Republican Congressional leadership and GOP presidential candidates are gathering in Washington at the annual Values Voter Summit, a conference focusing on conservative social issues: abortion, sexual orientation and marriage.
The GOP has proven to be inadequate in choosing candidates for presidency. In 2008, the GOP had good candidates but no unified force. There were 7 running, so how did we get the worst one? That is easy, the conservatives were split six ways, allowing Senator McCain to prevail. John McCain was picked by the liberal States like New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey and those states after picking our GOP candidate, gave the Commie-in-Chief their support.
If you want our nation to survive, before the end of the year the Tea Parties across the nation must pick one and only one candidate and fully unite behind him or her. Then work their tails off to make sure that candidate is on every State GOP ballot.
All the Tea Party chapters must put their heads together, and pick the “National Tea Party Candidate.” I trust the Tea Party and its knowledge of the principles and issues, so if my guy or gal didn’t make it, so be it. I will support the unified Tea Party pick in the GOP Primary. We will make a difference only if we are unified. Do not fall prey to talk radio for your information. Do your own research. Remember it was the “Holy Trinity of Talk Radio,” Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck who falsely branded Mike Huckabee a Liberal and Mitt Romney a Conservative, only to have Romney usher in McCain. All three did a hatchet job on Huckabee while forgetting about Mitt’s dismal record as Governor. Let’s not be blinded by money and rhetoric this time. Mitt sold out and quit to give McCain the nomination “for the good of the party.” Well the party is not worth saving if it continues to enable Democrats. We need a President who is 100% percent Conservative with the strength to stand for those values and reestablish those values as national policy. That person should have a history of standing on principles and willing to fall on the sword for them. That President needs to lead and unify the GOP around principles not personnel. I have always said, “People come and people go, but principles endure forever.”
Levin: …and the storyline that he puts out…we’re all supposed to go gaga for, is that he’s a businessman, he’s got businesses, this is what you do. I don’t understand what that means? That means, did you get something in return for these contributions? Because that’s a crime. So what do you mean, you do these things, this is what a businessman does. What does a businessman do? Make unprincipled contributions to some of the most left-wing losers in the nation who are undermining our country?
This is the new Tea Party candidate?
Why? Because he has the gift of gab? Because he talks tough now?
The Conga-Line of candidates seeking the GOP nomination are gathering and practicing their dance moves and songs. They are rehearsing and perfecting their performances to get your approval, but we cannot fall for the song and the dance. We need proven leadership, proven principles, integrity, honesty, strong moral fiber, unquestionable character, and a belief in the One and only God. The clock is ticking and if we do not have our candidate by November, our Nation will be doomed.
February of 2010, as the Tea Party movement gained steam and we were fighting for every vote he gives money to Anthony Weiner. A year before that he gave to Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and Charlie Crist. Levin points out there was no money given to Rubio. And this is the person Republicans want to get behind. Insanity.
At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean’s disputed title in the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared Prejean’s stated views on gay marriage to Obama’s.
Explain how any of you can support a guy who says this:
“We must have universal healthcare,” wrote Trump. “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on this one. We should not hear so many stories of families ruined by healthcare expenses.”
“Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism.”
The goal of health care reform, wrote Trump, should be a system that looks a lot like Canada. “Doctors might be paid less than they are now, as is the case in Canada, but they would be able to treat more patients because of the reduction in their paperwork,” he writes.
The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans. There are fewer medical lawsuits, less loss of labor to sickness, and lower costs to companies paying for the medical care of their employees. If the program were in place in Massachusetts in 1999 it would have reduced administrative costs by $2.5 million. We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.
WHERE WAS HE ON THE BAILOUT?
WHERE WAS HE ON THE SYRIAN REZKO?
WHERE WAS HE ON THE HAITI EARTHQUAKE?
WHERE WAS HE ON THE JAPAN EARTHQUAKE?
WHERE WAS HE ON THE BRITISH PETROLEUM GULF OIL FIASCO?
WHERE WAS HE ON THE OIL DRILLING SHUTDOWN BY THE DEMOCRATS?
WHERE WAS HE ON THE ORCHESTRATED POLARIZATION BETWEEN UNIONS AND NON-UNION TAX PAYERS BECAUSE STATES HAD TO CUT BACK DUE TO REID/FRANK SITTING ON CANTWELL BILL?
WHY DOESN’T HE GET REID/FRANK TO ALLOW THE GLASS STEAGALL ACT/CANTWELL BILL TO BE VOTED ON EITHER UP OR DOWN? THE GLASS STEAGALL ACT WOULD REFUND THE FRAUDULENT BAILOUT BACK TO U.S.!
HE’S A BUSINESS MAN? – SURE, HE MAYBE A BUSINESS MAN BUT HE’S ALSO THE MEDIA’S PRETTY BOY! YOU KNOW WHERE HE WAS WHEN ALL OF THIS WAS GOING ON?
Mike Lee (left), Rand Paul and Jim DeMint are taking a hard line on the debt ceiling.
The Senate’s Tea Party Caucus will face a tough decision when it comes time to vote to raise the national debt limit: Fall in line behind Republican leadership or go rogue.
The founding members of the new caucus – freshman Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and second-term Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) – are each considering whether to mount a filibuster to block an increase of the $14.3 trillion national debt ceiling.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his leadership team are quietly voicing concerns about a filibuster, saying their preferred strategy is to force Democrats to find 51 votes among themselves, so they can be solely responsible for raising the national borrowing limit. Since 60 votes would be needed to overcome a filibuster, at least seven Republicans would have to ultimately back a debt limit hike if the party didn’t want to take the blame for forcing a default on the nation’s creditors – which would badly muddy the political message.
ALL ROADS TO U.S. DEBT BY DERIVATIVE MORTGAGE SCAM LEADS TO ROTHSCHILD CITY OF LONDON BANKING CABAL!
The vote, which carries both tangible and political consequences, will be a test of how far the fiercely conservative tea party senators are willing to take their purist ideology.
