Betty McCollum, are you out there? If so, you should watch this video.

Who is Betty McCollum?

Here is a great website! www.trueknowledge.com/q/who_is_betty_mccollum
It allows you to enter answers to questions such as "Who is Betty McCollum?"
I urge all good patriots to go to www.trueknowledge.com/q/who_is_betty_mccollum and enter your very own description of Betty!

Below is my short description of Betty. Short and not too nasty. But I do believe it is truthful. Let's see how long it stays up!

She is the five term U.S. representative from Minnesota's 4th Congressional District. Politically Betty runs as a Democrat but her votes and philosophy are communist/socialist in nature. She has authored only forty bills while in office ten years and only one has ever made it out of committee and passed. That bill authorized a name change for a post office. She is on the budget committee which failed to pass a budget in 2010 while government spending and our national deficit has sky rocketed. Communication with her constituents is totally lacking. Contact her office via phone, letter or email and you will receive a form letter which has no relevance to the issue of your concern. During campaigns, Betty hides out and does not do any visible campaigning, leaving that to volunteers. It is a rare occasion when she agrees to a debate with an opponent from the GOP as well as any DFL challenger.

Teresa Collett and Betty McCollum agree to a debate!!

Teresa Collett and Betty McCollum (pictured on the left) shook hands and had a friendly chat at the Rice Street Parade and agreed to a debate. Teresa Collett and Betty are running against each other in Minnesota's 4th Congressional District. Betty, the incumbent, has been virtually invisible on the campaign trail. Over the last ten years she has rarely if ever consented to a debate so voters have no clue as to her stand on issues beyond her completely socialist voting record.

The Video Betty McCollum Doesn't Want You to See!!!

This is totally stolen from

MN CD4 Needs Change

House Session - C-SPAN Video Library

Betty leads in the Pledge of Allegiance only to stop, and not say "under God." She begins at 1:50 into the video.

Thanks to another pissed off MN CD 4 voter for finding this and sharing with me. THIS IS THE VIDEO BETTY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE!!! Here it is obvious she intentionally OMITS "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. At the time, her staffers claimed she took a breath...uhm, yeah that's it. Betty, here is what I think...due to the nature of the Bill before you, that somewhere in your liberal head you did this intentionally to make a point!!! We don't believe you!!!

What is really pathetic about this, is Betty was leading the House in the Pledge of Allegiance!!! This is on CSPAN!!! It's not like she was at her little desk in the back, or holding Nancy Pelosi's notepad, but she was leading the HOUSE in the Pleadge of Allegiance!!! Free speech is one thing, disrespect to your position, the Flag and the American people is another. Pathetic Betty, absolutely pathetic...Remember in November!!!

Did Betty intentionally omit "under God"? You decide...

More to come, stay tuned.

Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund Endorses Pro-Life Advocate Teresa Collett for MN-04

WASHINGTON, July 21 /Christian Newswire/ -- Today the Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund, a national pro-life political action committee, announced its endorsement of Teresa Collett, candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in MN-04.

"Minnesota families deserve the pro-life feminine leadership Teresa Collett has already demonstrated in multiple pro-life advocacy roles," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List Candidate Fund. "Collett's commitment to rescinding taxpayer funding of abortion in health care is urgently needed in the next Congress."

Collett's record of pro-life advocacy spans for more than a decade in which she has briefed a committee of the U.S. Senate about the consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. House of Representatives and various state legislatures about the constitutional right of parents to know of their daughter's decision before an abortion and the U.S. Supreme Court regarding partial birth abortion and parental notification.

Read more here...

Setting the Record Straight: Rebecca Otto`s Lavish Spending as State Auditor

Claim #1: Otto Required To Attend Conferences Out Of State. “Otto said her travels to pension related meetings are required travel. ‘I am required by statute to go these conferences,’ she said. ‘Nothing has gone wrong. I’ve done a good job.’” (T.W. Budig, “Republicans accuse Auditor Rebecca Otto of lavish expenses,” ECM Publishers, July 19, 2010)

The Truth: Minnesota Statute 356A regarding Public Pension Fiduciary Responsibility does not make any reference to the fact that the state auditor must attend such conferences.

