The liberal media have become President Obama’s megaphone — eagerly applauding his every move and repeating his talking points on everything from ObamaCare to his massive spending plans to government takeovers to the rest of statist proclivities. Beyond parroting the White House line on every national and international issue and event, the liberal media hide any story that exposes the many failures of this administration. The liberal media have no intention of truthfully reporting the news. Their goal is to discredit the opposition while dutifully and passionately reciting Obama’s liberal mantra as if it were news — propagandizing in an attempt to reshape the political opinions of unwary Americans.
THE ANGER IS JUSTIFIED ~ WE DID NOT VOTE IN THE BANKS WE VOTED IN THE CONGRESS WHO ARE TO KEEP THEIR OATHS TO THE PEOPLE AND THE CONSTITUTION. WE SHOULD BE PROTESTING EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHO PROTECTED THE BANKS. FOR EXAMPLE; BARNEY FRANK, CHRISTOPHER DODD, OBAMA, HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, ERIC CANTOR, JOHN BOEHNER, ETC. ETC.
THEY WANT WAR ON THE STREETS ~ DON’T DO IT ~ DON’T GIVE THEM AN EXCUSE TO IMPLEMENT MARTIAL LAW! KEEP IT PEACEFUL!
Now, Anonymous itself has come forward with an amazing short documentary that happens to be called “Generation OS13: the new culture of resistance.” The film takes you on a rapid-fire tour de force through the madness of our world and the new resistance movement that’s trying to come up with alternatives.
When Paul Ryan’s budget bill failed to pass in the Senate and there were reports that five Republican Senators joined the Democrats and voted against it, it only took a few seconds to guess three of the five.
All I had to do was think of the Progressive (Socialist) Democrats who are posing as Republicans.
We’re About to Show You How You Can Prove This Yourself: Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Saebarkah) is a Usurper — His 4-27-11 Birth Certificate is an Easy-to-Prove Fraud — It Shows Congress Has Already Ruled He’s Ineligible — Not Constitutionally Certified to Serve by Any US State — Not Natural Born — Refused to Show His Long Form Birth Certificate — Jailed a Military Officer and Arrested a Woman Who Both Asked to See His Proof of Eligibility — Spent $Millions, Signed an Executive Order and Created a Hawaiian Law to Hide His Identity — His Grandmother Swears He was Born in Kenya — No US Hospital Claims His Birth Location — No One Claims to have been Present at His Birth — Three in Five Americans are Not Convinced of His Claimed Hawaiian Birth — School Records Say He’s was an Indonesian Citizen — May Have Received Aid as a Foreign Student – Yet No Government Body Has Demanded to See His Eligibility Credentials! Instead, the US State Department has Destroyed His Mother’s Files and the Hawaiian Gov’t Has “Lost” Obama’s School Records.
Remember As You Read This, That It Is Only The NWO Gangbuster‘s Pipe Dream! There Is No Way Of Completely Understanding The Depth And Reality Of Implementation! There Are However, Definite Red Flags!
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.”
DEFUND THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING BAILOUT, ACCRUED UPON FRAUDULENT & MEANINGLESS DERIVATIVE MORTGAGE PAPER!
WASHINGTON – Tea Party Nation today emailed its members urging defeat of efforts to raise the debt limit and calling for a primary challenge to RepublicanHouse SpeakerJohn Boehner in 2012 because of his insistence that continued borrowing isnecessary.
“Boehner must go,”wrote Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips.“The tea party must unite and make sure Boehner is replaced in the next election. Boehner is living proof of something I have said for a long time. It is not enough that we vote out bad leaders, we must replace them with good leaders. Getting Nancy Pelosi out of the speaker’s seat was a good thing. Unfortunately, herreplacementhas not been very good. We need people in leadership who are committed to cutting spending and eliminating these programs.”
Phillips called on all tea party activists to focus on the upcoming vote in Congress to raise the debt limit – which, if defeated by the Republican majority in the House, will mandate massive cuts in Washington spending – probably including theeliminationof long-established bureaucracies.
“Our ultimate strategy here needs to be to make sure the debt ceiling is not raised,” Phillips wrote. “If we can win this one, Congress will be forced to make changes. This is a message that, unfortunately, few in the tea party have been carrying. We have been talking about it here at Tea party Nation for quite a while, probably to the point some people are tired of hearing about it.”