“Look, I intend to fight the debt ceiling increase and use as many tools in my disposal as I can muster under the circumstances,” Lee told POLITICO Wednesday. “At this point, there are a lot of variables to figure out exactly what the best procedural tool is and what the best way of influencing my colleagues not to do this is. I’m not ruling anything out.”
Asked about leadership’s wariness of a potential filibuster, Lee said: “On an issue this big, obviously there is going to be some coordination among Republicans, and I want to make sure anything I do doesn’t undo what my colleagues within the party are doing.”
The White House has called for a debt hike to be kept free of conditions, fearing a bitter partisan feud over extraneous measures could doom the vote and ultimately imperil the world’s economy. But virtually all House and Senate Republicans are refusing to support such a “clean” debt-ceiling hike and are demanding a range of measures to curtail the budget.
It remains to be seen how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) handles the matter, given that he runs a caucus with a number of Democrats worried about the political backlash of the vote. Some think Reid may even seek a 60-vote threshold to force Republican buy-in on the politically sensitive issue, but a spokesman says those talks have not yet occurred.
DeMint said Wednesday he’s “considering both options” when asked whether he’d filibuster or allow an up-or-down vote.
“I think we should do everything we can to avoid raising the debt ceiling,” DeMint said. “I think what’s going to disappoint [tea party activists] is if we don’t get a clear vote on a House budget amendment, and if we don’t get a good vote on the spending caps. I think people want to see our lining up on those things.”
After Lee made a recent filibuster threat on the matter, McConnell pulled him aside to talk about his strategy – and he’s had similar conversations with DeMint, according to people familiar with the talks. It used to be routine for the debt limit to be increased by a simple majority in the Senate, until January 2010 when McConnell insisted that Democrats clear a 60-vote threshold when their party held 60 seats.
In recent weeks, the Senate Republican Conference has had numerous strategy sessions about how they plan to approach the delicate issue – and they plan to use the vote as leverage by demanding Democrats give up a lot in the way of spending caps and budget process reforms.
For instance, the 47 Republican senators have all united behind a constitutional amendment calling on Congress to balance its budget – and are expected to demand such a proposal as a condition for their support.
The complete strategy is still being concocted – and will take more time to hash itself out since the White House has not specified precisely how high to extend the debt ceiling and it’s unclear how the votes will be structured. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that the government would hit the limit no later than May 16, and he said he could take “extraordinary” action to delay it until July 8.
McConnell told reporters Tuesday that “in order to get my vote for raising the deficit limit, that we need to do something significant about the debt … something the markets would view as significant, something the American people would view as significant, something foreign countries would view as significant.”
While it’s clear House and Senate Republicans will make major demands, it’s unclear what will happen if the White House and Senate Democrats balk.
For his vote, Paul told reporters Wednesday a debt limit hike must include a balanced budget amendment, but Democrats say such a plan would make Congress virtually ungovernable. And it would almost certainly lack the 67 votes needed for its adoption, since just 11 Democrats voted for Lee’s non-binding resolution on the matter in March.
But Paul wouldn’t say whether he’d filibuster a plan without a balanced budget amendment.
“We’ve got to significantly change the way we’re doing things around here,” he said.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is eagerly awaiting the vote to attack Democratic senators facing reelection in 2012 for either raising the debt limit – or flip-flopping from positions they’ve held in the past.
Asked about a GOP filibuster, Cornyn said: “I think the better thing to do is let’s have an up-or-down vote and let the Democrats be the ones that pass it. And let’s see the two people who are able to talk Harry Reid to give them a pass on the Democratic side. … Some of these things we’re going to have to continue to contrast with our approach and their approach.”
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), No. 4 in leadership, said the talks are still “very fluid” and noted that the Senate’s rules give each of its members wide latitude to try to block legislation.
But he noted the upside of not threatening to filibuster a debt-limit hike.
“If you don’t, they got to produce the votes to pass it.”
A top conservative senator on Thursday indicated he is willing to go to extreme lengths to prevent a vote on raising the debt ceiling, even if it hurts the Republican Party politically.
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said on the conservative Laura Ingraham Show he is considering filibustering an upcoming vote to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt limit if it doesn’t contain other fiscal reforms.
Asked if that would serve as the GOP’s “Waterloo” in the 2012 elections, the senator replied, “If it is, then let it be.”
That could pose a conundrum for leaders in both political parties, who say it is imperative for Congress to raise the debt ceiling to prevent the government from defaulting on its debt.
DeMint’s remarks evoke his mantra from the last election, when he pledged to make the Democrats’ healthcare law President Obama’s “Waterloo,” referring to the ultimate defeat of 19th century French leader Napoleon Bonaparte.
“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo, it will break him,” DeMint said in the summer of 2009.
The White House has warned Republicans not to block a vote on the debt limit. Failing to raise the ceiling would be “Armageddon-like“ for the economy, Obama spokesman Jay Carney said recently. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said the U.S. is expected to reach its debt limit by May 16.
Meanwhile, GOP leaders have said they would be open to doing so if serious spending cuts or fiscal reforms are attached to the vote. Some GOP senators have called for their balanced budget amendment to be attached to the vote.
DeMint, whom Tea Party activists consider a key ally, urged Republican leaders to draw the line.
“I think Republicans have to decide this is a time to start the fight,” he said. ”Not passing the debt ceiling is not going to cause us to default on our debt.”
To Hell With The Debt Ceiling Dog & Pony Show ~ Nullify The Fraudulent Rothschild Banking Bailout With The Glass Steagall Act & The Debt Is Brought To Justice & Lowered To Normal!
OBAMA HAS THE ROTHSCHILD’S FED RESERVE PRINTING $TRILLIONS OF UNBACKED NEW UNITED STATES CURRENCY, WHICH IS FLOODING THE COMMODITIES MARKET AT A RATE OF $110 BILLION EACH MONTH.
“Bailout Barney” is Personally Sitting On, And Blocking, Glass-Steagall Revival
The flag debates began during the Vietnam era when leftist radicals made the fatal error of burning it. For decades since, non-suicidal liberals have tried to undo the damage. Demeaningly, and somewhat unfairly, they are forever having to prove their fealty to the flag.
