Sussex County Urges Congress to Reconsider Fuel Tax Bill

Sussex County (Delaware) adopted a resolution urging Congress to rethink its plans to institute a tax bill.  Please see the press release below from Chip Guy, Chief of Public Information for Sussex County.

Sussex County urges Congress to reconsider fuel tax bill

Georgetown, Del., Nov. 30, 2010: Sussex County Council is urging Congressional leaders to back off a proposal that would increase the federal fuel tax, an idea that, if enacted, would mean more dollars out of the pockets of Sussex Countians and millions of Americans.

County Council, at its Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010, meeting, adopted a resolution calling on Delaware’s Congressional Delegation to withdraw any support for the proposal to raise by 25 cents a gallon – or any other increased amount – the federal portion of the fuel tax to pay for infrastructure improvements, such as bridges and roads.

County leaders, at the behest of Council President Vance Phillips, said the timing of the proposal is poor, given record unemployment and the flagging national economy.

“People are hurting. They’ve lost jobs, they’re struggling to make ends meet. Businesses are hurting, too,” Council President Phillips said. “To ask the people to pick up one cent more of government spending is wrong, and for many Americans, it could break the bank.”

Council’s resolution is non-binding, but County leaders said they are hopeful their decision will send a message to Washington that actions there filter down to the local level and reach into the pockets of hard-working, everyday people.

County Administrator David Baker will forward a copy of the resolution to Sens. Thomas Carper and Chris Coons, as well as Congressman-elect John Carney.

###

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL’S CONCERN THAT A PROPOSED INCREASE IN THE FEDERAL FUEL TAX WOULD BE HARMFUL TO THE CITIZENS OF SUSSEX COUNTY, DELAWARE, AND THE COUNTY’S OVERALL ECONOMIC HEALTH

WHEREAS, there is a proposal to increase by 25 cents the federal fuel tax, at a time when gasoline prices are nearing $3 a gallon; and

WHEREAS, a fuel tax increase of 25 cents a gallon would cost the average Sussex County household more than $700 annually; and

WHEREAS, a high number of Sussex County residents are already unemployed or unable to find full-time work, while the national unemployment rate is at the highest sustained rate since the Great Depression; and

WHEREAS, a gasoline tax is particularly burdensome to lower- and lower-middle income citizens in non-urban areas, where there are few public transportation options available; and

WHEREAS, the County’s agriculture industry is adversely affected by higher fuel prices in all aspects, from production to transportation of goods; and

WHEREAS, the County’s tourism industry relies heavily on regional visitors whose discretionary spending could be curtailed by a significant rise in fuel prices; and

WHEREAS, increases in fuel taxes are passed on to consumers, affecting the price of most goods and services, thereby affecting the overall health and stability of our economy;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Sussex County Council hereby urges the Delaware Congressional Delegation to withdraw its support for any fuel tax increase; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator shall send an official copy of this resolution, upon its adoption, to each member of the Delaware Congressional Delegation for their consideration.

Hey Mike...Join the Club

As i was scouring the net today I came across a story over at WorldNet Daily called "Obamacare reversal? House 75% of the way there". It was written by Bob Unruh who generally does excellent work. So I stopped and did some reading. Apparently Representative Steve King from Iowa (a Republican of course) issued a discharge petition against the Universal Healthcare bill passed by Congress early this year.

As of July 27th the bill had 162 of the 219 signatures it needs in order to pass. One signature that has not yet been added to the petition is that of Delaware's lone Congressman Mike Castle who is embattled in a Primary race against Christine O'Donnell. The winner of the primary is likely to be Delaware's next Senator. This begs the question, "What are you waiting for Mike?"

His opponent Christine O'Donnell has been a strong advocate of defunding and repealing "Obamacare" since it was passed in March and has been at odds with Castle over how to best deal with the new law. Castle favors "fixing" the bill that amounts to a complete government takeover of the healthcare system. The bill came just months before Great Britain (the country that was touted as proof of the success of socialized medicnine) announced that it was going to begin privatizing it's healthcare system in order to correct problems with the system and stem the skyrocketing costs. Other European countries cited by Democrats are also considering scrapping their Socialized Medicine plans.

