| © Copyright 2009 eBroadcastMedia.com a division of KDResources, Inc. - All rights reserved |
| Interview with Earl Sholley 9-12 Candidate for Congress Massachusetts District 4 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
constituents. So in your opinion, Mr. Sholley, what needs to be done to get a government fully representative of its constituents?
Candidate: Well, that’s easy. I think what we need is a cap and trade in 2010. And that means we need to trade in the Congress for Senate
was 98 to zero on the Amber Alert. In the House of Representatives it was 400 to 25 and Mr. Frank actually had the audacity to admit why he
voted against it. Which means, according to what you said, that the penalties are too severe, were too severe for pedophiles and child
pornographers. It shows that he’s more concerned about the civil rights of criminals than he is about protecting our children.
Host: I kind of like the analogy where you brought in cap and trade and yes, trade in the members of Congress and obviously I would then
venture to say that you mean by the cap is capping also as in term limits. Would you favor term limits for Congress?
Candidate: I do favor term limits. I think we’ve gotten far afield from the original intent of our founding fathers. That was to have citizen
legislators representing the people who would be true public servants who would get one or two terms in service to their community, state and
nation. And then they would return back to the private sector. Over the course of the last 200 years or so, we’ve degenerated into a
professional class of career politicians who are more interested in personal enrichment. And I think we have to impose term limits. You can
make the argument that we have it at the ballot box every two years but look: we have term limits for the President. We know it’s not a good
idea for a President to serve more than two terms because it can lead to tyranny. Well the same thing can happen. I mean it’s the Congress.
They are the ones who control the purse strings. So I think it’s just as important to have term limits for our Congressmen, both in the House
and in the Senate.
Host: Now you indicate, of course rightfully so, that there is a term limit for the Presidency of the United States but if my recollection is correct,
isn’t there currently a bill that has been drafted with a proposed change to the Constitution so that a President can actually be more than two
terms?
Candidate: Well, yes that has been proposed. I can’t remember the Congressman who is proposing that, but I don’t think that’s going to go
anywhere. Although, you know, under the guise with the way that we’re proceeding currently, and with this enormous debt that we’re facing,
and with rising unemployment, we are already in a severe recession. It could get worse because what’s making it worse is the government
overspending. And we’re already looking at a deficit approaching two trillion dollars. That is absolutely astounding. And now they want to add
of these other things to it, we can’t afford health care. We already have a system, a single payer system called Medicare which is insolvent to
the tune of 87 trillion dollars in unfunded mandates. How in God’s name are we going to add another 150 to 200 million people to the
Medicare system? We don’t have the money. So something has to be done, but what I was getting at is that I suppose if we go into a
depression, under the guise of, you know, national security, I think the current President, the current occupant of the White House, may want to
run for a couple of extra terms such as Mr. Roosevelt did back during World War II and following the Great Depression.
Host: Now in fact on your website, you quote statistics stating that Congress is made up of more than 50% attorneys. That of any industry in
the United States, it is indeed the trial lawyers who give the most campaign money and that 80% of those funds are being contributed to the
Democratic Party. If that is the case, realistically can we ever expect Congress to be a true representation of the people? What can be done
to balance things out?
Candidate: Well what I want to propose, and I believe it would be constitutional, you certainly couldn’t have a law prohibiting lawyers from
holding office, that would be unconstitutional. But I think this would pass constitutional muster and that is a proposal to limit the percentage of
any one profession to no more than five percent of the composition of Congress. I think that would be legal. I think it would pass
constitutional muster. We shouldn’t have more than five percent bankers. We shouldn’t have more than five percent landscapers, which I was
for many years. I think it’s good to have, I think it’s healthy, politically healthy to have a good cross section of the population, because you don’
t want any one group becoming a huge vested interest such as the lawyers. I mean everything that you look at, whether you’re talking about
health care. Why aren’t they talking about tort reform? That’s the number one issue if you want to reduce the cost of health care in this
country, tort reform is the number one issue. But I suppose you could say that the law firm of Obama, Biden, Edwards, Dodd and Frank don’t
want to talk about court reform because they’re all brothers of the bar.
