EXCERPT FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON’S 1790 PLAN FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MILITIA
“An energetic national militia is to be regarded as the capital security of a free republic, and not a standing army, forming a distinct class in the community.
George Washington
President George Washington Structured The Militia System To Prevent Treason And Tyranny By Public Officials!
Continue reading
U.S. Senator Rand Paul
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday took a swipe at billionaire businessman Donald Trump, demanding to see his “Republican registration.”
According to CNN, 3,742 votes were cast at the event held in Washington, DC.
Washington (CNN) – The results of the Washington Times CPAC straw poll of presidential candidates are in, and the winner is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, with 30 percent of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the runner-up with 23 percent.
Dr. Ron Paul
There were 3,742 ballots cast in the annual survey, which is a chance for devotees to name their pick for president in 2012. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said they were generally satisfied with the field of potential candidates and 43 percent said they wished the GOP had a better field of potential candidates. For those surveyed, the size of the federal government was the most important issue to them.
CPAC is an annual gathering of conservatives, which this year served as the first cattle-call of potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates.
ELDER STATESMAN ~ RON PAUL
The full results:
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
British Monarchy's Con Artist
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.
Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King’s protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as “that Nigger preacher.”
Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist “Dixiecrats” did not all migrate to the Republican Party. “Dixiecrats” declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those “Dixiecrats” continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
Another former “Dixiecrat” is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been “a great senator for any moment,” including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.
Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.
After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).
Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.
In order to break the Democrats’ stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party’s economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.
Fulfilling one of their most prominent campaign promises, House Republican leaders have unveiled a new rule to require that each bill filed in the House “cite its specific constitutional authority.”
And for those who may have skipped that constitutional law class, Republicans have organized four staff briefings prior to the Jan. 5 start of the 112th Congress to provide guidance on compliance with the new rule. The first session will be Monday at 1 p.m. in the Capitol Visitor Center.
GOP leaders have prepared a memo for all members of the new Congress and senior staff informing them that no bill may be introduced unless the sponsor has submitted for the Congressional Record a statement “citing as specifically as practicable the power or powers granted to Congress” to enact the measure. The memo included five examples of forms that sponsors could include with their legislation.
Attorney General Eric Holder has an urgent message for Americans: While he is confident that the United States will continue to thwart attacks, “the terrorists only have to be successful once.”
And while it is not certain we will be hit, the American people, he told ABC News, “have to be prepared for potentially bad news.”
“What I am trying to do in this interview is to make people aware of the fact that the threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant,” he said.
“It is one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Holder said. “You didn’t worry about this even two years ago — about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do. And — that is of — of great concern.”
“The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born,” he said.
National Socialist online political magazine Salon.com published a letter to the editor Friday that called for the murder of Sarah Palin.
The letter was written in response to a mocking article at Salon titled, Good Morning America’s painfully friendly interview with Sarah Palin by Alex Pareene.
Pareene snarkily sums up the GMA interview:
“The interview was basically split into a couple of distinct sections: How awesome is your family, how bad is Barack Obama, how awful are people who criticize you, and how awesome is America?”
The first letter published in response to the article calls for Palin to be electrocuted by a cattle prod by convicted dog abuser Michael Vick: “Vick gets a pet to torture and we get rid of Palin. A win-win for everyone!”
Pelosi ~ Hillary ~ Obama ~ Boxer
We are all suffering? Who are we kidding? Lots of us love the financial crisis. Here’s a roundup:
The left loves the financial crisis because it supports their view that the free market doesn’t work and justifies their anger at capitalism. Here’s the clincher ~ George Soros, Congressional Socialists, through the British monarchy ‘designed this failure’. In their mind, as how they have been mislead, this is exactly what happens when you follow a policy of deregulation and tax “giveaways” to the rich. Their only fix is to get rid of the corporations, the executives, the investors, free trade, property rights, and everything else that has given us the highest per-capita GDP in the world of any large country and replace it all with central committees straight out of the Cuban Revolution. The patient has the flu and their cure is the guillotine.
Communist IINO Joseph Lieberman: War Monger ~ NWO Operative ~ Socialist Sleeper Cell.
The mainstream media love the financial crisis for the same reason that they love any disaster. Will you and your children be forced to live in a tent city surrounded by trash with no running water or bathrooms? We’ll tell you just how bad it is going to get and what you can do right after this commercial break.
CNBC loves the financial crisis. Their ratings are up 30%, and that’s before the Santelli tea party.