Amazingly, though, some still couldn’t get it quite right. During the last presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama, asked why he was not wearing a flag pin, answered that it represented “a substitute” for “true patriotism.” Bad move. Months later, Obama quietly beat a retreat and began wearing the flag on his lapel. He does so still.
Today, the issue is the Constitution. It’s a healthier debate because flags are pure symbolism and therefore more likely to evoke pure emotion and ad hominem argument. The Constitution, on the other hand, is a document that speaks. It defines concretely the nature of our social contract. Nothing in our public life is more substantive.
Americans are in the midst of a great national debate over the power, scope and reach of the government established by that document. The debate was sparked by the current administration’s bold push for government expansion – a massive fiscal stimulus, Obamacare, financial regulation and various attempts at controlling the energy economy. This engendered a popular reaction, identified with the Tea Party but in reality far more widespread, calling for a more restrictive vision of government more consistent with the Founders’ intent.
Call it constitutionalism. In essence, constitutionalism is the intellectual counterpart and spiritual progeny of the “originalism” movement in jurisprudence. Judicial “originalists” (led by Antonin Scalia and other notable conservative jurists) insist that legal interpretation be bound by the text of the Constitution as understood by those who wrote it and their contemporaries. Originalism has grown to become the major challenger to the liberal “living Constitution” school, under which high courts are channelers of the spirit of the age, free to create new constitutional principles accordingly.
What originalism is to jurisprudence, constitutionalism is to governance: a call for restraint rooted in constitutional text. Constitutionalism as a political philosophy represents a reformed, self-regulating conservatism that bases its call for minimalist government – for reining in the willfulness of presidents and legislatures – in the words and meaning of the Constitution.
Hence that highly symbolic moment on Thursday when the 112th House of Representatives opened with a reading of the Constitution. Remarkably, this had never been done before – perhaps because it had never been so needed. The reading reflected the feeling, expressed powerfully in the last election, that we had moved far, especially the past two years, from a government constitutionally limited by its enumerated powers to a government constrained only by its perception of social need.
The most galvanizing example of this expansive shift was, of course, the Democrats’ health-care reform, which will revolutionize one-sixth of the economy and impose an individual mandate that levies a fine on anyone who does not enter into a private contract with a health insurance company. Whatever its merits as policy, there is no doubting its seriousness as constitutional precedent: If Congress can impose such a mandate, is there anything that Congress may not impose upon the individual?
The new Republican House will henceforth require, in writing, constitutional grounding for every bill submitted. A fine idea, although I suspect 90 percent of them will simply make a ritual appeal to the “general welfare” clause. Nonetheless, anything that reminds members of Congress that they are not untethered free agents is salutary.
But still mostly symbolic. The real test of the Republicans’ newfound constitutionalism will come in legislating. Will they really cut government spending? Will they really roll back regulations? Earmarks are nothing. Do the Republicans have the courage to go after entitlements as well?
In the interim, the cynics had best tread carefully. Some liberals are already disdaining the new constitutionalism, denigrating the document’s relevance and sneering at its public recitation. They sneer at their political peril. In choosing to focus on a majestic document that bears both study and recitation, the reformed conservatism of the Obama era has found itself not just a symbol but an anchor.
Constitutionalism as a guiding political tendency will require careful and thoughtful development, as did jurisprudential originalism. But its wide appeal and philosophical depth make it a promising first step to a conservative future.
Principle I states, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.”
Principle II
Principle II states, “The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.”
Principle III
Principle III states, “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”
Principle IV
Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: “It is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders’”.
Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as “Superior Orders“. After the prominent, high profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as “Nuremberg Defense“. In recent times, a third term, “Lawful orders” has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”
Principle VII
Principle VII states, “Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”
And trials there must be. No matter the cost, the nest of vipers on Capitol Hill, and all of the traitors in the government at large, must be brought to task for their behavior, or a free America is doomed.
Why did Obama just recently stop the lawful return from South Korea of 100,000 World War II antique surplus M1 Carbine and M1 Grand rifles that were to be shipped to the curio firearms market in The States? The relic riffles are not considered an item purchased by drug cartels. Buyers of relic rifles have for decades been excluded from certain registration requirements; that has resulted in government not being able to track the weapons. It is apparent Obama does not want these relic riffles in the hands of Americans.
Recently you may have read about the Obama government ordering hundreds’ of new X-Ray Vans that will be traveling our streets, without warrants secretly x-raying Americans, peering though Citizens’ homes and vehicles, exposing Americans and their families to X-rays. X-ray vans are an affront to privacy, literally allowing government/police to view Citizens in their bedrooms. Americans need to ask Obama if independent studies were conducted to determine if Citizens could develop Cancer, if (repeatedly exposed) to X-rays by police when in their vehicles and in their homes? Continued Low Radiation Exposure is Accumulative and believed to cause Cancer. Police intend to use the X-Ray Vans to search for drugs and weapons.
X-Ray Vans can ALSO be positioned to secure perimeters by the military or police to control civil unrest and instances of revolt, to screen and stop Citizens carrying guns, cameras; any item. Why did the government order hundreds X-Ray Vans?
Obama the last six months and certain members of Congress have proposed or taken steps to give President Obama unprecedented power to crush Americans’ civil liberties, to incarcerate without trial Citizens that speak out—effectively gagging and Locking down America. For example: In April 2010 Obama during a national security speech, asked Congress for the Power to imprison Americans not on evidence or probable cause, but on government’s word someone might support or commit a violent act in the future; Thought Police?
Obama wants to curtail the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments including allowing the FBI warrant-less wiretapping of all Americans’ electronic communications including no warrant searches of Internet Activity and emails. No doubt that will make Citizens afraid to communicate by phone or email and worry, someone might say something inappropriate during a phone call or send email that will cause their arrest if they don’t report it to police. Police too easily can take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or asset forfeiture. There are over 200 U.S. laws and violations mentioned in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 and the Patriot Act that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture. Under federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. US private contractors and their operatives (people/asset bounty hunters) work so closely with police exchanging information to arrest Americans and or share in the forfeiture of their assets, they appear to merge with police. Under Obama’s no warrant proposal anything said on a phone or in an email can be used by government against someone in a trial or civil proceeding, e.g. an asset forfeiture proceeding, the latter requiring only a civil preponderance of evidence to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.