Yet still, Congressman Castle remains silent. Castle's office has not yet commented on the petition. His opponent O'Donnell has indicated that she would in fact support the petition if she were in Congressman Castle's place. When asked for comment Christine said:

"Obamacare is more about government seizing control of 1/6th of the American economy than it is about affordable health care choices. It will cripple American small businesses and discourage entrepreneurship. We need to replace Obamacare with a bill that will lower the cost of American health care by promoting competition.

Unlike my opponent, I will fight to defund and repeal Obamacare."

The Obamacare bill has been reported recently to cost the taxpayers more than $1 Trillion dollars including billions of dollars in new taxes, nearly $500 million from charity based non-profit hospitals and $70 billion from those who "don't buy government-approved health insurance". It's reported that "force some 87 million Americans to drop their current coverage" despite assurance by President Obama to the contrary.

I must ask again Congressman Castle, will you sign the petition and kill Obamacare before it starts killing Americans?

Is Mike Castle capable of being a Senator?

Congressman Mike Castle joined Progressive Democrat Chris Van Hollen from Maryland in authoring the much talked about "Disclose Bill" also known by the bill number H.R. 5175. On Thursday June 17th, Congressman Castle and Congressman Van Hollen posted an op-ed in the Washington Post. It claimed that the Supreme Court ruling on January 21, 2010 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission "dramatically expanded the ability of special interests to influence the political process." 49% of Americans disagree and believe that this bill is nothing more than a last ditch effort by desperate law makers to get reelected or elected to new positions in government.

However, the case brought before the Supreme Court by citizens United (whose President by the way has endorsed Christine O'Donnell in her Delaware Senate bid against Mike Castle) actually evened the playing field for all speakers. Up until January 21 of this year there were restrictions placed only on corporations spending its own money on running "political ads" not coordinated with political campaigns. However, labor unions, citizens groups and others were free to promote/denounce issues and contribute to candidates. By allowing corporations the same freedoms granted to all Americans and reinstating the rights of corporate speech which had been stifled for 20 years, the courts reintroduced a sense of fairness. Now small businesses, corporations, labor unions and citizens groups can speak out for or against their elected officials. Now the thoughts and concerns of your neighbors, local business owners and other groups are no longer stifled.

As for the "Disclose Bill" it self, the legislation is at best ambiguous and at worst purposely so. The bill which was written at the direction of President Obama by Castle and Van Hollen does little to keep "corporate money" out of the process and in fact, the toughest points of the legislation impact citizens groups who have members and rely on "donors". Corporations like Goldman Sachs and Hewlett-Packard would not be included in these provisions. These and other large corporations spent an estimated $3.48 BILLION (more than twice as much as they spent in '99) on lobbying to get around laws similar to the "Disclose Bill" in 2009 and they have PLENTY to continue doing that.

It's the non-profit organizations on all sides of the aisle that the legislation hits. The Disclose act will increase the costs of political speech for groups like your local 9-12 chapter, union or gun advocacy group. Disclosure and disclaimers are called for down to the top 5 donors for a particular ad and these disclosures will be costly to implement for groups who do not have the immense resources that corporations have. These disclosures ("My name is Ted Smith and i approve this message." or "Citizens United for Furry Fat Sloths paid for the content of this advertising.") which currently are only required to be around 4-5 seconds would be expanded to cover around 1/2 of a 30 second commercial by requiring the top 5 donors to be exposed ("My name is Ted Smith, My name is Jill Anderson, My name is Keith Richards, My name is Tyson Gray and My name is Megan Bacon and we approve this message" or "Citizens United for Furry Fat Sloths paid for the content of this advertising with the help of Megan Bacon, Ted Smith, Jill Anderson, Keith Richards and Tyson Gray who donated $250,000 for this ad.).