Fox News loves the crisis because it belongs to Barack now.
My friend from high school loves the financial crisis and hopes it gets 100% worse. “I’ve been poor all my life,” he says. “Everyone should know how it feels.”
Senator John McCain loves the financial crisis because he can talk about how wasteful earmarks are and make fun of the worst, like the pig odor study. Senator, you’re a genuine war hero who brought tears to my eyes when you asked me to stand up for America. Is that really your best issue?
Obama McCain’s Deadly Defense Cuts: America Becoming A Helpless Tightly Controlled Reservation?
The Democrats love the financial crisis because they can push their agenda through Congress by playing Good Samaritan — i.e., we’ve got to help all of those hardworking folks on Main Street. In their version of the parable, the Samaritan helped his fellow traveler on the side of the road by raising the minimum wage, forcing him to join a union, taxing carbon dioxide, and telling him to learn Spanish.
Iran, Venezuela, al-Qaeda, and the rest of America’s enemies love the financial crisis because not only have we lost our credibility, but foreign policy issues have completely fallen off the agenda.
Senator Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, and the “hard money” guys love the crisis because they have been predicting that our free spending ways would eventually collapse the financial system. While you are all absolutely right that the first thing the U.S. needs to do is to put the shovel down and stop digging, this is just the warm-up. The real crash won’t hit until all of the boomers have retired and start cashing their Social Security and Medicare IOUs.
Michael Moore loves the financial crisis. His next film is all about how Americans are getting screwed by the financial industry. If you’re one of those poor unfortunates who got a home loan despite having no job, income, or assets, please send your tale of woe to bailout@MichalMoore.com.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times loves the financial crisis. He gets to write daily op-eds about how the Obama administration should spend even more money. Publicly disagree with him, and he gets to write another op-ed in which he calls you a bonehead. This bonehead — I mean, Nobel Prize-winning economist — has calculated that for every $1 the government spends, $1.50 in new GDP is created. By that logic, the government should spend all of its money to buy paper, ink, and printing presses and then just as the kids say, make it rain up in here.
Comedians love the financial crisis because it’s the gift that keeps on giving. Have you heard about Ford’s new car? It’s a hybrid that runs on a combination of gas and bailout money (David Letterman). And you know Guantanamo Bay’s going to be closed. Yes, the economy’s so bad that even the terrorists are losing their homes (Jay Leno).
Rush Limbaugh loves the financial crisis. Rush has been on top of his game ever since the Democratic primaries, and now that the party is in control and recycling its failed “War on Poverty” policies and breaking its centrist campaign promises, there has never been a better time for him to ask America if this is what they voted for, and articulate alternatives. We can only hope that the White House attacks that have very likely doubled his audience in just the past few weeks help to create a grassroots conservative monster.
Hamas also loves the crisis. In October, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said that the U.S. financial collapse was a punishment from Allah because we supported the Gaza siege. Now that we’re paying $900 million to rebuild Gaza and giving scholarships to Palestinian students, I assume that Allah will spare us.
Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton love not just the financial crisis, but any crisis. And why shouldn’t they? They’re not the ones who get stuck with the check when the government screws up.
Those infamous “community organizers” love the crisis. Perhaps you were wondering what ever happened to those rock throwing delinquents that have followed the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the G8 everywhere they’ve gone since 1999. (Except to Singapore. Nobody messes with Singapore.) Now they’re shutting down Greece, ousting prime ministers in Iceland, rioting in Eastern Europe, torching BMWs in Germany, targeting foreclosure auctions in New York and CEO’s homes in Connecticut, striking and picketing parliament in London, and waving the hammer and sickle in Moscow. Track their progress here. And 2.5 million people are striking in France, proving that it is possible to actually surrender to a recession.
Nouriel Roubini loves the economic crisis. Nicknamed Dr. Doom, he is interviewed by Forbes, Bloomberg, CNBC, and other news media whenever they want a dire prediction of multi-trillion dollar banking losses. We can assume that book sales and consulting revenues are up. His claim to fame is that he predicted the real estate crash and stock market collapse. Kudos to financial writer Eric Tyson for noting that this college professor, who has no special access to economic data, also predicted a recession in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. Of course, he is just one of many analysts that have been forecasting financial Armageddon for years and are now enjoying the spotlight.
