Those registered Republican voters in Oregon who have received their ballots may have noticed that no Republican filed to run for Attorney General.Read More......
If a candidate gets enough write-in votes in a primary election, they can still appear on the ballot in November if they are qualified and accept the nomination. Normally when no candidate from one party files to run for an office, a candidate of the other party organizes a write-in campaign to win the nomination for both parties. This year however, in the Oregon Attorney General’s race there is a tough primary between two Democrats, Greg Macpherson a far-left Legislator, and Professor John Kroger who has taken HUGE donations from unions, making it difficult to run a write-in campaign as well. Also, a lot of usual RINO's, who would typically write in one of the Democrats, will be voting in the important Democratic Presidential primary.
All this leaves an opening for a Republican candidate. Enter Ron Saxton , a former attorney and School Board Chairman who ran for Governor in 2002 and 2006, winning the nomination, but failing to win the general, in 2006.
After the 2006 election Saxton said he was unlikely to seek public office again. However, if he is nominated by write-in votes, he would likely accept the nomination. Saxton has the qualifications, high name-recognition, and fairly moderate positions on the issues that it will take to win the general election.
Republicans should consider writing-in Ron Saxton (that's R-o-n S-a-x-t-o-n) for Attorney General as they vote in the next few weeks (don't forget to fill in the bubble as well). He will need the support of many Republicans to stave off any write-in efforts by the Democratic candidates, so anybody interested in voting for him should tell all their friends, too.
Read More......It's a good thing that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's U.S. visit was upstaged by the dramatic reception Americans gave Pope Benedict XVI. Brown might have been booed if he hadn't delivered what aides called his "signature" speech within the cloistered walls of Harvard's Kennedy Center. Brown's tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a "Declaration of Interdependence" in order to submit to global governance. That's another way of calling on us to repeal our Declaration of Independence.
No thanks for the advice, Mr. Brown. Brave Americans rose up and rejected Britain's royalist rule in 1776, and we've gotten along mighty well without transatlantic interference in our government for more than two centuries. We certainly don't want to reinstate any foreign supervision today.
The redundancy of Brown's outrageous semantics was oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times, globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F. ("his influence abides everywhere"), Robert (he sent forth "ripples of hope"), and Ted ("one of the greatest Senators in more than two centuries").
Brown rejected the traditional concept of national sovereignty, which means an independent nation not subservient to any outside control, telling us to replace it with "responsible sovereignty," which he defined as accepting what he calls our global "obligations." Hold on to your pocketbook.
Brown admitted that his "main argument" is that we must accept "new global rules," "new global institutions," and "global networks." Brown's global rules include massive U.S. cash handouts and opening U.S. borders to the world.
Brown's use of well-known American political phrases was tacky. He tried to morph FDR's New Deal into a "New Global Deal," and JFK's New Frontier into "the New Frontier is that there is no frontier."
Brown even slipped in an attempt at thought control: "Americans must learn to think inter-continentally." He declaimed, "We are all internationalists now."
Using the rhetorical device of inevitability, Brown warned us that his vision of the globalist future is "irreversible transformation." He wants to "transcend states" and "transcend borders" as he builds the "architecture of a global society."
Brown peddled the nonsense that the peoples of the world "subscribe to similar ideals." He tried to tell us that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) have "common values" and "similar ideals." No, they certainly do not.
Brown wants to increase the power of the United Nations to become the source of "an international stand-by capacity of trained civilian experts, ready to go anywhere at any time," and even be able to exercise "military force." Americans do not intend to cede such authority to the corrupt UN.
The silliest part of Brown's ponderous speech was his claim that "a global society" is "advancing democracy widely across the world." In fact, he doesn't even practice democracy in his own country.
Brown refused to allow the British people to vote on whether or not they want to accept the European Union (EU) constitution. He acquiesced in the plot of the constitution's author, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, to put the EU constitution into effect by calling it a treaty so it did not have to be voted on by the people.
Brown was chicken about the treaty subterfuge and did not permit a photographic record of his participation. He sent his Foreign Secretary to perform the official treaty signing in front of cameras.
The EU constitution, now called the Treaty of Lisbon, requires all signers to surrender their sovereignty and democracy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Strasbourg. The EU constitution takes away England's right to pass its own laws, forces England to surrender more than 60 UK vetoes of EU decisions, and gives the EU bureaucracy and tribunals total control over England's immigration policy.
Instead of a self-governing nation whose democratic system was developed over centuries, England is now ruled by what Margaret Thatcher called "the paper pushers in Brussels."Brown made his globalism speech emphatic by repeatedly invoking the words "New World Order." The New World Order Brown tries to con the United States into accepting would mean taxing Americans for foreign handouts so immense they would make the Marshall Plan look puny, global warming rules to drastically reduce our standard of living, and putting American workers in a common labor pool with the world's billions who subsist on less than $2 a day.
Gordon Brown invited us to march forward to globalism "where there is no path." He's correct that there is no path on which we can expect globalism to lead us to a better world; in fact every path toward global government is a surrender of our liberty and our prosperity.
Gordon Brown should go back home and study up on how Americans refused to accept orders from King George III.
Total: 44,873
Democrat: 18,259
Republican: 14,650
Non-Affiliated: 10,673
Total: 47.145Read More......
Democrats: 21,357
Republicans: 14,511
Non-Affiliated: 9,926
.jpg)