Claim #2: Otto Is Required To Stay At Lavish Hotels. Otto: “The conferences are pre-arranged and you sign up to go and it’s a package so…” [Reporter] “Do you have the option of, uh, looking at their rates and saying that seems a little high and maybe I’ll stay at the holiday inn. Does anybody do that?” Otto: “You could ask PERA, I guess. I don’t know.” (“Auditor Spending Reports,” KSTP-News, July 19, 2010)

The Truth: No state statute requires the state auditor to stay at any hotel or motel. In addition, the hotels Otto which stayed at were reimbursed separately from the conference registrations. There is no question she could have gone down the street to a cheaper hotel and saved the taxpayers money. In fact , this was a point KSTP reporter Tom Hauser specifically made at the end of his report: “I did a quick internet search and found many hotel rooms in the area of the Sheraton Chicago between one and two hundred dollars, including in the Sheraton Chicago for $199 that, of course, as you heard, Otto paid $368 for.” (“Auditor Spending Reports,” KSTP-News, July 19, 2010)

Claim #3: Otto Reimbursed Only $31, Regardless Of Cost Of Meal. “As for the $44 lobster and cream pie, Otto said that was the total cost of the meal — not the portion she was reimbursed. Depending on whether a state employee skips breakfast and lunch, the reimbursement amount could be $31, she explained.” (T.W. Budig, “Republicans accuse Auditor Rebecca Otto of lavish expenses,” ECM Publishers, July 19, 2010)

The Truth: According to Otto’s Employee Expense Report, she declares “under penalty of perjury, that this claim is just.” Otto claimed $44.52 for the lobster dinner and $45.96 for other expenses during that trip for a total of $90.48. Otto signed the expense report on 12/1/2008 and then submitted it. According to the form provided to The Republican Party of Minnesota, this $90.48 was paid on 12/5/2008, without any corrections. She was obviously paid more than the $31 dollars she claims. (Primary Source Documents, page 79)

Claim #4: Otto Says Some Travel Never Occurred. “If you look at the GOP press release, you’ll see that Sutton lists $1,472.52 of staff travel that never even occurred.” (Rebecca Otto Press Release, “Pat Anderson, GOP chair Sutton ‘have trouble with numbers’” July 19, 2010)

The Truth: According to the Employee Expense Report signed by Celeste Grant, Otto’s Deputy State Auditor/General Counsel, on June 28, 2007, reimbursement claims were made for $1,472.52. The form is marked paid on June 29, 2007, without any corrections. Rebecca Otto cannot claim that this travel never occurred when the claim is clearly marked paid. (Primary Source Documents, page 7)

The Greatest Play In Baseball

Is the NRA turning against us?

A recent article from Redstate.com. This disgusts the hell out of me. The organization that touts the Bill of Rights as something that can never be compromised is compromising with a socialist enemy!

NRA Now Leans Toward Endorsing Harry Reid

Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)

Thursday, July 1st at 8:00AM EDT

131 Comments

Multiple sources tell me the National Rifle Association is planning to endorse liberal Harry Reid against pro-gun champion Sharron Angle.

Two weeks ago, I told you about the carveout the NRA received in exchange for their support for the DISCLOSE ACT deal.

Then this week, RedState broke the story of the “gag order” the NRA issued to members of its Board on the Kagan nomination.

Now, I’m getting credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing Harry Reid, even though the NRA is finally saying it will score a vote on Kagan — something that was not a sure thing.

Why would they do this? Why would they go out of their way to protect a Senator who has demonstrated a repeated hostility to the Second Amendment in his votes and his leadership?