Also, membership-based groups are required to file a report with the FEC within 24 hours of running political ads. For organizations that raise funds via multiple sources (mail, Internet, telephone, etc.) this task would be nearly impossible in such a short time. Even candidates who file their FEC reports are given 15 days to complete the paperwork. The bill has undergone a few changes since it was written including increasing the previous $50,000 minimum to exclude contractors from being able to influence elections. The minimum was increased to $7 million on May 20th, 3 weeks before Congressman Castle joined Van Hollen in espousing the virtues of the bill in the Washington Post. Amendments offered by some representatives that would have extended the prohibitions on political activity by government contractors to labor unions (currently excluded); require that itemization thresholds be set at the same amount as required for candidates and finally to make the legislation effective on Jan. 1, 2011 were all rejected prior to Castle's joint statement. According to the Politico, Van Hollen has said impacting 2010 is the goal,

"Van Hollen has said he’s hopeful the bill could be implemented in time to
affect newly legal ad spending in 2010 congressional races"

So why is Mike Castle now turning against the bill? Some supporters of the Congressman who is seeking to become the next Senator from Delaware claim that his support hinges on the exemptions, Congressman Van Hollen noted that the op-ed published in the Washington Post referenced above was done so AFTER the NRA deal (which "would exempt longstanding groups if they have more than 1 million members and received less than 15 percent of their funding from corporations) was announced. Mike Castle has an F-rating from the NRA and while some pundits may assume that it was the groups like the Sierra Club and the Brady Center for Gun Violence who caused Castle to rethink his support for the bill my guess is that this is little more than finger in the wind during the campaign political spin. Spokeswoman Kate Dickens told The Hill that

“This is a slippery slope,” she said. “It’s just disclosure, for God’s sake …
now you’re just handing talking points to those who oppose the bill.”

Mr. Castle, these changes were already in the bill when you last told us you were for it. With your VAST "experience" in D.C. did you think you could pass a bill as written? If so it shows that you are completely out of touch with not just your voters and the culture in D.C. but with reality itself. You HAD to know that the liberal Democrats, who rely on Union money to get reelected would fight tooth and nail to exclude them. In fact you knew they would because the markup hearing on May 20th was 3 weeks before you defended the bill in the Washington Post. Which is it Congressman? Are you for the legislation or against it?

Mike Castle's opponent, Christine O'Donnell has called the bill a "grassroots gag order" and a "Power-player Protection Act" since day one. In an email blast to supporters Christine said that Castle's reversal on his own bill is,

"Shades of John Kerry’s “I voted for it . . . before I voted against it.” Does
the phrase flip-flopping come to mind?"

So, Congressman Castle, how can we trust you with becoming "Senator Castle" when you don't even appear to understand the process of passing legislation that impacts the freedom of speech of tens of millions of Americans and tens of thousands of Delawareans? Also, why is it that you were totally OK with the legislation as amended with the NRA deal in place as late as June 17th but 4 days later after public opinion began to turn on the bill (which YOU helped write) you're going to vote against it? Are you lacking the courage of your convictions? You certainly had no problem "voting your conscience" in 2009 when you voted FOR the Cap and Trade bill. Then again, you weren't in an election in 2009 were you?

Free Speech Now Under Attack by Congressman Castle

H.R. 5175 is now being pushed through the house. This is the bill co-written by Delaware's own Mike Castle which is intended to reverse the Supreme Court decision from earlier this year that upheld that per the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause, government has no business regulating political speech. Those opposed to the ruling said it would flood politics with corporate dollars which would of course dilute the all powerful Union money and of course even out the system and allow EVERYONE a voice. Progressives and their union friends can't have that now can they?

Once again Congressman Castle has his heart in the right place with this bill but he overreaches again with his Progressive friends in Congress. The bill seeks to prohibit government contractors and those negotiating for government contracts from participating in electioneering on behalf of candidates and/or parties. The question is, would this include the unions like SEIU, AFSCME and the AFL-CIO? Would the unions who currently hold government contracts be excluded from the bill? According to the Campaign for Liberty, thanks to the NRA's sweetheart deal that provides "parity" across ideological lines, the answer is yes. Organizations with more than 1 million members across all 50 states and who have been around for more than 10 years would be exempt from this provision. Why not just say no to everyone regardless of size if they have a government contract? Also, why does the bill limit the size of the contract to to above $7,000,000 taxpayer dollars in order to qualify for these rules? If you really want to stop these expenditures by government contractors why don't we stop them all regardless of the size of the contract?