An independent grassroots lobbying effort launched by WND founder Joseph Farah, called the“No More Red Ink” campaign,has sent nearly 1 million letters to House Republicans calling on them to oppose any rise in the debt limit, thus shutting off the spigot for more spending beyond the government’s revenues. Tea Party Nation is the only organization that has publicly embraced that campaign, though Tea Party Patriots has issued statements opposing a hike in the debt limit.
“Our friend Joseph Farah over at WorldNetDaily has been really pushing this issue,” acknowledged Phillips. “According to Farah, all we need are 218 Republicans in the House to say no and the debt ceiling does not get raised.”
A WND survey taken in early Marchshowed 122 House Republicans opposed to raising the debt limit under any circumstances with 23 favoring it.
“This is a remarkable change and shows Americans still have a chance at stopping the borrowing-and-spending madness in Washington in the near term,” said Farah. “We are effectively moving House Republicans against raising the debt limit – and they are beginning to realize this is where their real power is.”
Though there has been little discussion about it in the national media or even on Capitol Hill, House Republicans hold all the cards on denying a debt limit increase. With control of the House, they need only 218 votes against it to freeze borrowing and force the federal government to begin living within its means immediately.
“The press has largely assumed Republican House members would go along with business as usual, but apparently no one has taken an actual head count,” said Farah. “Thissurveystrongly suggests there is a very real chance the House will say no to another debt limit increase – an action that would signal a fundamental restructuring of the way the federal government operates.”
Since approval of both houses of Congress is required to raise the debt limit, this is one of the very few meaningful actions the Republican-controlled House can take without the consent of the Senate or the White House, Farah says.
He has called it the Republicans’ “secret weapon.”
Members of the media who would like tointerviewJoseph Farah about this story can emailmedia@wnd.com.
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.
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.
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
Rangel, facing ethics charges in Congress, has proposed the Universal National Service Act that would require “all persons” from ages 18-42 “to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the nationaldefense and homeland security.”
REP. CHARLIE RANGEL (D., N.Y.): He is being “investigated by the House Ethics Committee in at least four areas, including his reported failure to properly report income taxes on a Caribbean villa in the Dominican Republic; use of four, rent-controlled apartments in Harlem; questions about an offshore firm asking Rangel for special tax exemptions; and whether Rangel improperly used House stationery to solicit donations for a school of public affairs named after him at City College of New York,” Fox News summarizes.
The plan also authorizes “the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.”
“May Obama be d—–,” he wrote. “It reinstitutes the draft, and is for both males and females … There is no ‘opt-out’ – if you are not ‘fit’ for actual military service, or are a ‘conscientious objector,’ then you are shunted into ‘civilian service’ which is pretty much anything the ‘president’ says it is.”
WND reported when a copy of Obama’s Colorado Springs speech posted online apparently was edited to exclude Obama’s specific references to the new force.
According to the copy of Rangel’s plan, which has been assigned to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel even though it lacks cosponsors, it specifies that “national service” means “military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the president, promotes nationaldefense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.”
“It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title,” it specifies.
It would require that the president provide “for the induction” of people to the service corps.
“Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years,” Rangel wrote.
The exceptions provide that the term of service may be extended if the “member” needs to “compensate for any time lost to training for any cause” or “for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in the line of duty.”
It gives the president the far-reaching authority to “prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title,” including what types of “civilian service” are required, “standards of satisfactory performance,” “penalties for failure” and “such other matters as the president determines necessary to carry out this title.”
Conscientious objectors would be ordered “to perform national civiliain service … as the president may prescribe.”
The group Operation Sit In said it is coordinating information to link up those who “have the time to go to D.C. at the drop of a hat to keep the Senate from passing the Universal National Service Act … with those who would like to go to stop it, but cannot afford to lose their jobs by taking off with no notice.”
National Director Larry Richardson said, “Most of those who have the time and freedom of time to go are out of work because of the current economy, and therefore are short on funds to go. So we match those who still have jobs with those who do not, and with everyone doing a little, no one has to do it all.
“We also are arranging for people who live fairly close to D.C., (within 50 or so miles), to let us park our cars on their property, at home or business, so we do not have to worry about them being towed while we are in D.C.,” he said.
“We need every PATRIOT to step up and help in this,” he said.
A spokesman for Rangel’s office, Emile Milne, told WND that nobody knows what such a plan would cost, but presumably those in full-time service to their country as civilians would have to be paid, how many people would be conscripted or other details.
“It would have to move through committee,” he said. “These questions … certainly would be addressed by the relevant committee.”