Well, I thought perhaps the NRA carveout in the DISCLOSE Act might be the answer. But, there is more. It turns out, Reid secured a $61 million earmark for a gun range in Clark County, Nevada.

NRA members were recently treated to a three-page spread in the American Rifleman about a visit to Nevada by Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox to “thank” Reid for the earmark. The article even includes a cliché picture of Reid cutting a ribbon with a gigantic pair of scissors. (Every good porker has his own giant pair of gold earmark scissors.) More here.

Here is a video of the event from Reid’s youtube site.

At 3:25, you can hear LaPierre touting Reid’s record on guns saying, “I also want to thank you, Senator, for your support every day for the Second Amendment and for the rights of American gun owners. “

The American Rifleman article also commends Reid’s Second Amendment record noting, “His dedication to this project is just one of the ways Sen. Reid has demonstrated his support for gun owners and the Second Amendment.”

Well, that’s all very nice. What politician representing a pro-gun red state wouldn’t want Wayne LaPierre to come out for a personal photo op at their earmark ribbon cutting.

But, here is the problem. Reid has not supported the Second Amendment “every day.” Or ever.

Reid has a lifetime rating of “F” from Gun Owners of America (who Ron Paul once called “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington”). GOA is actively supporting the 100% pro-gun Republican nominee, Sharron Angle, in her campaign to unseat Harry Reid.

But if you don’t believe GOA, see for yourself below the fold. Then call (800) 392-VOTE (8683) before it is too late and make the NRA knows they’d be betraying second amendment voters by endorsing Harry Reid.

Below are just a few of the votes that demonstrate Reid’s longstanding hostility to guns and the Second Amendment. Not included in this list is the long list of consistent and active support for anti-gun nominees to the Federal Judiciary and to high level cabinet posts. The reason I did not include anti-gun nominees is because he supported every last one of them.

June 28, 1991. Vote No. 115. Voted for a 5 day waiting period for handgun purchases.

October 21, 1993. Vote 325. Voted to eliminate the Army Civilian Marksmanship Program. Only the most fringe anti-gun Senators voted for the amendment.

November 19, 1993. Vote 385. Allow states to impose waiting periods over and above the 5 days waiting period required under the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 386. Voted to eliminate he 5-year sunset in the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 387. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 19, 1993. Vote 390. Voted to close off debate on the Brady Bill.

November 20, 1993. Vote 394. Voted for the Brady Bill, which imposed a 5-business-day waiting period before purchasing a handgun.

August 25, 1994. Vote 294. Voted to close off debate on the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

August 25, 1994. Vote 295. Voted for the Clinton Crime Bill, which contained the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

April 17, 1996. Vote 64. Voted to expand the statute of limitations for paperwork violations in National Firearms Act from 3 years to 5 years.

June 27, 1996. Vote 178. Voting to destroy 176,000 M-1 Garand rifles from World War II, and 150 million rounds of 30 caliber ammunition, rather than giving them to the Federal Civilian Marksmanship program.

September 12, 1996. Vote 287. Voted to spend $21.5 million for a study on putting “taggants” in black and smokeless gunpowder.

September 12, 1996. Vote 290. Voted to make it a Federal crime to possess a gun within 1,000 yards of a school.

May 12, 1999. Vote 111. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions.

May 13, 1999. Vote 116. Voted to ban the importation of ammunition clips that can hold more than 10 rounds.

May 14, 1999. Vote 119. Voted to criminalize internet advertisements to sell legal firearms in a legal manner.

May 18, 1999. Vote 122. Voted to for Mandatory triggerlocks.

May 20, 1999. Vote 133. Voted to create new Federal regulation of pawn shops handling of guns.

May 20, 1999. Vote 134. Voted to give the Treasury Department expansive new authority to regulate and keep records on gun shows and their participants, and criminalize many intrastate firearms transactions. The vote was 50-50, with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking vote.

May 20, 1999. Vote 140. Voted for the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

July 29, 1999. Vote 224. Voted to close debate on the Clinton Juvenile Justice bill, which contained a package of gun control measures.

