Letter to the Editor, Carteret County News-Times
P.O. Box 1679
Morehead City, NC 28557
Ref: letter by Kenneth W. Humphrey - Chairman Carteret County Democrat Party [“Obama Rising - Totally in charge”] February 4, 2011
Feb. 9, 2011
Sir / Ms,
My apologies for taking so long to refute the many statements made by Kenneth W. Humphrey - Chairman Carteret County Democrat Party, but I was dazzled at the inaccurate and false statements he made throughout the letter. So I will start at the top. Kenneth W. Humphrey - Chairman Carteret County Democrat Party - has stated that “conservative moderates” were drawing analogies between President “where is my teleprompter” Obama and the great communicator President Ronald Reagan. I have not heard any “conservative moderates” make any such statements. I did hear some liberal commentators trying to compare Obama to President Ronald Reagan. This surprised me because these same people had always declared their hate for President Ronald Reagan. And Kenneth W. Humphrey - Chairman Carteret County Democrat Party, for your general information a moderate is not a conservative. As for conservatives, they have compared the two and Obama is shown to be a selfish little child next President Ronald Reagan. Obama can’t give a 2 minute speech without his teleprompter and speeches written by others. President Ronald Reagan would give an outline of what he wanted to say to speech writers and they would give a speech to him to review. He would then correct and rewrite it so it was his speech, not something created for him by a back room hack. Many times he sat at his desk and wrote it out longhand. President Obama always talks about how great it is to have the government in charge of your life and how only the government should be allowed to decide how you will live, if you are allowed to live. He will say that in speeches given in the united States. In speeches delivered outside the country, it is a different story. He will talk about how evil the United States is and he will apologize for us being a free and capitalist nation. President Ronald Reagan gave speeches on how great this nation is because of the strength of the American citizen and NOT because of the strength of government. He knew that it was citizens with a dream that built this nation to greatness, not the government. He believed in this country and its people.
As for the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, all the proof that has been presented is that the “alleged” shooter was a politically left leaning nut case, known to be a nut case and the sheriff in that country (a democrat) failed to do his job by putting the shooter on the list to prevent his buying a firearm. They allow that in Arizona! In Arizona law enforcement can put a person on a list to prevent a non-felon with behavior problems that may become a threat from buying a firearm. So the sheriff failed to do his job and you point a finger at the NRA? How does that work? And by the way Representative Gabrielle Giffords is a NRA member and a gun owner.
As a member of the local TEA Party group I must point out that I am NOT a Republican. We, the TEA Party, have given notice to the Republican party that we will NOT be co-opted. We may agree on some things, but we are tired of the normal DC politics in all the parties. So I don’t know where you get the statement “GOP - TEA Party prattle”, unless you are just against the Constitution of the United States of America. That is what we in the TEA Party are working for. To bad the DNC can’t say the same.
The health care bill may have some changes in it, but it will not be revoked as long as Senator Reid, President Obama and other socialist leaning people are in power. They are working as hard as they can to form a socialist economy in this country and destroy the capitalist economy we have now that allows an individual to dream and work to make that dream come true. So we can just keep working to put an end to the government intrusion into our health care and the dictatorial control over the medical professionals. You want to reduce health care cost? Get the government out of it!
Medicare will stay. There will be changes and improvements. No conservative is going to abandon people to die in the street. Conservatives believe in life. We are the ones against murdering the unborn babies. It is the democrats and other liberals that want to kill the children even before they have had a chance to breath. What greater hatred for life can there be then to kill the unborn baby?
Will Social Security stay? For a while yet. I personally want it phased out. It would take a few decades, but we should start looking at ending it as a retirement service. Those already on Social Security would stay. It is to late to do anything else for them, but why should a person 20 or 25 be forced to take part in a ponzi scam? If you feel the government should be involved in forcing someone to put back their own money for their retirement, then let the individual decide how that money is saved and secured. It is their money and their future. If they want to buy stocks or mutual funds or just put it in a bank account that should be their decision. I can’t find out where the Government has the right to put a gun to my head and say “give us your money to give to someone else and maybe we will give you someone else’s money when you get old”. If you put the money in a bank or in stocks then you decide who gets it when you die, not the government. My money should be private. YOU did not earn my money and I did not earn yours. Yes Social Security should be phased out. It is nothing but a FDR socialist controlled operation to have the government control your life as you get older.
The democrats, throughout history, did not get the “big things” right. They fought against Civil Rights. In case you have forgotten, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a REPUBLICAN as was his father. It was the Republicans that fought against slavery. The Democrats supported it. It was the Democrats that started the KKK. The Republicans fought against them. It was a democrat president that segregated the US military. It was the NC Democratic party that sectioned the white riot in Wilmington, NC (the Wilmington Race Riot of 1898) and passed the “Jim Crow” laws in NC. So much for democrats caring about racial equality. As for the Medicare and Medicaid and their bloated programs, I don’t think I would be doing much bragging. The massive amount of paperwork and people developed to support these programs should be an embarrassment to anyone involved. The doctors and hospitals say “this will cost $X” to save a live or improve the quality of a person’s life, but the government bean counters say “we will only pay you half $X”, so who is putting a price on a person’s life here? If the doctor or hospital say “we can not do it for that amount” (not will not, but cannot) the bean counters say “we are not paying any more”. So the doctor or hospital will work to save the life, but the doctor or hospital is no longer free. Being forced to work for what the government dictates has turned them, doctors and hospitals, into serfs or servants without the right to sell their skills on the open market. And the democrats want more of this bloated actions and government control with their “health care program”.
I cannot believe that anyone, including Mr. Kenneth W. Humphrey - Chairman Carteret County Democrat Party, would have anything to say about the new Speaker of the House after the dictatorial action of the possible psychotic, botox addicted, crazy eyed, shrilled voice, pro-socialist, pro-Marxist, anti American and anti-capitalist Nancy Pelosi. If she and Sen. Harry Reid had their way we would have a socialist economy controlled by the unions with a Marxist government and under the thumb of the UN.
Kenneth W. Humphrey’s (Chairman Carteret County Democrat Party) attack on the relationship between the conservatives in this country and President Ronald Reagan is at best ludicrous. Did President Ronald Reagan do things that the “far right” conservatives didn’t like? I am sure there were some things. Like when he tried to work with the democrats and they kept trying to force their extreme leftist agenda, but they never doubted his love for this country. President Obama’s love towards this country has been doubted from the very start. The deficit President Ronald Reagan had to run up was partly to repair the military the democrat Jimmy Carter had worked so hard to destroy. Were we a stronger country when Jimmy carter left office? NO. Were we a stronger nation when President Ronald Reagan left office? YES!
Bill Maher? Why would anyone bring a leftist comic that has falling ratings into any rational conversation? Why would anyone care what he has to say? And considering Mr. Maher has stated his hate for the Bible and Christians and President Ronald Reagan we can expect nothing worthwhile from him. Mr. Kenneth W. Humphrey - Chairman Carteret County Democrat Party I would think real hard before I used his name, Bill Maher, in any more letters or conversations unless you are trying to sway someone away from God the Almighty, Jesus and the Constitution of the United states of America. And it is not just Christians, Bill Maher hates all religions.
If you want to discuss the stock market, please remember that it was going up the last 6 months when President George H. W. Bush was running for office, but the democrats and liberal media lied and claimed the recession that followed the Gulf War was still going on. To the best of my knowledge there is always a recession following a large military action. This one was very short and the economy was raising. BUT it was falling the last 8 months that Clinton was in office and the democrats claimed it was good and going up. How does that figure? It was not Clinton’s fault, it was just the dot-com bubble busting. As for the last 6 months GWB was in office, the democrats had been in control of Congress for 18 months before that and President George W. Bush had tried many times to get them to do something about the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mea problems, but they had refused. So when the housing market went south and it hit the stock exchange due to the use of bundled sub-prime mortgages the banks were FORCED by the democrats in congress to give out, the economy dropped. I am no fan of President George W. Bush but he did warn them what was going to happen and asked for the changes to be made, but they turned their back on him. Then they tried to blame President George W. Bush for their failures to take corrective action. The “power dive” that Mr. Kenneth W. Humphrey - Chairman Carteret County Democrat Party refers to was increased by the actions of the unqualified, America hating, pro-socialist, Marxist trained, self important, arrogant, tool of the left that was elected president, President Barrack Hessian Obama and his admitted communist advisors.
I could go on and on, but let me just point out a few things quickly. Michelle Bachmann is NOT the leader of the TEA party. She is a member of a congressional caucus. BIG difference. Gov. Sarah Palin is NOT the leader of the Republican Party. She is one voice among many that is calling out for change. Yes, she is very visible. Maybe that is because the people like what they hear and believe what she says.
President Barrack Hessian Obama has NO leadership ability. I don’t think he has the ability to lead a group of people out of a burning building with the doors open and the lights on unless a teleprompter told him the way! So I will end this by saying that every time I see him standing there with his chin pointing at the sky and his arrogant nose in the air I think of the photos I have seen in history books of Mussolini and how he, Mussolini, was also a big fan of government control and socialist economies.
Respectfully,
Thomas H. Austin
SSgt. USMC (retired)
Member Crystal Coast TEA Party Patriots
Showing posts with label Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reagan. Show all posts
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Why Obama will repeal ObamaCare within 60 days
MAKING BOEHNER'S BONES
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 13 January 2011
As the Loughner Lefties at the New York Times realized they jumped the shark in blaming the Arizona Massacre on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Right, they smoothly shifted their strategy yesterday (1/12).
In a transparent ploy to monkey wrench the 112th Congress' program to dismantle ObamaCare and other Dem disasters, the NYT is now claiming that Boehner & Co must "play a less partisan role," and not "allow the House to slide back into confrontational politics." Translation: Republicans need to surrender to the Democrats.
And Boehner's response? As Eliza Doolittle said to Professor Henry Higgins, "Not bloody likely!" Zero and the Dems (and the Enemedia) are going to get the shock of their lives when they learn what Boehner has planned for them.
Get ready for this, folks, for it's going to knock the polka dots off your undies. This is going to make Boehner's bones.
Remember how Reagan made his? On August 3, 1981, 13,000 air traffic controllers went on strike, shutting down 7,000 flights at the peak of the summer travel season. They demanded $10,000 a year salary increases and an extortionate array of increased benefits.
Reagan branded the strike illegal and gave them 48 hours to return to work or else he would fire them all. They controllers laughed at him for what they thought was a foolish bluff. Except for 2,000 who did return to work, joining 3,000 FAA supervisors and 900 military controllers. 80% of flights went back to normal.
48 hours later on August 5, Reagan fired all 11,000 striking controllers - and imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring them. Then he had the Federal Labor Relations Authority disband PATCO - the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. Not only were the strikers permanently fired, their union ceased to exist.
That's how to make your bones in Washington. No one ever messed with Reagan again.
So how is John Boehner going to do it? Hold on to those undies now... he plans to get Zero to sign, not veto, a bill to repeal ObamaCare.
Yes, repeal, repeal the whole damn thing, Zero's pride and joy. Here's the strategy.
First, the fallback remains: defund it, refuse to appropriate any money to implement any of it. But to go for the jugular means repeal. Of course, any stand-alone repeal bill such as HR 2 passed by the House will be blocked in the Senate, or if passed faces a certain presidential veto that cannot possibly be overridden.
HR 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," takes 36 words to eliminate 2,000 pages of ObamaCare legislation: "Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted."
It will be voted on and passed by the House next week. It is only a warning shot. For its destiny is not to be a stand-alone bill, but an amendment to two other bills.
These two bills form the sides of a vise in which Dem cojones are inextricably trapped. They are: the CR (Continuing Resolution) to fund the government past March 4 when the current CR ends; and the bill to raise the debt ceiling (call it the DR, the debt raise).
These bills are "must pass" bills - for if they don't pass, the government shuts down, no checks go out to pay for anybody or anything, and government debt gets defaulted on.
Thus the repeal strategy: HR 2 will be appended to the next CR and the DR by the House. That's step one. Step two is for McConnell and DeMint to block any passage of either in the Senate unless HR 2 is appended.
And to keep those Dem cojones in an ever-tightening vise, both the CR and DR will be very short term - say 60 days for the former and $100 billion instead of a trillion for the latter, maybe less. This forces the Dems to fight the battle for more spending over and over again.
Step three is where it gets really interesting. The "ghost of 1995" haunting the Pubs is Gingrich forcing just such a government shutdown back then, which Clinton won and the Gingrich Pubs disastrously lost.
To avoid this happening again, companion legislation will be introduced in the House specifying those "essential services" of the federal government that would continue to be paid for at current levels should a CR or DR not be passed.