Even some banks love the financial crisis. Northern Trust, fed up by government condemnation of a lavish party that they threw in February, decided to give their TARP money back and said that they didn’t even want it in the first place. Northern was founded in 1896 and has a reputation for conservative management. It survived the Great Depression with no government assistance. And now, this medium-sized Midwestern bank is worth more than Citigroup and half as much as Bank of America. Perhaps instead of criticizing them, Congress should be asking for their advice.
And I love the financial crisis because I can write articles like this. Does anyone else love the financial crisis? Let me know.
Tristan Yates is an investment analyst and the author of Enhanced Indexing Strategies. His articles and research have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo!, and many other publications.
Tsunami. Earthquake. Hurricane. Even as pundits struggle to find new metaphors to describe the scope of the GOP landslide expected on Tuesday, the latest polls indicate the midterm grass-roots wave could be even more powerful than analysts are predicting.
Respected political gurus Charlie Cook and Stuart Rothenberg said Monday morning that a 60-seat GOP gain in the House is possible, and a six- to eight-seat GOP gain in the Senate is likely.
“If we’re wrong, it’s higher,” Cook told the audience of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
Like a clarion warning of an impending catastrophe, a new Gallup/USA Today poll released Monday indicates that Democrats could be in for a political bloodletting of historical proportions.
The gap in the generic ballot between two parties has not been greater since the post-Watergate era, the poll reports. By a 55 percent to 40 percent margin, likely voters said they’d prefer to elect a Republican over a Democrat on Tuesday.
Neither party has enjoyed such a dominating position in the generic ballot in more than 35 years, and grass-roots activists were ecstatic about that poll result.
“We’ve known all along that the conservative anti-establishment wave would be huge,” FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe tells Newsmax. “But it’s fitting that the reaction to the establishment agenda is expected to be comparable to the reaction to Watergate. The American people are ready to say that Obamacare, out of control spending and the rest of the far-left agenda are as destructive to our nation as Watergate was.”
Another ominous sign for Democrats: party leaders’ last-minute efforts to boost voter turnout. “Whenever I hear a party say that they are counting on turnout, that means big trouble,” former Bush campaign adviser Mark McKinnon tells Newsmax. “Voters are saying we wanted change, but not the change Obama had in mind.”
Longtime GOP strategist Roger Stone predicts that voters are poised to send Democrats a devastating message of discontent.
“This year’s GOP sweep shows voters want accountability, an end to wasteful spending. and tax reduction,” Stone tells Newsmax. “And they are tired of an ‘elite’ political class that perpetuates it itself but delivers nothing for the people,” Stone says.
“The shock would be if Republicans don’t do well, rather than the fact that they are going to do well,” University of South Florida political science professor Susan McManus tells Newsmax. “Rarely do you see so many polls converge in the same direction with the same magnitude that we see right now. I think that the Republican enthusiasm gap is going to prevail, and Republicans are going to do well around the country.”
In the waning hours of the campaign, many additional indications are emerging that Democrats may now face a debacle that could exceed the GOP gains seen in the conservative revolution of 1994. Among them:
There is one caveat to all the bullish predictions of GOP dominance on Tuesday: The Cook Political Report stated on Sunday that the GOP’s chances of winning the 51 votes it needs to control the Senate are “nonexistent.” But even Cook says his projections could underestimate the force of Tuesday’s wave.
Says Stone, “Barack Obama thought the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election was a repudiation of conservatism and a voter approval of higher taxes, massive spending and deeper debt,” Stone tells Newsmax. “This year’s elections prove that this was wrong. Many voters did not understand the ‘change’ they voted for.”
But to capitalize on the strong tide of public sentiment, Republicans will have to avoid their tendency to cause self-inflicted wounds once they gain power.
“The GOP needs to be aware this election was a rejection of Obama and Democrat policies but not necessarily an affirmation of Republicans,” McKinnon says. “A lot of work needs to be done to rebuild the Republican brand.”
Many say that the situation in Greece is a harbinger of what is coming to the United States. They are right. But first it will come to states like New York, California and Michigan that are stretched way beyond their means and deeply in debt.
Until now, the problems in these states have been papered over by federal aid. Essentially, Washington has relieved these states (and the local governments they fund) of their constitutional obligations to balance their budgets by giving them welfare checks in the nick of time. Obama now seeks to pass $50 billion in additional welfare to the states.
But since these federal funds are not necessarily recurring — and the jobs and obligations they fund are — they simply enlarge each year’s deficit hole and enable the states to go more deeply into the red.