February 2, 2000. Vote 4. Voted to make firearms manufacturers and distributors’ debts nondischargeable in bankruptcy if they were sued because they unknowingly sold guns to individuals who used the gun in a crime. 68 Senators voted against Reid’s position, including 17 Democrats including Bryan of Nevada.

March 2, 2000. Vote 27. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings.

March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates.

May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

May 17, 2000. Vote 102. Vote to overturn the ruling of the chair that the Daschle amendment (commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures) was out of order.

May 17, 2000. Vote 103. Voted against an amendment stating “the right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation, should not be infringed.”

May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

February 26, 2004. Vote 17. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 2, 2004. Vote 25. Voted for Federal regulation of gun shows.

July 28, 2005. Vote 207. Voted for mandatory triggerlocks.

March 5, 2009. Vote 83. Voted against a ban on the United Nations imposing taxes on American citizens after France and other world leaders proposed a global tax on firearms.

TALK IS CHEAP

Obama Tries Again To Pitch Failed Stimulus Today, But His Policies Have Never Managed To Meet His Promises

______________________________________________________________________

View This Research Briefing At GOP.com

Follow RNC Research on Twitter

Learn More in our "Stomping Grounds" Blog

"President Barack Obama Will Hold A Town Hall Meeting On The Economy In Racine On Wednesday." (President Obama To Visit Racine Wednesday," The Associated Press, 6/26/10)

OBAMA HAS FAILED TO DELIVER RESULTS ON THE ECONOMY

CLAIM: Obama Said In February That Stimulus Would "Jolt Our Economy Back To Life." "Obama defended the role of government in the recovery process, saying that 'with the private sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life.'" (Anne E. Komblut and Michael Fletcher, "Obama Says Economic Crisis Comes First," The Washington Post, 2/10/09)

REALITY: Since The Stimulus Was Passed, The U.S. Has Lost 2.2 Million Jobs. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 6/15/10)

CLAIM: White House Predicted Unemployment Would Not Rise Above 8 Percent With Stimulus. (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, "The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan," 1/9/09)

REALITY: Currently, The Unemployment Rate Is 9.7 Percent. (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov, Accessed 6/15/10)

CLAIM: Obama: "More Than 90 Percent Of The Jobs Created By This Plan Will Be In The Private Sector." ("Transcript: Obama's Prime Time News Conference," The New York Times, 2/9/09)

REALITY: Since The Stimulus Was Passed Public Sector Employers Have Added 399,000 Jobs While The Private Sector Has Shed 2,652,000 Jobs. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, "The Employment Situation - May 2010," BLS.gov, 6/4/10)

CLAIM: Obama Promised His Housing Plan Would Prevent 7 to 9 Million Families From Foreclosure. "And we will pursue the housing plan I'm outlining today. And through this plan, we will help between 7 and 9 million families restructure or refinance their mortgages so they can afford--avoid foreclosure." (President Barack Obama, Remarks On The Home Mortgage Industry In Mesa, Arizona, 2/18/09)

REALITY: The President's Foreclosure Prevention Program Has Only Helped 340,000 Homeowners, More Have Been Dropped From Program Then Helped. "Since the program's launch last year, about 340,000 homeowners have received a permanent loan modification that lowers their mortgage payment for five years. . . The number of borrowers dropped from the program, about 436,000, eclipses those who have been helped, according to Treasury Department data. More than 100,000 borrowers lost their mortgage aid in May." (Renae Merle, "U.S. Reports Few Enrollees, More Dropouts In Federal Mortgage R elief Program," The Washington Post, 6/22/10)

