Me

No User

You must log in to access your account.

Richard Fischer

active 2 weeks, 2 days ago

Base

Full Name

Richard Fischer

State

KENTUCKY

Bio

Married 46 years with 3 children and 9 grandchildren. Retired this year after working 46 years in the Food Industry.

Why I'm a Tea Partier

I’ve been a registered Republican most of my life. After seeing what has happened with taxes, TARP, Porkulus, the way the special interests have taken over in Washington, and most especially the way Nobama is trying to ruin the country, I decided to get involved. Things are getting way out of control. We the People need to speak out loud and clear.

Contact

E-Mail Address

Richard@RichardAFischer.com

Politics

Political Party/Tendencies

I have been a registered Republican most of my life and also consider myself very conservative. I am not satisfied that I’m getting the proper representation from the ones I helped elect. The one exception is Geoff Davis, my 4th District Congressman.

Congressional District

Kentucky Senate 26th - Kentucky Congressional 4th

Personal

Birthdate

March 19, 1942

Work

Retired

Interests

Travel, Gardening, Reading, Sports, Politics

Favorite Books

Gresham, Ambrose

Favorite President

Ronald Reagan

Religion

Catholic

Social Networks

Twitter

RichardAFischer

Richard Fischer's Activity

Richard Fischer has not done anything recently.

Richard Fischer's Wire See All »

Viewing post 1 to 5 (18 total posts)  
  • Specter had to say this to get in good with his new party buddies. I’m glad he went to the other side.
    Specter Praises Obama Choice of Sotomayor

    Tuesday, May 26, 2009 11:34 PM

    By: Rick Pedraza Article Font Size

    Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched from the GOP to the Democratic Party two months ago, praised President Barack Obama’s selection Tuesday of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

    Specter not only praised Obama’s choice of Sotomayor, but also urged the Senate to give her a full and fair confirmation process, according to a statement on his Web site.

    ”I applaud the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court,” Specter writes. “Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court.”

    Specter added: ”While [Sotomayor’s] record suggests excellent educational and professional qualifications, now it is up to the Senate to discharge its constitutional duty for a full and fair confirmation process.”

    Specter, a six-term incumbent in the U.S. Senate, admits he now is more favorable to the selection of Sotomayor than he probably would have been in his previous role as the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Pat Toomey, Specter’s challenger for the Senate in 2010, told The New York Times Tuesday that he, too, applauds the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

    “Her confirmation would add needed diversity in two ways: the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the high court,” Toomey told The Times.

    “For the past twenty years, the Supreme Court confirmation process has very regrettably become a political football,” Toomey added. “Arlen Specter has played those political games more aggressively than most, arguing against Judge [Robert] Bork and for Justice [Clarence] Thomas, depending on Specter’s calculation of his own political needs. That approach is bad for our country.”

    Toomey added it would be “wrong for Republicans to oppose Judge Sotomayor on a partisan basis,” and conceded she deserved a fair hearing.

    “If that hearing proves her to be of sound judicial temperament with the requisite knowledge of and respect for the Constitution,” he said, “then she should be confirmed.”

    © 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  • It has come to my attention that I have been spamming my friends’ inboxes with invites to my TRM Group. I feel really stupid. I didn’t know that every time I sent an invite to a new batch of friends that it resent invites to everyone else again. I have done this many times over the last few days and I am so sorry. I ask for your forgiveness in this matter and I hope you will not hold this against me when considering The RIGHT Movement as one of your many means available to get control of your country back.

    I am truly sorry.

    Thank you,

    Keith Katsikas
    http://www.theRIGHTmovement.com

  • Do you want Barack Hussein Obama and his cronies to have the power to
    SHUT DOWN THE INTERNET?

    Dear Friend of the Constitution,

    That’s EXACTLY what’s about to happen, if Congress passes two new bills… Unless YOU help to stop them!

    TELL CONGRESS TO REJECT
    GIVING BARACK OBAMA TOTAL CONTROL OF THE INTERNET!

    According to news reports, two new Senate bills — S. 773 and S. 778 — ”would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared ’cyber emergency.’”

    These two new bills are both part of what’s being called the ”Cybersecurity Act of 2009.”The Act would create a new bureaucracy, the ”Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor,”which would be charged with ”defending the country from cyber attack”… and would report directly to Barack Obama.