The bill also stops foreign business owners from influencing elections. I haven't read anything in the bill relating to this condition that I do not think is fair. There's no reason foreign nationals should be influencing American elections.

The next section details coordinated campaign communications. This portion of the bill explains that American groups/corporations/unions cannot coordinate their messages with the political campaigns. The bill states that it stops donors from evading “contribution limits by making campaign expenditures which, while technically qualifying as independent expenditures under law, are for all relevant purposes coordinated with candidates and political parties and thus raise the potential for corruption or the appearance of corruption". Someone should talk to SEIU and Barack Obama about that. I guess that means no more block walking with their union shirts on?

The next section mandates that all persons/corporations who make independent expenditures exceeding $10,000 must file an electronic report which will be made public. Corporations must also release the individual names of their employees who contribute to 3rd party funds that are used to make independent political expenditures. The bill further goes on to mandate that companies use specific types of their own funds for candidate assistance and even suggests that they should use a separate bank account.

Disclosure must include the name of the organization, the top funder (if an individual) or the top 5 funders if a group. Each must make a statement authorizing the message.

As usual, government's solution to the problem is to stand on liberty's throat. What we need in the bill is the following AND ONLY THE FOLLOWING:
1.) It must prohibit active government contractors and those negotiating for contracts(including labor unions) from engaging in electioneering.
2.) It must stop majority owned foreign corporations and foreign nationals from engaging in electioneering or contributing to political segregated funds.
3.) It must mandate full disclosure of each organizations total expenditures per candidate and mandate that ever political advertisement contain a full disclosure of the core group that funds it. (this means if the ad is placed by "Working Families for Skunks and Possums" which is funded by ACORN...ACORN must be identified as the funding group)

O'Donnell campaign does it again...this time the numbers prove it

Just when the world counts Christine O'Donnell out...she bounces back stronger than ever. In three days Christine and her new team of dedicated volunteers from across the country rallied to bring in more than $10,000 in her race against incumbent Congressman and Delaware Senate candidate Mike Castle. The resident Head RINO-In-Charge of the Delaware GOP is loaded with cash and special interest money. Christine is raising hers from the source of real power in America, the citizens.

I must admit, a few weeks ago I was a bit of a skeptic about how the campaign would refire the engines but they have really done a great job. The website has undergone a complete makeover (Visit Christine2010.com) and in addition they have added a social networking site (Visit teamChristine) and have begun raising money through the ever popular money bombs. Her Facebook presence has nearly doubled in the last two weeks and with her successful fundraising effort last week she is poised to strike a blow to Mike Castle's thus far nearly impenetrable armor.

There's one missing piece to Christine's campaign resurgence and that is the voice of the Delaware voters. What do the voters think of Christine? Preliminary polling results from the educational non-profit group Founders Values suggests that conservative T.E.A. party candidate Christine O'Donnell out polls Congressman Mike Castle among likely Republican voters in Delaware by more than 3 to 1. In a survey of likely Republican voters the results give O'Donnell the edge 65%-18% in the race for the Republican to square off against Democrat Chris Coons in the November general election.

Also being released are the preliminary results of polling among the same likely voters for the U.S. House Republican Primary battle. The preliminary results in that race give Glen Urquhart the edge 53% to 18% over establishment candidate Michele Rollins.

Both of these numbers are a stark contrast to the results of the GOP convention which saw Mike Castle and Michele Rollins earning nearly identical 70/30 split wins over O'Donnell and Rollins respectively. More than anything else the poll shows the viability of O'Donnell and Urquhart going into their respective primary races this summer. If there is one certainty that can be gleaned from the results which are due to be released to the public on Friday June 15th it is that neither race is even close to being over and that the T.E.A. Party movement is certainly having an impact in Delaware.