Call it the Essential Services or ES Bill. It will include the standard popular goodies people demand and the Dems scaremonger with: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other payments to individuals (but not to government employees - they get nada).
There is an argument over how long or short the ES list of government functions should be. Yet there is little need for it to be overly-long if it is amendable at any time by a simple concurrent resolution.
That way, when the Dems find some cute starving children who will die because of the heartlessly inhuman Republicans' refusal to spend taxpayers' money to save them, the Pubs have the option to add the relevant program to the ES list if the public clamor (not the Dem's) is loud enough.
And of course, the ES list would have no "non-essential" services or programs like the EPA, or funding for any agency to write and implement any new regulations whatever.
With the ES Bill, the vise really starts to squeeze. How will Harry Reid explain he opposes the ES Bill and would rather have a full government shutdown instead; that he would rather keep ObamaCare on life support rather than have seniors get their Social Security checks or Medicare payments? How will Zero?
In other words, the ES Bill puts the onus, fault, blame, and responsibility for a government shutdown on the Dems - not on Boehner & Co. Both Boehner and McConnell believe that there are enough Senate Dems wanting to keep their seats in 2012 to vote for the ES Bill, and the HR 2-appended CR & DR bills.
Which means they will be on Zero's desk for his signature or veto. If he doesn't sign them, all government services stop, pretty much immediately, and the government starts defaulting on Treasury interest payments. If he only signs the ES Bill, the same thing happens save for continued funding only for "essential services."
Boehner is betting Zero will buckle and sign the HR 2-appended CR & DR bills. With that, ObamaCare ceases to exist as if it never happened.
If he vetoes them and just signs the ES bill, Boehner still wins. Government has been truncated to "essential services" at a stroke, and now the whole debate is what government programs are "essential" or not, with the Dems on the defensive in the debate. This is orders of magnitude better than defunding one program at a time.
And if he vetoes all three, shutting the government down just to save ObamaCare, he gets the full and total blame for the shutdown -- a shutdown that would leave vast swathes of government programs and agencies in ruins.
Once that happens, millions of Americans would discover two amazing things: that they can get along just fine without all these Federalie programs and agencies - and with the government out of the way, they have innumerable opportunities to get a job or start a business they didn't have with the government in the way.
Oh, yes - a shutdown of course disintegrates the implementation of any part of ObamaCare, so it's useless to resist, Mr. President, it's best to cut your losses and sign, not veto.
If Boehner pulls this off, it doesn't just make his bones - he will be the King of Washington DC. Zero will be castrated. President Eunuch. His only possible hope for 2012 will be to work with the House and Senate Republicans in creating an environment for solid economic recovery that he can take credit for.
So... the trillion dollar question is: does Boehner have the stones to make his bones?
Until this repeal strategy emerged, all the talk was about trading raising the debt ceiling for a bunch of budget cuts. That's peanuts compared to zeroing out ObamaCare, which will save hundreds of billions by that alone.
Further, individual budget cuts, Boehner is advised, will be far more of a political liability. Remember how Tim Coburn got wasted (even by Fox News!) for opposing the $4 billion entitlement given to the 9/11 "first responders" by the Lame Schmucks? That's just a hint, Boehner is being warned, of what's to come with attempts to cut the budget a bite at a time.
Far better, and far more likely of success, to go for the gold, run for the roses, make your bones doing what you were elected to do: Repeal, not just defund, ObamaCare. Repeal it in less than sixty days from now - by mid-March.
The final decision hasn't been made, but Boehner, Cantor and the House leadership are edging up to it. They need all the encouragement and backup they can get. Let's give it to them. Let's make our bones too.
http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/4372/2/
Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler
Thursday, 13 January 2011
As the Loughner Lefties at the New York Times realized they jumped the shark in blaming the Arizona Massacre on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party Right, they smoothly shifted their strategy yesterday (1/12).
In a transparent ploy to monkey wrench the 112th Congress' program to dismantle ObamaCare and other Dem disasters, the NYT is now claiming that Boehner & Co must "play a less partisan role," and not "allow the House to slide back into confrontational politics." Translation: Republicans need to surrender to the Democrats.
And Boehner's response? As Eliza Doolittle said to Professor Henry Higgins, "Not bloody likely!" Zero and the Dems (and the Enemedia) are going to get the shock of their lives when they learn what Boehner has planned for them.
Get ready for this, folks, for it's going to knock the polka dots off your undies. This is going to make Boehner's bones.
Remember how Reagan made his? On August 3, 1981, 13,000 air traffic controllers went on strike, shutting down 7,000 flights at the peak of the summer travel season. They demanded $10,000 a year salary increases and an extortionate array of increased benefits.
Reagan branded the strike illegal and gave them 48 hours to return to work or else he would fire them all. They controllers laughed at him for what they thought was a foolish bluff. Except for 2,000 who did return to work, joining 3,000 FAA supervisors and 900 military controllers. 80% of flights went back to normal.
48 hours later on August 5, Reagan fired all 11,000 striking controllers - and imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring them. Then he had the Federal Labor Relations Authority disband PATCO - the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. Not only were the strikers permanently fired, their union ceased to exist.
That's how to make your bones in Washington. No one ever messed with Reagan again.
So how is John Boehner going to do it? Hold on to those undies now... he plans to get Zero to sign, not veto, a bill to repeal ObamaCare.
Yes, repeal, repeal the whole damn thing, Zero's pride and joy. Here's the strategy.
First, the fallback remains: defund it, refuse to appropriate any money to implement any of it. But to go for the jugular means repeal. Of course, any stand-alone repeal bill such as HR 2 passed by the House will be blocked in the Senate, or if passed faces a certain presidential veto that cannot possibly be overridden.
HR 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," takes 36 words to eliminate 2,000 pages of ObamaCare legislation: "Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted."
It will be voted on and passed by the House next week. It is only a warning shot. For its destiny is not to be a stand-alone bill, but an amendment to two other bills.
These two bills form the sides of a vise in which Dem cojones are inextricably trapped. They are: the CR (Continuing Resolution) to fund the government past March 4 when the current CR ends; and the bill to raise the debt ceiling (call it the DR, the debt raise).
These bills are "must pass" bills - for if they don't pass, the government shuts down, no checks go out to pay for anybody or anything, and government debt gets defaulted on.
Thus the repeal strategy: HR 2 will be appended to the next CR and the DR by the House. That's step one. Step two is for McConnell and DeMint to block any passage of either in the Senate unless HR 2 is appended.
And to keep those Dem cojones in an ever-tightening vise, both the CR and DR will be very short term - say 60 days for the former and $100 billion instead of a trillion for the latter, maybe less. This forces the Dems to fight the battle for more spending over and over again.
Step three is where it gets really interesting. The "ghost of 1995" haunting the Pubs is Gingrich forcing just such a government shutdown back then, which Clinton won and the Gingrich Pubs disastrously lost.
To avoid this happening again, companion legislation will be introduced in the House specifying those "essential services" of the federal government that would continue to be paid for at current levels should a CR or DR not be passed.
Call it the Essential Services or ES Bill. It will include the standard popular goodies people demand and the Dems scaremonger with: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other payments to individuals (but not to government employees - they get nada).
There is an argument over how long or short the ES list of government functions should be. Yet there is little need for it to be overly-long if it is amendable at any time by a simple concurrent resolution.
That way, when the Dems find some cute starving children who will die because of the heartlessly inhuman Republicans' refusal to spend taxpayers' money to save them, the Pubs have the option to add the relevant program to the ES list if the public clamor (not the Dem's) is loud enough.
And of course, the ES list would have no "non-essential" services or programs like the EPA, or funding for any agency to write and implement any new regulations whatever.
With the ES Bill, the vise really starts to squeeze. How will Harry Reid explain he opposes the ES Bill and would rather have a full government shutdown instead; that he would rather keep ObamaCare on life support rather than have seniors get their Social Security checks or Medicare payments? How will Zero?
In other words, the ES Bill puts the onus, fault, blame, and responsibility for a government shutdown on the Dems - not on Boehner & Co. Both Boehner and McConnell believe that there are enough Senate Dems wanting to keep their seats in 2012 to vote for the ES Bill, and the HR 2-appended CR & DR bills.
Which means they will be on Zero's desk for his signature or veto. If he doesn't sign them, all government services stop, pretty much immediately, and the government starts defaulting on Treasury interest payments. If he only signs the ES Bill, the same thing happens save for continued funding only for "essential services."
Boehner is betting Zero will buckle and sign the HR 2-appended CR & DR bills. With that, ObamaCare ceases to exist as if it never happened.
If he vetoes them and just signs the ES bill, Boehner still wins. Government has been truncated to "essential services" at a stroke, and now the whole debate is what government programs are "essential" or not, with the Dems on the defensive in the debate. This is orders of magnitude better than defunding one program at a time.
And if he vetoes all three, shutting the government down just to save ObamaCare, he gets the full and total blame for the shutdown -- a shutdown that would leave vast swathes of government programs and agencies in ruins.
Once that happens, millions of Americans would discover two amazing things: that they can get along just fine without all these Federalie programs and agencies - and with the government out of the way, they have innumerable opportunities to get a job or start a business they didn't have with the government in the way.
Oh, yes - a shutdown of course disintegrates the implementation of any part of ObamaCare, so it's useless to resist, Mr. President, it's best to cut your losses and sign, not veto.
If Boehner pulls this off, it doesn't just make his bones - he will be the King of Washington DC. Zero will be castrated. President Eunuch. His only possible hope for 2012 will be to work with the House and Senate Republicans in creating an environment for solid economic recovery that he can take credit for.
So... the trillion dollar question is: does Boehner have the stones to make his bones?
Until this repeal strategy emerged, all the talk was about trading raising the debt ceiling for a bunch of budget cuts. That's peanuts compared to zeroing out ObamaCare, which will save hundreds of billions by that alone.
Further, individual budget cuts, Boehner is advised, will be far more of a political liability. Remember how Tim Coburn got wasted (even by Fox News!) for opposing the $4 billion entitlement given to the 9/11 "first responders" by the Lame Schmucks? That's just a hint, Boehner is being warned, of what's to come with attempts to cut the budget a bite at a time.
Far better, and far more likely of success, to go for the gold, run for the roses, make your bones doing what you were elected to do: Repeal, not just defund, ObamaCare. Repeal it in less than sixty days from now - by mid-March.
The final decision hasn't been made, but Boehner, Cantor and the House leadership are edging up to it. They need all the encouragement and backup they can get. Let's give it to them. Let's make our bones too.
http://www.tothepointnews.com/content/view/4372/2/
Monday, October 18, 2010
Renew America--Henry Lamb
"A Republic, ma'am, if you can keep it"
By Henry Lamb
Except for a brief period during the Reagan years, America has been moving steadily toward becoming a social democracy rather than the republic our founders gave us. There is a very good reason why this is happening.
Since 1933, http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm Democrats have had complete control of government — Presidency, House and Senate — for 34 years. Republicans, on the other hand, have had control of government for a total of four years (108th and 109th Congress). Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 56 years, while Republicans controlled both houses for only 12 years. For 22 years, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; none for the Republicans.
Clearly, Democrats have steered the ship of state since the Roosevelt era. While Democrats loudly blame the Republicans for all the nation's woes, it is the Democrats who must accept responsibility for the state of the nation.
As bad as things are in the United States at the moment, the United States is in far better shape than most of the rest of the world. But the nation is nowhere near as good as it would have been had the republic — and its free market — been allowed to prosper.
The "Progressive" era that arose from the writings of Marx, Lenin, and others, embraced fully by Woodrow Wilson's administration, infested the Democrat Party, and since Franklin Roosevelt, has promoted policies that advance Marxism and erodes the republican form of government designed by our founders.
The republican form of government created by our founders consists of three primary pillars: the election of representatives who make policy; the election of a president through the Electoral College; and the election of Senators by state legislatures.
All three of these pillars are under severe attack. Increasingly, state and local policies are being decided by direct vote of the people, instead of by representatives elected by the people. This is direct democracy, not the way a republic functions. Our founders carefully avoided the possibility of a direct democracy, well aware of the inevitable anarchy that always follows democracy.
The Electoral College is under severe attack. In addition to Constitutional amendment proposals being introduced into Congress that provide direct vote of the people to elect the president, there is also a powerful movement afoot at the state level to award electoral votes to candidates on a percentage basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis. This proportioned vote distribution is certainly more democratic than the winner-take-all basis. But our founders were not trying to create the most democratic process. They were creating a republic, not a democracy.