He said the discussion in Rangel’s office is that those in the civilian corps would work in “education, health care, they could work in our ports, various aspects of security.”
He also said the idea has been a long-term goal for Rangel.
WND reported earlier when Obama signed into law the “GIVE Act,” H.R. 1388, which massively expands the National Service Corporation and allocates to it billions of dollars.
Officials said at that time the law would allow for the “managing” of up to 8 or 9 million people.
That bill includes a “National Service Reserve Corps” whose members have completed a “term of national service,” “training” and “not less than 10 hours of volunteering each year.”
Joseph Farah, founder and editor of WND, used his daily column when the issue originally arose to alert Americans of the plans. He then elevated the issue with a call to all reporters to start asking questions.
“If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal?” Farah wrote. “I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
“Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?” Farah wrote.
President George Washington Structured The Militia System To Prevent Treason And Tyranny By Public Officials!
George Washington takes the oath of office at Federal Hall in lower Manhattan, April 30, 1789.
On September 17, 1787 George Washington was the first to sign and accept the Constitution even though it had no Bill of Rights. It was Patrick Henry with his great speeches and lectures who in 1788 forced an agreement which promised that continued ratifica- tions of the document depended upon a Bill of Rights to be forthcoming. In 1789 Washing- ton took office and was faced with the arduous task of pioneering the first presidency including the structuring of the militia system. By January 1790 the influence Patrick Henry had over him became quite apparent. When Washington chaired the 1787 Constitutional Convention, provi- sions had been made for the defense of the country against invasion and for stifling rebel- lions, but there was an insuf- ficiency of safeguards to be applied against tyranny brought on by public officials.
By 1790 Washington began work on his “Plan No. 2 for the Organization of the Militia.” By now he was more able to see the weaknesses in the Constitution. He openly discussed the threat of tyranny emanating from within the government. By then, Patrick Henry’s wisdom was spread throughout the 13 original states, and it was inculcated as the basis for the policies and functions of the militia. Henry perpetuated the people’s liberty. He sustained the ultimate authority of the people. Washington well under- stood the need to safeguard the nation from its foreign enemies. In his “Plan No. 2 for the Organization of the Militia” he
Preface
undertook to warn about the dangers of domestic enemies: tyranny in government.
Washington himself took the farmers out for practice, and he utilized the knowledge and experiences of his generals and other valuable officers in the War for Independence by having them instruct and train the citizens (the whole people) in the techniques of soldiering, and the maintenance of an ‘energetic national militia’.
His “Plan No. 2 for the Organization of the Militia” was communicated to the Senate, on the 21st of January 1790. This lengthy Plan was permeated with the proposition that it is the direct duty and responsibility of the people themselves to guard against tyranny from within government.
Washington declared that the purpose of the militia was “to oppose the introduction of tyranny.” He had come a long way from the days when he accepted the Constitution without a Bill of Rights.
To view Washington’s statement in the context in which it was delivered, please look over the following excerpt taken from Pages 7-8 of an old document published by Gales and Seaton in 1832 entitled “American State Papers – Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, from the First Session of the First to the Second Session of the Fifteenth Congress, inclusive: commencing March 3, 1789, and ending March 3, 1819”.
This excerpt is a part of Wash- ington’s lengthy Plan No. 2 of 1790. While he also made re- ference to the prevention of invasion and rebellion, Washing- ton said that “the well informed members of the community (the people) were meant to be the real defence of the country”; and “the virtues and knowledge of the people would effectually oppose the introduction of tyranny.”
He warned that “the government would be invaded or overturned, and trampled upon by the bold and ambitious” — meaning people in our own country who operated without adherence to vital principles. The absoluteness of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a basic principle. Unless the right to arms is absolute, the people cannot remain the ultimate power. The Bill of Rights confirmed that we possess many other rights beside the absolute right to arms. All of the other rights for the preservation of their own existence, depend entirely upon the absoluteness, the force, and the reasoning that have shaped the Second Amend- ment. Washington agreed with Patrick Henry on the purpose of the militia: It was to “oppose the introduction of tyranny.” Make no mistake about it: The prime reason for the Second Amend- ment is prevention of tyranny in government.
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.