On March 4, 2010, Senator John McCain introduced S.3081 The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” If passed, the government can use (only suspicion) or less to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to McCain’s S.3081, Government would not be required to provide (detained individuals) Miranda Warnings or even an attorney. Americans could be interrogated and held indefinitely in military custody on only suspicion of being an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or purposefully and materially (supported) hostilities against the United States; its coalition partners or civilians. “Materially Supporting Hostilities” against the United States could include any person or group that spoke out or demonstrated disapproval against an agency of U.S. Government; Government could allege attending a protest supported hostilities.
When you read McCain’s bill it appears “suspicion” is not necessary for government to detain and interrogate Americans. If the government is allowed warrant-less wiretapping of Citizens’ phones, Internet Activity, e.g. email, any statement or comment could be taken out of context, used under McCain’s bill to deem someone supported or engaged in hostilities to cause their indefinite detention. Note that Government is already referring to lawful demonstrators as Terrorists, and increasingly spies on lawful Americans and protesters that speak out. See McCain Senate bill S.3081:
When one objectively views Obama’s recent actions and certain Members of Congress, e.g. John McCain on March 4th 2010 introduced S.3081 that would curtail Constitutional Protections, jailing Americans without probable cause or warrant; government spying on Citizens in their homes using hundreds of X-ray Vans; Obama’s request FBI/NSA without warrants wiretap all Citizens’ phone and other private electronic communications, one might ask, does the Obama Government intend to Lock Down America? If you think about it, much of what Obama has already done and intends, will crush our Constitutionally protected freedoms amounting to Marshal Law although the President is not calling it that.
Compare where the U.S. is headed, crushing political dissent, government/police intimidating Citizens from speaking or writing their opinions, with Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Laws shown below.
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE
Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7
In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:
Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) W.G. Boykin
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
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.
“BE TRUE TO THE CONSTITUTION” –MARTIN LUTHER KING
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.
Holder Warns of Threats Within, ‘Radical’ Citizens
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.
Salon Publishes Call for Torture, Murder of Sarah Palin
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!”
We are starting 2011 by hitting the ground running, as all five candidates running for Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC) meet up for a debate co-sponsored by the SBA List in partnership with Americans for Tax Reform and Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller.
Thanks to the help of SBA List activists across the country, our proposed questions have received the most votes out of any questions proposed in the entire country at RNCDebate.org!
Because of your enthusiastic participation, I’ll be able to personally ask our Life questions on your behalf at today’s debate. And since I’ll be representing all social conservatives during the debate, I will also be able to question the candidates on Marriage.
The debate will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EST this afternoon, Monday, January 3rd here in Washington, D.C. and will be broadcast live on C-SPAN. It will also be streamed live online at RNCDebate.com andDailyCaller.com. I hope that you can watch either on C-SPAN or online.
There are three ways you can help us ensure the next Chairman of the Republican Party is firmly committed to advancing the Right to Life:
Propose a follow-up question on Twitter. After the initial round of questioning, follow-up questions proposed by activists across America on Twitter will be asked. If you’d like to ask a specific question to any or all of the candidates, you can post your question now or after you’ve heard the first part of the debate. Make sure to use #RNCDebate and/or #RNCChair hashtags. (Also, make sure you are following us on Twitter @SBAList)
Watch my pre-debate Skype interviews with all six of the candidates running for RNC Chair, including our most recent interviews with candidates Maria Cino and current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.Special thanks to Maggie Gallagher, President of the National Organization for Marriage, and Frank Cannon, President of American Principles Project, for helping me interview the candidates.
As pro-life advocates in the political sphere, we must advance the Right to Life at every opportunity—that includes influencing a political party’s position on Life. Thank you for helping the SBA List advance this critical mission!
For Life,
Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List www.sba-list.org
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican-leaning states will pick up a half dozen House seats thanks to the 2010 census, which found the nation’s population growing more slowly than in past decades but still shifting to the South and West.
The Census Bureau announced Tuesday that the nation’s population on April 1 was 308,745,538, up from 281.4 million a decade ago. The growth rate for the past decade was 9.7 percent, a slower pace than the 13.2 percent population increase from 1990 to 2000.
Only one state, Michigan, lost population during the past decade. Nevada, with a 35 percent increase, was the fastest-growing state.
The new numbers are a boon for Republicans, with Texas leading the way among GOP-leaning states that will gain House seats at the Rust Belt‘s expense. Following each once-a-decade census, the nation must reapportion the House’s 435 districts to make them roughly equal in population, with each state getting at least one seat.
That triggers an often contentious and partisan process in many states, which will draw new congressional district lines that can help or hurt either party.
Texas will gain four new House seats, and Florida will gain two. Gaining one each are Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington.
Ohio and New York will lose two House seats each. Losing one House seat are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Florida will now have as many U.S. House members as New York: 27. California will still have 53 seats, and Texas will climb to 36.
In 2008, President Barack Obama lost in Texas and most of the other states that are gaining House seats. He carried most of the states that are losing House seats, including Ohio and Pennsylvania. Each House district represents an electoral vote in the presidential election process, meaning the political map for the 2012 election will tilt somewhat more Republican.
For the first time in its history, Democratic-leaning California will not gain a House seat after a census.
Starting early next year, most state governments will use detailed, computer-generated data on voting patterns to carve neighborhoods in or out of newly drawn House districts, tilting them more to the left or right. Sometimes politicians play it safe, quietly agreeing to protect Republican and Democratic incumbents alike. But sometimes the party in control will gamble and aggressively try to reconfigure the map to dump as many opponents as possible.
Last month’s elections put Republicans in full control of numerous state governments, giving the GOP an overall edge in the redistricting process. State governments’ ability to gerrymander districts is somewhat limited, however, by court rulings that require roughly equal populations, among other things. The 1965 Voting Rights Act protects ethnic minorities in several states that are subject to U.S. Justice Department oversight.
