Alan Rapoport: A Real Alternative to Shontel Brown
I am a candidate in the Republican primary election on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, and I ask for your vote.
I am a former three term Mayor of Cleveland Heights, a lawyer with 47 years of experience, and I have visited 27 different foreign countries. I have good qualifications to represent families, businesses, social agencies, and local governments of Ohio District 11 as a Member of Congress.
I wish to present myself in November as an alternative to Shontel Brown so voters will have a choice whether to re-elect a “progressive.”
I will offer a different vision than Shontel Brown. My major concerns are:
· The bad effect an irrational war against fossil fuel has had on inflation and interest rates;
· The destruction of police morale caused by a progressive “defund” movement;
· The invasion of our national borders by potential criminals and terrorists;
· The progressive culture wars against families and women in education and sports;
· The many interferences with our freedoms by the government and the administrative state;
· The existential threat from China as it engages in hostile activities;
· The unnecessary wars caused in Ukraine and Israel by horrible foreign policies; and,
· The revived threat of nuclear war because of the badly flawed Iran Deal.
I will tell voters about Shontel Brown and her poor voting record. Here are but a few examples that prove why she does not deserve re-election.
THE ECONOMY
I agree with House Resolution 1, the Lower Energy Costs Act, which would have increased oil and gas production to fight inflation. Specifically, it would have increased domestic energy production, reformed the permitting process for all industries, streamlined energy infrastructure and exports, and boosted the production and processing of critical minerals. It would have helped our country achieve energy independence.
Shontel Brown lacked common sense about the economy, and she voted “no”.
PUBLIC SAFETY
I agree with House Congressional Resolution 40, which expressed support for law enforcement officers and condemned efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.
Shontel Brown lacked common sense about how best to protect us against crime and she voted “no”.
BORDER CRISIS
I agree with House Resolution 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, which would have restarted construction of the border wall, deployed technology to the southern and northern borders, increased the number of Border Patrol agents, strengthened current law to protect unaccompanied children from human trafficking, ended catch and release, and streamlined the asylum process. It would have been a good first step toward securing national borders against massive illegal invasions.
Shontel Brown lacked an understanding about real problems with border security and she voted “no”.
PARENTAL RIGHTS
I agree with House Resolution 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, which would have ensured parents the right to know what is being taught, the right to be heard, the right to see the school budget and spending, the right to protect their child’s privacy, and the right to be updated on any violent activity at school. It would have guaranteed rights for parents to know how their children are being educated.
Shontel Brown refused to be supportive of family values
and she voted “no”.
CULTURE WARS
I agree with House Resolution 734, The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, which would have clarified that a recipient of funding violates Title IX prohibitions against sex discrimination if it allows a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls. It would have reaffirmed that under federal law, females have a legal right to be treated the same as males.
Shontel Brown would not agree to protect privacy rights
that women deserve, and she voted “no”.
FREEDOM
I agree with House Resolution 140, The Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act, which would have prohibited federal agencies and officials from using their power to censor the speech of Americans protected by the First Amendment. It also would have prohibited federal employees from coercing private companies to remove, block or add disclaimer language to lawful speech. It would have recognized constitutional limits on the activities of the national government in its official capacities.
Shontel Brown did not oppose clear violations of the
U.S. Constitution and so she voted “no”.
This is a time for common sense. We must strongly oppose the “progressive” agenda that is progressing our country in the wrong direction. There is much more information about my campaign on my web site.
I ask for your support in my campaign to replace Shontel Brown. No less than the future of our country is at stake.