    But that’s not all it would do: it would also grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be ”critical”to the nation’s infrastructure, ”without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access.”

    Did you read that? The Secretary of Commerce, reporting directly to Mr. Obama, would be able to snoop through ANYTHING connected to the Internet that a President decides is ”critical”to look at. And it doesn’t matter what the law says — they get to do this whenever and wherever a President wants them to.

    Talk about UNCONSTITUTIONAL! We MUST NOT let Barack Obama’s cronies in Congress get away with this!

    The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

    ”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    It’s clear: giving the U.S. Department of Commerce oversight of the ”critical” networks — like banking records — would give the federal government access to confidential, private information obtained without cause or warrant, which is a CLEAR violation of the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against unlawful search and seizure!

    What exactly are these ”critical infrastructure networks”that Barack Obama would have the power to ”take offline”whenever he wants to? The examples they give are things like ”banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, and telecommunications.”

    WHAT??? Exactly HOW do you take the telecommunications networks off of the Internet, when that’s what the Internet is comprised of? And if YOUR bank gets taken offline, don’t you think you might go into your branch and ask for all of your deposits in cash? Don’t you think EVERYONE might do that?

    According to one Senate document that attempts to ”explain”the bills, this Act ”addresses our country’s unacceptable vulnerability to massive cyber crime, global cyber espionage and cyber attacks that could cripple our critical infrastructure.”

    In a statement explaining the bill’s introduction, liberal Democratic West Virginia U. S. Senator Jay Rockefeller said, ”We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs — from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records — the list goes on.”

    Senator Olympia Snowe, a liberal Republican from Maine who is co-sponsoring the bill, gave us this dire warning: ”If we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.”

    In other words, we need to give up our freedoms and liberties in order for the government to give us ”security.”

    What was it that Benjamin Franklin once said? ”Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    WE MUST NOT GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THESE ABSOLUTE POWERS!

    Why would anyone push such a bill? Two reasons: power and money.

    The far-left Democrats who now control our government are willing to stop at nothing to give themselves more and more and more power, as well as control over our private lives! And they’re backed by law enforcement and people in the security industry who want to ensure more government dollars go to them.

    Politicians and lobbyists want to take away our Constitutional rights — we need to make sure they FAIL. And we’ve got a GREAT way to do that!

  • EXCLUSIVE: Senator’s husband’s firm cashes in on crisis
    Feinstein sought $25 billion for agency that awarded contract to spouse

    By Chuck Neubauer (Contact) | Tuesday, April 21, 2009
    EXCLUSIVE:

    On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

    Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

    Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

    About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum’s private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE’s stock closed Monday at $5.14.

    Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum’s firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn’t even know about CBRE’s business with FDIC until after it was awarded.

    Senate ethics rules state that members must avoid conflicts of interest as well as ”even the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Some ethics analysts question whether Mrs. Feinstein ran afoul of the latter provision, creating the appearance that she was rewarding the agency that had just hired her husband’s firm.

    ”This clearly gives the appearance of a conflict of interest,” said Kent Cooper, a former federal regulator who specializes in government ethics and disclosures. ”To maintain the people’s trust in government, it is incumbent on a legislator to take the extra steps necessary to ensure that when she introduces any legislation that it does not cause people to question her motives or the business activities of her spouse.”

    Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum, a wealthy investment banker, are a power couple in both Washington and California who sat behind President Obama during his inauguration in January. Mrs. Feinstein also is mentioned as a candidate for California governor.

  • The Red State Morning Brriefing
    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
    Tuesday, April 21st at 5:00AM EDT

    http://www.redstate.com/blog/2009/04/21/morning-briefing-for-april-21-2009/

    APRIL 21, 2009
    Sign up to get the morning briefing by email here: http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/phase2/survey1/survey.htm?cid=uebmcl
    1. Cheney Doubles Down on ‘torture’ memos.
    Release them *all.*

    2. The Natural Evolution of the Party of Death
    From conception to healthcare, they want the government to decide if you are allowed to keep on fighting for your life.

    3. Rasmussen: Majority of country worries government will do too much.
    And there’s every reason to be concerned.

    4. The Let’s-Hogtie-the-American-Economy-and-Throw-It-In-the-Ditch Act of 2009
    And it’s only going to get worse.