The Woodrow Wilson crowd erased one of the three pillars altogether, when it promoted and adopted the 17th Amendment. This amendment took from the states the power to elect Senators and put that power into the hands of the public. Again, singing the progressive song of advancing democracy, the voters adopted the amendment in 1913, right after the 16th amendment which gave the federal government authority to tax income. These two amendments leave the republic a faint shadow of what our founders created. Marxist-driven progressives in the Obama administration are hell-bent to completely destroy what is left of the republic.
The philosophical foundation of a republic includes the idea that people are sovereign, and the government which people create derives its power from the consent of the governed. A social democracy thrives on the idea that the government is sovereign, and may grant or deny freedom to the people as it may please government.
In a republic, the primary function of government is to protect the rights endowed to people by their Creator and to defend the people from all enemies foreign and domestic. In a social democracy, the function of government is to manage the people's behavior and activities to achieve whatever goals the government defines.
A republic recognizes that the less involvement government can have in the market place, the more prosperous that market place will be. In a social democracy, government manages the market place to achieve social objectives rather than prosperity.
Since Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat Party has led this nation further away from the republic our founders created, and steadfastly toward the Marxist utopia embraced by communists, socialists, and social democrats around the world.
The only way to retain what's left of the republic our founders gave us is to rid Washington, and state and local governments of the progressives — and replace them with people who respect, understand, and embrace the Constitution.
© Henry Lamb
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lamb/101018
By Henry Lamb
Except for a brief period during the Reagan years, America has been moving steadily toward becoming a social democracy rather than the republic our founders gave us. There is a very good reason why this is happening.
Since 1933, http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm Democrats have had complete control of government — Presidency, House and Senate — for 34 years. Republicans, on the other hand, have had control of government for a total of four years (108th and 109th Congress). Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 56 years, while Republicans controlled both houses for only 12 years. For 22 years, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; none for the Republicans.
Clearly, Democrats have steered the ship of state since the Roosevelt era. While Democrats loudly blame the Republicans for all the nation's woes, it is the Democrats who must accept responsibility for the state of the nation.
As bad as things are in the United States at the moment, the United States is in far better shape than most of the rest of the world. But the nation is nowhere near as good as it would have been had the republic — and its free market — been allowed to prosper.
The "Progressive" era that arose from the writings of Marx, Lenin, and others, embraced fully by Woodrow Wilson's administration, infested the Democrat Party, and since Franklin Roosevelt, has promoted policies that advance Marxism and erodes the republican form of government designed by our founders.
The republican form of government created by our founders consists of three primary pillars: the election of representatives who make policy; the election of a president through the Electoral College; and the election of Senators by state legislatures.
All three of these pillars are under severe attack. Increasingly, state and local policies are being decided by direct vote of the people, instead of by representatives elected by the people. This is direct democracy, not the way a republic functions. Our founders carefully avoided the possibility of a direct democracy, well aware of the inevitable anarchy that always follows democracy.
The Electoral College is under severe attack. In addition to Constitutional amendment proposals being introduced into Congress that provide direct vote of the people to elect the president, there is also a powerful movement afoot at the state level to award electoral votes to candidates on a percentage basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis. This proportioned vote distribution is certainly more democratic than the winner-take-all basis. But our founders were not trying to create the most democratic process. They were creating a republic, not a democracy.
The Woodrow Wilson crowd erased one of the three pillars altogether, when it promoted and adopted the 17th Amendment. This amendment took from the states the power to elect Senators and put that power into the hands of the public. Again, singing the progressive song of advancing democracy, the voters adopted the amendment in 1913, right after the 16th amendment which gave the federal government authority to tax income. These two amendments leave the republic a faint shadow of what our founders created. Marxist-driven progressives in the Obama administration are hell-bent to completely destroy what is left of the republic.
The philosophical foundation of a republic includes the idea that people are sovereign, and the government which people create derives its power from the consent of the governed. A social democracy thrives on the idea that the government is sovereign, and may grant or deny freedom to the people as it may please government.
In a republic, the primary function of government is to protect the rights endowed to people by their Creator and to defend the people from all enemies foreign and domestic. In a social democracy, the function of government is to manage the people's behavior and activities to achieve whatever goals the government defines.
A republic recognizes that the less involvement government can have in the market place, the more prosperous that market place will be. In a social democracy, government manages the market place to achieve social objectives rather than prosperity.
Since Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat Party has led this nation further away from the republic our founders created, and steadfastly toward the Marxist utopia embraced by communists, socialists, and social democrats around the world.
The only way to retain what's left of the republic our founders gave us is to rid Washington, and state and local governments of the progressives — and replace them with people who respect, understand, and embrace the Constitution.
© Henry Lamb
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lamb/101018
Saturday, August 21, 2010
I Want Your Money Trailer
I Want Your Money Trailer (2010) HD (You must see this!)
I Want Your Money trailer...Set against the backdrop of today's headline - 67% of Americans don't approve of Obama's economic policies, the film takes a provocative look at our deeply depressed economy using the words and actions of Presidents Reagan and Obama and shows the marked contrast between Reagan and Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wty7974IKg
I Want Your Money trailer...Set against the backdrop of today's headline - 67% of Americans don't approve of Obama's economic policies, the film takes a provocative look at our deeply depressed economy using the words and actions of Presidents Reagan and Obama and shows the marked contrast between Reagan and Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wty7974IKg
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Lies, Damned Lies, and the Big Lie
American folk knowledge suggests that most of what we hear from politicians are lies. And, that once politicians commence political wrangling all we hear are damned lies. The humorist Will Rogers once opined, “If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these acceptance speeches there wouldn’t be any inducement to go to heaven.” President Ronald Reagan more recently quipped, “Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”
READ MORE:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25109
READ MORE:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25109
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Prescriptions for Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare
Prescriptions for Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare
by Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
On the "Today" show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a "middle of the road" bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.
One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.
The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore."
So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform.
Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people's lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)
At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans' health, rather than trial lawyers' bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses -- as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.
The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.
I know they're lying because -- well, first because I read the bill -- but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it's a pre-existing condition with them.
True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law -- but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover.
That's not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates -- it's worse!
At least before the passage of ObamaCare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren't required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder.
Under federal mandates, there will be no escape.
That's right, a single, one-size-fits-all, jammed-down-your-throat national plan is what the Democrats mean when they say their plan includes "competition across state lines."
How much do you want to bet that the national commission in Washington will mandate coverage for every form of shopping addiction treatment, body image therapy and sex-change operations with mandatory mental health counseling, but not injuries from hunting accidents or smoking-related illnesses?
The Democrats compare their new health care bill to entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. But those are welfare, not health care. They may go to deserving welfare recipients, but they are a government-enforced gift from the young to the old (Medicare), and from the middle class to the poor (Medicaid).
There's no reason why most Americans shouldn't be able to buy our own medical insurance the same way we buy our own cell phones, hair care and cars.
And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through.
These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care.
Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.
A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth -- and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.)
How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act?
How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use?
How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn't afford to text-message his friends looked on?
The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care.
Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history.
If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America.
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
by Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
On the "Today" show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a "middle of the road" bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.
One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.
The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore."
So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform.
Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people's lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)
At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans' health, rather than trial lawyers' bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses -- as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.
The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.
I know they're lying because -- well, first because I read the bill -- but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it's a pre-existing condition with them.
True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law -- but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover.
That's not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates -- it's worse!
At least before the passage of ObamaCare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren't required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder.
Under federal mandates, there will be no escape.
That's right, a single, one-size-fits-all, jammed-down-your-throat national plan is what the Democrats mean when they say their plan includes "competition across state lines."
How much do you want to bet that the national commission in Washington will mandate coverage for every form of shopping addiction treatment, body image therapy and sex-change operations with mandatory mental health counseling, but not injuries from hunting accidents or smoking-related illnesses?
The Democrats compare their new health care bill to entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. But those are welfare, not health care. They may go to deserving welfare recipients, but they are a government-enforced gift from the young to the old (Medicare), and from the middle class to the poor (Medicaid).
There's no reason why most Americans shouldn't be able to buy our own medical insurance the same way we buy our own cell phones, hair care and cars.
And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through.
These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care.
Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.
A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth -- and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.)
How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act?
How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use?
How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn't afford to text-message his friends looked on?
The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care.
Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history.
If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America.
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
By Sherry Peel Jackson -- Here are some of the questions and comments that people have when confronted with this truth
Here are some of the questions and comments that people have when confronted with this truth
How many times do you hear, "Boy, I wish someone would have the gall to stand up to these people!" Well, there have been a few and we have IGNORED THEM! They have taken their lumps all ALONE! This gal is a HERO and she has been ignored by patriots! We need to REALLY get behind those brave enough to stand up and say, "NO"!!!!
****************************************************
By Sherry Peel Jackson --
Here are some of the questions and comments that people have when confronted with this truth. I will tell you the answers that I gave after each question:
1. If we don't pay the income tax how would the country function? The answer to this question is very simple - the income tax revenue does not go towards running the country. On January 15, 1984, the Grace Commission, which is a private sector committee impaneled by President Ronald Regan to find ways to cut government spending found the following: "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt - all individual income tax revenues are gone before one dime is spent on the service taxpayers expect from government." This money actually goes to pay interest on our federal debt. The federal debt is paid to the Federal Reserve, which is not a part of the government but is a privately owned non-auditable banking cartel. To make it plain, your hard earned money is paid to the Federal Reserve to maintain control over your lives and the lives of countless other human beings on this earth. You can find several Internet sites that clock the federal debt as it rises per second. We currently pay the Federal Reserve over 36 million dollars per hour in interest. Obviously this money isn't going to current owners, but is being put in trust for children that are not even born yet - while you slave away trying to make ends meet. In addition, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, addressed the American Bar Association during the last year of World War II. The title of his speech was "Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete."
2. Why doesn't my accountant or lawyer know this? If your accountant or lawyer does not know about the income tax hoax it is because they were not taught. I went all the way through high school, college and IRS training without this knowledge. The colleges and universities teach only what the textbooks contain. These same colleges and universities receive large sums of money from foundations - some of which may be directly or indirectly owned by the owners of the Federal Reserve banks. Concerning text books: There was a CBS 20/20 special hosted by Sam Donaldson that proved outright fraud and deception in the textbooks of primary and secondary schools. One example was given where there were over 100 factual errors in the textbook. The most disturbing revelation from this show, however, was the fact that one high school history book contained three lines twice about George Washington, but six and a half pages of information on Marilyn Monroe. Since when did Marilyn Monroe carry more clout than the founding fathers? (Answer) Since those with the cash to pay for the books started manipulating the content of the books. It can be concluded that the same re-writing of history is present in the textbooks at colleges and universities also. In addition, I personally talk to some tax preparers that do know about these issues. They acknowledge that the information that I present to them may be correct, but they state that tax preparation is their source of income. These people imply that they would rather not research the issue. They would rather continue to operate in error and perpetuate the system by keeping the truth from their clients in fear of loosing this income, instead of finding other sources of income. Personally, I would rather dig ditches.
3. Why as the media not telling us about this issue? It has been stated that it only requires about 5% or 6% ownership in a large corporation to significantly influence that corporation. Rockefeller is one of the original shareholders of the Federal Reserve. In July 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS and the bank gained interlocking directorates with ABC in 1974. Through other companies, it appears that "the powers that be" control the major television stations, as well as the major newspapers and radio stations. In other words, the power of the air. It has been reported that in 1953, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, was asked to give a toast to the independent press before the New York Press Club. It is obvious that he believed that the concept of an "independent press" was a farce that he no longer wished to be a party to. The following is reported to be a quote from his monumentally revealing toast: "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know before hand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of the paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalist is to destroy the truth: to lie outright: to pervert; to vilify: to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it. What folly is this, toasting to an independent press? We are the tools and vassal of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
4. I believe you, Sherry, but I am too afraid to fight against the IRS. My response to this comment mirrors that of Ms. Devvy Kidd. It may be harsh, but when does fear become cowardice? What if the founding fathers had been too afraid to stand against the British Troops? What if the Quakers were too afraid to stand up against slavery? What if the American troops had been too afraid to advance at Normandy? Are your golf clubs, your Lexus and your fine clothes a fair trade for the future of our children? Are you willing to be a slave in order to remain in your comfort zone? Pause and think about that.
5. Well, the Bible says give unto Caesar what is Caesars and that we are to obey authority. The response to that comment is this: The Bible actually goes on to say, "therefore, IF you owe taxes, pay taxes. IF you owe tribute, pay tribute. If is a very important word, and there is a credible body of evidence that says most American citizens do not owe income taxes. In other words, it's not Caesar's! Also, concerning authority, God is to be obeyed over man. God put authority in place and expected them to have his best interest at heart, not their own selfish interest. If we are supposed to obey all authority then answer this: Where did Paul write most of the Epistles? In JAIL! He disobeyed the authorities of the day and chose to obey God. From Genesis through the New Testament are several instances where citizens disobeyed the authority of their time because that authority worked against the mandates of God. If the government told you that you must kill your first born because we are overpopulated would you? Of course not! That hopefully shows you that people will not just obey anything that comes down from Washington or the courts. They realize that people that go totally against the word of God should not be obeyed - no matter what. Please go back and read about Paul, the Hebrew midwives and Rahab the harlot, the three Hebrew boys.