2010 GOP State Convention Review

This years convention (I am told) was the largest turn out in many years and it showed. Caucuses were squeezed into hallways and small conference rooms that bulged with the weight of establishment Republicans and a few T.E.A. party members. Of course the stalwarts were there but interestingly enough some of the MAJOR players in the GOP remained "sticker neutral" (meaning they backed none of the candidates who were competing for office). THAT above any other fact shows that beneath the GOP leadership's cries for unity is a deep division amongst the brightest budding stars and the dimming party elites. A new era is about to begin within the GOP and this year's primary election could be the catalyst for it.

There were two contended nominations at this years convention

The first was for the people's United States Senate seat formerly held by Joe Biden. The Delaware GOP had decided that Mike Castle would be the establishment candidate and Christine O'Donnell had sought T.E.A. Party support. I was honored, as a T.E.A. Party leader to be asked to nominate Christine. I began by speaking about why we have debates in politics and why it is healthy. I also talked about James Madison who is not only the "Father of the Constitution" and our 4th President but also the "Father of Partisanship". Having served his constituents as both a Federalist (when he wrote the Constitution) and later as an Anti-Federalist (fighting against Hamilton's banking system), Madison understood the need for the parties (or factions as he called them) to present clear differences to the voters and to force them to pick a side. I argued that Congressman Mike Castle and challenger Christine O'Donnell couldn't be more different and I pointed to many of Castle's liberal votes as proof. During my nominating speech Castle's supporters (who weren't even delegates) got up and began handing out campaign materials. Following my speech, Diane Hernandez from Smart Girl Politics took to the stage and seconded my nomination of Christine. During her speech the National Committee Woman Priscilla Rakestraw made it a point to heckle her from the floor. The big boo's came when Jon Sherman took the stage and pronounced Mike Castle "the Arlen Specter of Delaware".

In fact, we T.E.A. baggin rednecks elicited such fear from Castle and his staff that they brought in the big guns. Castle's nominating speech was given by former Governor and Delaware GOP idol Pete DuPont (who incidentally spoke at the Wilmington T.E.A. Party rally exactly 1 month prior). There were two other speakers that seconded his nomination. One was a woman whose name I can't remember and the other is Sussex County Senator Joe Booth (who it is said will face Eric Bodenwieser (T.E.A. Party activist) in a primary and whose primary win was erroneously attributed to Castle's support when in reality it belongs to the hundreds of T.E.A. Party goers who made the rounds on Joe's behalf...thanks Joe). The woman whose name I cannot remember is only memorable for her unremarkable quotation of a founding father. Her quote came from Henry Clay and was obviously a Castle team members answer to my Madison laced speech. The problem with this is that Madison is both the "Father of the Constitution" and our 4th President whereas Henry Clay is known as "The Great Compromiser" who authored the Missouri Compromise in 1820 which allowed the sinful excersise of slavery to continue in Missouri and other states south of the 36th parallel. When Clay was appointed Secretary of State, his maneuver which had won John Quincy Adams the election, was called a "corrupt bargain" by many of Jackson's supporters and tarnished Clay's reputation. Finally, it was also mentioned that Mike Castle is the 5th Great Grandson of Benjamin Franklin who referred to himself as "an extreme moderate" (just watch "John Adams") and who was a great political mind if not the most honest of all the founding fathers.

In the end Castle also broke out the entire Dover High School Marching Band complete with school owned (and taxpayer funded) instruments, Mike Castle 2010 T-Shirts and "Dover High School Marching Band" tuba covers. Now, I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure there is an issue with that.

So here are your Dover High tax dollars at work.

Are they allowed to wear those shirts?

But I digress, it took a band, a theme song, a sitting State Senator and the most beloved former Republican governor in state history to combat Chistine O'Donnell and her band of merry T.E.A. Party leaders. The final outcome? Despite the complete chaos that erupted with Mike Castle being NOMINATED, Christine O'Donnell still carried 30% of the room. 30% of the GOP establishment (that's who generally attends these conventions)jumped behind Christine. Couple that with the fact that key players (not the tools who do as they are told) but real leaders showed the party their true feelings by not falling in line and refused to show allegiance to the two "party nominees" and you have a convention that was all BUT full of "unity".