The U.S. is still growing quickly relative to other developed nations. The population in France and England each increased roughly 5 percent over the past decade, while in Japan the number is largely unchanged, and Germany’s population is declining. China grew at about 6 percent; Canada’s growth rate is roughly 10 percent.
The declining U.S. growth rate since 2000 is due partly to the economic meltdown in 2008, which brought U.S. births and illegal immigration to a near standstill compared with previous years. The 2010 count represents the number of people — citizens as well as legal and illegal immigrants — who called the U.S. their home on April 1.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sought Monday to downplay the possibility that 2010 census results would be a boon for Republicans. “I don’t think shifting some seats from one area of the country to another necessarily marks a concern that you can’t make a politically potent argument in those new places,” he said.
States losing political clout may have little recourse to challenge the census numbers. Still, census officials were bracing for the possibility of lawsuits seeking to revise the 2010 findings.
The release of state apportionment numbers is the first set of numbers from the 2010 census. Beginning in February, the Census Bureau will release population and race breakdowns down to the neighborhood level for states to redraw congressional boundaries.
Louisiana, Virginia, New Jersey and Mississippi will be among the first states to receive their redistricting data in February.
The 2010 census results also are used to distribute more than $400 billion in annual federal aid and will change each state’s Electoral College votes beginning in the 2012 presidential election.
The United States of America keeps the United Nations afloat. In 2009 we were assessed 22% of the budget of the UN, and paid out slightly under 24% of what was collected, thanks to the Tax Equalization Fund system*. So in practice we paid about a quarter of the UN budget. Without us, the UN has to do some serious belt tightening.
So if we’re going to keep alive the UN as we know it, spending $598,292,101 in a direct assessment and surely more in other expenses, we’d best make sure we’re getting our money’s worth. The Obama deficit has gone through the roof and we simply cannot afford frivolous luxuries anymore. If the UN is not achieving its mission, it’s time we stopped paying for it.
This month I believe the UN has finally crossed the threshold of uselessness, and it’s time we defund it.
We worked hard to win the House this year. We earned it. We convinced the voters and they went our way. We’ve earned the power of the purse. As Barack Obama is still the President, we are limited in our ability to change policy, but we do have the power to defund anything. It’s time we used it on the UN.
After all, despite the UN paralysis with respect to Iraq, the UN perfidy with respect to Israel, the UN silence in Africa, and the UN shame in abortion worldwide, the one great, shining example of UN success was always supposed to be Korea. In Korea, the UN stood up to aggression and saved a free people from Communist tyranny.
Of course, UN Security Council Resolution 82 was passed when China’s permanent seat was held by the Taipei government and the USSR was protesting. So of the four vetoes present, all four were anti-Communist. So yes, it was a perfect scenario for consensus and action at the UN, and so the UNSC voted 9-0 (with the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia abstaining and the USSR not present) to defend the Republic of (South) Korea from violent aggression by the Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea. The UN had a primary mission of working for peace, and it delivered for South Korea.
This weekend the UN Security Council had an opportunity to act to defend South Korea again and throw the weight of international opinion in favor of maintaining the armistice that has mostly kept the peace between the Koreas. North Korea launched an artillery attack the South last month, on November 23rd. All the UN had to do was to declare that another aggressive attack, condemn it, and promise the weight of international force against the North should the attacks continue. All the UN had to do was to repeat its performance on June 25, 1950.
The UN failed. US Envoy Susan Rice says “The gaps that remain are unlikely to be bridged,” meaning no UNSC resolution is coming on the Korean matter. While in 1950 Taipei had a veto, in 2010 that veto is held by Beijing and another veto is held by Moscow, and it’s clear that both vetoes will be used to protect the North Korean aggressors from UN condemnation.
If the UN can’t even keep the peace at the location of its one great success, then there’s no point in even having a UN anymore. It’s time we defund it, withdraw from it, and suggest the New York offices be moved to Geneva or Vienna.
* The UN skims off of every UN salary a private withholding tax, called a staff assessment. Those staff assessments go into the Tax Equalization Fund. In 2009 every country got about 10% of its dues knocked off by the TEF, except the US because our share was used to pay the taxes of every UN staffer that owed US income tax on his UN salary. Essentially the UN taxes its employees to subsidize the UN dues of Japan, Germany, and every other country not named the United States of America.
REPUBLICANS TAKE CONTROL OF HOUSE WHILE DEMOCRATS KEEP CONTROL OF SENATE
Today
Republicans surpassed the 218 seats needed to gain power in House, while the Democrats held onto the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also won his race.
With a projected net gain of more than 58 seats, Republicans will take control of the U.S. House in January. The number of Democratic seats won by the Republicans top the 54 seats gained in 1994 during President Clinton’s first term. The gains are the GOP’s largest since 1938, when the party captured 80 seats.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), expected to become the next Speaker of the House, addressed supporters and said: “Across the country right now, we are witnessing a repudiation of Washington, a repudiation of big government and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the American people.”
Among Democratic casualties were two committee chairmen: House Budget Committee Chair Rep. John Spratt (D-SC), who lost to Mick Mulvaney; and House Armed Services Committee Chair Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), who was defeated by Vicky Hartzler.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) defeated Tea Party-backed Sharron Angle (R). In West Virginia’s special election to fill the U.S. Senator seat held by the late Robert Byrd’s (D), Governor Joe Manchin (D) won. In other hotly contested races, Richard Blumenthal (D) won the Connecticut Senate seat over former World Wrestling Entertainment chief executive Linda McMahon (R), as well as Chris Coons (D) defeated Tea Party-backed Christine O’Donnell (R) in Delaware.
Republicans did pick up some seats, including Pat Toomey (R) defeating Rep. Joe Sestak (D) in Pennsylvania; Ron Johnson (R) defeating Senator Russ Feingold (D) in Wisconsin; John Boozman (R) defeating Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) in Arkansas. In open seats, Rand Paul (R) won in Kentucky, defeating Democrat Jack Conway and Marco Rubio won in Florida, defeating Gov. Charlie Crist (I) and Kendrick Meek (D).
Democrat Socialist Party Members That Still Must Be Removed
Nevada Voter Fraud: Did Harry Reid Really Steal Nevada?