6. Well, this all sounds like some kind of conspiracy, do you have proof that this was done by design? The response to that comment is this: If you check your history you will note something very compelling. Karl Marx wrote what is called the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. This plan is a design for the government to rule over the people. In my research, I have noted that we currently have a legislatively enacted counterpart for each of the ten planks of the communist manifesto. The second plank is a heavy graduated income tax. We have the Internal Revenue Service to make the people fearful and hand over the fruit of their labor. As Ambassador Alan Keyes exclaimed recently, " If the government has the power to tax even 1% of a man's labor, it has the power to tax 100% of a man's labor and that man is then a slave." We are all salves by design, and if you doubt it you need to do your research.
11/19/2007 - Sherry Peel Jackson, a former IRS revenue agent and certified public accountant, told a federal jury Tuesday she was sure she did not have to file income tax returns. But after less than 30 minutes of deliberations, the jury convicted Jackson of failing to file income tax returns for four years, despite the alleged fact that no such law mandating the payment of income tax even exists. NOW HERE IS THE BIG QUESTION: Where is Sherry Peel Jackson today? Does anyone know? Have you seen her? Have you heard from her? Is she still in prison? If so, which one? How can we reach her? IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW!
http://sherrypeeljackson.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UT2Ms5E2k http://stillaslave.blogspot.com/ http://www.topix.com/forum/city/evensville-tn/T03N6V4141NIP3SEC http://freewestradio.com/2009/12/hero-sherry-peel-jackson-dying-in-prison/ http://proliberty.com/observer//20080414.htm
How many times do you hear, "Boy, I wish someone would have the gall to stand up to these people!" Well, there have been a few and we have IGNORED THEM! They have taken their lumps all ALONE! This gal is a HERO and she has been ignored by patriots! We need to REALLY get behind those brave enough to stand up and say, "NO"!!!!
****************************************************
By Sherry Peel Jackson --
Here are some of the questions and comments that people have when confronted with this truth. I will tell you the answers that I gave after each question:
1. If we don't pay the income tax how would the country function? The answer to this question is very simple - the income tax revenue does not go towards running the country. On January 15, 1984, the Grace Commission, which is a private sector committee impaneled by President Ronald Regan to find ways to cut government spending found the following: "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt - all individual income tax revenues are gone before one dime is spent on the service taxpayers expect from government." This money actually goes to pay interest on our federal debt. The federal debt is paid to the Federal Reserve, which is not a part of the government but is a privately owned non-auditable banking cartel. To make it plain, your hard earned money is paid to the Federal Reserve to maintain control over your lives and the lives of countless other human beings on this earth. You can find several Internet sites that clock the federal debt as it rises per second. We currently pay the Federal Reserve over 36 million dollars per hour in interest. Obviously this money isn't going to current owners, but is being put in trust for children that are not even born yet - while you slave away trying to make ends meet. In addition, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Beardsley Ruml, addressed the American Bar Association during the last year of World War II. The title of his speech was "Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete."
2. Why doesn't my accountant or lawyer know this? If your accountant or lawyer does not know about the income tax hoax it is because they were not taught. I went all the way through high school, college and IRS training without this knowledge. The colleges and universities teach only what the textbooks contain. These same colleges and universities receive large sums of money from foundations - some of which may be directly or indirectly owned by the owners of the Federal Reserve banks. Concerning text books: There was a CBS 20/20 special hosted by Sam Donaldson that proved outright fraud and deception in the textbooks of primary and secondary schools. One example was given where there were over 100 factual errors in the textbook. The most disturbing revelation from this show, however, was the fact that one high school history book contained three lines twice about George Washington, but six and a half pages of information on Marilyn Monroe. Since when did Marilyn Monroe carry more clout than the founding fathers? (Answer) Since those with the cash to pay for the books started manipulating the content of the books. It can be concluded that the same re-writing of history is present in the textbooks at colleges and universities also. In addition, I personally talk to some tax preparers that do know about these issues. They acknowledge that the information that I present to them may be correct, but they state that tax preparation is their source of income. These people imply that they would rather not research the issue. They would rather continue to operate in error and perpetuate the system by keeping the truth from their clients in fear of loosing this income, instead of finding other sources of income. Personally, I would rather dig ditches.
3. Why as the media not telling us about this issue? It has been stated that it only requires about 5% or 6% ownership in a large corporation to significantly influence that corporation. Rockefeller is one of the original shareholders of the Federal Reserve. In July 1968, the House Banking Subcommittee reported that Rockefeller, through Chase Manhattan Bank, controlled 5.9% of the stock in CBS and the bank gained interlocking directorates with ABC in 1974. Through other companies, it appears that "the powers that be" control the major television stations, as well as the major newspapers and radio stations. In other words, the power of the air. It has been reported that in 1953, John Swinton, the former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, was asked to give a toast to the independent press before the New York Press Club. It is obvious that he believed that the concept of an "independent press" was a farce that he no longer wished to be a party to. The following is reported to be a quote from his monumentally revealing toast: "There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know before hand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of the paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalist is to destroy the truth: to lie outright: to pervert; to vilify: to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it. What folly is this, toasting to an independent press? We are the tools and vassal of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
4. I believe you, Sherry, but I am too afraid to fight against the IRS. My response to this comment mirrors that of Ms. Devvy Kidd. It may be harsh, but when does fear become cowardice? What if the founding fathers had been too afraid to stand against the British Troops? What if the Quakers were too afraid to stand up against slavery? What if the American troops had been too afraid to advance at Normandy? Are your golf clubs, your Lexus and your fine clothes a fair trade for the future of our children? Are you willing to be a slave in order to remain in your comfort zone? Pause and think about that.
5. Well, the Bible says give unto Caesar what is Caesars and that we are to obey authority. The response to that comment is this: The Bible actually goes on to say, "therefore, IF you owe taxes, pay taxes. IF you owe tribute, pay tribute. If is a very important word, and there is a credible body of evidence that says most American citizens do not owe income taxes. In other words, it's not Caesar's! Also, concerning authority, God is to be obeyed over man. God put authority in place and expected them to have his best interest at heart, not their own selfish interest. If we are supposed to obey all authority then answer this: Where did Paul write most of the Epistles? In JAIL! He disobeyed the authorities of the day and chose to obey God. From Genesis through the New Testament are several instances where citizens disobeyed the authority of their time because that authority worked against the mandates of God. If the government told you that you must kill your first born because we are overpopulated would you? Of course not! That hopefully shows you that people will not just obey anything that comes down from Washington or the courts. They realize that people that go totally against the word of God should not be obeyed - no matter what. Please go back and read about Paul, the Hebrew midwives and Rahab the harlot, the three Hebrew boys.
6. Well, this all sounds like some kind of conspiracy, do you have proof that this was done by design? The response to that comment is this: If you check your history you will note something very compelling. Karl Marx wrote what is called the 10 planks of the communist manifesto. This plan is a design for the government to rule over the people. In my research, I have noted that we currently have a legislatively enacted counterpart for each of the ten planks of the communist manifesto. The second plank is a heavy graduated income tax. We have the Internal Revenue Service to make the people fearful and hand over the fruit of their labor. As Ambassador Alan Keyes exclaimed recently, " If the government has the power to tax even 1% of a man's labor, it has the power to tax 100% of a man's labor and that man is then a slave." We are all salves by design, and if you doubt it you need to do your research.
11/19/2007 - Sherry Peel Jackson, a former IRS revenue agent and certified public accountant, told a federal jury Tuesday she was sure she did not have to file income tax returns. But after less than 30 minutes of deliberations, the jury convicted Jackson of failing to file income tax returns for four years, despite the alleged fact that no such law mandating the payment of income tax even exists. NOW HERE IS THE BIG QUESTION: Where is Sherry Peel Jackson today? Does anyone know? Have you seen her? Have you heard from her? Is she still in prison? If so, which one? How can we reach her? IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW!
http://sherrypeeljackson.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1UT2Ms5E2k http://stillaslave.blogspot.com/ http://www.topix.com/forum/city/evensville-tn/T03N6V4141NIP3SEC http://freewestradio.com/2009/12/hero-sherry-peel-jackson-dying-in-prison/ http://proliberty.com/observer//20080414.htm
Sunday, March 21, 2010
DEMOCRATS ASKING FOR DEFEAT
DEMOCRATS ASKING FOR DEFEAT -- See who are the traitors we must go after!
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
03.21.2010
The Democratic Party’s decision to deform our health care system in the name of reforming it amounts to a suicide pact. With America decrying the legislation by 60-40 margins, the legislators lined up and dutifully drank the Kool-Aid.
A few traitors who had previously passed themselves off as opponents of the legislation in the November vote turned their coats and revealed their true convictions by switching and voting no. These Congresspeople - who, at the moment, include Murphy (NY), Kosmas (Fla), Boyd (Fla), Kucinich (Ohio), Boccieri (Ohio), Nye (Va), and Markey (Col) - have made themselves special targets for our political wrath. They have painted targets on their backs with their cowardice in November and perfidy in March.
The anger of the voters at this total disregard of public opinion will power Republican candidates throughout the nation and will impel one of the greatest reversals of Congressional alignment in history.
But the aftershock of this political earthquake is yet to come. It will be upon us in the fall when Congress must decide whether to proceed with the Medicare cuts (particularly to cut in doctors’ reimbursement rates) or to postpone or cancel them and add the cost to the federal deficit.
Either they will make a shambles of Medicare or a mockery of their pretense of fiscal responsibility. The cuts would force broad swaths of the medical community - physicians and institutions - to refuse to treat Medicare patients. Their cancellation of postponement would swell the deficit and underscore the cynicism with which President Obama characterized the plan as a great deficit reduction measure.
This vote transforms the political landscape in a way that we have not seen in our lifetimes and the results will be cataclysmic for the Democratic Party. One hopes that the deals that the various members cut with the leadership to sell their votes included generous retirement packages. They’re going to need them!
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
03.21.2010
The Democratic Party’s decision to deform our health care system in the name of reforming it amounts to a suicide pact. With America decrying the legislation by 60-40 margins, the legislators lined up and dutifully drank the Kool-Aid.
A few traitors who had previously passed themselves off as opponents of the legislation in the November vote turned their coats and revealed their true convictions by switching and voting no. These Congresspeople - who, at the moment, include Murphy (NY), Kosmas (Fla), Boyd (Fla), Kucinich (Ohio), Boccieri (Ohio), Nye (Va), and Markey (Col) - have made themselves special targets for our political wrath. They have painted targets on their backs with their cowardice in November and perfidy in March.
The anger of the voters at this total disregard of public opinion will power Republican candidates throughout the nation and will impel one of the greatest reversals of Congressional alignment in history.
But the aftershock of this political earthquake is yet to come. It will be upon us in the fall when Congress must decide whether to proceed with the Medicare cuts (particularly to cut in doctors’ reimbursement rates) or to postpone or cancel them and add the cost to the federal deficit.
Either they will make a shambles of Medicare or a mockery of their pretense of fiscal responsibility. The cuts would force broad swaths of the medical community - physicians and institutions - to refuse to treat Medicare patients. Their cancellation of postponement would swell the deficit and underscore the cynicism with which President Obama characterized the plan as a great deficit reduction measure.
This vote transforms the political landscape in a way that we have not seen in our lifetimes and the results will be cataclysmic for the Democratic Party. One hopes that the deals that the various members cut with the leadership to sell their votes included generous retirement packages. They’re going to need them!
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Obama Supporter: ‘What’s Wrong With A Little Bit Of Socialism?’
Obama Supporter: ‘What’s Wrong With A Little Bit Of Socialism?’
Don't miss this, click on the link. See the opposition--the people that voted for the man and the Congress that is going to determine the future of this country!
Yesterday, we attended an impromptu Tea Party outside the Evanston, IL office of Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Below are some photos and our in-depth video report documenting the event.
Very few people turned out, but that didn’t prevent the scene from turning dramatic as a couple of Obama supporters tossed around accusations of racism, called everyone idiots, and asked the absurd question: “What’s wrong with a little bit of Socialism?”
Read more and watch the video: http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/03/20/obama-supporter-whats-wrong-with-a-little-bit-of-socialism/
Don't miss this, click on the link. See the opposition--the people that voted for the man and the Congress that is going to determine the future of this country!