Host: Yeah and they will stick together.
Candidate: Of course they will.
Host: Now the American system overall has worked pretty well over the past couple of centuries. It is a system that has, as it should, evolved
over time and of course, nothing is perfect, we know that. There is indeed always room for improvement. Now, as imperfect as our system
may be, does this imperfection justify the total overhaul our current government seems to want to bring forward? I mean, I feel like we have
lived on our feet all these years, and certainly we are told that we had it all wrong and we should live on our heads.
Candidate: Well you know, we…. That’s an interesting question. We live in an age of emotion and hysteria. I think what made this country
great for 200 years is not only, you know, the new revolutionary type of government that our founding fathers set up, a constitutional republic to
represent all people and to protect the rights of the minorities based on a series of laws set down in our constitution and protecting us from
oppressive government through the Bill of Rights that we were bequeathed. To turn that around is basically a march down the road to
socialism and Marxism, and we can not allow that to happen. It’s a government that’s served us well. I think the fact that very few people have
common sense any more today and you have too many people working today to undermine the system, including Barney Frank who’s
probably done more to undermine and destroy the tradition of constitutionality and you know, what we consider to be rights and freedoms in
this country. Barney Frank has certainly done more than anyone to destroy that legacy, and I think the American people will not stand for
this. I think that they’re already up in arms over this health care proposal. I think they’ve gotten to the point where enough is enough. And as
it says in our Declaration of Independence, you know, good people will stand by and they won’t react right away, you know, no matter what the
usurpations of their rights and their freedoms. But at some point, the people have a right and they have a duty to overthrow, you know, those
attempts at oppression and those attempts to eliminate the rights that we were granted.
Host: Are you feeling that we’re getting to that point?
Candidate: Well I think we are. I’ve seen it a lot recently, not only at the 9-12 meet-ups but at tea parties that have been going on around the
country. I’ve talked to many, many people who have never participated in the process in their entire lives. They’ve never gone to a rally or a
protest or a forum. They’re coming out in droves. They’re very much concerned. They’re afraid. Some people are absolutely terrified. Many
are angry. There’re a lot of veterans in this country who have seen that our rights are being eroded. That the government is getting too big,
too powerful and too intrusive in our lives, and they won’t allow this to happen. This radical transformation that these people who I refer to as
socialists and Marxists who basically want to destroy this country and remake it in their own image, and it’s never going to work because we
just have too many good Americans who will not let it happen. And I think in 2010 you’re going to see a backlash against this. And I think the
President and the current administration are best campaign supporters, because as long as they continue down this road, I think they’re
going to be totally rejected in 2010 and in 2012. I believe that this current President will be a one term President and maybe become the
most vilified President in our nation’s history.
Host: But you know between now and 2012, that’s a lot of time, a lot of water going under the bridge and there’s a lot of damage that can also.
… There can be some good, but it can also be a lot of damage being brought to this country.
Candidate: Well that’s true and there can be a lot of damage because unfortunately the President has too much power. You know, there are
these directives plus the civil service which as Ronald Reagan put it has really become a fourth branch of government, and in many ways
they actually have more power than our elected representatives. But again, 2010 is just around the corner. It’s not that far off and I think that
we’re going to see some changes. I believe that the Republican Party, if they get their act together, can once again become the majority party
in the House. I’m not sure if we’d be able to regain the Senate but I think we can regain the House. There’re a lot of people stepping forward
to run for office. I see good candidates who are adhering to Republican principles. They’re communicating the message, offering solutions to
people, pointing out what’s wrong with the current policies of this administration. I mean, my God, we have a President who for the first time in
my lifetime and probably in our nation’s history, despises his own country. It’s just unbelievable to me that we could ever elect a man with that
kind of agenda, but a lot of people just weren’t paying attention and he sounded good. But, you know, and that’s the problem. I mean, people
don’t look behind the façade. You know, all too often, we judge a book by its cover and too many people don’t really do their research and
they don’t check into it. And, you know, now they vote for the man and now they’re stuck with him for four years. But who knows, I mean
anything can happen if we take over the House in 2010, maybe we can see some impeachment proceedings initiated. I think even some
Democrats are becoming upset about what’s going on. There are 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House. I understand that 39 of them have
already said that they’re not going to vote for the health care proposal, unless they strike the abortion provision, or unless they add a provision
saying that the money won’t be used to fund, taxpayers money to fund abortions. So we’ll see how that works out.