A serious investigation into potential vote fraud needs to be launched immediately in Nevada, after incumbent Harry Reid beat Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle by a clear five points, despite pre-election polls showing Angle four points ahead, amidst suspicious evidence of vote flipping and other dirty tricks on behalf of the Reid campaign last week that were dubbed “criminal” by Angle’s campaign attorney.
Angle clearly had the momentum going into the election, having come from behind to take the lead over the Senate majority leader.
Four separate Rasmussen polls prior to the election had Angle ahead. Two weeks before Super Tuesday, she held a 50% to 47% lead over Reid. One week prior to voting, on October 26, her lead was extended to four points, with Angle at 49% and Reid at 45%.
The race was tight, but surveys clearly showed that Angle was gradually extending her lead as each week went by.
To have a nine point swing, from Angle enjoying a four point lead just a week before the election, to Reid winning the seat by a clear five points, is highly suspicious, especially given the chicanery that came to light just last week. Nine points is not within the margin of error for polls, especially those conducted by Rasmussen, which is considered to be one of if not the most credible polling agency.
The technicians that serviced those electronic voting machines were the pro-Reid SEIU (Service Employees International Union), the same corrupt union that was behind thousands of bogus voter registrations across the nation. The SEIU spent $44 million during this election cycle, nearly all of which went to Democrats.
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Iowa Voters Kick Out Judges Who Favored Gay Marriage
Three Iowa Supreme Court justices lost their seats Tuesday in a historic upset fueled by their 2009 decision that allowed same-sex couples to marry.
Vote totals from 96% of Iowa’s 1,774 precincts showed Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit with less than the simple majority needed to stay on the bench.
Their removal marked the first time an Iowa Supreme Court justice has not been retained since 1962, when the merit selection and retention system for judges was adopted.
The decision is expected to echo to courts throughout the country, as conservatives had hoped.
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:
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows about half of all likely voters want a GOP-led Congress. Also, Republicans have a 12-point edge in enthusiasm, 53 percent to 41 percent. “This is a devastating set of data for the incumbent party,” GOP pollster Bill McInturff told NBC News.
President Obama’s job-approval rating has dropped 2 points in the past month and now stands at 45 percent, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll states.
RealClearPolitics.com estimates a whopping 67-seat GOP gain in the House, based on its elaborate analysis of poll results nationwide. Its average GOP edge in the generic ballot, based on an average of 10 recent polls, stands at 8 percent.
New polls of specific races bear ominous news for Democrats. Washington Incumbent Democratic Sen. Patty Murray’s lead in the RealClearPolitics average of polls, in a race Democrats lauded as part of their “Pacific Coast firewall,” is now three-tenths of one percent over GOP challenger Dino Rossi.
Republicans Ken Buck in Colorado and Sharron Angle in Nevada appear to have established narrow but consistent leads in their respective races. Democratic incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer’s lead over former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in California is just 4 points, according to the latest Public Policy Polling data.
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.”
Rhinos John McCain And Limp Wrist Lindsey Graham, Orchestrates Condemnation Of GOP To Instill A Polarizing Fight Between Democrats And Republicans. Their polarizing comments served no purpose on a national msm channel.
Washington - “How much of my hard-earned money is Washington going to take next year?” It’s a question every single American family, business owner, and investor is asking themselves right now. Unfortunately, not one of them knows the answer.
On January 1, 2011, an economy-crippling armada of tax increases are scheduled to take effect. They include:
Personal Income Tax Hikes – The lowest-income taxpayers (the 10% bracket) get bumped up to 15%. Tax rates for the top four brackets will rise to 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%. That’s less money your family will have to discuss around the dining room table.
Savings and Investment Tax Hikes – Individual capital gains tax rates will increase to 20% and 10% (from 15% and 5%). The double taxation of dividends will increase by as much as 164% (as they will no longer be taxed at the capital gains rate for individuals). Higher taxes on savings and investment will result in less of both – and a weaker job market.
The Marriage Penalty – Married couples will once again be penalized for their commitment with a higher tax burden relative to non-married couples with similar incomes.
The Death Tax – This macabre tax was eradicated this year, but next year it will return from the grave to confiscate up to 55% of a deceased person’s assets over $1 million. The Death Tax would be responsible for the demise of small businesses shortly after the demise of their owners (because the inheritors must sell the business to pay the tax).
Small Business Expensing – Small businesses can currently “expense” (much quicker than “depreciating”) certain purchases valued up to $250,000. That figure will plummet to just $25,000, meaning the primary job-creators in America will have a much tougher time expanding their businesses – leading to a weaker job market.
The Alternative Minimum Tax – The AMT, created in 1969 to cover a very small number of taxpayers, will ensnare upwards of 15 million taxpayers in 2011. Will you be hit? You won’t know for sure until you file your tax return.
All this sounds ominous enough, but it’s just the beginning. (A longer list of 2011 tax increases can be found here.) Our economy and job market would be much better off if Democrats joined with Republicans in stopping these job-killing tax hikes before they take effect. But they won’t do it.
Why not? Because Democrats want most of the 2011 tax hikes to go on as planned, but they don’t want to be held accountable.
“Democratic leaders are likely to punt the task of renewing Bush-era tax cuts until after the election. Voters in November’s midterms will thus be left without a clear idea of their future tax rates when they go to the polls.” (The Hill, 7/1/10)
Consumers and job-creators are reacting rationally to the Democrats’ reckless indecision (plus the prospect of more trillion dollar deficits, higher costs from ObamaCare, and the harmful impact of the Dodd-Frank permanent bailout bill) by putting their consumption and job creation on hold.
But the uncertainty about future tax burdens hasn’t just prompted less buying and hiring. Many families and businesses are preparing for next year’s massive tax increases by pulling as much of their 2011 income as possible into 2010. That spells bad news for the economy (and tax revenues) next year.
Of course, Democrats could easily avoid these job-killing tax hikes and this job-killing environment of uncertainty by addressing the issue today. The fact that they won’t suggests they care more about their own jobs than jobs for the American public.
IN HIS OWN WORDS, STOOLPAK ADMITS THAT HE WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR THE HEALTH CARE BILL ALL ALONG!