Yesterday, we attended an impromptu Tea Party outside the Evanston, IL office of Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Below are some photos and our in-depth video report documenting the event.
Very few people turned out, but that didn’t prevent the scene from turning dramatic as a couple of Obama supporters tossed around accusations of racism, called everyone idiots, and asked the absurd question: “What’s wrong with a little bit of Socialism?”
Read more and watch the video: http://biggovernment.com/amarcus/2010/03/20/obama-supporter-whats-wrong-with-a-little-bit-of-socialism/
Thursday, March 18, 2010
MARCH 18, 2010
The Health-Care Wars Are Only Beginning By FRED BARNES
On Dec. 7, 1941, an announcement was made during the football game between the hometown Washington Redskins and the Philadelphia Eagles. All the generals and admirals at Griffith Stadium were instructed to report to their duty stations. Little did they know their lives would be changed forever and America would be at war, or on war footing, for the next half-century. Pearl Harbor had been attacked.
America will be in a constant health-care war if ObamaCare is enacted. Passage wouldn't end the health-care debate. Rather, it would perpetuate ObamaCare as the dominant issue for decades to come, reshape politics, create an annual funding crisis in Congress, and generate a spate of angry lawsuits. Yet few in Washington seem aware of what lies ahead.
We only have to look at Great Britain to get a glimpse of the future. The National Health Service—socialized medicine—was created in 1946 and touted as the envy of the world. It's been a contentious issue ever since. Its cost and coverage are perennial subjects of debate. The press, especially England's most popular newspaper, The Daily Mail, feasts on reports of long waiting periods, dirty hospitals, botched care and denied access to treatments.
A Conservative member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, last year in an interview on Fox News denounced the NHS as a "60-year mistake," declaring he "wouldn't wish it on anybody." As prime minister, Margaret Thatcher bravely cut NHS spending in the 1980s, but current Tory leaders regard criticism of the NHS as too risky. "The Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS," its leader, David Cameron, said in response to Mr. Hannan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes ObamaCare would have a more congenial fate—that it will become as popular as Social Security and Medicare with voters. She's kidding herself. Social Security and Medicare were popular from the start and passed with bipartisan support. ObamaCare is unpopular and partisan. It's extremely controversial. Its passage is far more likely to spark a political explosion than a wave of acceptance.
Democratic leaders believe the public doesn't focus on the process of how legislation is enacted. But in this case they're wrong. I've been amazed at how many people understand "reconciliation"—a process that allows budget and spending bills to pass in the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of 60. Many voters are also now studying the details of the "Slaughter solution," which would allow the House to "deem" the Senate health-care bill to have passed without actually voting on it and then to vote through changes to the Senate bill. These legislative shortcuts are already infuriating ObamaCare's opponents.
If ObamaCare passes, sooner or later the backlash against it would morph into a movement to repeal it. Republicans would likely make repeal a top issue in congressional elections this November. The GOP is expected to win a substantial number of seats in Congress this fall. If Republicans take control of the House or Senate or both, clashes over health care would be unavoidable.
Assuming it passes, ObamaCare wouldn't go into effect fully until 2013. This fact alone would make the health-care plan a paramount issue in the 2012 presidential race, regardless of whether Mr. Obama is on the ballot. As long as he's president, Mr. Obama would surely veto legislation to repeal or gut ObamaCare. With a Republican in the White House things would be different. Republicans might be successful in dismantling the program.
But Democrats wouldn't give up. Having gone to great lengths to enact ObamaCare, they'd go all out to protect it or revive it. Mrs. Pelosi is already talking about expanding ObamaCare. She favors adding a "public option" to compete with private insurers. "Once we kick through this door [and pass it], there'll be more legislation to follow," she told liberal bloggers on Monday.
So the struggle would go on and on. If you think the fights over funding of Medicare and Medicaid in recent years have been unpleasant, wait until the funding battles over ObamaCare start. It's all but inevitable that they would occur every year given the way Mr. Obama has proposed to finance his health-care program.
ObamaCare low-balls its cost and exaggerates the means for paying for it. "Our proposal is paid for," the president insisted in a speech in Ohio on Monday. It's not. The financing includes billions that are obligated elsewhere. It claims to cut the budget deficit by $118 billion but achieves this by borrowing hundreds of billions more.
At the same time, Mr. Obama's plan offers a cornucopia of new benefits: free preventive care, coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, guaranteed issue, no lifetime or annual benefit caps, and subsidies for insuring 30 million people now uninsured. All of this would increase the use of health-care services. The tendency is to underestimate just how large this increase might be. This was true with Medicare and Medicaid, whose costs have ballooned far beyond initial projections. The annual struggles in Congress over funding for ObamaCare would be intense.
The courts would also get involved. In anticipation of passage of the president's health-care plan, three states—Virginia, Idaho and Utah—have passed laws to nullify ObamaCare's mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. Other states are expected to follow suit. Arizona voters will decide the matter in a referendum in November. Ultimately, federal judges would decide if these state laws are constitutional. Other issues would also end up in court. That includes the constitutionality of the process that Democrats used to pass ObamaCare. We could expect years of litigation.
Enacting ObamaCare would be only the beginning. The controversy surrounding its passage and how it might work would preoccupy the president, Congress and millions of average Americans for the foreseeable future—and then some.
Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A19 -- Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The Health-Care Wars Are Only Beginning By FRED BARNES
On Dec. 7, 1941, an announcement was made during the football game between the hometown Washington Redskins and the Philadelphia Eagles. All the generals and admirals at Griffith Stadium were instructed to report to their duty stations. Little did they know their lives would be changed forever and America would be at war, or on war footing, for the next half-century. Pearl Harbor had been attacked.
America will be in a constant health-care war if ObamaCare is enacted. Passage wouldn't end the health-care debate. Rather, it would perpetuate ObamaCare as the dominant issue for decades to come, reshape politics, create an annual funding crisis in Congress, and generate a spate of angry lawsuits. Yet few in Washington seem aware of what lies ahead.
We only have to look at Great Britain to get a glimpse of the future. The National Health Service—socialized medicine—was created in 1946 and touted as the envy of the world. It's been a contentious issue ever since. Its cost and coverage are perennial subjects of debate. The press, especially England's most popular newspaper, The Daily Mail, feasts on reports of long waiting periods, dirty hospitals, botched care and denied access to treatments.
A Conservative member of the European Parliament, Daniel Hannan, last year in an interview on Fox News denounced the NHS as a "60-year mistake," declaring he "wouldn't wish it on anybody." As prime minister, Margaret Thatcher bravely cut NHS spending in the 1980s, but current Tory leaders regard criticism of the NHS as too risky. "The Conservative Party stands four square behind the NHS," its leader, David Cameron, said in response to Mr. Hannan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believes ObamaCare would have a more congenial fate—that it will become as popular as Social Security and Medicare with voters. She's kidding herself. Social Security and Medicare were popular from the start and passed with bipartisan support. ObamaCare is unpopular and partisan. It's extremely controversial. Its passage is far more likely to spark a political explosion than a wave of acceptance.
Democratic leaders believe the public doesn't focus on the process of how legislation is enacted. But in this case they're wrong. I've been amazed at how many people understand "reconciliation"—a process that allows budget and spending bills to pass in the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of 60. Many voters are also now studying the details of the "Slaughter solution," which would allow the House to "deem" the Senate health-care bill to have passed without actually voting on it and then to vote through changes to the Senate bill. These legislative shortcuts are already infuriating ObamaCare's opponents.
If ObamaCare passes, sooner or later the backlash against it would morph into a movement to repeal it. Republicans would likely make repeal a top issue in congressional elections this November. The GOP is expected to win a substantial number of seats in Congress this fall. If Republicans take control of the House or Senate or both, clashes over health care would be unavoidable.
Assuming it passes, ObamaCare wouldn't go into effect fully until 2013. This fact alone would make the health-care plan a paramount issue in the 2012 presidential race, regardless of whether Mr. Obama is on the ballot. As long as he's president, Mr. Obama would surely veto legislation to repeal or gut ObamaCare. With a Republican in the White House things would be different. Republicans might be successful in dismantling the program.
But Democrats wouldn't give up. Having gone to great lengths to enact ObamaCare, they'd go all out to protect it or revive it. Mrs. Pelosi is already talking about expanding ObamaCare. She favors adding a "public option" to compete with private insurers. "Once we kick through this door [and pass it], there'll be more legislation to follow," she told liberal bloggers on Monday.
So the struggle would go on and on. If you think the fights over funding of Medicare and Medicaid in recent years have been unpleasant, wait until the funding battles over ObamaCare start. It's all but inevitable that they would occur every year given the way Mr. Obama has proposed to finance his health-care program.
ObamaCare low-balls its cost and exaggerates the means for paying for it. "Our proposal is paid for," the president insisted in a speech in Ohio on Monday. It's not. The financing includes billions that are obligated elsewhere. It claims to cut the budget deficit by $118 billion but achieves this by borrowing hundreds of billions more.
At the same time, Mr. Obama's plan offers a cornucopia of new benefits: free preventive care, coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, guaranteed issue, no lifetime or annual benefit caps, and subsidies for insuring 30 million people now uninsured. All of this would increase the use of health-care services. The tendency is to underestimate just how large this increase might be. This was true with Medicare and Medicaid, whose costs have ballooned far beyond initial projections. The annual struggles in Congress over funding for ObamaCare would be intense.
The courts would also get involved. In anticipation of passage of the president's health-care plan, three states—Virginia, Idaho and Utah—have passed laws to nullify ObamaCare's mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. Other states are expected to follow suit. Arizona voters will decide the matter in a referendum in November. Ultimately, federal judges would decide if these state laws are constitutional. Other issues would also end up in court. That includes the constitutionality of the process that Democrats used to pass ObamaCare. We could expect years of litigation.
Enacting ObamaCare would be only the beginning. The controversy surrounding its passage and how it might work would preoccupy the president, Congress and millions of average Americans for the foreseeable future—and then some.
Mr. Barnes is executive editor of the Weekly Standard and a commentator on Fox News Channel.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A19 -- Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Important! Agenda 21 Summary
EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO WATCH!
Important! Agenda 21 Summary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTrlCjscMN8
Important! Agenda 21 Summary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTrlCjscMN8
March 17, 2010
It seems that every other day, one hears of another "crisis" that must be dealt with immediately -- by government expansion. Examples include everything from swine flu to global warming to the rising cost of health care. We are warned that we need the government to protect us. We are asked to sacrifice. We are told that there is no time to think, and we must act immediately -- Washington will do the thinking for us.
The American people instinctively sense that there is something terrible happening, something that is antithetical to the indomitable spirit of benevolence, self-reliance, independence, and freedom that has characterized our nation from its beginning. Our government has been hijacked by collectivist radicals whose every act is designed to expand their power and chip away at our freedom. One never knows what new government fiat may emerge on any given day, what its effects will be, and whose lives will be damaged for the benefit of what purportedly needy segment of the population. This is the nature of the real crisis.
In order to solve a problem, one must not merely define its practical manifestations, but determine its root cause. It is critical to determine the fundamental issue that makes all our current absurdities and injustices possible. Then we will know how to eradicate the hijackers and rescue our great nation from the precipice of an irrevocable disaster.
The essence of what has made this country great is the notion that each individual owns his own life, that every moment of that life is infinitely valuable and irreplaceable, that his sacred moral right is the freedom to live and pursue his own happiness. Each of us has the right to work, produce, and enjoy the fruits of her own achievements, and our only obligation toward others is to allow them that same freedom.
Does the political manifestation of this ideal (capitalism) lead to widespread abundance and prosperity, raising the standard of living for even the poorest among us? As a matter of clear historical record, yes, it certainly does. But the mistake made by proponents of freedom and capitalism is to present these effects as the essential moral purpose of a free society, which they are not. Protecting the right of each individual to exist and live as he chooses, so long as he does not infringe on the same rights of others, is the ultimate purpose and moral justification of a rational government in a free society.
When one asserts that capitalism is the best system to achieve "the common good," one is conceding the basic premise of collectivism: that the moral purpose of a government is to not merely protect, but provide for its citizens. And since it produces nothing, the only way a government can distribute wealth to some citizens is by first taking that wealth by force from those who have produced it. This throws the door wide open for tyranny; if forced expropriation of private property helps to provide for the "general welfare," then it is morally justifiable under the premises of collectivism. Maybe one can argue that capitalism works in practice -- and it does -- but the legitimate rights of the individual are not defensible on principle once the tenet of sacrificing the individual to the collective has been accepted as the moral yardstick against which government action should be measured. This is the root cause of our current political crisis.