BILLY ‘Mays’ Maher, Is Nothing More Than A Piece Of Shit NWO Operative. CBS Gets Their Marching Orders From The British Monarchy aka; ‘The City Of London/Rothschild International Banking Cartel. Their motive is to ‘plunder America by attempting to brainwash our people away from the United States Constitution. The Figure head for this NWO operation, is Queen Lizzy II – who in the end, wishes to subjugate all of the world’s nations to their banking monarchy. In 2008 forward, we have sudden contrived global warming all the while the NWO knows that the ice age is upon us, we have a push to put those who are addicted to anal masturbation on equal footing with our soldiers, Oh gee, lets not forget the sudden terrorism on our shores, hey lets do the abortion shuffle as well bilking $2 Billion USD annually for recreational abortions , oh lets throw in a Housing Bubble, we need a few immigrants too, to draw down America into a socialized funnel to London, yes there are more orchestrated techniques, like using the SEIU/Unions, distortion of females, and Acorn to shake up USA’s Social Bond Of Morality in The Constitution – but for this article suffice it to know, Billy ‘Mays’ Maher is just one of those piece of shit NWO protagonists. Hey, lets take a moment to reflect upon the ‘failed’ pandemic of H1N1. Enough contrivance to shake the world up since 2008…eh?
NWO's Antagonist Of America's Constitution - Left Wing White Supremacist Billy Maher
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.
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.
Nearly five years ago, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and accountant Brad Beckstead began to discuss mounting a constitutional challenge to Sarbanes-Oxley’s Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The PCAOB’s rules under Sarbanes-Oxley were strangling Beckstead’s two-person firm in Henderson, Nev. - and the small public companies he served – in reams of red tape, the bulk of which provided little value for shareholders.
Today, with the assistance of CEI attorneys Kazman and Bader, and led by Michael Carvin of Jones Day, plaintiffs Beckstead and the Free Enterprise Fund beat the proverbial Goliath. The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the PCAOB as unconstitutional, on separation of powers grounds. A majority of justices agreed that the current structure of the PCAOB fails to adhere to constitutional provisions governing removal of important officers. These provisions are designed to ensure that government agencies are accountable to elected officials – and ultimately to the American people.
The board’s lack of accountability under the Constitution is reflected in its flawed rules. For example, the board’s “internal control” mandate costs companies $35 billion a year and has auditors going over trivial minutiae such as the possession of office keys and the number of letters in employee passwords. Meanwhile, in the nearly eight years of its existence since Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in 2002, the PCAOB has done little to address auditing rules for off-balance sheet entities that were the core Enron’s accounting problems and that flared up again to hide debt at Lehman and other financial firms.
The shortcomings of the PCAOB and Sarbanes-Oxley have been recognized by members of both parties. The House-Senate conference for the pending financial regulation bill agreed to accept a measure permanently exempting smaller public companies from the PCAOB’s internal control mandates.
The PCAOB’s mandates and possibly other sections of Sarbanes-Oxley may now be subject to legal challenge. We look forward to working through the courts and/or Congress to correct the flawed rules from an unconstitutional body that have been holding our economy back.
The Tea Party is the most active, well-informed part of the Republican Party. Some people tried to dismiss them as a “lunatic fringe” of the GOP, but they drove Arlen Specter out of the Republican Party. They got Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul a victory in the Republican primary for US Senator in Kentucky and the Tea Party candidate Raul Labrador won an upset victory in a Congressional race in Idaho against a “system” candidate with a lot more money.
The Tea Party is starting to look like it reflects the mainstream of the Republican Party, not the fringe and a new poll shows that 91 percent of Tea Party members oppose John McCain.
There’s a large overlap between the Tea Party and the anti-immigration movement, which of course just scored a gigantic victory in Arizona. Opinion polls in Arizona show 71 percent of the people support SB 1070, the new immigration law.
John McCain is attempting to change his colors like a chameleon caught in front of a plaid background. The same John McCain who co-sponsored the 2007 McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill is suddenly claiming that he fully supports the new Arizona law to crack down on illegal immigration.
It’s hard to believe that anyone with more than a room temperature IQ would trust McCain on the immigration issue. The 2010 primary is giving patriotic Americans a great opportunity to finally get rid of the Amnesty Traitor, John McCain. We finally get to pay him back for his 2007 Amnesty Bill.
The one big advantage McCain has over Hayworth is money. McCain is outspending Hayworth by six to one. Despite this advantage, McCain was only leading Hayworth by five percent in mid-April. The primary election will be on August 24th, giving Hayworth and the Tea Party a great deal of time to remind everyone about how John McCain teamed up with Ted Kennedy to try to give Amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens.
While we can’t all vote for J.D. Hayworth, his website can be found here and we can donate money to his campaign.