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
-- C. S. Lewis (1898 – 1963)
QUESTION FOR STOOLPAK
By allowing this bill to go forward, do you feel any culpability in the ABORTION of $500 billion dollars of health care to Medicare Recipients?
A DATE WHICH WILL LIVE IN INFIRMARY
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Sunday night spoke out a Republican motion to sideline healthcare reform legislation, but which included abortion language similar to
Republicans filed a motion to recommit on the reconciliation package of fixes to the bill directly after the House passed the underlying Senate healthcare bill 219-212. If approved by a vote, the motion would refer the bill back to committee with instructions that included language similar to the Stupak amendment to the House’s original healthcare bill.
Stupak said that the motion would derail the bill, and would not achieve the goals he sought.
“The motion to recommit does not promote life, it is the Democrats who have stood up for the principle of no public funding for abortion,” he said on the House floor, calling the move “disingenuous.”
Stupak and his voting bloc witheld their votes from the Senate bill until they reached a compromise with the White House earlier Sunday.
The President was right about one thing. The vote on Obamacare tonight was a historic one. The Democratic Party has in the course of the nine-month health care debate revealed itself to be an anti-democratic Party and an anti-liberty party. It is a party that has demonstrated its contempt for the Constitutional framework, for the democratic process, and for the expressed will of the American people. Its brazen contempt for the compact that holds the diverse factions of this country together has initiated a political war at home that will extend not only into the next elections but into the next generations that will be encumbered with the trillions in debt and oppressive government controls that the socialist majority in Congress has demonstrated that it is intent on inflicting on this country. The people of this nation are still sovereign, and their voice will be heard. Tonight’s vote was lost but it is not the end of the battle. It is the beginning.
WASHINGTON – With tempers flaring, President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans clashed in an extraordinary live-on-TV summit Thursday over the right prescription for the nation’s broken health care system, talking of agreement but holding to long-entrenched positions that leave them far apart.
“We have a very difficult gap to bridge here,” said Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican. “We just can’t afford this. That’s the ultimate problem.”
With Cantor sitting in front of a giant stack of nearly 2,400 pages representing the Democrats’ Senate-passed bill, Obama said cost is a legitimate question, but he took Cantor and other Republicans to task for using political shorthand and props “that prevent us from having a conversation.”
And so it went, hour after hour at Blair House, just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House.
Obama and his Democratic allies argued that a sweeping health overhaul is imperative for the nation’s future economic vitality. With the marathon policy debate available from start to finish to a divided public, Obama cast the health care crisis as “one of the biggest drags on our economy,” tying his top domestic priority to the issue that’s even more pressing to many Americans.
“This is the last chance, as far as I’m concerned,” Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y.
Obama lamented partisan bickering that has resulted in a stalemate over legislation to extend coverage to more than 30 million people who are now uninsured. “Politics I think ended up trumping practical common sense,” he said.
And yet, even as he pleaded for cooperation — “actually a discussion, and not just us trading talking points” — he insisted on a number of Democratic points and acknowledged agreement may not be possible. “I don’t know that those gaps can be bridged,” Obama said. “If not, at least we will have better clarified for the American people what the debate is all about.”
With hardened positions well staked out before the meeting, the president and his Democratic allies prepared to move on alone. Politically, it would be an all-or-nothing gamble in a midterm election year for Democrats bent on achieving a goal that has eluded lawmakers for a half-century.
One option is to try to pass a comprehensive plan without GOP support, by using controversial Senate budget reconciliation rules that would disallow filibusters. Alexander asked Democrats to swear off a jam-it-through approach, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended it. Obama weighed in with gentle chiding, asking both sides to focus on substance and worry about process later — a plea he made repeatedly throughout the day with little success.
A USA Today/Gallup survey released Thursday found Americans tilt 49-42 against Democrats forging ahead by themselves without any GOP support. Opposition was even stronger to the idea of Senate Democrats using the special budget rules, with 52 percent opposed and 39 percent in favor.
Obama’s skepticism about reaching consensus was vindicated as soon as the first Republican spoke — in opposition to the mammoth bills that have passed the House and Senate and in favor of a much more modest approach. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said Congress and the administration should start over and take small steps, including medical malpractice reform, high-risk insurance pools, a way to allow Americans to shop out of state for lower-cost plans and an expansion of health savings accounts.
“We believe we have a better idea,” Alexander said. “Our views represent the views of a great many American people.”
Disagreements were not always expressed diplomatically.
Alexander challenged Obama’s claim that insurance premiums would fall under the Democratic legislation. “You’re wrong,” he said. Responded Obama: “I’m pretty certain I’m not wrong.”
As with much in the complicated health care debate, both sides had a point. The Congressional Budget Office says average premiums for people buying insurance individually would be 10 to 13 percent higher in 2016 under the Senate legislation, as Alexander said. But the policies would cover more medical services, and around half of people could get government subsidies to defray the extra costs.
Obama and his 2008 GOP opponent for the presidency, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, had a barbed exchange. McCain complained at length about what he said was a back-door process to produce the original bills that resulted in favors for special interests and carve-outs for certain states.
“We’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over,” responded a clearly irritated Obama.
“I’m reminded of that every day,” McCain shot back, adding that “the American people care about what we did and how we did it.”
Said Obama: “We can have a debate about process or we can have a debate about how we’re actually going to help the American people at this point. And I think that’s — the latter debate is the one that they care about a little bit more.”
Generally, polls show Americans want solutions to the problems of high medical costs, eroding access to coverage and uneven quality. But they are split over the Democrats’ sweeping legislation, with its $1 trillion, 10-year price tag and many complex provisions, including some that wouldn’t take effect for eight years.
The Democratic bills would require most Americans to get health insurance, while providing subsidies for many in the form of a new tax credit. The Democrats would set up a competitive insurance market for small businesses and people buying coverage on their own. Democrats also would make a host of other changes, which include addressing a coverage gap in the Medicare prescription benefit and setting up a new long-term-care insurance program. Their plan would be paid for through a mix of Medicare cuts and tax increases.
