Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots

Patriot Groups throughout the Maricopa and North Pinal County area.

David Schweikert is a Pseudo Patriot, a Pretender Patriot and Does Not Deserve Your Vote!

Open Letter to Ben Quayle:

Ben needs to realize that he has allowed David Schweikert to make personal attacks and take what was for Ben a sacred, religious act, the gathering of water from the Sea of Galilee, and turn it into something questionable and unwholesome. Ben should explain to the unwashed (David Schweikert), that the Sea of Galilee is the source of the Jordan River, which is where Christ was baptized and in gathering water for his daughter's baptism, he was preparing for a sacred ceremony and looking into the future, something that David Schweikert does not do, know or understand.

There is also another analogy that Ben should use that would explain what Schweikert was really trying to do with his personal attacks.  Schweikert is following the Obama playbook of making personal attacks to avoid discussing the issues.  The issue Schweikert does not want the voters to know about is his “not wanting to hurt big banks”, which David expresses with his opposition to Glass-Steagall, HR 1489 "The Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011". 

This a major difference between the Ben and Schweikert.  Ben Quayle is for Glass-Steagall and Schweikert is against Glass-Steagall.  Schweikert caters to the interests of the large international financial institutions and only gives lip service to the interests of his constituents.

Ben Quayle stands with history, the financial crisis reports, John McCain, and Paul Ryan in being for the re-implementation of Glass-Steagall. David Schweikert stands with Obama (as he has threaten to veto it), the "Too Big To Fail" Bailout Banks, the British Banks and Government, who have said that they would consider Glass-Steagall an "Act of War".

Glass-Steagall is needed to stop the bleeding of the coming financial crisis. And take back all the Trillions of bailouts of the past. The 2,000 page smoke screen called the Dodd-Frank Bill was created in opposition to the 5 page Glass-Steagall Resolution (HR 1489).

Schweikert has said that he does not want to hurt the big banks, which translated means, he wants to allow the big banks to continue to place their financial gambling losses on the backs of taxpayers with future bailouts.

Schweikert is for allowing the big banks to continue laundering drug money, money for terrorist organizations, derivative fraudulent schemes and commit other fraudulent act such as the LIBOR interest rate fixing scandal.

Ask Schweikert why has not one banker has gone to Jail for any of the fraudulent activities that the banks have committed?

David Schweikert says that he is against big government as a ruse to hide the fact that he caters to the financial elite, the big banks and financial institutions that have brought under their control the debtor nations of Europe and are seeking to bring our Nation under that same control.

If David Schweikert had lived at the time of Jesus Christ, he would have been one of the money changers that Christ drove out of the Temple. David Schweikert stands with the money changers of our day and needs to be driven out of Office so that there can be a future for everyone's posterity.

If David Schweikert wins the election which takes place tomorrow it will be a sad day for all those who believe in the American Dream as he stands with Obama in seeking to destroy it.

Views: 133


You need to be a member of Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots to add comments!

Join Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots

Comment by Chaparral46 on August 29, 2012 at 9:35am

In making choices as to who to vote for in an election, in most cases it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. The only real difference between the two candidates is Schweikert opposes Glass-Steagall and says that he does not want to hurt the "Big Banks", whereas Ben Quayle has said that he is for Glass-Steagall and then give a little mumble-jumble as to what he is going to do about it.

The core issue is follow the money! And neither of the candidates has a clue as to what to do about the impending financial crisis, and neither does 99.98% of those in the "Tea Party".

Paul Ryan has at times professed support for Glass-Steagall, yet he has failed to become a co-signer of Democrat Marcy Kaptur's HR 1489 The Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011.

John McCain has also professed support for Glass-Steagall but will not introduce a bill into the Senate because he says the big banks are too powerful.

David Schweikert is an example of a Congressman that is bought and paid for by the powerful financial interests.

The Tea Party for the most part if made up of distracted, bickering children, who have no real direction and have been controlled and manipulated by small minded individuals.

If the Tea Party is to accomplish anything, there needs to be a recognition that the American Revolutionary War never ended, that we are still at war with the British Corporate Financial Empire, that the War just moved from the battlefield to the financial districts of the City of London, Wall Street, and Boston.

