor in the fastest growth in debt the nation has ever seen. Being Black had no ramification in being absentee while the Justice Department, NSA, and IRS (to name just a few) abused their powers. Being Black was not a factor in lying to the public, or failing to hold accountable anyone involved in the Benghazi attack.

    These are all, and I am just skipping through a quick list, actions made by a man who was elected President. The color of his skin neither improved nor forgave any of these things. To try to say otherwise, just because Ms. Perry desperately wants pres. Obama to have a positive legacy, does not make it so. Neither does mentioning these realities make anyone else racist.

    Ms. Perry owes America an apology. So does MSNBC. But what is far more likely is that defenders of President Obama and Ms. Perry will likely call me a racist. But I will not cower in the face of a label without justification, empowering a deceit that does more to harm America than actually highlight a real problem that does exist in America.

    Some will cry wolf, others racist. In the end all it does is enable true racism, and obfuscate the failure of a Presidency that is all too apparent.

    Are all Republicans the same?

    If you want an honest answer to the headline, read all of this.

    In the news item done by YNN on December 2, 2013, the candidates for the New York 22nd Congressional District (including myself) were painted with a broad and eerily similar brush. The depiction was one that seemed to imply that there is no difference between Rep. Richard Hanna, myself, or any other Republican. Which is silly.

    The implication, which may have been unintentional, is like saying that there is no difference between Gov. Chris Christie, Rep. Rand Paul and President G. W. Bush. Or put another way, President Jimmy Carter, President Bill Clinton, President Barack Obama and President John F. Kennedy were the exact same Democrat. It’s preposterous at every level.

    But the brush can be painted on any number of candidates and incumbents of the same political party. Many of the same beliefs will of course be a common thread. Many of the same issues will of course be part of the platform (a question that I can directly state was never asked of me in the YNN interview). The question for voters is not what is the same, but what is the difference – unless there is a purpose to blur what is being presented. But that is a question for another day, and very unclear.

    What makes a candidate different is their experience, their convictions, and what they believe is their motivation for elected office, in my opinion.

    Representative Richard Hanna presents himself as a staunch Conservative and Republican. That’s what he ran on in 2010, and helped him get elected in a wave of Tea Party support and Conservatism. But he himself has said, in 2010 to Time Magazine and in other media since (National journal rankings for one), that he is not a Conservative but a Moderate.

    Rep. Hanna is firm in his opposition of Obamacare, except he has clearly stated in a little viewed interview on Youtube (Minute 1:10 – 1:58) that his votes are merely symbolic. Worse yet, when faced with standing by the conviction of his votes Rep. Hanna folded,

    Hanna was one of two Republicans who voted against delaying Obamacare…”

    “Only two Republicans, both from New York — Reps. Chris Gibson and Richard Hanna —broke ranks with their party to oppose the one-year delay in Obamacare. Both had backed the previous government funding bill defunding Obamacare entirely.”

    Something numerous news media noted immediately.

    Rep. Hanna believes, apparently, that drones are essential to domestic security. Yet he is willing to invite abuse by not seeking to restrict the way they will be used, which is essentially selling the 4th Amendment for a literal handful of jobs as I see it.

    Rep. Hanna is more than willing to sit on the sidelines, without opinion in the face of clearly expressed opinion from constituents, the nation, and in some cases the globe – as he did as President Obama sought to take unilateral action in Syria (against the will of the public, much of Congress, and even international allies).

    This is the Republican that I am running against in the 2014 New York election. And there is very little that is similar.

    I am a fiscal Conservative because I believe that a Government should be, at the least, as careful with its spending as the people it represents. I am Conservative because I believe that the Constitution and Amendments are not just a list of ideals, but guidelines to preserve freedoms in a way that no other nation as done. I am a Republican because I believe that the ingenuity and innovation of individuals always surpasses that of Government, and advances the world. I believe these things strongly enough to have served my country in military service, and to speak out in commentary for the world to see and discuss.

    I oppose Obamacare, not because of symbolism meant to build up political credibility or a vague love of the healthcare system that proceeded it. I oppose the fact that is established a power of Government over the people – which I see as a long-term danger to the nation. I oppose the ACA because if fails in its primary objective to lower healthcare costs. I object to the Health Care Reform because the unintended (and apparently well known among Democrats) consequences are numerous, and to be expected from a partisan law that barely had the ink dry before it was passed. And I’ve been saying this since 2009, publicly. Just do a Google search.

    I fear abuses of power, like drones without laws limiting use against average citizens, or invasion of privacy by the NSA, or even sidestepping Congress by a President that believes Executive Orders are a perfect means to ram his ideology down the throats of Americans that disagree. I support Bills like the Amash Amendment (that Rep. Hanna voted against) that the public agrees with and protects our Rights. I stand, vocally, in opposition to those that would sell our Rights (on the cheap no less) and our citizenship piece by piece under a banner of universal benefits that never come to pass and are never needed anyway.

    I defend the freedoms of Americans to bear arms, and speak freely – even if I disagree with what is being said and even when the criminal and insane misuse such Rights. To limit what is said is to cage a mind. To weaken protection (even from the Government itself) is to invite attack. I defend these and other issues with a knowledge of what is being discussed, the ramifications of the decisions, and an understanding of what the public actually values.

    I hold my positions as I have for years, as is documented and readily available. Not without an ear to hear other options, nor without the willingness to debate pros and cons in an effort to reach the best solution. I have no delusion of grandeur, nor do I believe any 1 person is so wise as to have all the solutions to all problems. But I have the passion and strength of my convictions to face opposition with facts and logic on issues that matter and have mattered over the years, without bending to and fro because of a misplaced desire to maintain a political advantage.

