Another thing Trump is right about is this EXTREME Political correctness crappola!
The Club for Growth and the 2008 Presidential Race - Know thy enemy

The
battle for the republican nomination for president has taken an
historical turn and started before the 2006 mid terms were even over.
It’s all quite the study in human nature, greed, deception and the
ugliness of political reality in these United States.
On
the net,
we see a fight shaping up between supporters of the left wing globalist
leaders of the republican party, mostly Giuliani supporters and the
more traditionalist wing, mainly supporters of Duncan Hunter.
By
now, anyone paying attention has seen the photos of Rudy in drag, which
I thought was one of his more endearing moments, but I digress....
We’ve
heard about his 3 marriages and his diva/Pelosi like behavior of
airplanes, hotel accommodations and taking $100,000 speaking fee for
the victims of a
Tsunami. But hey, that’s all just ‘personal’ stuff. Character doesn’t matter in the
Ferengi economic model the globalist pushers would foist on us.
Then
there are Rudy’s liberal leaning interpretations of the 2nd amendment,
immigration, partial birth abortion, hiring and promoting corrupt
officials like Bernie Karrick. All proven true allegations, but when
presented to a Rudyite, they are dismissed as meaningless.
So far the only arrows being slung at Duncan Hunter have been to cite a rating given him by the
Club For Growth. He only scored a 49 % with the ‘Club’. Never mind that most other conservative organizations such as the NRA, NumbersUSA,
American Conservative Union - (92% LIFETIME) rate Hunter near or at the top.
The
bottom line is this. Duncan Hunter wants to secure our borders, his 26
year legislative history proves that. He also wants the truth told
about trade agreements such as
NAFTA,
CAFTA and China, Fast track trade authority that bypasses
constitutionally mandated congressional control. The Club for Growth,
and the people involved in it have done just the opposite. As will
their pick for president.
Anyone looking at
Duncan Hunters
voting and legislative record must conclude that perhaps the ‘Club’ is
more RINO than Republican or Conservative. The Club cites this:
National
Taxpayers Union shows a more telling trend. He was strong in the early
1990s, getting "B's" and one "A", but as time went by, like most
politicians, his score dropped. For the past few years, he's been
getting "C's".
For the past few years? Well, yes, WAR
appropriations happen to be expensive; he voted along the lines of his
party and president. When Hunters record is examined bill, by bill his
budget votes were about military spending. No one has yet made a case
that any of his votes were ‘pork’ . But the ‘Club’ doesn’t mention
that.
They do mention, "
Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter
frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets (2006, 2005, 2003...)"
When you look at those votes, you will see that the
MAJORITY of republicans voted
NO on them.
You
be the judge, is the ‘Clubs’ analysis of Hunter even remotely
indicative of reality? If what they convey here is true, they admit
they do not agree with just about 2/3 of republicans voting in congress.
So who does the ‘Club for Growth’ agree with? One of the bills they faulted Duncan for voting for was a
transportation bill. Republican congressmen voted 218 to 9 for it. Is Club for Growth representing the republican base or something else?
"The Club for Growth is
a section 527 political organization and an affiliated political action
committee that raises money for candidates who support an anti-tax and
limited-government agenda. It was created by former Cato Institute
fellow Stephen Moore. "
Stephen Moore.
That’s a name anyone involved in the battle to secure our nations
borders needs to know. And where you find Moore, you find Grover
Norquist and Newt Gingrich and common agendas. Often, those agendas are
not 'conservative'.
Moore has
written articles in favor of increased immigration to the U.S., and has
debated against immigration restrictionists. In one article, Moore
favorably cited a speech at Cato by Rep. Dick Armey, R-TX, who said he
believes the U.S. "should be thinking about increasing legal
immigration." Moore worked on studies for the wing immigration advocacy
group, the National Immigration Forum, which favors amnesty for illegal
aliens.
In 1996,
Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.
Marcus Stern describes Moores involvement in an award winning article.
The
coalition was a juggernaut that fought virtually any verification
initiative. Because Republicans control Congress, conservative lobbyists
were especially influential. The fact that some limited, voluntary
verification projects stayed in the bill at all outraged some
conservatives.
"I view it as the camel's nose under the tent for a
national ID card," said Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato
Institute who lobbied against the bill. "The theme we played to
Republicans was that if you're trying to roll back big government, you
shouldn't be instituting this new police-state power."
Social conservatives like Norquist and libertarians like Moore don't see illegal immigration as a major problem.
"Illegal
immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and
a free country, and I'm not willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms
to try to keep out immigrants, especially when I don't think it's going
to work very well," said Moore.
He added that spending $3
billion-plus a year to fund the Immigration and Naturalization Service
"probably is a waste of money. But this is a political issue. And the
way you deal with illegal immigration is you increase the INS budget. It
doesn't do a lot, but at least politicians on both sides can go home
and say, `Well, how can you say I'm not doing anything about
immigration? I increased the INS budget.' "
What you don't do, he said, is involve employers in enforcement.
"Sometimes
in politics you pass feel-good measures," Moore said. "And that's not
necessarily a bad thing. Passing a bill that's mostly window dressing is
a way of defusing public alarm about something. And in states like
California, illegal immigration is perceived as a big problem."
Working closely with
Stephen Moore
of the Cato Institute, Cesar Conda (former domestic advisor to Dick
Cheney) circulated a statement against Prop. 187 of California in the
nineties.
And what have Moore and his associate Grover Norquist been up to lately? More of the same.
Last fall the Club for Growth worked against conservative republican candidate
Robert Vasquez, an ardent illegal alien opponent by funding his opposition.
Moore, along with Norquist, Newt Gingrich,
Tamar Jacoby and other amnesty advocates penned a letter to the Wall St
Journal proclaiming Bush’s guest worker plan as "a humane, orderly,
and economically sensible approach to migration."
On September 19, 2005,
the Federal Election Commission filed suit against the Club for Growth
for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act for failing to
register as a political action committee in the 2000, 2002, and 2004
congressional elections.
You can be sure that both Stephen Moore
and Grover Norquist are working full time to keep our borders open and
promote any and all trade/labor agreements whether they benefit the USA
and it’s people or not.
Moore said this about Norquist. "From the moment he gets up to the moment he gets to bed, he thinks, 'How am I going to hurt the other team?"
Whoever
the Club for Growth decides to push for president, you can be sure they
don't believe it if that candidate pretends to want to secure the
border and implement sane trade policy.
Buyer, BEWARE.
It should come as no surprise that the Club for Growth would come out against Duncan Hunter.
Wear it as a badge of honor, Congressman!