As these deficits mount — particularly if a newly elected Republican House and/or Senate refuse to fund them — bondholders will get more and more nervous. Eventually, they will realize that the less solvent states are bankrupt and will refuse to buy their debt. Eyes in Sacramento, Lansing and Albany will turn helplessly to Washington to guarantee their debt, just as Athens turns to Berlin.
Dick Morris
Republicans, if they control either or both Houses, should stand firm and insist that these states sink or swim on their own. America’s taxpayers will not take kindly to having to bail out other states — or even their own — to pay for years of reckless spending. Americans will swarm to the GOP and will hail its stand.
The time is long past when a local newspaper can generate sympathy — even from its own readers and the state’s own citizens — with a headline like “Ford to New York: Drop Dead.” Now people in other states (and even in the affected state) would stand up and cheer should the Republicans take so strong a position.
There is currently no legal procedure for a state government to go bankrupt. Congress, especially if it is Republican in 2011, should pass a mechanism that permits states to discharge in bankruptcy their collective bargaining agreements and contracts with municipal unions. Of course, this procedure would have to let school boards and local governments do likewise.
Obama will veto this bill and a stalemate will ensue.
On the left will stand Obama, the unions and the Democrats demanding bailouts for the states and, truly, an end to our federal system of government. Once Washington guarantees state debt and spending, there will be no more state governance, only national rule.
On the right will stand a Republican Congress refusing to do so unless the states declare bankruptcy and cleanse themselves of the union agreements that got them into trouble in the first place. The GOP will point out that state funding is leaking as surely as the Deepwater Horizon oil well and polluting our nation’s balance sheet as badly in the process.
The money will run out. States, school boards and localities will stop sending out checks. Emergency state funding may keep schools open, prisons locked and police and fire services running, but otherwise all hell will break loose.
Something will give in this national game of chicken. If it is the states and Obama that blink first, we will free our local governments of the grip of municipal unions, their rigid work rules and their unaffordable pensions. If the Republicans blink first, they will forfeit their right to represent the American people, having backed down from the challenge of our times.
This Armageddon looms in 2011, presenting us with either an opportunity to reform our government in fundamental ways or to set in stone our path to an Athens-esque meltdown.
The tea party movement is celebrating a major victory in Delaware. Conservative Christine O’Donnell has pulled off a stunning upset over nine-term Rep. Mike Castle in the Republican Senate primary. She’ll face Democrat Chris Coons in November.
WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) – The reports are filling the internet, the first line of the media these days. Of course, the old media sources will parse and pontificate about the meaning of all of this throughout the day tomorrow. They will vie for ratings while saying nothing of real value.
Pro-Life, Pro-marriage and family candidate Christine O’Donnell trounced Congressman Mike Castle, an establishment Republican who does not support the Right to Life, in Delaware’s closely watched Republican Senate primary.
The main stream press is spinning Christine’s win as a “tea party” win. You can read the talking points in the early reports which will sound for days to come. The pundits are predicting that her upset win means the Anti-Life Democratic candidate will win in the General election. They have a surprise coming in November.
In her victory speech, Christine O’Donnell said “A lot of people have already said that we can’t win the general election…It is those same so-called experts who said we had no chance of winning the primary. It will be hard work, but we can win.” Reports after the election are that the National Republican Senatorial Campaign will not assist her with any funds in the General election.
There is no doubt that the dynamism of the tea party movement helped her insurgent candidacy. However, there is another story here. Just when Mitch Daniels and Haley Barbour are joining with other establishment Republicans and trying to dissuade Pro-Life and Pro-Marriage voters from standing strong, these voters are saying, “Not this Year”!
The story of this Delaware upset is that the old school dualism of the establishment Republican Party which seeks to divide so called “social” and “economic” issues has lost the wind in its sails. Christine is a Catholic Christian and a consistent conservative who gets it.
An insistence upon recognition in the positive law of the fundamental Human Right to Life is not about one political issue; it is about the very foundation of freedom itself.
Human rights – such as the Natural Law Right to Life – and human freedoms such as the freedom to be born – are goods of human persons. When there is no human person to exercise them all the rhetoric extolling them is nothing but empty air and sloganeering.
Nor is a Pro-Life position simply a matter of adherence to ”religious” beliefs. It is a response to the truth revealed by the Natural Law and confirmed by medical science. The Child in the womb is our neighbor. It is always and everywhere wrong to take innocent human life. The child in the womb is innocent human life.
