Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » Senator John Hoeven must stand with the “New Blood” or risk losing my support

Senator John Hoeven must stand with the “New Blood” or risk losing my support

I’ve never been a single issue voter; but that long held position was pushed to its limit when I found out my senator (John Hoeven) voted to allow debate in the Senate on gun control.  I was so mad I went to his Facebook page and posted the following;

“I will not support you again Senator. You know this vote opens the door for a Democratic majority to ram through whatever they want with a simple majority vote. You knew this and you voted for it any way. Today you stood against the constitution and the peoples’ right to bear arms. You should be ashamed of yourself. “

I meant every word at the time.

Mark Levin hammered the 16 Republican Senators who voted to move forward with the debate.  He stated that the vote of the 16 was a vote against the constitution.  After an hour or so of fuming I decided to review Senator Hoeven’s voting record.  When I look at any elected official who desires my vote I look for three things.  The first thing I look for is where they stand on gun rights.  Are they staunch supporters of the 2nd amendment or not?  The NRA gives John Hoeven an “A” grade.  He has stated that he does not support background checks or gun control measures in any way, shape, or form.  Any politician who wants my vote must have a solid record supporting gun rights and the 2nd amendment and John Hoeven does.

The right to bears arms is a fundamental right and like the founders I believe we have the right to protect ourselves and our property against tyranny and criminal acts.  It’s not about hunting.  It was citizen soldiers that beat back tyranny during the Revolutionary War and the founders believed that any form of government to include our own could become tyrannical over time.  If that ever occurred they felt that a free people had the right and means to defend themselves and their property against such acts of tyranny.

The second thing I look for is does the politician strive to advance individual liberty.  How does a politician advance liberty?  They advance liberty by reducing the role government plays in our lives because as government shrinks, liberty grows.  John Hoeven voted to repeal ObamaCare twice.  He voted against raising the debt ceiling.  He voted to prohibit the indefinite detention of citizens and lawful permanent residents.  He voted to prohibit the EPA from conducting aerial surveillance of agricultural operations.  He voted to reduce funding for food stamps.  And finally he voted against the FCC from regulating the internet and broadband industry.  All these votes advance liberty because it attempts to limit the size and reach of government.  On the flip side he was one of 78 senators who voted to extend the Patriot Act.  The Patriot Act is one of the most liberty stealing acts in our nation’s history; however overall Senator Hoeven’s votes have indeed shown a pattern to advance liberty.  With liberty we can accomplish anything.  Without it we’re nothing more than slaves.

The third thing I look for is does the politician believe in low taxes or no individual income tax?  Government is force and one of the main ways the government enforces its will on its citizens is through the tax system.  The tax system enslaves the successful wage earner to another.  It regulates our lives through a repressive tax system that’s far more egregious than any tax system forced on the colonists by King George.  Back then at least the colonists had choice.  We don’t.  The more we make the more they take, making it more difficult for each of us to achieve financial freedom which in the end is liberty.  Any politician who wants my vote must champion low taxes and strongly support reforming our current tax code.  John Hoeven has had a very mixed record in this area.  He voted twice to extend the payroll tax cut.  He voted against making a minimum tax rate of 30 percent to high income earners. And finally vote for the Tax Rate Hike Prevention Act (Amendment failed).  But then he did a 180 and voted in favor of the fiscal cliff deal in January 2013.  Next to ObamaCare the fiscal cliff deal is one that dramatically increased taxes on all Americans.  The payroll tax reduction was allowed to expire while increasing rates on higher income Americans.  His explanation as to why he voted in favor of the fiscal deal is below.

By making these lower tax rates permanent, we create certainty for American families and businesses. That certainty will stimulate business investment to create more jobs and economic growth, which will produce more revenues to reduce our deficit and debt, without raising taxes.

While I would have preferred, and worked hard toward, a more comprehensive fiscal cliff agreement that includes pro-growth tax reform, bipartisan entitlement reform and finding real savings to address the deficit and debt, what we passed today was an important first step that will spare the vast majority of the American people from an onerous income tax increase.