Repealing healthcare reform will be Republicans’ “No. 1 priority,” their House leader said Monday.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said that repealing the healthcare legislation passed in Congress last month and signed into law by President Barack Obama would be the GOP’s top priority if it wins back control of Congress this fall.
“They got everything else in the entire bureaucracy that they need to control our healthcare system … with the signing of this bill,” Boehner said during an interview on WFLA’s “Bud Hedinger Show.” “That’s why repealing this bill has to be our No. 1 priority.”
Republicans have talked up a strategy of “repeal and replace” in the weeks since health reform became law, promising to act to repeal swaths of the new law, and replace them with reforms for which the GOP had pushed throughout the healthcare debate.
Members of the House GOPhave faced some internal riftsover the extent to which they would repeal the bill if they took control of Congress in the fall.
For instance, some centrist Republican candidates for higher office, like Reps. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Mike Castle (R-Del.), who are running for Senate in their respective states, have faced some pressure for having to walk a political tightrope between calling for a full or partial repeal of the new law.
Boehner’s remarks would indicate that an agenda of repealing healthcare would top Republicans’ agenda in this fall’s midterm elections, when the GOP hopes to make inroads into Democrats’ majority, if not win back control of the House.
The top House Republican said that voters’ ire over the healthcare debate has fueled his party’s traction in the polls going into the elections.
“I’ve never seen a bill pass the House of Representatives that the American people knew about, that the American people had discussed, debated, and had decided ‘no,’” Boehner said. “This is why the anger that’s out there, frustration that’s out there, and frankly, I think, a lot of this is now turning to resolve — resolving that the American people are going to do something about this.”
Update, 3:46 p.m.: Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Chris Van Hollen (Md.) shot back at Boehner on Monday afternoon:
“It is stunning that House Republicans will make their number one priority repealing benefits and rights for Americans, raising taxes, and turning our health care system back over to insurance companies. Not only does this legislation improve our health care system, it will also reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion over 20 years, create millions of jobs, and provide small business owners with important tax credits. The House Republican leadership should start saying no to the special interests of the health insurance industry, and starting saying yes to American families by working with us to create jobs and get the economy back on track.”
Sir William Wallace. Ensign Cross Of Saint Andrew Seen On His Shield. Later To Become The Confederate Flag Because Of All The Scottish Immigrants. 95% Of All Southern People Had No Slaves, Were Poor, And Disproportionately Taxed By The North. Sir William Wallace A Devout Catholic Is Seen As Another Saint Joan Of Arc. Who Both Fought The Corrupt English And Won Their Freedom.
Artificial Swine Flu Hysteria: Allows Government Aligned Companies To Engorge And Now Hold America’s Once Productivity Wealth. Same Inoculation Shit And Hysteria Was Set Up By Jimbo Carter.
Obama’s Kevorkian Health Rationing: Raping Americans To Bailout Elite Bondholders
Pro Queer Leahy – Changing Public Education Into Public Sodomy Schools
Forced Political Correctness Onto Christian United States Under The Guise Of Hate Speech Bill
Funneling America’s Wealth Into European ‘Green Industry’ Then Sent Back TO U.S. for Purchase. Study Spain’s Failed Green State.
Conyers Pick And Choosing To Provide African Reparations – While Ignoring The 360,000 European Americans Who Gave Their Lives To Free The Slaves. Conyers with wife who was caught in Chicago committing theft and taking bribes.
Empathizing With Illegal Despots: Pelosi Encouraging Illegals To Burden American Taxpayer’s Retirement Funds
Barney Frank, Responsible For Housing Crash – By Predatory Lending Via Clinton’s Easier Access Bill And The Blocking And Obfuscation Of 3 Republican Bills To Regulate Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac -S.190
Why should we care if there has been a cover up?
Well, initially, if there has been activity which is harmful to the economy and may lead to another financial crisis, wouldn’t we want to know about it, so that we prevent it from happening again?
The answer is obviously yes.
But if the government, Wall Street, and the media are all in cover-up mode, then independent auditors, financial analysts and economists cannot shine a light into financial practices to find out what really went wrong.
In addition, if we don’t know what’s really going on, we can’t gauge whether the government’s economic policies are working. For example, Time Magazine called Tim Geithner a “con man” and the stress tests a “confidence game” because those tests were so inaccurate.
William Black said:
How do you think we did the stress tests? Like doing a stress test on an airplane wing, but you don’t actually have airplane wing. And don’t know what airplane wing is made out of. It’s a farce.
