South County Republicans should vote for Chris Riggs in the June Primary

Chris Riggs, true conservative.

Ken Calvert, Earmark King

The choice is STARK, in June 8’s primary, for Republican voters of the 44th Congressional District (which includes all of San Clemente, the inland part of San Juan Capistrano, Coto de Caza and thereabouts, Riverside, Corona/Norco and Rubidoux.)  Either give Ken Calvert, the 18-year incumbent RINO who has come to be the posterboy for corruption and earmarks – yet another term to do nothing for the district; OR begin the new decade with the fresh-faced, honest young Christian conservative  Chris Riggs.

Well, I think you all know where I’m coming from, I’m a Hedrick-backing progressive Democrat, but still I’d much rather see an honest man like Chris in office than let career politician Calvert continue to embarrass this area.  So, with all that on the table and out of the way, Mr. Riggs agreed to grant me an interview, and together we will attempt to persuade all Republican voters of the 44th District that it’s time for a change!  (Make sure to vote in our unofficial OJ poll after you read our interview – even if you’re not in the district!)

OJ: What made you decide to run against Ken Calvert?

Riggs: I think I can do a better job.

OJ: When did you make the decision to run?

Riggs: When Calvert almost lost his seat to a unapologetically liberal bureaucrat, who never spent a day in the private sector, in a conservative-leaning district in November 2008.

OJ: Isn’t it going to be a real uphill struggle, trying to dislodge such an entrenched, 18-year incumbent? It’s sort of like David and Goliath, isn’t it?

Riggs: King David won.

OJ: That’s true! Well, I hear there’s been a record amount of “franking,” or, government-paid glossy mailers coming from Calvert’s office lately. Do you sense it’s having any effect?

Riggs: Yes, and people recognize that they as taxpayers are paying for it..

OJ: What’s the most outrageous or deceitful mailer you’ve seen lately?

Riggs: The one that said he has served anyone but himself in the last 18 years.

OJ: Do you get the idea, talking to Republican voters in your district, that they have any idea of Mr. Calvert’s record of corruption? And his lack of conservatism?

Riggs: They do seem to be aware of both.

OJ: Do you think it bothers them at all?

Riggs: Yes.

OJ: … or will they continue to vote for him just out of habit?

Riggs: I highly doubt that.

OJ: Would you have voted for the Wall Street bailout if you’d been in Congress in 2008 (as Calvert did)?

Riggs: No.

OJ: Why not?

Riggs: Because –

1. we couldn’t afford it, and
2. when a business fails in America, we’re supposed to let it. That’s how the Mom and Pop’s grow. Then some of them get too big and fail and new ones grow. You don’t interrupt the natural order to make labor unions happy.

OJ: Did you find it credible that there would have been “financial Armageddon” without it?

Riggs: On the contrary, if we had allowed the businesses to fail it would have been hard and difficult for a few years, but not an “Armageddon.” Had we done the right thing, the more creative, competitive, and streamlined organizations would have begun to thrive and grow. Unfortunately, due to TARP and subsequent bail-outs we have only postponed the inevitable serious economic meltdown which will be much harder to recover from than had we just allowed it to happen naturally.

I think it’s important to say here that I do believe that economic meltdown can be still avoided but we must act now and in the exact opposite direction that Obama and the Democrats are taking it.

OJ: Calvert voted for Obama’s stimulus package, didn’t he?

Riggs: Actually he voted against it, but first he made sure to secure 34 earmarks for $42 million!

OJ:  Ah – having it both ways, great.

Riggs:  Yes.  I would have voted against it from the beginning, and not wasted taxpayer money as he did.

OJ: Why do you oppose the stimulus?

Riggs: Because it’s fundamentally wrong and economically disastrous for the government to prop up failing businesses.

OJ: Don’t you think that it’s helping our current economic recovery at all?

Riggs: No I do not.

OJ: Any comments on the recent healthcare reform package?

Riggs: I hope to have an opportunity to fight to repeal it.

OJ: Are you involved in the Tea Party movement at all?

Riggs: If by “involved” you mean “Have you gone to any as a participant?” then, yes.

OJ: What do you see as its goals and its successes?

Riggs: Two of its successes are actually successes of the American experiment and not so much successes of the movement itself.

1. The right to peaceful assembly. And
2. As your own Hillary Clinton put it, “We are Americans and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

OJ: Are south-Orange county and Riverside county tea partiers involved in your campaign?

Riggs: Yes.

OJ: You don’t shy away from discussing your religion in your material.  Does your Christianity influence your approach to politics?

Riggs: Christianity is a belief system as is Secularism, Humanism, Atheism, Islam, Materialism etc.. Political views are, generally speaking, arrived at as a result of your belief system.

OJ: Don’t you believe our government was intended to have a wall of separation between church and state?

Riggs: The “separation of church and state” as a principle, is not in our Constitution. The “separation of church and state” was a phrase used by Jefferson in a letter he wrote to a church in Connecticut. It was not intended by the Founders as a way of banning days of prayer, teacher lead prayer in public schools, or to relegate all opinions or legislation with even a hint of theological origin to it, to the contemporary sidelines of the public square. In the context of writing it, having broken free from the oppression experienced at the hands of the Church of England, the Founders wanted a government set up that would keep the States authority SEPARATED FROM and as a PROTECTOR OF the “free exercise thereof.”

For example, it was not intended to make such ludicrous claims and legislation banning prayer before the local high schools’ football game. They, nor any right thinking individual of any faith (or non-faith), would see prayer before a public high school football game as an attempt to institute a State mandated religion. Nor would they begin on the slippery slope of “non-offense” propagated by many based on the idea that the one Muslim mother in the audience would feel pressured to become a Christian due to such a prayer. I believe the Founders would respectfully tell those offended by a prayer to a Christian God in a predominantly Christian (as opposed to the other major faiths) District that no offense was intended and none should be taken since we, as Christians, would rightly take no offense at a certain public participation of an Islamic ritual in public in a predominately Islamic State.

But that’s the point, isn’t it? It is in those States that real offense is given if you don’t participate / agree, just like back in the Church of England.

Here in America you don’t have to participate in the prayer and you are 100% safe if you don’t, nor will you be discriminated against.

OJ: Well, best of luck, Chris, and thanks for chatting with us; I really believe the district will be much better off with either you or my friend Bill in office.

Riggs: Thank you as well. I agree with the first part of your statement about the district being better off with me in office, but under no circumstance will I support your friend Bill over Ken Calvert should I lose in this primary.

OJ: Fine, fine. Just get out there and soften the jerk up for us now.

This isn’t the place to respond to Chris’ digs at Bill, whom I’ve written about here, here and here.

Nor will I go into more detail here about the Manifold Failings of Ken Calvert, except to note that Chris’ website provides a treasure trove of reasons conservatives and Republicans should oppose him.

Calvert with DiFi. I'll give up the DINO on the right if you Republicans give up the RINO on the left.

[poll id=”275″]