Another alternative if bipartisan agreement eludes Obama on Thursday is going smaller, with a modest bill that would merely smooth some of the rough edges from the current system. The Republican approaches, for instance, would help people now struggling with costs and coverage but probably not put the nation on a path toward coverage for all.
A month after the Massachusetts election that cost Democrats their Senate supermajority and threw the health legislation in doubt, the White House has developed its own slimmed-down health care proposal so the president will know what the impact would be if he chooses that route, according to a Democratic official familiar with the discussions. That official could not provide details, but Democrats have looked at approaches including expanding Medicaid and allowing children to stay on their parents’ health plans until around age 26.
Obama himself hinted at a Democrats-only strategy. When asked by reporters as he walked to the summit site if he had a Plan B, he responded: “I’ve always got plans.”
“Not only are lawmakers polarized, the parties’ constituencies are far apart,” said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University professor who follows public opinion trends on health care. “The president is going to use it as a launching pad for what will be the last effort to get a big bill passed. He will say that he tried to get a bipartisan compromise and it wasn’t possible.”
The summit was held at Blair House, the elegant presidential guest quarters across the street from the White House. Leaders of both parties spoke, with Obama steering the debate as moderator.
It wasn’t a grand, or even particularly comfortable, setting. About 40 senators, representatives and administration officials were crowded shoulder-to-shoulder around a hollow square table, perched for the six-hour marathon on wooden chairs with thin cushions. Coffee breaks had been ruled out, so the only pause in the action came during lunch.
C-SPAN carried complete coverage, while news operations from cable networks to public broadcasting were making it the focus of their day.
Nearly 100 lawmakers have signed a formal Declaration of Health Care Independence to reject an unconstitutional Washington takeover of American health care – and now one representative is challenging Americans to deliver it to Congress and the White House to hold them accountable to the people.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., drafted and formally unveiled the Declaration of Health Care Independence Jan. 27. The declaration is a commitment to protect the rights of the American people to make their own health decisions, reduce bureaucratic red-tape, decrease intergenerational debt and implement 10 common-sense principles for future health-care reform.
“We’ve come to somewhat of an impasse,” Bachmann told WND. “Now with Sen. Scott Brown’s election, that seems to have been able to stop the ball from rolling in the Senate. But we know the president still plans to base his plans on the health-care bill.”
She noted President Obama has extended an invitation to Republicans to join Democrats for a live, televised meeting on health-care reform on Feb. 25.
“For us to go forward, it’s important for those of us who are constitutional conservatives that we lay out what our vision is – our roadmap, so to speak, for any future health-care discussion,” Bachmann explained. “The people have thoroughly rejected what the Democrats came up with in the Senate and the House.”
Bachmann presents the following 10 points of agreement in her declaration:
We, therefore, the People and Representatives of the United States of America, do solemnly Publish and Declare that health care reform, as a matter of principle, must:
Protect as inviolate the vital doctor-patient relationship;
Reject any addition to the crushing national debt heaped upon all Americans;
Improve, rather than diminish, the quality of care that Americans enjoy;
Be negotiated publicly, transparently, with genuine accountability and oversight;
Treat private citizens at least as well as political officials;
Protect taxpayers from funding of abortion and abortion coverage;
Reject all new mandates on patients, employers, individuals or states;
Prohibit expansion of taxpayer-funded health care to those unlawfully present in the United States;
Guarantee Equal Protection under the law and the Constitution;
Empower, rather than limit, an open and accessible marketplace of health care choice and opportunity.
Bachmann said the Obama administration is conducting backroom deals on bills and refusing to broadcast negotiations on CSPAN as pledged. She said health-care legislation must not “force Americans to violate their conscience by having to pay for abortion coverage for other Americans.” She added that U.S. citizens must not be obligated to pay for health insurance for illegal aliens.
Bachmann also warned that any health-care plan should not add to federal or state deficits. She shared the following charts printed in the Feb. 2 issue of Congressional Quarterly Today revealing that the federal deficit under the Obama administration is expected to widen to a record $1.6 trillion in fiscal year 2010 – exceeding 10 percent of the total output of the economy for the first time since World War II:
Source: Office of Management and Budget
“This nonpartisan graph shows what America’s future will be if we continue down the road on runaway spending under President Obama,” Bachmann said.
She said it represents a future with a declining standard of living so severe it will be unlike anything the nation has ever known. Bachmann challenged Americans to take a close look at the projected debt levels America will be embracing.
“If people see this graph, they will know from there what to do, very clearly, this November,” she said. “They need to turn out of office people who agree with President Obama’s economic policies, and they need to replace them with people who agree with our founders and our Declaration of Independence and Constitution that we are a constitutional republic. We cannot drown our nation and our people in debt, and we can’t force upon them tax increases so egregious that we will never again know true prosperity.”
As for the Declaration of Health Care Independence, she is asking the American public to put pressure on President Obama and the Democrats in Congress to sign the document as well.
“We’re encouraging them to sign,” Bachmann said. “We’re asking people to sign this and forward it to their member of Congress. Then, if there’s a town-hall meeting, or if they are somewhere where their senator or congressman is, print out a copy of this declaration, wave it in the air at your member of Congress and say, ‘Look! At least 95 members of Congress have already signed this. Why haven’t you signed?’”
She said American’s should hold their lawmakers’ feet to the fire – in public if possible – and ask them whether they agree with the 10 constitutional conservative principles.
“Go on the offense. That’s what we’re trying to do,” Bachmann challenged Americans. “We believe that members of the House and Senate need to answer to their constituents, whether they agree or disagree with this as a beginning platform going forward with health care. The American people have clearly repudiated what President Obama and the Democrats have put forward thus far.”
What should citizens do if their lawmakers shut them out?
“This is my challenge: Right now, I challenge every reader at WorldNetDaily to print the declaration out, contact their member of Congress and report back on the WorldNetDaily website what they heard from their member of Congress,” Bachmann said. “People can come back to WorldNetDaily. They can memorialize their experiences, and then we would know where these members of Congress truly stand.Do they agree with the people, or are they going to pursue a radical agenda that the American people have thoroughly repudiated?”