Host: Now early on in our conversation, you mentioned landscaping, that you had a landscaping business and indeed you did run a
landscaping business for many years. You talk about applying the four D’s of pruning to Washington. Could you explain this, please?
Candidate: I’d be very happy to. When I was a student at U. Mass Amherst studying plant soil sciences, in one of my classes we learned the
four D’s of pruning. And the four D’s of pruning are these: dead, damaged, diseased, and my personal favorite, deranged. And I promised
that when I go down to Washington, I will be taking my pruning shears, my hand pruners with me, right on my belt along with my cell phone.
And I intend, I propose that the only way we can solve this problem of big government, a government that overspends, that doesn’t know how
to balance a budget, and a government that becomes ever more intrusive into our lives with so many laws that we don’t need. In fact many of
them are bad laws with unintended consequences because of some kneejerk reaction to some perceived epidemic or some perceived
problem in our society. We need to get rid of so many of them. I think we should have a moratorium on new laws. We should review all of the
laws of the last 50 years. Get rid of those that we don’t really need, because many of them are redundant. And I think, I will propose that we
eliminate agencies and departments, like the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the IRS, all of those things. And I’d like to
see us downsize the Federal bureaucracy by 50% over the next ten years. I think we can do it. I think we’ll be a leaner, meaner, and much
more efficient country. I think we can once again become the economic engine that drives the world. The income tax is a very oppressive tax
system. It penalizes those individuals who are successful and who work hard. An individual blue-collar worker who wants to work 20, 30
hours extra a week in overtime is penalized for making that extra money and for working hard. I think we’d be much better off with a fair tax,
doing away with the corporate tax and suspending the capital gains tax and eventually doing away with it. And I think there’s a lot of offshore
money in this country, eleven trillion dollars which has left the country to escape the high income taxes that we have here. All of that will come
back to the United States. Multi-national companies will move their headquarters here because we’ll have no corporate tax at all. And what a
lot of people don’t understand is that corporations don’t pay taxes. They pass these costs on to the consumer and people pay taxes, so I’d like
to see all of that happen. The only chance that we have to solve our current difficulties is to greatly downsize government.
Host: Now you are going head to head against a heavy duty opponent in the state of Massachusetts and of course, incumbency does have its
privilege. How do you feel about it? Do you feel very comfortable that you can beat him?
Candidate: Well we do and we think that Mr. Frank has been in there for a long time. He has certain things that he really has a lot of
explaining to do. Amber Alert is one that you mentioned earlier. There’s also his involvement in the mortgage meltdown which lead to the
financial crisis. In fact, I would call for a full investigation of the financial crisis, an independent investigation, not to be investigated by
Congress, because they’ll never do a thorough investigation. It has to be investigated by a blue-ribbon commission that looks into this and I
think those who are found to be responsible should be prosecuted. He single-handedly undermined the immigration/naturalization laws of
this country over a twenty-year period, allowing 15 out the 19 hijackers to gain student visas to enter our country, all because of Barney Frank
and his agenda. He pushes big government. He’s a poster boy for big government. He’s a poster boy for everything that’s wrong with our
country and yet he says that we’re the ones that have to fix it because it was the private sector that got us into this mess. Well, that’s a lie and
Barney Frank, I think when I say his days are numbered, I think it’s because people are finally waking up to the fact that he is lying. He’s not
telling the truth. He’s doing things that aren’t benefitting Americans. And most people right now are really concerned about jobs. They’re
concerned about the economy. They’re concerned about paying their bills. They’re concerned about taking care of their family. And he’s not
doing anything to address that. And by increasing the size of government, he’s making it worse. He’s forcing more jobs to leave this country.