The embryonic human person, the child in the womb, the disabled, the needy and the elderly are all members of our human family. We can never condone their intentional killing as some kind of exercise of the freedom to choose. It is never a moral choice but a crime, whether the positive law prosecutes it or not.
Rights are not ethereal concepts floating around in the cosmos somewhere. Rights are endowed by a Creator not conferred by the State. They are goods of the human person. Our opposition to the judicial manufacture of a “right” to take innocent human life in the womb must never take a back seat to any other concern in the public policy arena. Freedom must be exercised with reference to what is true and good in any just and moral society.
This “political dualism” being touted in establishment Republican circles is being rejected by a growing number of voters. We are being asked to quiet down and let the “economic issues” win the election. We will not be silenced! The reason we care about expanding economic opportunity is because we respect the dignity of every human person, including our smallest neighbors.
The reason we want to ensure the application of the principle of subsidiarity to keep government at the lowest level is because we respect the primacy of marriage, the family and the society founded upon it. We know that the two parent marriage bound family is the first government and first cell of society and that to protect and defend this truth serves the real common good.
We reject the very idea of dividing “economic” and “social” spheres. Rejecting big government solutions doesn’t mean rejecting our obligation in solidarity. It means building a ground up model of economic opportunity which expands opportunity and participation to all.
Catholics are not one more “interest group” which can be polled, pandered to and bought. Our social obligation is to promote the true common good, not just use the slogan to sound “catholic” as happened in the last political cycle.
The surprising election of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware signals a change which the mainstream Press better pay attention to.This is a new day and the stale analysis of the past will not suffice.
House Whore Pelosi
Remember, the Disclose Act will harm your ability to fire and replace your elected representatives. The bill will come to the House floor as early as TOMORROW – Thursday, June 24. Please send Congress a letter opposing this terrible violation of the First Amendment:
Remember, Congressional leaders have already created exemptions to this law for large groups like the NRA and AARP. This serves to show who this law is really aimed at. YOU!
You can copy or borrow from my letter to Congress . . .
There have been many critics of the exemption to the DISCLOSE Act that Congressional leaders created for large organizations like the NRA and AARP. But I want to point at what this exemption really means . . .
It isn’t big, powerful, organizations that you politicians fear, it’s ME, the humble voter and taxpayer, because that’s whom the DISCLOSE Act is really aimed at.
I don’t mind the NRA and AARP being exempted, I just want everyone else exempted too. And that neatly explains why you shouldn’t pass any version of this bill.
END LETTER
You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.
Please also CALL your Representative to oppose this bill. You can see his or her number when you are logged-in to our campaign.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
The word disclose in the DISCLOSE Act is a silly acronym that stands for “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections.” We couldn’t disagree more. The provisions of this bill (H.R. 5175 and S. 3295) would actually . . .
Incumbent politicians support campaign finance laws, like the DISCLOSE Act, because these laws kill your ability to fire and replace them. Media companies also love these laws because they cripple your ability to be your own media, by joining with others to fund political advertising campaigns.
Unlike you, and the political organizations you support, media companies enjoy completely unrestricted freedoms of speech, press, and association. They can raise and spend unlimited amounts . . .
Specifically, the DISCLOSE Act would harm an organization like DownsizeDC.org, Inc. in the following ways . . .
If we spend more than $10,000 on political communications during a calendar year we would have to report to the government, and to the general public, ALL donors who have given between $600 or $1,000, depending on the type of political communications we wanted to express. This may sound trivial, but it’s actually ominous . . .
And that’s exactly what the DISCLOSE proponents want — they want to reduce political expression by groups that represent your anti-Statist ideals. They want to silence DC Downsizers and other groups that oppose the imposition of new laws.
This danger is especially severe with larger donors who may have business interests that could be harmed by incumbent politicians. Business leaders know that politicians routinely use their power to reward friends and punish enemies. That’s why the DISCLOSE Act also requires that . . .
Both the head of an organization, AND the top contributor to any broadcast ad, must both include recorded statements that they approve the message. Television ads and political mailings, must also list the top five contributors to the organization.
In many 30-second ads, DISCLOSE would require no fewer than six statements as to who is paying for the ad (the current law already requires one such statement). These disclaimers would take up as much as half of every ad.
The DISCLOSE Act will also prohibit communications that could be interpreted as advocating a candidate’s election or defeat, even if the communication doesn’t specifically use those words. This is potentially the most dangerous provision of this legislation given that it is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. No one will be able to know for sure if they are violating this law when they prepare an ad or other communication, so it will be safer to simply remain silent. Or, they could choose to divert even more of their donor’s money hiring lawyers before making each and every move.