Both David Schweikert and Ben Quayle have proven to be poor excuses for Congressmen. Neither of them has accomplished anything of consequence.

There is always only one issue in any campaign with all of the other issues just being distractions.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild is a quote that illustrates the issue that really matters.

Previously, I determined that David Schweikert and Ben Quayle were on different sides of the HR 1489 "Glass-Steagall" issue.

I spoke directly to Ben Quayle about using this issue to use the Glass-Steagall issue to illustrate the differences between himself and David Schweikert.

He seemed intrepid in his support for Glass-Steagall and only appeared to discuss his support for Glass-Steagall and his desire to repeal Dodd-Frank with those close to his campaign.

I have previously had communications with both his Congressional Office and his campaign on the issues of HR 1489 and HCR 107.

I am of the opinion that Quayle's campaign was poorly run, and he made bad selections on the choices and advice he was given.

After Quayle's concession speech, it was sad to see the look on the face of one of Quayle's young campaign workers, a young intern from Texas, who said to me that they tried to run a "classy campaign" and the voters of Scottsdale were not up to their message.

I would say that it is not very bright idea to insist on playing by "Marquess of Queensberry Rules" when you are in a battle with a dirty fighter.  You will lose every-time.

I will say that to base your campaign on saying that "I am a better conservative than my opponent" is a losing proposition.  It is like saying I am Pepsi and he is Coke, I am sweeter than he is, vote for me.

In this election, more of the voters liked Coke than Pepsi, because they we not given much to choose from.

Quayle was unwilling to educate the voters as to the definitive differences between himself and Schweikert, which I would define briefly as the following:

1) Quayle is for the re-implementation of Glass-Steagall,  Schweikert stands with Obama in his opposition to the re-implementation of Glass-Steagall.

2) Schweikert does not want to "hurt the big banks", Quayle wants to re-implement the
Glass-Steagall Standards which separate the commercial bank accounts with FDIC (Government) insurance coverage from the speculative / gambling investment activities of brokerage, insurance and investment entities.

3) Schweikert has said that he is one of the few individuals alive that understand derivatives and that he plans to fix the financial crisis with Fanny May and Freddie Mack, utilizing the same derivatives that are a major cause of the financial crisis. Quayle is for the restrictions of derivatives included in the Glass-Steagall Standard.

I am of the opinion that if Quayle had educated the voters on the Big Bank / Glass-Steagall issues, along with attacking Schweikert's personal attacks using the approach that is outlined in the open letter above, the outcome of the election would be different.

In looking at this election, I wonder if Ben Quayle was the "Designated Loser".  There are similar trends that lead to the conclusion that John McCain was the "Designated Loser" in the last presidential campaign. It has been said that if John McCain fought as hard against Obama as he did against JD Hayworth, he would be running for re-election in November.

Quayle seemed to me to be unwilling to discuss the issues that made a difference.

The "follow the money" / Glass-Steagall issue is one that I will never compromise on and will never support David Schweikert in any way.  As Obama has said that he will veto Glass-Steagall, I put Schweikert in the category of being an Obama supporter. The other issues that Schweikert throws out are there to mask who he really considers to be his constituency, the "big banks", not those living in his district.

Comment by DirtyOldMan on August 29, 2012 at 9:00am

Though Jesus turned his blood into wine, I seriously doubt that when baptizing his Apostles in Galilee, they did so rip roaring drunk and doing the streak, however fast on 3 feet. . We did not need Quayle in 2010 and thank goodness we do not have Quayle in 2012. He can have his time in Lame duck and call this goose cooked!

Comment by Minda Martine on August 28, 2012 at 6:07pm

Ben Quayle needs to be responsible for his own actions.

They are what keeps getting him into trouble, NOT David Schweirkert.

Bringing Christ into your argument iagainst Schweirkert and in support of Quayle will not wash away Ben's sins.


Comment by JPD on August 28, 2012 at 10:15am
Write-in Konservative Deutscher!

© 2019   Created by Kelly Townsend.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service