So at some point, I think even the Democrats are going to be voting against Mr. Frank, because he’s part of the problem, he is not part of the
solution.
Host: Well, part of the solution is for people to also be informed, stay informed. You have a website. Mr. Sholley, how may citizens and
supporters help and contact you or your campaign?
Candidate: We do. It’s www.SholleyForCongress.us. We encourage people to go to the website. We have a PayPal feature. They can
contribute online or they can mail something to us. They can get in touch with the campaign at Info@SholleyForCongress.us. That will go to
my campaign manager, Lisa Camp. She’s doing a great job. She was Mike Huckaby’s state coordinator for thirteen months and she’s been
a big help. She’s a real blessing to us.
Host: Wonderful. Mr. Sholley, thank you very much for being on the 912 Project Show today.
Candidate: Well, it was my pleasure, Danielle, and any time you’d like me to come on the show, I’d be more than happy to do so.
Host: Well, I’ll take you up on it because I do plan on contacting you again in let’s say six months down the road to see where we’re going
with all of this.
Candidate: Okay, we’ll we’re very excited and we’re going to beat Barney Frank. And we want people to help us because I tell people even
when they say, “We’re not in your district.” I say, “You live in America? Then you have a vested interest in seeing that Barney Frank is
defeated.”
Host: Mr. Sholley, thank you very much.
Candidate: Well, that’s easy. I think what we need is a cap and trade in 2010. And that means we need to trade in the Congress for Senate
was 98 to zero on the Amber Alert. In the House of Representatives it was 400 to 25 and Mr. Frank actually had the audacity to admit why he
voted against it. Which means, according to what you said, that the penalties are too severe, were too severe for pedophiles and child
pornographers. It shows that he’s more concerned about the civil rights of criminals than he is about protecting our children.
Host: I kind of like the analogy where you brought in cap and trade and yes, trade in the members of Congress and obviously I would then
venture to say that you mean by the cap is capping also as in term limits. Would you favor term limits for Congress?
Candidate: I do favor term limits. I think we’ve gotten far afield from the original intent of our founding fathers. That was to have citizen
legislators representing the people who would be true public servants who would get one or two terms in service to their community, state and
nation. And then they would return back to the private sector. Over the course of the last 200 years or so, we’ve degenerated into a
professional class of career politicians who are more interested in personal enrichment. And I think we have to impose term limits. You can
make the argument that we have it at the ballot box every two years but look: we have term limits for the President. We know it’s not a good
idea for a President to serve more than two terms because it can lead to tyranny. Well the same thing can happen. I mean it’s the Congress.
They are the ones who control the purse strings. So I think it’s just as important to have term limits for our Congressmen, both in the House
and in the Senate.
Host: Now you indicate, of course rightfully so, that there is a term limit for the Presidency of the United States but if my recollection is correct,
isn’t there currently a bill that has been drafted with a proposed change to the Constitution so that a President can actually be more than two
terms?
Candidate: Well, yes that has been proposed. I can’t remember the Congressman who is proposing that, but I don’t think that’s going to go
anywhere. Although, you know, under the guise with the way that we’re proceeding currently, and with this enormous debt that we’re facing,
and with rising unemployment, we are already in a severe recession. It could get worse because what’s making it worse is the government
overspending. And we’re already looking at a deficit approaching two trillion dollars. That is absolutely astounding. And now they want to add
of these other things to it, we can’t afford health care. We already have a system, a single payer system called Medicare which is insolvent to
the tune of 87 trillion dollars in unfunded mandates. How in God’s name are we going to add another 150 to 200 million people to the
Medicare system? We don’t have the money. So something has to be done, but what I was getting at is that I suppose if we go into a
depression, under the guise of, you know, national security, I think the current President, the current occupant of the White House, may want to
run for a couple of extra terms such as Mr. Roosevelt did back during World War II and following the Great Depression.