Nanci Peloski’s Nuremberg : She Wants To Talk AFTER The Back Door Agenda Has Passed!
California Has Stopped Producing : Cities Going Bankrupt As France!
Nancy ‘Nazi’ Pelosi Skating On Thin Ice: Want To See Her $156,225,000.00 REASONS FOR BULLSHIT?
British Queen, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid: Bureaucrats Want It All!
Republican Eric Cantor : Bill To Save U.S. Citizens $30 Billion Tax Dollars!
Leaders Thrown Their Lot In With Fascism?
We Are Americans One And All : We Trusted You – America Rising !
FBI: INVESTORS BEWARE Stock Fraud Cases – Housing Bubble (Pump Scheme) – Green Energy (Pump Scheme)
4 Steps In Preventing Barry Soetoro aka; obama : From Destroying America’s Sovereignty
Democrats BLOCKED Republican Regulations For Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac in 2001, 2003, 2005!
GREATEST COVERUP IN HISTORY: Soros, Obama, & Wall Street.
MSNBC White Supremacists: Socialist Propaganda And Censoring The News.
Obama: I Will Own The World For The Rich, The Left Wing Elite Hedge Funders – Just Ask Chelsea
Military Coup Could Oust Obama
PREDATORY LOANS: Barney Frank And Christopher Dodd What They Did To Set Up America For Socialism
Lawmaker Introduces $165 Billion Union Pension Bailout Bill
Republicans need to remember that they’re supposed to be pro-market, not pro-oil. Pro-market politicians would go along with Democrats in abolishing the current $75 million cap on economic damages for oil companies and go even further: Abolish the communal “oil spill fund” and leave oil companies liable for the entire cost of their spills.
Current federal law limits the liability of companies responsible for an oil spill. The guilty party has to cover the cleanup, but as far compensating those harmed by the spill — such as fishermen and property owners — the companies are on the hook only for the first $75 million.
The rest of the compensation comes from a special federal account, funded by an 8-cent tax on every barrel of oil produced in the United States or imported here. That fund currently has about $1 billion to cover the BP oil spill in the Gulf.
Democrats have proposed a measure to lift the cap on oil company liability to $10 billion, but Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and James Inhofe, R-Okla., have objected to motions to change the cap without debate. On cue, Democrats have attacked these senators as shills for Big Oil, echoing the party’s standard disingenuous line of attack under President Obama.
Democratic slurs shouldn’t be necessary to spur Republicans into agreement — a belief in the free market ought to suffice.
The federal government has no business protecting BP from paying for the harm it has done to shrimp fisherman. The liability cap and the spill fund are subsidies for oil drilling. In a free market, oil companies would have to buy more insurance to cover the cost of a potential spill. In other words, a free market in oil drilling would mean no liability cap, no 8-cents-a-barrel tax, and no special fund whereby careful drillers pay for sloppy spillers.
Of course, the cost of extracting oil from the Gulf would go up if companies had to insure against potential damages. Some Republicans worry that this would make offshore drilling uneconomical, thus decreasing our oil supply at a time when our thirst for black gold is growing.
But anyone who makes this argument doesn’t really believe in the free market — or believes in the free market only to the degree it yields results he likes.
Even without positing bad motives or obeisance to donors, you can see why some Republicans would be pro-oil: Oil’s fuel efficiency makes our society much wealthier and more productive; also, oil is under constant assault by the other side — big government liberals and environmentalists.
But Republicans aren’t supposed to be in the business of helping any industries. “If you believe in the market,” energy expert Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute says, “you believe the government ought to be neutral. But I don’t think that Republicans believe in the market.”
Taylor’s right. Republicans tend to look at the market, see what works — oil, homeownership, stock ownership, small business — and then intervene in the market so that we get more of only the good thing. Of course, Democrats don’t believe in the market either, but at least they admit it.
Torts and lawsuits may not seem like elements of the free market, but they are — the only two alternatives to torts are more regulations on the one hand, or, on the other hand, anarchy in which one company can ruin another without consequence. Some sort of tort reform in this country is undoubtedly needed, but a cap on economic damages is absurd.
Cato’s Taylor, however, thinks the $75 million liability cap for oil spills doesn’t distort the market too much, because oil executives understand that — for political reasons — they’ll be strung up if they’re responsible for a spill anyway. In other words, this subsidy is kind of a joke.