In the other contested race (for U.S. Congressman) Michele Rollins took 70% of the GOP establishment vote in a second ballot after Kevin Wade was removed from consideration. So Glen Urquhart and Christine O'Donnell each carried 30% of the GOP establishment Republicans. Interesting considering that these two candidates also stand for the "T.E.A. Party" values that 70% of regular Americans (primary and general election voters) support. Can Glen and Christine carry that message to the regular folks and win the day in September? Absolutely and with the O'Donnell campaign receiving attention from Senator Jim DeMint, Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council and Sarah and Todd Palin as well as Doug Hoffman (the man who discovered Doug is now the man behind the O'Donnell campaign) she is poised to begin her fight from 30% (as opposed to 0% where most candidates start). Glen certainly has the money and message but has thus far lacked the ability to reach out to local grassroots groups and to align with other T.E.A. Party candidates to present a more united front in the upcoming elections. He would do well to make such an effort.

In closing, the convention out come was a surprise to most of us realistic attendees. Castle and Rollins beat the drums and dumped their warchests and stomped the competition. With that said, both Urquhart and O'Donnell took home 30% of the vote from the GOP establishment and THAT is a major accomplishment that bodes well for them in September.

Open Letter to Delaware's Republican Delegates

Dear Delaware Republican Delegates,
I don’t mean to be a bother and I apologize for this unsolicited email however, I firmly believe that there are some things that need to be said before we cast our final votes at the 2010 Delaware GOP Convention. We will be choosing the “party nominee” for both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate races. While there may still be a long primary season in some cases, I hope that the decision we make does not divide the party anymore than it already is. This is not something to approach lightly or without deep reflection. That is why I am writing this email now and why I have copied the party leadership. I’m not going to secretly communicate with anyone (as some of the candidate teams have done). I’m going to be upfront and honest about my concerns. I would like to take a moment to discuss both races below.

In the U.S. House race we have a number of candidates running. All of them have positive qualities and to rule any of them out at this point would be a mistake. Sure, there are some who have the backing of the Republican Party elite’s and others have personal disagreements with one another. Folks, this race is not a popularity contest and the winners are not dictated by party leadership. This is our opportunity as delegates to express our true feelings and to pick the person who we feel will best represent Delaware as our only Congressional Representative. This person must be able to beat John Carney, that is true. This person must also have the courage of their conviction and stand for our Republican principles. Republican principles that align closely with T.E.A. Party principles. Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government (which requires knowledge of the Constitution and respect for its contents and limits) and support for Free Markets are mutually supportive principles that both the GOP and the grassroots “T.E.A. Party” movement can agree on. Whichever candidate you support, these principles ought to be at the front of your thought process. I would urge you to look at all of these candidates and not to exclude anyone based on preconceived notions. Kevin Wade, Glen Urquhart, Michele Rollins and Rose Izzo are all fine people and no matter who wins the nomination (or the primary if it goes there), all of them should be considered for other/future positions within the party or within our state government. WE need their minds and we need their spirit. New leaders are never bad. With that said, I would urge you all to read the latest posts related to the race at the following site: www.delawarepolitics.net You will find TREMENDOUS insight into the candidates here from a center-right perspective. Those of you who attended the straw poll may have already decided on where you stand but I can tell you that I am personally supporting Glen Urquhart although all of the candidates have thus far been intriguing and a few have had my support at different times.

In the U.S. Senate race we have two candidates running. This is a contentious race and I will not hide the fact that I have personally already made a decision. Nor will I hide the reasons why I have made this decision. This particular race is between Congressman Mike Castle and challenger Christine O’Donnell. Christine had been a “rumored” candidate for some time but declared officially earlier this year. Congressman Castle has been asked repeatedly to debate Christine in many different settings. For instance, Founders Values (who is a neutral 3rd party) wanted to facilitate the kind of debate and general diffusion of knowledge about the candidates that the founding fathers intended. Both candidates were invited in the same manner and given the same amount of time to respond. Christine accepted but Congressman Castle declined to answer the initial contact. Congressman Castle was eventually asked publicly about the debate and he refused to do it. He said he would not debate Christine O’Donnell period. Congressman Castle feels that it is good politics and somehow in the best interests of the people of Delaware to flat out ignore Christine O’Donnell while simultaneously having his campaign attempt to assassinate her character with apparently baseless accusations. Filing some reports late is a valid concern but apparently one that the FEC did not even find to be egregious enough to investigate. The campaign was sent letters, complied with those requests and the issue became a non-issue to them. I would urge you to approach Christine directly with concerns about other “rumors” and to seek the truth before you make a decision. As for Congressman Castle’s record, he can duck Christine but he cannot duck his record. Below is a list of the concerns that I have with making Congressman Castle your next Senator from Delaware. Ask yourself, can you support him when you see this?