• Between 65% And 75% Of All Mortgages Modified Under HAMP Will Default Within Next Year. "Most borrowers who have had their mortgages modified through a government-sponsored program will redefault within 12 months, according to a report released Wednesday. Between 65% and 75% of loans that are modified through the Home Affordable Modification Program but not backed by the federal government are likely to go bad, according to the report released by Fitch Ratings, a N.Y.-based credit-rating agency." (Les Christie, "75% Of Modified Home Loans Will Redefault," CNN Money, 6/16/10)

CLAIM: Obama: "Businesses Are Going To Get Help With Their Health Care Costs -- In Fact, Small Businesses Are Already Learning They're Eligible For Tax Credits To Cover Their Workers This Year." (President Barack Obama, Remarks By The President At A Tele-Town Hall With Seniors, Wheaton, MD, 6/8/10)

REALITY: ObamaCare's Small Business Tax Credit's Much-Touted "Broad Eligibility" Falls Short As It "Drops Off Sharply Once A Company Gets Above 10 Workers And $25,000 Average Annual Wages." "When the administration unveiled the small business tax credit earlier this week, officials touted its 'broad eligibili ty' for companies with fewer than 25 workers and average annual wages under $50,000 that provide health coverage. ... Lost in the fine print: The credit drops off sharply once a company gets above 10 workers and $25,000 average annual wages." (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, "FACT CHECK: Tax Cut Math Doesn't Add Up For Some," The Associated Press, 5/20/10)

• Springfield, IL: Small Business Owner Says He'd Have To Cut Jobs, Slash Wages To Benefit From The Credit. "To get the most out of the new federal credit, Hoffman said he'd have to cut his work force to 10 employees and slash their wages. 'That seems like a strange outcome, given we've got 10 percent unemployment,' he said." (Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, "FACT CHECK: Tax Cut Math Doesn't Add Up For Some," The Associated Press, 5/20/10)

CLAIM: Candidate Obama Promised No Tax Increases Of Any Kind On The Middle Class. "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks In Dover, NH, 8/12/08)

REALITY: Hoyer Is Laying The Groundwork To Further Break Obama's Pledge Not To Increase Taxes On The Middle Class. "Tax cuts that benefit the middle class should not be 'totally sacrosanct' as policymakers try to plug the nation's yawning budget gap, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Monday, acknowledging that it would be difficult to reduce long-term deficits without breaking President Obama's pledge to protect families earning less than $250,000 a year." (Lori Montgomery, "Rep. Steny Hoyer Says Middle-Class Tax Breaks May Not Be Affordabl e Long-Term," The Washington Post, 6/22/10)

The Administration Now Argues That The Individual Mandate Is A Tax. "The federal government formally responded to the most serious legal challenge to the health-care overhaul, invoking its powers under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce and impose taxes. ... The department's filing noted that virtually everyone needs medical care at some point. Existing laws guarantee a right to emergency care, and the new law requires insurance companies to allow people to buy insurance after they get sick. Congress was entitled to pass a law punishing people who go without coverage because their decision could impose future costs on the nationwide health system, the filing said. The law 'imposes a tax on the choice of a method to finance the future costs of one's health care,' it said." (Janet Adamy and Evan Perez, "U.S. Fights Challenge To Health Law," The Wall Street Journal, 6/18/10)

• Which Will Hit Middle Class Americans, Breaking Obama's Promise Not To Raise Their Taxes. "Nearly 4 million Americans -- the vast majority of them middle class -- will have to pay a penalty if they don't get insurance when President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law kicks in, according to congressional estimates released Thursday. The penalties will average a little more than $1,000 apiece in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report. Most of the people paying the fine will be middle class ... In his 2008 campaign for the White House, Obama pledged not to raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year and couples making less than $250,000." (Stephen Ohlemacher, "Nearly 4m People Could Pay Without Health Coverage," The Associated Press, 4/22/10)

And After SCHIP, Obama Broke Pledge Not To Tax Middle Class Families By Increasing Cigarette Taxes. "One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich." (Calvin Woodward, "Promises, Promises: Obama Tax Pledge Up In Smoke," The Associated Press, 4/1/09)