Host: Now in fact on your website, you quote statistics stating that Congress is made up of more than 50% attorneys. That of any industry in
the United States, it is indeed the trial lawyers who give the most campaign money and that 80% of those funds are being contributed to the
Democratic Party. If that is the case, realistically can we ever expect Congress to be a true representation of the people? What can be done
to balance things out?
Candidate: Well what I want to propose, and I believe it would be constitutional, you certainly couldn’t have a law prohibiting lawyers from
holding office, that would be unconstitutional. But I think this would pass constitutional muster and that is a proposal to limit the percentage of
any one profession to no more than five percent of the composition of Congress. I think that would be legal. I think it would pass
constitutional muster. We shouldn’t have more than five percent bankers. We shouldn’t have more than five percent landscapers, which I was
for many years. I think it’s good to have, I think it’s healthy, politically healthy to have a good cross section of the population, because you don’
t want any one group becoming a huge vested interest such as the lawyers. I mean everything that you look at, whether you’re talking about
health care. Why aren’t they talking about tort reform? That’s the number one issue if you want to reduce the cost of health care in this
country, tort reform is the number one issue. But I suppose you could say that the law firm of Obama, Biden, Edwards, Dodd and Frank don’t
want to talk about court reform because they’re all brothers of the bar.
Host: Yeah and they will stick together.
Candidate: Of course they will.
Host: Now the American system overall has worked pretty well over the past couple of centuries. It is a system that has, as it should, evolved
over time and of course, nothing is perfect, we know that. There is indeed always room for improvement. Now, as imperfect as our system
may be, does this imperfection justify the total overhaul our current government seems to want to bring forward? I mean, I feel like we have
lived on our feet all these years, and certainly we are told that we had it all wrong and we should live on our heads.
Candidate: Well you know, we…. That’s an interesting question. We live in an age of emotion and hysteria. I think what made this country
great for 200 years is not only, you know, the new revolutionary type of government that our founding fathers set up, a constitutional republic to
represent all people and to protect the rights of the minorities based on a series of laws set down in our constitution and protecting us from
oppressive government through the Bill of Rights that we were bequeathed. To turn that around is basically a march down the road to
socialism and Marxism, and we can not allow that to happen. It’s a government that’s served us well. I think the fact that very few people have
common sense any more today and you have too many people working today to undermine the system, including Barney Frank who’s
probably done more to undermine and destroy the tradition of constitutionality and you know, what we consider to be rights and freedoms in
this country. Barney Frank has certainly done more than anyone to destroy that legacy, and I think the American people will not stand for
this. I think that they’re already up in arms over this health care proposal. I think they’ve gotten to the point where enough is enough. And as
it says in our Declaration of Independence, you know, good people will stand by and they won’t react right away, you know, no matter what the
usurpations of their rights and their freedoms. But at some point, the people have a right and they have a duty to overthrow, you know, those
attempts at oppression and those attempts to eliminate the rights that we were granted.
Host: Are you feeling that we’re getting to that point?
Candidate: Well I think we are. I’ve seen it a lot recently, not only at the 9-12 meet-ups but at tea parties that have been going on around the
country. I’ve talked to many, many people who have never participated in the process in their entire lives. They’ve never gone to a rally or a
protest or a forum. They’re coming out in droves. They’re very much concerned. They’re afraid. Some people are absolutely terrified. Many
are angry. There’re a lot of veterans in this country who have seen that our rights are being eroded. That the government is getting too big,
too powerful and too intrusive in our lives, and they won’t allow this to happen. This radical transformation that these people who I refer to as
socialists and Marxists who basically want to destroy this country and remake it in their own image, and it’s never going to work because we
just have too many good Americans who will not let it happen. And I think in 2010 you’re going to see a backlash against this. And I think the
President and the current administration are best campaign supporters, because as long as they continue down this road, I think they’re
going to be totally rejected in 2010 and in 2012. I believe that this current President will be a one term President and maybe become the
most vilified President in our nation’s history.