Once the legitimacy of actual, objectively definable rights has been undermined by the tenets of self-sacrifice, needs take the place of rights. The collectivists claim that it is one's "right" to be provided with health care. But what about the rights of doctors who would be required to provide the medical treatment and the property rights of every other American who would be taxed to subsidize it? This leads to an obvious contradiction: There can be no such thing as a "right" to violate the rights of others.
A simple test for determining if a purported "right" is legitimate is this: Does it require the compulsory, active participation of someone else? This means, does the satisfaction of this right require others not merely to refrain from interfering with someone who claims this right, but to take some positive action, such as providing goods or services? Needs cannot and must not serve as a basis for rights; one person's need is not a legitimate claim on the life of another.
For the reasons described above, every form of welfare state is fundamentally, irreconcilably at odds with legitimate individual rights. There are two options: a free society with a strictly limited government, or a runaway state with a limitless claim on individual lives. Those who have hijacked our government know this, they have made their choice, and their constant acts of secrecy and dishonesty show that they know that their goals are indefensible. After the long and blood-curdling record of collectivist governments throughout history, one cannot give the benefit of the doubt to those who seek to impose it on the United States of America.
Productive Americans already work a significant percentage of each year just to pay their taxes. Cumulative decades are taken from our lives by force to support a massive and corrupt government. How much enjoyment and abundance could the American people achieve with all those irreplaceable years that are instead spent toiling to support the bloated pensions of public-sector union workers, the caviar on Nancy Pelosi's military jet transport, Barack Obama's extravagant parties in the White House, and any needy incompetent who thrusts his hand out and insists that he is entitled to be provided for?
The cause of our nation's peril is a vicious set of moral premises. It is on moral grounds that the battle to take it back must be fought. The upstanding, responsible citizens of America must stop yielding to intimidation by the snarling leftists who claim that they have a right to do as they wish with our earnings and lives because they claim that they want to help people. The proper answer to this is that they are free to allocate their own resources as they wish, but they have no right to ours. And when the collectivists throw out the accusation that our refusal to submit to tyranny is selfish, we must proudly proclaim that they are correct.
It is only when we stand against the collectivists on moral grounds that we will win back our country, our freedom, and our lives.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/americas_political_crisis.html at March 17, 2010 - 09:20:48 AM CDT
_uacct = "UA-31527-12";
urchinTracker();
_uacct = "UA-31527-12";
urchinTracker();
Monday, March 15, 2010
Health Care Reform Enters Final Stage, Could be Law by End of the Week
Health Care Reform Enters Final Stage, Could be Law by End of the Week
March 15, 2010 - by Donny Shaw
Let the endgames begin! The pieces of the process puzzle for finishing health care reform are falling into place. The votes are being whipped. And, after 14 months of national obsession with health care reform, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ statement on Sunday that in one week the health care bill will be “the law of the land,” actually seems plausible.
Here’s the latest on what to expect this week — both politically and proceduraly — and when to expect it.
The Process
At 3 p.m. ET today, the House Budget Committee kicks off the final push to pass health care reform by holding a mark-up session for the “Budget Reconciliation Act of 2010” (2,300-page PDF), which is a “shell” bill containing the reconciliation instructions that were sent to the Budget Committee in October by the House Ways and Means, Education and Labor Committees. Notably, it includes a public option and adds the unrelated “Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act,” which you can learn all about here. The Budget Committee’s mark-up is largely procedural in nature — in order to use the budget reconciliation, which is not filibusterable in the Senate, they are starting out with the language that was reported out of the committees as required by the 2010 budget resolution. The legislative text they are marking up is essentially a blank slate that is procedurally necessary to kick off the budget reconciliation process. It will be replaced with new language further down the line in the reconciliation process.
The Budget Committee is hoping to complete the mark-up by midnight in order to give the next committee that will be dealing with the legislation, the House Rules Committee, a 48-hour layover period, as is customary. During the Budget Committee mark-up, Democrats and Republicans will each be allowed votes on 10 non-binding motions to instruct the Rules Committee. They are expected to be used mostly for scoring political points and should be dealt with relatively easily on party-line votes. Democrats outnumber Republicans on this committee nearly by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio.
The House Rules Committee will take up the budget reconciliation bill next, probably on Wednesday. That’s where it will really begin to take its final shape. The Rules Committee will most likely make in order a subtitle amendment containing new legislative text that has yet to be released by the Democrats, which will contain the Obama proposal for reconciling the Senate and House bills, drop the public option, keep the student loan reform bill, and may have some new stuff we haven’t yet seen (we’ll keep you posted).
Besides setting up the adoption of the new text for the reconciliation bill, the Rules Committee’s job will be to determine the exact procedural rules that will govern debate and votes on the reconciliation bill when it goes before the full House of Representatives. The big rules decision will be whether or not to use the controversial “self-executing rule,” which would allow for the Senate health care bill (H.R.3590) to be considered passed by the House once the reconciliation bill is approved. In other words, it would allow for the House to approve the Senate bill, with all its noxious state-specific provisions and the more conservative revenue and subsidy provisions that are opposed by many House Democrats, without them actually having to take a stand-alone vote on it. Technically, they would only have to vote on the fixes to the bill that are contained in the reconciliation bill, which removes the state-specific provisions and make several other changes that bring it more in line with the House bill.
Whether they put the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill together or keep the bills separate, a vote will likely take place by the end of the week, or possibly the weekend. President Obama was scheduled to go to Guam on March 18, but he has delayed the trip until March 21. That gives the House until Sunday to pass the Senate health care bill and get it signed into law. The latest reports on the Senate Parliamentarian indicate that he has decided that the Senate bill must become law before the Democrats can use the budget reconciliation process to pass their package of fixes that will bring several provisions closer to what the more liberal House wants. Of course, if the House decides to use the self-executing rule and roll the bill together, that won’t be a problem.
All that will be left at that point is for the Senate to pass the budget reconciliation bill. The 51 Democratic votes that will be needed appear to be in the bag. The only thing standing in the way will be obstructionsist tactics from Senate Republicans, who are planning on offering an endless stream of non-germane amendments to guym up the works. That could essentially shut down the Senate, requiring Vice President Joe Biden to step in i his role as President of the Senate and put things back in order. Things could get messy here.
The Votes
With the 51 Democratic votes lined up for the reconciliation bill in the Senate, vote counting on health care reform is all about the House. There are essentially two areas that the Democratic House leadership is working to shore up the final votes — abortion and assurance that Senate Democrats are committed to following through with the reconciliation bill.
On the abortion issue, Democratic leaders in the House are making the case that, procedurally, they can’t change the bill’s language on abortion at this point without starting over with a new bill. Since it’s pretty clear that starting over would mean not passing a bill this year, the leadership is telling pro-life House Democrats that they must either accept the Senate’s abortion language or be prepared to vote to kill health care reform for years to come.
There are roughly 12 House Democrats that have pledged for months to vote against the health care bill unless it contains the Stupak abortion language form the House bill, which restricts all insurance plans selling on the new exchanges from offering abortion coverage, even if the abortion coverage is kept separate and paid for entirely with private money. However, as Rep. Bart Stupak [D, MI-1] himself says here, some of those 12 are already starting to soften their position.
As for building trust that the Senate will indeed pass the fixes to the bill after it becomes law, Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] told The Hill that she is seeking “certain assurances” from the Senate before the House takes place, though she didn’t elaborate as to what those assurances are. Presumably, House Democratic leaders are looking for assurances that the Senate Democrats are willing to use whatever procedural moves might be necessary to overcome Republican obstruction and get the reconciliation bill through the Senate. Majority Whip Sen. Dick Durbin [D, IL] told Meet the Press on Sunday that those assurances are forthcoming. “When Nancy Pelosi goes before her caucus it will be with solid assurance that when reconciliation comes over to the Senate side, we’re going to pass it,”
The important thing to remember in all this is that Nancy Pelosi has only lost one big vote in the more than three years she has served as Speaker of the House. That was on the original TARP bill, which she ended up getting passed a few days later in a revised version. Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership are masters at whipping up votes, so statements like this one that the votes will be there when the time comes should be taken seriously.
Reposted from: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1716-Health-Care-Reform-Enters-Final-Stage-Could-be-Law-by-End-of-the-Week-
March 15, 2010 - by Donny Shaw
Let the endgames begin! The pieces of the process puzzle for finishing health care reform are falling into place. The votes are being whipped. And, after 14 months of national obsession with health care reform, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ statement on Sunday that in one week the health care bill will be “the law of the land,” actually seems plausible.
Here’s the latest on what to expect this week — both politically and proceduraly — and when to expect it.
The Process
At 3 p.m. ET today, the House Budget Committee kicks off the final push to pass health care reform by holding a mark-up session for the “Budget Reconciliation Act of 2010” (2,300-page PDF), which is a “shell” bill containing the reconciliation instructions that were sent to the Budget Committee in October by the House Ways and Means, Education and Labor Committees. Notably, it includes a public option and adds the unrelated “Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act,” which you can learn all about here. The Budget Committee’s mark-up is largely procedural in nature — in order to use the budget reconciliation, which is not filibusterable in the Senate, they are starting out with the language that was reported out of the committees as required by the 2010 budget resolution. The legislative text they are marking up is essentially a blank slate that is procedurally necessary to kick off the budget reconciliation process. It will be replaced with new language further down the line in the reconciliation process.
The Budget Committee is hoping to complete the mark-up by midnight in order to give the next committee that will be dealing with the legislation, the House Rules Committee, a 48-hour layover period, as is customary. During the Budget Committee mark-up, Democrats and Republicans will each be allowed votes on 10 non-binding motions to instruct the Rules Committee. They are expected to be used mostly for scoring political points and should be dealt with relatively easily on party-line votes. Democrats outnumber Republicans on this committee nearly by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio.
The House Rules Committee will take up the budget reconciliation bill next, probably on Wednesday. That’s where it will really begin to take its final shape. The Rules Committee will most likely make in order a subtitle amendment containing new legislative text that has yet to be released by the Democrats, which will contain the Obama proposal for reconciling the Senate and House bills, drop the public option, keep the student loan reform bill, and may have some new stuff we haven’t yet seen (we’ll keep you posted).
Besides setting up the adoption of the new text for the reconciliation bill, the Rules Committee’s job will be to determine the exact procedural rules that will govern debate and votes on the reconciliation bill when it goes before the full House of Representatives. The big rules decision will be whether or not to use the controversial “self-executing rule,” which would allow for the Senate health care bill (H.R.3590) to be considered passed by the House once the reconciliation bill is approved. In other words, it would allow for the House to approve the Senate bill, with all its noxious state-specific provisions and the more conservative revenue and subsidy provisions that are opposed by many House Democrats, without them actually having to take a stand-alone vote on it. Technically, they would only have to vote on the fixes to the bill that are contained in the reconciliation bill, which removes the state-specific provisions and make several other changes that bring it more in line with the House bill.
Whether they put the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill together or keep the bills separate, a vote will likely take place by the end of the week, or possibly the weekend. President Obama was scheduled to go to Guam on March 18, but he has delayed the trip until March 21. That gives the House until Sunday to pass the Senate health care bill and get it signed into law. The latest reports on the Senate Parliamentarian indicate that he has decided that the Senate bill must become law before the Democrats can use the budget reconciliation process to pass their package of fixes that will bring several provisions closer to what the more liberal House wants. Of course, if the House decides to use the self-executing rule and roll the bill together, that won’t be a problem.
All that will be left at that point is for the Senate to pass the budget reconciliation bill. The 51 Democratic votes that will be needed appear to be in the bag. The only thing standing in the way will be obstructionsist tactics from Senate Republicans, who are planning on offering an endless stream of non-germane amendments to guym up the works. That could essentially shut down the Senate, requiring Vice President Joe Biden to step in i his role as President of the Senate and put things back in order. Things could get messy here.
The Votes
With the 51 Democratic votes lined up for the reconciliation bill in the Senate, vote counting on health care reform is all about the House. There are essentially two areas that the Democratic House leadership is working to shore up the final votes — abortion and assurance that Senate Democrats are committed to following through with the reconciliation bill.
On the abortion issue, Democratic leaders in the House are making the case that, procedurally, they can’t change the bill’s language on abortion at this point without starting over with a new bill. Since it’s pretty clear that starting over would mean not passing a bill this year, the leadership is telling pro-life House Democrats that they must either accept the Senate’s abortion language or be prepared to vote to kill health care reform for years to come.
There are roughly 12 House Democrats that have pledged for months to vote against the health care bill unless it contains the Stupak abortion language form the House bill, which restricts all insurance plans selling on the new exchanges from offering abortion coverage, even if the abortion coverage is kept separate and paid for entirely with private money. However, as Rep. Bart Stupak [D, MI-1] himself says here, some of those 12 are already starting to soften their position.
