Alan Rapoport: A Real Alternative to Shontel Brown
What Alan Rapoport Is For
That Shontel Brown Is Against
I have a different vision and a different agenda than Shontel Brown. So this election will offer voters of District 11 a true choice. They will be able to consider Shontel Brown, her “progressive” philosophy and her voting record. It is a record that shows she is not focused on what is really important at the national level. It is a record that shows she is not the best person those voters can elect to make important decisions on their behalf about national security, personal security, and the national economy.
We live in difficult and dangerous times. Representatives in Congress must show courage and common sense. And the voting record of Shontel Brown does not show she has either.
Here are a few examples to demonstrate why Shontel Brown does not deserve re-election as the representative of Ohio District 11 in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Alan Rapoport agrees 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”.
Alan Rapoport agrees with House Congressional Resolution 40, which expressed support for local law enforcement officers and condemned efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies.
Shontel Brown lacked common sense about protecting us against crime and she voted “no”.
Alan Rapoport agrees 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 sympathy about the real problems with border security and she voted “no”.
Alan Rapoport agrees 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”.
Alan Rapoport agrees 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 refused to protect the privacy rights that most women deserve and she voted “no”.
Alan Rapoport agrees with House Congressional Resolution 9, Denouncing the horrors of socialism, which outlined historical examples of the crimes and tragedies of socialism, and why such a system goes against the founding principles of our nation. It specifically highlighted examples in the USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. It denounced socialism in all its forms and opposed the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America. This resolution passed by a vote of 328 to 86 – which probably means that most Democrats and Republicans supported it while “progressives” opposed it.
Shontel Brown lacked enough courage to vote either yes or no about evil. She instead voted “present”.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Alan Rapoport agrees 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 would not oppose clear violations of the U.S. Constitution and so she voted “no”.
There is so much more to be learned about my own stands on these and other issues. I have tried my best to provide detailed information about my views. Please “click” below and spend some time reading my position papers. I hope you will find them thought provoking and interesting.
A Better Choice for Congress
Cleveland Heights High School
Elected to Alumni Hall Of Fame
Magna Cum Laude and Highest Honors in History
Elected to Phi Beta Kappa
Case Western Reserve School of Law
National Moot Court Team
Elected to The Order Of Barristers
47 years in the General Practice of Law
Representing Families and Businesses
Former Mayor of Cleveland Heights / Council President
Elected Unanimously by Democrats and Republicans
Visitor to 27 Foreign Countries
Instructor, Ohio State Bar Association
Former Trustee of Forest Hill Church
Housing Corporation and Heights Arts
Former Vice Chair of Professional Ethics Committee of the Cuyahoga County Bar Association