Inhofe and Murkowski are on fine ground asking for debate on this proposal. But in that debate, let’s hope they take the side of markets, and not just oil.
Republicans Should End the Big Oil Bailout
By Timothy P. Carney | Washington Examiner
Young George Washington With His Father.
HRES 397 IH 111th CONGRESS 1st Session H. RES. 397
Proponents of a state ballot measure to suspend a California climate bill have submitted enough voter signatures to qualify it for November, saying they have nearly twice the number necessary to do so.
One of the chief proponents, Assemblyman Dan Logue, said he believes the submission means the state is one step closer to restoring regulatory sanity.
“It’s a great day,” said Logue, R-Linda, of the formal submission Monday of his measure, which would suspend the 2006 legislation, AB 32, until state unemployment drops to 5.5 percent for an extended period. “People will have a voice on this issue.”
To qualify for the November ballot, as Logue believes it will, county election officials where the campaign submitted signatures will first have to verify the total number, then verify a sample as to whether they’re of actual registered state voters.
A spokesman for a group opposing the measure said the submission of signatures only proves money buys access.
GREEN TECHNOLOGY MEANS SHIT WHEN WE ENTER THE COMING DROP IN TEMPERATURE – WE NEED TO EXPLOIT AMERICA’S FOSSIL FUELS.
China Cannot put automobiles onto the roads fast enough ==>25,000 new cars /day
“It’s the power of $2 million in big oil money to get onto the ballot,” said Steve Maviglio of Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, referring to companies like Valero and Tesoro that have underwritten much of the initiative campaign. Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs announced Monday that George Shultz, secretary of state under President Ronald Reagan, would co-chair their campaign.
“He’s a well-established superstar and he brings a lot of heft to the campaign,” Maviglio said, adding his presence suggests AB32 has far more widespread support among state residents of all political persuasions. “We’re convinced we’ll have a strong coalition of businesses, environmentalists and health care providers speaking on our behalf.”
AB32 would reduce the state’s level of carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as a means to stem global warming. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has described the bill as one of his legacy achievements while in office.
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age – Pravda.Ru
Prepare for winter or Britain will grind to a halt again
We should fear a deep temperature drop-not global warming
Antarctica’s Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is growing
What’s Happening in Other Parts of the World.
The governor vowed Monday to oppose the initiative if it qualifies.
Breaking : 68% Of Americans Say Drill Here Drill Now! : Obama Sending Oil Jobs To Brazil.
“We will do everything we can in this state to raise money, bring stakeholders together,” the governor said.
Schwarzenegger said the state will continue to lead the nation with its strong environmental policy.
“California is 40 percent more energy efficient than the rest of the country,” he said. “Now greedy oil companies want to roll back that cut, they want us to depend on just oil.”
Logue and many other conservatives, as well as both major GOP candidates for governor, have said the measure stifles the state’s economy and will make it harder, if not impossible, to recover from the current downturn.
“We don’t want California to go alone while the rest of the country stands by,” Logue said, adding discussions over possible carbon emissions legislation in Washington, D.C. have suggested measures far less draconian than AB32.
He said the group opposing his initiative is largely funded by “green jobs” companies, which are subsidized by taxpayers rather than private funding.
“We want green jobs, blue jobs, gray jobs, all kinds of jobs,” Logue said.
For the ballot initiative suspending AB 32 to qualify, it needs 433,971 verified voter signatures, or a projected number of 477,369 signatures under a method using sample counts of signatures. Logue said the campaign collected more than 800,000 signatures.
According to the California Secretary of State’s press office, both the signature total and registered voter verification must be completed by June 24 to qualify the measure for November.
1) Ayatollah Obama: Bastardization Of USA Enters Final Phase
2) Obama Here To Dismantle America: Plundering For Socialists
3) 30,000 Scientist Sue Al Gore For Global Fraud: No Global Warming – NASA: Planet Cooling Since 2003
4) Scientists: Global Warming Claims Pure Superstition
5) Cap-and-Trade: Extorting The United States By Bubbles – Pure Hate Of Judeo-Christian Constitution
7) PETITION ====> Senators Urged To Quash Socialist ‘Cap & Trade’ Scheme
“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”
While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to “the vast right-wing conspiracy.”
One Conservative at MSNBC Is Too Many for Actor Donald Sutherland
For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.
Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.