Host: But you know between now and 2012, that’s a lot of time, a lot of water going under the bridge and there’s a lot of damage that can also.
… There can be some good, but it can also be a lot of damage being brought to this country.
Candidate: Well that’s true and there can be a lot of damage because unfortunately the President has too much power. You know, there are
these directives plus the civil service which as Ronald Reagan put it has really become a fourth branch of government, and in many ways
they actually have more power than our elected representatives. But again, 2010 is just around the corner. It’s not that far off and I think that
we’re going to see some changes. I believe that the Republican Party, if they get their act together, can once again become the majority party
in the House. I’m not sure if we’d be able to regain the Senate but I think we can regain the House. There’re a lot of people stepping forward
to run for office. I see good candidates who are adhering to Republican principles. They’re communicating the message, offering solutions to
people, pointing out what’s wrong with the current policies of this administration. I mean, my God, we have a President who for the first time in
my lifetime and probably in our nation’s history, despises his own country. It’s just unbelievable to me that we could ever elect a man with that
kind of agenda, but a lot of people just weren’t paying attention and he sounded good. But, you know, and that’s the problem. I mean, people
don’t look behind the façade. You know, all too often, we judge a book by its cover and too many people don’t really do their research and
they don’t check into it. And, you know, now they vote for the man and now they’re stuck with him for four years. But who knows, I mean
anything can happen if we take over the House in 2010, maybe we can see some impeachment proceedings initiated. I think even some
Democrats are becoming upset about what’s going on. There are 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the House. I understand that 39 of them have
already said that they’re not going to vote for the health care proposal, unless they strike the abortion provision, or unless they add a provision
saying that the money won’t be used to fund, taxpayers money to fund abortions. So we’ll see how that works out.
Host: Now early on in our conversation, you mentioned landscaping, that you had a landscaping business and indeed you did run a
landscaping business for many years. You talk about applying the four D’s of pruning to Washington. Could you explain this, please?
Candidate: I’d be very happy to. When I was a student at U. Mass Amherst studying plant soil sciences, in one of my classes we learned the
four D’s of pruning. And the four D’s of pruning are these: dead, damaged, diseased, and my personal favorite, deranged. And I promised
that when I go down to Washington, I will be taking my pruning shears, my hand pruners with me, right on my belt along with my cell phone.
And I intend, I propose that the only way we can solve this problem of big government, a government that overspends, that doesn’t know how
to balance a budget, and a government that becomes ever more intrusive into our lives with so many laws that we don’t need. In fact many of
them are bad laws with unintended consequences because of some kneejerk reaction to some perceived epidemic or some perceived
problem in our society. We need to get rid of so many of them. I think we should have a moratorium on new laws. We should review all of the
laws of the last 50 years. Get rid of those that we don’t really need, because many of them are redundant. And I think, I will propose that we
eliminate agencies and departments, like the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the IRS, all of those things. And I’d like to
see us downsize the Federal bureaucracy by 50% over the next ten years. I think we can do it. I think we’ll be a leaner, meaner, and much
more efficient country. I think we can once again become the economic engine that drives the world. The income tax is a very oppressive tax
system. It penalizes those individuals who are successful and who work hard. An individual blue-collar worker who wants to work 20, 30
hours extra a week in overtime is penalized for making that extra money and for working hard. I think we’d be much better off with a fair tax,
doing away with the corporate tax and suspending the capital gains tax and eventually doing away with it. And I think there’s a lot of offshore
money in this country, eleven trillion dollars which has left the country to escape the high income taxes that we have here. All of that will come
back to the United States. Multi-national companies will move their headquarters here because we’ll have no corporate tax at all. And what a
lot of people don’t understand is that corporations don’t pay taxes. They pass these costs on to the consumer and people pay taxes, so I’d like
to see all of that happen. The only chance that we have to solve our current difficulties is to greatly downsize government.