As for building trust that the Senate will indeed pass the fixes to the bill after it becomes law, Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] told The Hill that she is seeking “certain assurances” from the Senate before the House takes place, though she didn’t elaborate as to what those assurances are. Presumably, House Democratic leaders are looking for assurances that the Senate Democrats are willing to use whatever procedural moves might be necessary to overcome Republican obstruction and get the reconciliation bill through the Senate. Majority Whip Sen. Dick Durbin [D, IL] told Meet the Press on Sunday that those assurances are forthcoming. “When Nancy Pelosi goes before her caucus it will be with solid assurance that when reconciliation comes over to the Senate side, we’re going to pass it,”
The important thing to remember in all this is that Nancy Pelosi has only lost one big vote in the more than three years she has served as Speaker of the House. That was on the original TARP bill, which she ended up getting passed a few days later in a revised version. Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership are masters at whipping up votes, so statements like this one that the votes will be there when the time comes should be taken seriously.
Reposted from: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1716-Health-Care-Reform-Enters-Final-Stage-Could-be-Law-by-End-of-the-Week-
ACTION ALERT!…Constitutional Crisis : Watch or Fight at Congressman Etheridge’s Office Mar 16th
ACTION ALERT!…Constitutional Crisis : Watch or Fight at Congressman Etheridge’s Office Mar 16th
Reposted from Randy's Right, March 15, 2010 by randyedye
As if we don’t know already Moreons.org and ”Organizing for America” progressives are watching my blog. We don’t care. This is about saving this nation and Constitution of the United States. Two Events to Help Stop a Washington Takeover of Health Care
Dear Conservative Activist,
President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have made it clear they plan on using the nuclear method of “reconciliation” to ram health care through Congress in the next few weeks, regardless of how strongly the American people are against it.
Congressman Bob Etheridge has stated that he will most likely support the bill.
We must let him know that this vote is directly against the wishes of his constituents!
We have two great opportunities to help you make sure your voice is heard.First, please join me on the phone Monday evening for a Health Care Tele-Town Hall with a distinguished panel of experts including AFP’s Vice President for Policy Phil Kerpen, Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar of the John Locke Foundation Roy Cordato and local surgeon Dr. Brent Ellmers as they discuss the future of private, patient-centered health care and the Obama plan and take your questions.
Additionally, join scores of your fellow activists next Tuesday at noon as we drive around his Raleigh and Lillington offices and Honk Against the Government Takeover of Health Care. You may either rally with us in front of either of his North Carolina office buildings OR just drive around the block a few times honking your horn and displaying signs.
Honk Against the Healthcare Takeover at BOTH of Etheridge’s offices:
Congressman Bob Etheridge
Raleigh District Office333 Fayetteville StreetRaleigh, NC 27601
Lillington District Office609 North First StreetLillington, NC 27546
Tuesday, March 16 th 12 noon-1 PM
Drive to his office honking your horn, displaying your bumper sticker and any other signs you wish, calling on Etheridge to vote against this Government takeover of health care! Then come join us in a sidewalk demonstration. Be sure to bring your handcrafted signs too!
Note: There will be a demonstration on Fayetteville St, Raleigh at the office of Bob Etheridge.
Never before has a congress demonstrated such blatant disregard and contempt for our Constitution.
From House and Senate Cloakroom at Heritage Foundation:
It’s crunch time on health care. The Budget Committee will meet Monday to start marking up a shell of a Reconciliation Bill. The Rules Committee will then meet as early as Wednesday to hollow out whatever the Budget Committee passed and then insert a new bill from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) office. The Majority is still planning to use the “Slaughter Rule” that would allow the House to pass the Senate health care bill without voting on it.
RED ALERT: We Are Now Living Under Martial Law — House Democrats Appear Set to Pass Senate Bill Without Voting On It
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is preparing to pass the health care overhaul through the House of Representatives without a vote, as was originally reported by the National Journal’s Congress Daily. Mark Tapscott observes that such a maneuver would be the penultimate refutation of the people’s will.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!
From the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 7
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively…
Mark Levin:… this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.
This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were… They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President…
This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.
And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!
Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.
…This is a crucial lesson for those of you who… aren’t sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren’t sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, …openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.
And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you’ll ever get… So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race — with scores of others — to the courthouse to stop this.
I can’t think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!
…It’s not only absurd on its face — that these power-hungry ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim that the House voted on something it never voted on… that’s not only absurd on its face, it’s blatantly unconstitutional!
Here’s the question: What are you going to do?Are you going to watch it happen or go fight?
Will you mind your own business while this vile congress pisses on your Constitution? Or will you fight?
Fight in D.C.March 16th – The People’s Surge against Obamacare 2.0
FreedomWorks will be joining Tea Party groups and all other organizations that are fighting to defeat Obamacare 2.0. Please join us in DC to lobby our congressmen to VOTE NO on Obamacare 2.0. Join us Tuesday, March 16th, beginning at 9:00am outside the Cannon House Office Building (Independence Ave. SE and New Jersey SE). We will be storming the three House Office Buildings: Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn. Our message is simple: VOTE NO
Fight via Phone and EmailThis link contains contact information on all the congress-holes. Use it.
Contact info for all the NC senator and representatives in DC
More?Van Hollen Advises Silence on Unconstitutional ObamaCare Procedure
‘They Just Want This Over’
March 16th: If You Prick Them, They Will Bleed
The Culture War Is Not Over, The Larger War For Liberty Has Begun
Reposted from Randy's Right, March 15, 2010 by randyedye
As if we don’t know already Moreons.org and ”Organizing for America” progressives are watching my blog. We don’t care. This is about saving this nation and Constitution of the United States. Two Events to Help Stop a Washington Takeover of Health Care
Dear Conservative Activist,
President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have made it clear they plan on using the nuclear method of “reconciliation” to ram health care through Congress in the next few weeks, regardless of how strongly the American people are against it.
Congressman Bob Etheridge has stated that he will most likely support the bill.
We must let him know that this vote is directly against the wishes of his constituents!
We have two great opportunities to help you make sure your voice is heard.First, please join me on the phone Monday evening for a Health Care Tele-Town Hall with a distinguished panel of experts including AFP’s Vice President for Policy Phil Kerpen, Vice President for Research and Resident Scholar of the John Locke Foundation Roy Cordato and local surgeon Dr. Brent Ellmers as they discuss the future of private, patient-centered health care and the Obama plan and take your questions.
Additionally, join scores of your fellow activists next Tuesday at noon as we drive around his Raleigh and Lillington offices and Honk Against the Government Takeover of Health Care. You may either rally with us in front of either of his North Carolina office buildings OR just drive around the block a few times honking your horn and displaying signs.
Honk Against the Healthcare Takeover at BOTH of Etheridge’s offices:
Congressman Bob Etheridge
Raleigh District Office333 Fayetteville StreetRaleigh, NC 27601
Lillington District Office609 North First StreetLillington, NC 27546
Tuesday, March 16 th 12 noon-1 PM
Drive to his office honking your horn, displaying your bumper sticker and any other signs you wish, calling on Etheridge to vote against this Government takeover of health care! Then come join us in a sidewalk demonstration. Be sure to bring your handcrafted signs too!
Note: There will be a demonstration on Fayetteville St, Raleigh at the office of Bob Etheridge.
Never before has a congress demonstrated such blatant disregard and contempt for our Constitution.
From House and Senate Cloakroom at Heritage Foundation:
It’s crunch time on health care. The Budget Committee will meet Monday to start marking up a shell of a Reconciliation Bill. The Rules Committee will then meet as early as Wednesday to hollow out whatever the Budget Committee passed and then insert a new bill from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) office. The Majority is still planning to use the “Slaughter Rule” that would allow the House to pass the Senate health care bill without voting on it.
RED ALERT: We Are Now Living Under Martial Law — House Democrats Appear Set to Pass Senate Bill Without Voting On It
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is preparing to pass the health care overhaul through the House of Representatives without a vote, as was originally reported by the National Journal’s Congress Daily. Mark Tapscott observes that such a maneuver would be the penultimate refutation of the people’s will.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
Thus, Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!
From the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 7
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively…
Mark Levin:… this clause goes to the heart of this Republic.
This clause goes to the heart of how our representative body, that is Congress, makes laws. And so I want you to [observe] how particular the Framers were… They have to pass a Bill to present it to the President…
This is one of the most exacting clauses in the Constitution.
And, to the best of my knowledge, which extends over three decades, no Congress has previously tried to institute policies without actual statutes.
Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!
Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.
…This is a crucial lesson for those of you who… aren’t sure what your beliefs are, or if you have any beliefs. Or aren’t sure if you even care. We have an effort underway by the one of the most powerful chairmen in Congress, the woman who heads the Rules Committee, …openly discussing gutting Congress. Gutting Congress.
And if this is done, this is about as close to martial law as you’ll ever get… So Louise Slaughter, a Representative from New York, is discussing, in essence, martial law. Now I can tell you, if they pursue this process, and try to impose this kind of a law, without actually passing a statute, that I will be in a race — with scores of others — to the courthouse to stop this.
I can’t think of a more blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution than this. And the liberal media has essentially ignored it!
…It’s not only absurd on its face — that these power-hungry ideologues, party-first-country-second types, would make the claim that the House voted on something it never voted on… that’s not only absurd on its face, it’s blatantly unconstitutional!
Here’s the question: What are you going to do?Are you going to watch it happen or go fight?
Will you mind your own business while this vile congress pisses on your Constitution? Or will you fight?
Fight in D.C.March 16th – The People’s Surge against Obamacare 2.0
FreedomWorks will be joining Tea Party groups and all other organizations that are fighting to defeat Obamacare 2.0. Please join us in DC to lobby our congressmen to VOTE NO on Obamacare 2.0. Join us Tuesday, March 16th, beginning at 9:00am outside the Cannon House Office Building (Independence Ave. SE and New Jersey SE). We will be storming the three House Office Buildings: Cannon, Longworth and Rayburn. Our message is simple: VOTE NO
Fight via Phone and EmailThis link contains contact information on all the congress-holes. Use it.
Contact info for all the NC senator and representatives in DC
More?Van Hollen Advises Silence on Unconstitutional ObamaCare Procedure
‘They Just Want This Over’
March 16th: If You Prick Them, They Will Bleed
The Culture War Is Not Over, The Larger War For Liberty Has Begun
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The Real Tea Party Story: Community Builders vs. Community
The Real Tea Party Story: Community Builders vs. Community Organizers
In less than a year, the MSM has gone from ignoring Tea Parties to mocking and insulting their participants to grudging coverage with ridiculing overtones. Finally it has arrived at giving wide attention to the movement, albeit grudgingly and ungraciously. A once-highly esteemed fourth estate, they have become talking-head dilettantes on a mission to save the disgruntled masses from democracy itself.
David Brooks, token toy conservative at the NYT, wrote his explanation for the Tea Parties without ever mentioning them by name, even. He wrote a whole diatribe on the meaning of it all. It's a knee-jerk reaction by us commoners, you see, against the "educated class." It has nothing to do with real issues, don't you know. This whole wave of discontent is simply a revolt by the common man against his intellectual betters. What a bunch of myopic poppycock.
The real Tea Party story is quite simple and an eloquent tribute to democracy: a genuine movement of ordinary people rising to the demands of their all-American principles. It represents a fundamental difference between those who seek to provide for themselves and those who see government as provider of all material goods. The Tea Party movement is a valiant resistance to decades of profligate entitlement spending, which has had the real effect of worsening every problem it was intended to fix, landing the country, at last, in a sea of impossible debt. Tea Partiers, like the Liberty Boys of 1776, stand steadfast on the principle of equality in the rule of law, not government-ordered equality in material-world goods.
Basically, the resistance boils down to a contest between community builders and community organizers.
How Alinsky Counterfeited Community-Building Associations
Up until this presidential election, when hearing the term "community organizations," most Americans probably assumed that these were the traditional community-building, volunteer civic and altruistic groups, giving tirelessly of their spare time and dollars to improve their own and others' communities.
The list of genuine, all-American volunteer citizens' groups is endless. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his mid-19th century treatise Democracy in America, one of the most exceptional qualities of this country was her vast proliferation of purely voluntary civic and altruistic associations.
Americans of all ages, conditions, and all dispositions constantly unite together. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations to which all belong but also a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very specialized, large and small. Americans group together to hold fetes, found seminaries, build inns, construct churches, establish hospitals, prisons, schools by the same method.