Chávez, Hollywood MilkMan, Sean Penn : Promoting Sodomy Which Shortens Life By 20 Years!
“A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do,” he says. “A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”
Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
• creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
• satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
• augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
• rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
Obama’s Drunken, Drug Running and Pedophile Czars: Pravda
“The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”
Barry Soetoro aka; obama : Celebrates Reduced Health Care Coverage By Inflation!
DR. LYLE ROSSITER:
Board-certified in general and forensic psychiatry
Over 35 years of experience
Consultation, evaluation, reports, and testimony
Civil and criminal matters
Expert/consultant
The health care bill that Congress passed recently is now being challenged by 18 states to date. The constitutionality of the bill will be a close call, with strong arguments on both sides. As former staff director of the bipartisan Commission on the Bicentennial of the U. S. Constitution, I wish here to present – as impartially as possible – both sides of the case, believing along with John Stuart Mill that “he who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
2+ Million - Tea PArty Marches Upon Washington
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reported that its counsel opined that the individual mandate requiring all to purchase health insurance is constitutional under the commerce clause. True or wishful thinking? The nub of the controversy seems this: Will the Supreme Court, citing the commerce clause, permit Congress to regulate inactivity – that is, the absence of commerce – by forcing citizens to buy a certain private-sector service or product?
But to this argument, defenders of the bill will counter that the aim of the commerce clause is not to regulate economic inactivity but to regulate health insurance and health care – an altogether different focus.
In response, opponents of the bill will argue that health insurance is a 10th Amendment states’ right, not a federal government right. States currently regulate health insurance.
As if matters aren’t confused enough, the Supreme Court has taken polar positions on the commerce clause. In Gonzalez v. Raich (2005), it ruled that the commerce clause can be used to regulate home-grown marijuana even if only for personal use. But in U. S. v. Lopez (1995), it ruled that the commerce clause does not authorize federal law banning guns in local school districts.
The constitutionality of the individual mandate will also be tested under the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the broad “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes.” Opponents of the individual mandate will argue that the mandate is not a tax, but a premium to insurance companies or a fine. Defenders of the mandate will counter that this premium or fine amounts to a tax, falling under the jurisdiction of the 16thAmendment. Also cited will be the enumerated power of the “general welfare” clause.
Opponents of the individual mandate will argue that the 16th Amendment, if used to permit the mandate, discriminates against freely choosing citizens who don’t want health insurance. But defenders will counter that the 16th Amendment already discriminates broadly: a graduated income tax is discriminatory. Mortgage deductions or deductions for children are discriminatory. We see a host of other discriminatory taxes whenever we file our yearly taxes.
Defenders of the individual mandate will argue that there are well established precedents for government coercion. Few people these days think that coerced social security payments or withheld Medicare premiums are unconstitutional. Car insurance is often cited, though that analogy fails: such is a mandated liability insurance for driving on roads and possibly getting into an accident – quite different from a mandated health insurance for simply living and breathing on American soil. And car insurance is a 10thAmendment states’ right, not a federal government right.
There is another unknown that could well enter into the matter of the constitutionality of the health care bill. The Supreme Court may elect not to meddle – on such an enormous, radical scale – into the domains of two constitutional branches of government: the presidency and Congress. Marbury v. Madison established the court’s power to rule an act of Congress unconstitutional, but the court in the health care matter might opt for recommending legislative relief.
Defenders of the bill will argue that the Constitution’s supremacy clause states explicitly that federal law shall be the “supreme law of the land.” Opponents will counter that federal law cannot be the supreme law of the land if that law is found unconstitutional, as in Marbury.
If any part of the health care bill is found unconstitutional, the whole bill fails because it contains no severability clause. Consensus holds that it will take two years for the constitutional challenge to progress through the federal district court, then the appellate court, and finally the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it is possible that an injunction from the district or appellate courts could put the entire bill on hold until the injunction is lifted or the case finally resolved.
My own view is that the Supreme Court will rule the health care bill unconstitutional because never in the history of jurisprudence has the court required a citizen to buy a certain private-sector product or service and never has it defined an insurance premium or resulting fine as a tax.
Ronald L. Trowbridge, Ph. D. is a Senior Fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. He served as chief of staff to the late U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger and to the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution.
Left Wing G.E.'s Keith Overbite - MSNBC
Obamacare: Written By Tom Daschle Behind Closed Doors! An Operative Of Felon George Soros.
MSNBC White Supremacists: Socialist Propaganda And Censoring The News.