Host: Now you are going head to head against a heavy duty opponent in the state of Massachusetts and of course, incumbency does have its
privilege. How do you feel about it? Do you feel very comfortable that you can beat him?
Candidate: Well we do and we think that Mr. Frank has been in there for a long time. He has certain things that he really has a lot of
explaining to do. Amber Alert is one that you mentioned earlier. There’s also his involvement in the mortgage meltdown which lead to the
financial crisis. In fact, I would call for a full investigation of the financial crisis, an independent investigation, not to be investigated by
Congress, because they’ll never do a thorough investigation. It has to be investigated by a blue-ribbon commission that looks into this and I
think those who are found to be responsible should be prosecuted. He single-handedly undermined the immigration/naturalization laws of
this country over a twenty-year period, allowing 15 out the 19 hijackers to gain student visas to enter our country, all because of Barney Frank
and his agenda. He pushes big government. He’s a poster boy for big government. He’s a poster boy for everything that’s wrong with our
country and yet he says that we’re the ones that have to fix it because it was the private sector that got us into this mess. Well, that’s a lie and
Barney Frank, I think when I say his days are numbered, I think it’s because people are finally waking up to the fact that he is lying. He’s not
telling the truth. He’s doing things that aren’t benefitting Americans. And most people right now are really concerned about jobs. They’re
concerned about the economy. They’re concerned about paying their bills. They’re concerned about taking care of their family. And he’s not
doing anything to address that. And by increasing the size of government, he’s making it worse. He’s forcing more jobs to leave this country.
So at some point, I think even the Democrats are going to be voting against Mr. Frank, because he’s part of the problem, he is not part of the
solution.
Host: Well, part of the solution is for people to also be informed, stay informed. You have a website. Mr. Sholley, how may citizens and
supporters help and contact you or your campaign?
Candidate: We do. It’s www.SholleyForCongress.us. We encourage people to go to the website. We have a PayPal feature. They can
contribute online or they can mail something to us. They can get in touch with the campaign at Info@SholleyForCongress.us. That will go to
my campaign manager, Lisa Camp. She’s doing a great job. She was Mike Huckaby’s state coordinator for thirteen months and she’s been
a big help. She’s a real blessing to us.
Host: Wonderful. Mr. Sholley, thank you very much for being on the 912 Project Show today.
Candidate: Well, it was my pleasure, Danielle, and any time you’d like me to come on the show, I’d be more than happy to do so.
Host: Well, I’ll take you up on it because I do plan on contacting you again in let’s say six months down the road to see where we’re going
with all of this.
Candidate: Okay, we’ll we’re very excited and we’re going to beat Barney Frank. And we want people to help us because I tell people even
when they say, “We’re not in your district.” I say, “You live in America? Then you have a vested interest in seeing that Barney Frank is
defeated.”
Host: Mr. Sholley, thank you very much.
Interview Transcript
| Click arrow to listen to interview |
Welcome to The 9-12 Show...
| Danielle Hampson |
| Transcript Copying Rule |
| available by clicking on links below |
Members of the media
may use this transcript
in whole or part under
the following
conditions:
1. Prior to copying the
transcript, you must
email us:
a- the name of the
publication where the
transcript is to be used,
as well as its web
address;
b- the title of your article;
c- reporter/writer's full
name & contact
information.
2. Your article must
make reference to this
website as the source
of information.
Bloggers and all other
parties:
Permission may or may
not be granted. Email
your request with your
full name and phone #
for review.
may use this transcript
in whole or part under
the following
conditions:
1. Prior to copying the
transcript, you must
email us:
a- the name of the
publication where the
transcript is to be used,
as well as its web
address;
b- the title of your article;
c- reporter/writer's full
name & contact
information.
2. Your article must
make reference to this
website as the source
of information.
Bloggers and all other
parties:
Permission may or may
not be granted. Email
your request with your
full name and phone #
for review.