Here is some information that has come to my attention:

1.) Here is an actual video showing Mike Castle’s position on the Constitutionality of Federal involvement in healthcare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3Lx3bdWDt4
2.) Mike Castle has also consistently defended the Global Warming hoax, C.A.F.E standards and as you may know, he voted in favor of Cap and Trade Legislation in June of 2009 (in fact he was one of only 8 Republicans to vote for the legislation). (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=26496)
3.) Mike Castle voted FOR the 2009 Omnibus bill that increased spending 8% on top of the stimulus bill. (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/1/votes/86/)
4.) Congressman Castle voted FOR the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street (TARP) in 2008 (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=22467&can_id=26792)
5.) Mike Castle also voted in favor of “Cash for Clunkers” which as we know, took many inexpensive used vehicles off the market that may otherwise have been purchased by people with low incomes who could use the vehicle for transportation. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=26194)
6.) Mike also voted against a bill that would require the parents of minors to be notified if their child wanted to be transported across state lines in order to obtain abortion services and also voted to allow federal funds to be used for abortions. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=7973) and (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=8863)
7.) Mike Castle voted AGAINST a 2007 amendment to withhold tax-payer dollars from Planned Parenthood. He then voted against a similar amendment in 2009. ( Quote from the American Conservative Union website “Planned Parenthood. HR 3293 (Roll Call 643). The House defeated an amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill that would have eliminated funding for Planned Parenthood family planning services, which includes abortion services. ACU has always opposed Planned Parenthood and federal involvement in this area as unconstitutional, but the amendment was defeated July 24, 2009 by a vote of 183-247.”)
8.) Castle voted AGAINST the surge in Iraq which is credited for forcing Al Qaeda out of the country. He also voted FOR investigating President Bush for impeachment for “lying about Iraq.”( Surge - http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/99/ Vote to impeach Bush - http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/2/votes/401/)
9.) Congressman Castle voted AGAINST strengthening our missile defense systems in 2007, 2008 AND 2009.
10.) Castle voted against the PAYGO rule on Feb. 4th 2010. (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=28603&can_id=26792)
11.) He also voted to enforce the 90% tax on bonuses paid to employees of TARP recipient companies. This tax is nothing more than a bill of attainder which is a DIRECT violation of Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution (“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.). (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=24249&can_id=26792)
12.) Congressman Castle has joined Congressman Van Hollen in introducing a bill that would strike back at the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Free Speech in American politics, including by those who cannot necessarily speak with their voice. The Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to run political ads and show their support for candidates. (http://www.delawarepolitics.net/a-real-leader/)
13.) National Journal Ranked Mike Castle as the most liberal Republican in the House (http://www.delawarepolitics.net/national-journal-rankings-are-out/)

I have a list much longer than this and if you would like to see it please let me know. I simply cannot bring myself to support Congressman Castle given the extremely long list of votes that offend many of my Conservative and Constitutionalist sensibilities.

I’m going to vote for Christine O’Donnell and I want you all to know that if you do the same I will personally stand by you 100%. Otherwise I will stand alone but rest assured I will stand for principle. Oh and before you wonder if Conservatism can win in Delaware, Pete DuPont was pretty conservative and is still one of the most beloved Gov. we have ever had. In fact, more people would vote for him today than would vote for Markell. Bill Roth had a good run in office as well. The reality is that most of the state (over 50% of those over voting age) doesn’t even register to vote. We have to go out and wake people up (and we are doing that) but these T.E.A. Party principles are supported by more than 65% of the state already. Vote on principle and we will prevail.

Thank you for your time and attention.
Evan Queitsch