De Tocqueville insisted that this vast array of purely voluntary associations was peculiar to American democracy and drew its possibilities from equality of all citizens under rule of self-made law. Of course, at the time de Tocqueville was writing -- the mid-1800s -- all American citizens were not, in fact, equal under the rule of law or in the vote. But as de Tocqueville also wisely surmised, another dimension of American exceptionalism was the manner built into her Constitution to "right itself," to fix former errors through the Constitutional amendment process, which in truth, granted the majority its right to change those things it later decided made good sense.
As one of the hallmarks of peculiarly American democracy had always been the forming of free associations to accomplish all manner of good in local communities, Saul Alinsky hatched a truly brilliant plan to counterfeit these altruistic associations for political revolution. So it's no wonder that unaware Americans were fooled for so many years, that they accepted Alinsky's revolutionary "community organizations" as just another type of the associations with which they were so familiar.
But as we have so painfully learned from the ACORN exposés, Alinsky had far different aims from improving any communities.
And to alert his own acolytes to the real difference between his own vision for "people's organizations" and the traditional, Alinsky spelled out the difference in his first manifesto, Reveille for Radicals, in 1946:
A People's Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service's ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people ... It thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups.
Alinsky went on to explain that he was declaring war on the status quo, which allowed some to grow wealthy while others remained poor. He declared that in war, such as he was declaring, there was no such thing as "rules of fair play," and he encouraged his followers to proudly seek "self-interest" while cloaking their aims in rhetorical "moral garments." The insiders were to be well-informed on their revolutionary objectives, while the public was to be kept intentionally deceived.
Alinsky formulated a set of tactics for massive organizations of "have-nots" to seize power and material goods from the "haves."
And therein lies the rub. In order for the "haves" to have anything, they must have built something and acquired some things through their efforts, smarts, and sweat which are worth taking away from them. These "haves" of American society were first and foremost community builders. Their ideas, their investments, their risks, their civic mindedness and charities actually built the communities which Alinsky desired to "organize" into a class of legally sanctioned thieves.
A secular Jew working as an outsider, Alinsky convinced an Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago's Catholic Church that his vision for redistribution of wealth coincided perfectly with the Church's own doctrines on social justice. Alinsky artfully played on the Catholic Church's own long, tainted history of mixing its spiritual mission with worldly power and managed to bring both the public clout of the Church and vast amounts of funding on board for his mission to organize America's masses for revolution.
In his first treatise (Reveille for Radicals) on the People's Organization movement he was building, Alinsky tried to address critics who accused him of mounting a revolution against America. "It may be true," he wrote, "that it is revolution, but it is orderly revolution."
At this point, Alinsky joined his grain of truth -- an admission that he was promoting revolution -- with a deceptive false choice, writing:
At this point, Alinsky joined his grain of truth -- an admission that he was promoting revolution -- with a deceptive false choice, writing:
To reject orderly revolution is to be hemmed in by two hellish alternatives: disorderly, sudden, stormy, bloody revolution or a further deterioration of the mass foundation of democracy to the point of inevitable dictatorship. (Reveille for Radicals, p. 198)
Now, dear readers, one must admit that these words are truly priceless. It must be remembered that Saul Alinsky wrote this little "orderly revolution" manifesto, Reveille for Radicals, in 1946, just one year after the might of American industrial strength and the valiant sacrifices of millions had brought Nazism and eastern imperialism to their knees. America was anything but on the verge of "deterioration of the mass foundation of democracy to the point of inevitable dictatorship" in 1946. America was in actuality on its way to unparalleled prosperity for more of its citizens than had ever been achieved in the entire history of human civilization.
What Saul Alinsky offered his justifiably concerned critics was simply a false choice so easily refuted that it's a wonder anyone with an ounce of real sense fell for his cheap lure.
But fall they did -- hook, line and sinker.
Alinsky went on in Reveille for Radicals to address another concern which had evidently been put to him in the early stages of his "orderly revolution," calling the concern a "fear" which "stems from distrust of power in the hands of the people":
They fear that the development and building of People's Organizations is the building of a vast power group which may fall prey to a fascistic demagogue who will seize leadership and turn an organization into a Frankenstein's monster against democracy. (Reveille for Radicals, p. 198)
Alinsky then went on to write that this would be an utterly impossible eventuality, insisting that the "road to fascism and dictatorship is paved with apathy, hopelessness, frustration, futility, and despair in the masses of the people."
Yet in Alinsky's second treatise on "orderly revolution," Rules for Radicals, he advised his acolytes on the utmost necessity of cultivating these very conditions among the masses in order to bring about the "change" required for his revolution to succeed.
Writing in Rules for Radicals (1971), Alinsky set up his development of power tactics with his idea of how "revolutionary change" is actually realized:
Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. (Rules for Radicals; p. xix)
And this overall belief in the failure of the American system of free enterprise and limited government to fix all that ails mankind is precisely the idea behind the attitudes fostered by the entire network of Alinsky-fathered "community" organizations from ACORN to PICO to the SEIU to the gargantuan tree of religious-left political entities. The very attitudes which Alinsky rightly said in 1946 would lead to fascism and dictatorship are the attitudes he taught his community organizers to foster.
The most evident difference between traditional American community-builders and Alinskyite community organizers is spelled out in Rules for Radicals under the heading "The Process of Power." Alinsky, like both Marx and Mussolini before him, saw individuals working to build their own communities as tacky, piecemeal efforts unworthy of those with grander, bolder schemes to fix the entire world. Alinsky, therefore, recognized that revolution against this ordinary American idea of community-building was necessary if the "organizer" was to reach his true destination: "the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God" (Rules for Radicals; p. 61).
When Evan Thomas blithely remarked last year that Barack Obama was "sort of like God," it should be no wonder. For in Barack Obama's intensive Alinskyite training, he was carefully tutored on indulging this very delusion. Alinsky planted the seed. Reverend Wright fertilized it for twenty years. And Barack Obama exhibits all the signs of believing he can indeed bring his Alinsky-inspired godhood to fruition.
Toward the goal of destroying Americans' ideas of community-building, Alinsky taught his organizers to dissuade the people from believing that there was any hope outside a mother state. He taught his organizers to intentionally and continually sow discontent with the "status quo":
The organizer dedicated to changing the life of a particular community must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.
Now that we've had a year of a proud Alinskyite community organizer as president, it's not at all hard to see that Obama is much, much closer to being a "fascistic demagogue" than he is to being the grand conciliator for whom his befuddled followers fell into willing sway.
From the Stimulus package of political payoffs to the power grab of car companies "too big to fail," to the climate bill rewards for privileged corporate interests, to the health care takeover in the same vein, we see a man dedicated to destroying the very foundations of America's community-builders and replacing them with the grand social-engineers' paradise, which Saul Alinsky -- and Mussolini, Hitler, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and others -- have envisioned.
This is not rocket science. It's just ordinary logic and a smidgen of research.
The real Tea Party story is as simple as this. Genuine community-builders do not wish to be robbed blind and see their children in the shackles of debt so that the modern version of tyranny -- community organizers -- can split up a pie they didn't bake.
The message from Tea Partiers is that Alinsky has not succeeded any better than his more illustrious revolutionary peers. Rather than losing all hope in the American system of liberty, justice and limited government, these community-builders -- the Tea Partiers -- are rallying to express their firm commitment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees equality under the law, not equality of material-world goods. The Constitution is designed to preserve liberty, not "empathy," for as any sentient person knows, empathy is entirely dependent upon which type of tyrant is sitting in the seat of judgment.
We are witnessing a clash of worldviews in which, as the Tea Partiers have recognized, fence-sitting is simply not an option. Americans will now either rise to reverse the tides of socialist tyranny, which have taken root for decades, or they will oversee the bitter end of our grand experiment in democracy.
Kyle-Anne Shiver welcomes your comments at http://www.kyleanneshiver.com/. Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/the_real_tea_party_story_commu.html at March 14, 2010 - 01:10:01 PM CDT
_uacct = "UA-31527-12";
urchinTracker();
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Win by a nose not good enough
Reprinted from the Editorial Section, Sun-Journal, New Bern, NC, March 12, 2010
As his administration proceeds with a full-court press to pass a health insurance bill that polls show most Americans oppose or have serious reservations about, we will have more to say about the curious faux-populist tactics President Barack Obama is using as he becomes increasingly desperate.
For now let us just remark that it is curious to vilify and demonize health insurance companies as bloodsucking parasites on the body politic in order to pass a bill that would require all Americans to buy their products.
The subject for today, however, is the propriety of passing a large-scale reorganization of one-sixth of the economy with a narrow partisan majority. It may well turn out to be possible for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cobble together such majorities through threats and legalized bribery. But to do so would not only represent a departure from prior practice with such sweeping legislation, it also would harm social cohesion, as the founders of this republic knew.
The Federalist Papers, the essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, which appeared in newspapers to persuade Americans to approve the U.S. Constitution, are full of warnings against legislating with transient majorities. The very structure of the national government, with three co-equal branches and with two separate legislative bodies, chosen in different ways, is calculated to make the conversion of transient majorities into law purposely difficult.
The founders not only protected certain individual rights from majority rule by passing the Bill of Rights, they understood that, when majorities impose their will on sizable minorities, resentment and incipient rebellion often ensue. So they strove to make sure that major new laws would command not just a bare majority but something approaching a consensus before they could be enacted.
Passing legislation that is not only major but, arguably, revolutionary in scope when a majority of the people actually oppose it, is hardly the definition of prudence.
The legislation that instituted the Social Security system in 1935 passed the House by a vote of 372-33 (2 present and 33 not voting), with Republicans favoring it 81-15. The Senate approved its version by a 77-6 vote (12 not voting), with Republicans voting 16-5 in favor. After a conference committee reconciled the two versions final passage came by voice vote in both houses.
Medicare was approved in 1965 by a 313-115 vote in the House, Republicans favoring it (70-68) and a 68-21 vote (with Republicans opposing it, 17-13) in the Senate.
The overhaul of the health care system currently being proposed is arguably more far-reaching in scope than either Social Security or Medicare. Yet the administration and Democratic congressional leaders are planning to push it through on a strictly partisan vote, knowing they will get at most a smattering of Republican votes, and figuring that the margin in the House will be one or two votes if they are lucky.
No wonder they’re having trouble assembling even those bare majorities when Democrats have overwhelming numbers. Passing major legislation in such a way is bound to create resentment and resistance, to polarize the country and its capital even more than they are already. Prudence would suggest deferring until a real consensus emerges.
As his administration proceeds with a full-court press to pass a health insurance bill that polls show most Americans oppose or have serious reservations about, we will have more to say about the curious faux-populist tactics President Barack Obama is using as he becomes increasingly desperate.
For now let us just remark that it is curious to vilify and demonize health insurance companies as bloodsucking parasites on the body politic in order to pass a bill that would require all Americans to buy their products.
The subject for today, however, is the propriety of passing a large-scale reorganization of one-sixth of the economy with a narrow partisan majority. It may well turn out to be possible for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to cobble together such majorities through threats and legalized bribery. But to do so would not only represent a departure from prior practice with such sweeping legislation, it also would harm social cohesion, as the founders of this republic knew.
The Federalist Papers, the essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, which appeared in newspapers to persuade Americans to approve the U.S. Constitution, are full of warnings against legislating with transient majorities. The very structure of the national government, with three co-equal branches and with two separate legislative bodies, chosen in different ways, is calculated to make the conversion of transient majorities into law purposely difficult.
The founders not only protected certain individual rights from majority rule by passing the Bill of Rights, they understood that, when majorities impose their will on sizable minorities, resentment and incipient rebellion often ensue. So they strove to make sure that major new laws would command not just a bare majority but something approaching a consensus before they could be enacted.
Passing legislation that is not only major but, arguably, revolutionary in scope when a majority of the people actually oppose it, is hardly the definition of prudence.
The legislation that instituted the Social Security system in 1935 passed the House by a vote of 372-33 (2 present and 33 not voting), with Republicans favoring it 81-15. The Senate approved its version by a 77-6 vote (12 not voting), with Republicans voting 16-5 in favor. After a conference committee reconciled the two versions final passage came by voice vote in both houses.
Medicare was approved in 1965 by a 313-115 vote in the House, Republicans favoring it (70-68) and a 68-21 vote (with Republicans opposing it, 17-13) in the Senate.
The overhaul of the health care system currently being proposed is arguably more far-reaching in scope than either Social Security or Medicare. Yet the administration and Democratic congressional leaders are planning to push it through on a strictly partisan vote, knowing they will get at most a smattering of Republican votes, and figuring that the margin in the House will be one or two votes if they are lucky.
No wonder they’re having trouble assembling even those bare majorities when Democrats have overwhelming numbers. Passing major legislation in such a way is bound to create resentment and resistance, to polarize the country and its capital even more than they are already. Prudence would suggest deferring until a real consensus emerges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