Now, we need to work in a bipartisan way to achieve real savings to reduce our deficit and debt, as well as enact bipartisan entitlement reforms to preserve those programs for the long-term.

How’s that certainty working out for us?  Consumer confidence is down, there is little to no job creation, and we’re still dealing with anemic economic growth.  There has been no significant increase in revenues to reduce the debt.  This is the end results of a government sucking more money out of the private sector to fund unsustainable entitlement programs through the tax system.  It’s a massive confiscation of wealth and generational theft.  So in the end Senator Hoeven negated all his other votes in terms of reduced taxes with his yea vote for the fiscal cliff deal.

So where does this leave me?  Was I justified in telling Senator Hoeven that I would not support him again?  Did I jump the gun?  The answer is yes and no.  Yes I reacted based on emotions and probably shouldn’t have conveyed my unwillingness to support him in the future so quickly.  I acted like a Democrat and allowed my emotions to govern my actions.  In the future I will do my best not to attach myself so emotionally to one single issue.  However I do feel like many others who support the 2nd amendment that we were betrayed by Senator Hoeven.  He knew where this would lead and he also knew there would be little he or his fellow Republicans could do to stop this train once it started moving.  This is what the 29 Republicans who voted against advancing the debate were trying to tell their fellow establishment types.  We can’t allow this debate to hit the floor because once it does we become powerless to stop it.  However Senator Hoeven felt compelled to align himself with the old guard and naively trust a Democratic majority that has a proven track record of lying about and concealing their true intentions.  How many times does a party need to get burned before they finally say enough.  The old guard that is doing everything they can to destroy the Republican Party and the conservative movement and Senator Hoeven threw his lot in with this group.

So Senator Hoeven my advice to you is distance yourself from the old guard (establishment).  The Party is changing and you need to get on board with this movement.  There’s new blood and this new blood is trying to shift the party to the right and restore conservatism in the Republican Party.  The John McCain and Lindsey Graham types sense this shift and know their time is short.  Stand up for limited government and liberty.  Stand with the new blood and restore conservatism in the Republican Party.  When you do you will have my unconditional support.  If you don’t, you will lose my support.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , , , , ,

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • Steve Dennis April 13, 2013 at 5:56 PM

    I did the same think with my two Senators, one is a Democrat so I expected it. But I sent Senator Ayotte an email telling her I would not support her again and I also told her I now felt justified in supporting her opponent in the primary a few years ago. Was it emotional? Probably, but I meant it and I will not support her, or any other Republican who will vote to take away our rights on any issue.
    Steve Dennis recently posted..Obamacare: The cost of the healthcare exchanges has doubled from the original estimateMy Profile

    • John Carey April 13, 2013 at 10:00 PM

      These people are are something else. Then Boehner says he can advance gun control without the GOP. Just for saying that he should step down. But he won’t.
      John Carey recently posted..Introducing the New Federalist PartyMy Profile

  • Bunkerville April 13, 2013 at 6:35 PM

    Even worse for me, I got an e-mail from Toomey telling me how happy I should be with his position. This after I called his office prior to the vote.

  • theCL Report: Some folks never learn April 16, 2013 at 1:08 PM

    […] Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) voted to allow debate on 2nd Amendment […]

  • theCL April 16, 2013 at 11:16 PM

    Was I justified in telling Senator Hoeven that I would not support him again?

    Yes. Next question.

    Guns aren’t up for debate anymore than your natural right to life. I mean, what pray tell, is debatable here? You have a right to life except when … ???

    Not everything is politics. Especially Washington-style politics. Not everything is debatable. “Shall not be infringed” is not debatable.

    The Republican Party, who just fast-tracked a bill to keep ObamaCare funded, also built the American Police State (Patriot Act, DHS, TSA, etc.). Think about it. They want to take away your guns too.

    Never trust a politician. But your faith in God instead.
    theCL recently posted..theCL Report: Some folks never learnMy Profile