    Long before I felt the need to represent the many people of the NY-22, long before the political landscape required a clear, decisive, consistent representative (or several dozen) I believed these things. Don’t take my word for it, see my Youtube videos, my speeches, my political commentary. You won’t agree with it all, but then again you shouldn’t. Because the politician that everyone agrees with is most likely the same politician lying to everyone.

    Don’t be fooled though. I am not they media driven image of what a Republican is supposed to be. The image of an old, White male that hates gays, immigrants, and non-Christians. An image of intolerance fueled by greed and avarice. That’s not a Republican, or a Conservative. That’s not any political party of worth in America. That’s just a great way to sell newspapers and get eyeballs on TV.

    I am a Black Puerto Rican, 45 years old. I am a Conservative, a Republican, a small business owner, a homeowner. I am a brother and uncle. I am a son. I am most of all an American. I cannot be boxed into a forgettable category, or mashed into some mass of made up media hype.

    This is not a 30 second soundbite, nor is it the limit of what I stand for but the beginning. My platform may sound familiar, but that’s only because it is not being addressed and most Americans think it should be. I am running for the 22nd Congressional District because I want to make an effective difference, and the nation as well as the NY-22 are in desperate need of people in Congress that want to be effective and not just in office.

    If you have read this far, and you see the worth in what I am saying, share this. Because we have enough cookie-cutter politicians that are all painted with the same brush. The approval rating for Congress reflects how effective that is. Time for someone else, and all I ask is for voters and the public, to hear me out and then make their choice.

    Sincerely

    Michael Vasquez

    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.

    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

    Why won’t the latest Obamacare “fix” won’t work

    As just about every editorial page in America has stated by now, President Obama’s quick “fix” for the over 4 million Americans that wanted to keep their doctors and healthcare plans is perhaps the one way to take the failure of the Obamacare rollout and make it worse.

    There are any number of issues with what has been proposed by the President. The fact that retroactively reinstating the millions of policies at the last minute is an administrative nightmare for insurance companies. That insurance premiums will be driven higher, as the very people essential for Obamacare to work will no longer be paying the higher premiums in new policies needed. That confusion among customers will be maddening as they try to determine if their old policy, or the new one, is what is in force.

    But there is a very simple reason why the quick “fix” is going to fail – and it won’t be the fault of insurance companies. Presidents don’t make law.

    What President Obama has asked insurance companies to do is violate federal law. Just because he said so. He has promised that he won’t press any legal requirements that they forgo on this issue. But he does NOT have the power to enforce such action. State insurance commissioners know that, as do the insurance companies (or at least their lawyers).

    President Obama has requested that insurance companies willfully commit a crime, and if they do they are liable for all the risk and lawsuits that stem from breaking the law – as well as fines from the States that do not take the word of Obama as gold. If this is enacted, the power of the Presidency will have swell to proportions akin to a king.

    Considering these facts, I agree with the Wall Street Journal editors

    “Democrats jammed the law through Congress on a partisan vote and against public opinion. At every step since, Mr. Obama has refused to compromise or change the law. And even with this tactical retreat, he is merely trying to find a way to relieve the political pressure long enough to avoid having to work with Republicans in Congress on a larger improvement.”

    America is suffering from quick “fixes” from our Government, and each one is only making the situation worse on each issue they are trying to politically look good on. Even more terrifying is the thought of the ramifications, long-term, if the public allows these feel-good solutions to go through unchecked. Accountability is the only solution here.

    America might be able to withstand Obamacare, but it is proving obvious that we can’t survive the quick fix mentality of our politicians and political leaders.

    Obamacare: 2010 vs 2013

    Way back in May 2010, while I was working as a political commentator, I presented the views of America – as stated in polls at that time – about Obamacare (or the Affordable Care Act if you prefer). Then, as now, the majority of Americans opposed Obamacare. So, with important news out today, I wanted to review that.

    On May 18, 2010, I wrote (and a Youtube video as well):

    “56% of those surveyed have said that they believe Obamacare will increase the federal deficit…54% believe the cost of healthcare will increase. 50% expect the quality of care to fall. 63% of seniors, the group most directly affected by and likely to use the Obamacare, are in favor of repealing the Reform.”

    As of 2013 we know that Obamacare is NOT deficit neutral. In fact it will add to the deficit according to the CBO. Further, as millions of Americans have realized since October 1st, healthcare costs are increasing. Personally, in a company sponsored healthcare plan, the increase is more than 14% higher. Were I to have gone through the Obamacare exchange the increase would have been in excess of 200%.

    As for quality of care, and the impact on seniors (besides cost), is still to be seen. Given the proposed increase in patient levels without a commensurate increase in doctors, common sense says that reductions are likely.

    But I did mention breaking news.

    In 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 President Obama repeatedly brushed off polls and opposition to Obamacare with the comment, “We will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period.” (June 15, 2009)

    Well that isn’t exactly true. In fact for 40% – 67% of Americans with individual plans, some 7 million people, that isn’t even close to sort-of true. Like Democrat pundit Kirsten Powers, millions are getting letters in the mail that they getting new plans, often at higher costs – whether they like it or not. Because Obamacare requires it.

    More importantly, the White House knew that this would happen… in 2010. As stated via NBC News,

    “Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

    That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.”

    So, the polls in 2010 were right. Opponents of Obamacare were right. President Obama knew they were right, and kept up the stageshow anyway.

    I have to wonder, if so much that critics were pointing out over the past 3 years is right, and we are learning that the White House knew it to be true, how much more is going to be right? What consequences are going to come from the partisan ramrod to pass Obamacare?

    Healthcare reform is needed in this nation, but Obamacare isn’t the answer. The time to stop it before there is irreparable harm is short, but I believe it should be pursued. That’s what constituents want, still. That’s what their elected Representative should be talking about right now.

    What do you think?

    %d bloggers like this: