PATRIOTS 28560
Celebrate Independence Day with a Rolling Rally!
Join Patriots 28560 as we caravan to Newport for the Crystal Coast Tea Party's Rally for America!
When: Saturday, July 3
Time: Gather from 11:00 - 11:15 a.m.
Where: Westbook Shopping Center (near CVS Pharmacy), Havelock, NC
Depart: 11:15 a.m.
Destination: Newport Flea Mall to join the Crystal Coast Tea Party's Rally for America celebration
Celebration Events: Reading of The Declaration of Independence, Special Speakers, Sign-Up for 912 March on DC, and join like-minded Patriots as we celebrate the birth of our Nation.
For more information visit Patriots28560.blogspot.com, email Patriots28560@gmail.com or call 252.259.0763.
HOW A ROLLING RALLY WORKS
Our caravan of vehicles from Havelock will roll into Newport together. Don't forget your signs. And you can also purchase window paint (or borrow ours!) and make sure your Independence Day celebration messages are visible as we travel from Havelock to Newport.
IMPACT
Our goal is to have each car display a small (or large, especially if you have a truck) American flag as well as signs and window paint identifying us as Patriots headed to an Independence Day celebration.
YOU'RE INVITED TO JOIN US
You do not have to be affiliated with any group or organization to join the celebration or to join Patriots 28560. Everyone is welcome, regardless of your zip code, area code or membership in other Patriots groups.
Located in Eastern North Carolina, Patriots 28560 is a group of non-partisan, concerned citizens who have joined together to resist excessive government spending and taxation. We are affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots as well as the 912 Project. We believe in Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Market Principles.
http://patriots28560.blogspot.com/
Showing posts with label civic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civic. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Jon Voight calls out Barack Obama
Don't miss this video! He has summarized what is and has happened in this country under the Obama administration, and why we are fighting to stop it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=253PiA7zIl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=253PiA7zIl4
Friday, April 9, 2010
CCTA APRIL EVENTS -- CANDIDATE FORUM & TEA PARTY
CCTA IS PROUD TO HOST THE PRIMARY CANDIDATE’S FORUM
SATURDAY, APRIL 10TH, 2010, ORRINGER AUDITORIUM
CRAVEN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, NB CAMPUS, 800 COLLEGE COURT, NEW BERN, NC
~ LEARN WHO IS THE BEST, AND ELIMINATE THE REST ~
Confirmed to date: US SENATE: Candidate Susan Harris will participate along with Representatives for Candidate Brad Jones and Sen. Richard Burr
US CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 1: Candidate John Carter will participate along with a representative for Congressman G.K. Butterfield
US CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 3: Representative for Walter B. Jones
COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 1: Candidates Thomas Mark and Ray Griffin
COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 2: Candidates John P. Wetherington, Jr., Jeff Taylor & Jeff French
COUNTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT 3: Commissioner Renee Sisk & Candidate Scott Dacey
COURT OF APPEALS JUDGE: Representative for Candidate Leto Copeley
AGENDA
4:00 - 5:00 pm ~ MEET THE CANDIDATES ONE-ON-ONE
5:00 - 7:00 pm ~ FORUM
5:00 - 7:00 pm ~ FORUM
BE INFORMED, TAKE A STAND, VOTE AND BE COUNTED!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCTA INVITES YOU TO JOIN US FOR OUR 2nd ANNUAL TAX DAY TEA PARTY
CCTA INVITES YOU TO JOIN US FOR OUR 2nd ANNUAL TAX DAY TEA PARTY
Thursday, April 15th, 2010 in Downtown New Bern
Those who would like to march with us, we will be gathering at the parking area across from the Craven County Courthouse from 4:45pm – 5:15pm. From there we will march at 5:15pm to Union Point Park.
Rally at the Union Point Park Pavilion
Downtown New Bern, NC, 5:00pm –7:00pm.
Downtown New Bern, NC, 5:00pm –7:00pm.
Vocalist: Jennifer Alcock
Invocation & Remarks: Rev. Walter Leake, Pastor, Praise Assembly Worship Ctr., New Bern
Featured Speaker: Lt. General Harold Blot, USMC (Ret.) -- We will also have Rick Henderson, John Locke Foundation & a speaker from Americans for Prosperity
Music, speakers and lots of noise! Bring friends and family, your sign and a lawn chair if you like. Celebrate our Freedom of Speech and let our Elected Officials know that ‘We the People’ are
“SILENT NO MORE”
FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.cctaxpayers.com/
The Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association is a grassroots, non-partisan organization which advocates minimum government and maximum freedom. We are dedicated to the preservation of Free Enterprise which, by its nature, requires citizens to reap the benefits of their own labor. Excessive taxing and spending are unconstitutional, immoral, and in complete contradiction of success through the free market system and liberty.
Monday, March 29, 2010
'Representing' al-Qaeda
'Representing' al-Qaeda
by Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online, March 29, 2010
Does Helping Jihadists Lie, Plot, and Identify CIA Agents Demonstrate Patriotism -- or Material Support to Terrorism?
Bravely entering the lion's den -- delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, "pro bono" lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that "lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots."
Sure they are. After all, Holder explained, they "reaffirm our nation's most essential and enduring values" -- like the value we place on coming to the aid of our enemies in wartime. And let's not forget the value we place on advocating for the release of those enemies who, as night follows day, then return to the business of killing Americans. Sure, the nation somehow missed these essential and enduring values in the two-plus centuries between the Revolutionary War and the War on Terror, but hey, who's counting? ...
For The Public Good?
In reporting Holder's remarks, the press defined "pro bono" as if it meant "voluntary." Although the term describes no-fee legal work that lawyers do voluntarily, that is not what it means. "Pro bono" is short for pro bono publico, "for the public good." That is, it is supposed to reflect the public's values, not the profession's. And the two are very much out of sync.
The attorney general's pep rally occurred just as the public was getting its first glimpse of the peculiar notions of "representation" shared by several Gitmo Bar veterans. Thanks to dogged investigative work (here and here) by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn (of, respectively, Keep America Safe and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), we now know a good deal about several of these volunteer lawyers. To take just a few examples, they provided al-Qaeda detainees with a brochure that instructed them on how to claim falsely that they had been tortured; fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security and precipitated fabricated reports that prisoners had been tortured and force-fed; provided the detainees with other virulently anti-American propaganda (for example, inform ing them about the Abu Ghraib scandal, comparing U.S. military physicians to Josef Mengele, and labeling DOJ lawyers "desk torturers"); gave the enemy-combatant terrorists a hand-drawn map of Gitmo's layout, including guard towers; helped the enemy combatants communicate messages to the outside world; informed the detainees of the identities of other detainees in U.S. custody; and posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.
And that's not the worst of it -- not by a long shot. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has uncovered the Gitmo Bar's shocking effort to identify CIA interrogators. The lawyers -- from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, perversely calling themselves "the John Adams Project" -- actually had investigators stalk U.S. intelligence officers, surveilling them near their homes and photographing them with or near their loved ones. The photos were then smuggled into Gitmo and shown to top terrorists to determine whether they recognized which intelligence agents had questioned them. Interestingly, the attorney general claimed that al-Qaeda's volunteer lawyers deserve the public's "respect" because they "accept our professional responsibility to protect the rule of law." All of the above-described activities not only violated the law; they occurred in flagrant contravention of court-ordered conditions that were placed on the lawyers' access to their "clients." Evidently, violating statutes and contemptuously flouting court orders protects the rule of law in the same way that coming to the enemy's aid exhibits patriotism. That's "our values" for you. ...
Follow this link to continue reading "'Representing' al-Qaeda."
http://article.nationalreview.com/429623/representing-al-qaeda/andrew-c-mccarthy
by Andrew C. McCarthy
National Review Online, March 29, 2010
Does Helping Jihadists Lie, Plot, and Identify CIA Agents Demonstrate Patriotism -- or Material Support to Terrorism?
Bravely entering the lion's den -- delivering a speech in praise of left-wing, "pro bono" lawyering to a group of left-wing, pro bono lawyers -- Attorney General Eric Holder recently declared that "lawyers who provide counsel for the unpopular are, and should be, treated as what they are: patriots."
Sure they are. After all, Holder explained, they "reaffirm our nation's most essential and enduring values" -- like the value we place on coming to the aid of our enemies in wartime. And let's not forget the value we place on advocating for the release of those enemies who, as night follows day, then return to the business of killing Americans. Sure, the nation somehow missed these essential and enduring values in the two-plus centuries between the Revolutionary War and the War on Terror, but hey, who's counting? ...
For The Public Good?
In reporting Holder's remarks, the press defined "pro bono" as if it meant "voluntary." Although the term describes no-fee legal work that lawyers do voluntarily, that is not what it means. "Pro bono" is short for pro bono publico, "for the public good." That is, it is supposed to reflect the public's values, not the profession's. And the two are very much out of sync.
The attorney general's pep rally occurred just as the public was getting its first glimpse of the peculiar notions of "representation" shared by several Gitmo Bar veterans. Thanks to dogged investigative work (here and here) by Debra Burlingame and Tom Joscelyn (of, respectively, Keep America Safe and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies), we now know a good deal about several of these volunteer lawyers. To take just a few examples, they provided al-Qaeda detainees with a brochure that instructed them on how to claim falsely that they had been tortured; fomented a detainee hunger strike that disrupted security and precipitated fabricated reports that prisoners had been tortured and force-fed; provided the detainees with other virulently anti-American propaganda (for example, inform ing them about the Abu Ghraib scandal, comparing U.S. military physicians to Josef Mengele, and labeling DOJ lawyers "desk torturers"); gave the enemy-combatant terrorists a hand-drawn map of Gitmo's layout, including guard towers; helped the enemy combatants communicate messages to the outside world; informed the detainees of the identities of other detainees in U.S. custody; and posted photos of Guantanamo security badges on the Internet in a transparent effort to identify U.S. security personnel.
And that's not the worst of it -- not by a long shot. Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has uncovered the Gitmo Bar's shocking effort to identify CIA interrogators. The lawyers -- from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, perversely calling themselves "the John Adams Project" -- actually had investigators stalk U.S. intelligence officers, surveilling them near their homes and photographing them with or near their loved ones. The photos were then smuggled into Gitmo and shown to top terrorists to determine whether they recognized which intelligence agents had questioned them. Interestingly, the attorney general claimed that al-Qaeda's volunteer lawyers deserve the public's "respect" because they "accept our professional responsibility to protect the rule of law." All of the above-described activities not only violated the law; they occurred in flagrant contravention of court-ordered conditions that were placed on the lawyers' access to their "clients." Evidently, violating statutes and contemptuously flouting court orders protects the rule of law in the same way that coming to the enemy's aid exhibits patriotism. That's "our values" for you. ...
Follow this link to continue reading "'Representing' al-Qaeda."
http://article.nationalreview.com/429623/representing-al-qaeda/andrew-c-mccarthy
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
________________________________________
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.
COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.
It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
MORE LAWNOTES
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
________________________________________
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
________________________________________
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.
COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.
It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
________________________________________
* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
________________________________________
MORE LAWNOTES
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
Friday, March 26, 2010
Obama Just Got His Private Army
Obama Just Got His Private Army
By: Nancy Matthis at American Daughter
Remember when Obama said he wanted a “national security force?” Not the national guard, but a civilian one that has not sworn to uphold the Constitution? On July 2, 2008 in a speech in Colorado Springs, Barack Obama called for a police state.
Remember that first alarming glimpse of what that army might look like? Notice how much these “Hitler youth” type young men talk about health care!
Obama just got his private army…
…And no one seems to have noticed. It is buried in the Senate revisions to the health care bill.
Subtitle C–Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds. Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program. Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs. Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs. Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps. Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics. Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned corps. Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.Subtitle D–Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:
SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.(a) ESTABLISHMENT–(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.(3) APPOINTMENT.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
How many of you, dear readers, were aware of the fact that the health care bill created another army?
See more:
By: Nancy Matthis at American Daughter
Remember when Obama said he wanted a “national security force?” Not the national guard, but a civilian one that has not sworn to uphold the Constitution? On July 2, 2008 in a speech in Colorado Springs, Barack Obama called for a police state.
Remember that first alarming glimpse of what that army might look like? Notice how much these “Hitler youth” type young men talk about health care!
Obama just got his private army…
…And no one seems to have noticed. It is buried in the Senate revisions to the health care bill.
Subtitle C–Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds. Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program. Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs. Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs. Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps. Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics. Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned corps. Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.Subtitle D–Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:
SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.(a) ESTABLISHMENT–(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.(3) APPOINTMENT.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
How many of you, dear readers, were aware of the fact that the health care bill created another army?
See more:
Thursday, March 25, 2010
State AGs Miss Target with Health Care Lawsuit says the Tenth Amendment Center
State AGs Miss Target with Health Care Lawsuit says the Tenth Amendment Center
Thu, 03/25/2010 - 2:14pm posted by Brett Bittner
I received this press release yesterday from the Tenth Amendment Center, and I think that it gives calls attention to the long-forgotten ideas of nullification and interposition with regard to ObamaCare:
“Prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of its own powers, those powers would continue to grow, regardless of elections, courts, separation of powers or other much-vaunted checks and balances in our system,” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.
Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Today, the Tenth Amendment Center announced a different strategy for activists and state government. “We are pleased to announce model nullification legislation that is crafted to specifically address the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on a state level,” Boldin said. “We encourage grassroots activists and state legislators alike to work to get this bill passed in their home states.”
The legislation, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, would codify in state law that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States…is hereby declared to be invalid…shall not be recognized…is specifically rejected…and shall be considered null and void and of no effect” within the boundaries of any state enacting it. It also mandates that it “shall be the duty” of the State’s legislature “to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement.”
“The greatest problem with relying on lawsuits by state Attorney’s General for Constitutional protection is the reality that the Supreme Court has set years and years of bad precedent, allowing the federal government to control many aspects of our lives that the Founders and Ratifiers never authorized,” said Boldin. “The real question we must ask is this,” he continued, “Does the Constitution mean what the founders said it means, or does it mean what the Supreme Court says it means…until it changes its mind?”
“Like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today the same as they meant the moment it was ratified,” said Boldin. “The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have not been amended, and the original Constitutional meanings of those clauses do not permit the federal government to exercise such powers.”
According to the Center, on a political level, the new health care reform legislation not only violates conservative principles by greatly enlarging federal power and control, but also is an affront to traditional progressive principles because it requires millions of people to their money to an industry that many liberals revile, and interferes with the ability of states and local communities from enacting their own health care programs as they see fit.
“It’s time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around,” said Boldin. “Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keeping our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they’d be and where they belong…close to home.”
About the Tenth Amendment Center: The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as an educational forum on issues related to the 10th Amendment and Constitutional governance. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
If the ideas this proposal interest you, I STRONGLY recommend seeking out work done by Thomas Woods of the Ludwig von Mises Institute with regard to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Also, he will be releasing a book on the subjects of nullification and interposition this year.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5375-state-ags-miss-target-with-health-care-lawsuit-says-the-tenth-amendment-center
Thu, 03/25/2010 - 2:14pm posted by Brett Bittner
I received this press release yesterday from the Tenth Amendment Center, and I think that it gives calls attention to the long-forgotten ideas of nullification and interposition with regard to ObamaCare:
“Prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of its own powers, those powers would continue to grow, regardless of elections, courts, separation of powers or other much-vaunted checks and balances in our system,” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.
Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Today, the Tenth Amendment Center announced a different strategy for activists and state government. “We are pleased to announce model nullification legislation that is crafted to specifically address the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on a state level,” Boldin said. “We encourage grassroots activists and state legislators alike to work to get this bill passed in their home states.”
The legislation, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, would codify in state law that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States…is hereby declared to be invalid…shall not be recognized…is specifically rejected…and shall be considered null and void and of no effect” within the boundaries of any state enacting it. It also mandates that it “shall be the duty” of the State’s legislature “to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement.”
“The greatest problem with relying on lawsuits by state Attorney’s General for Constitutional protection is the reality that the Supreme Court has set years and years of bad precedent, allowing the federal government to control many aspects of our lives that the Founders and Ratifiers never authorized,” said Boldin. “The real question we must ask is this,” he continued, “Does the Constitution mean what the founders said it means, or does it mean what the Supreme Court says it means…until it changes its mind?”
“Like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today the same as they meant the moment it was ratified,” said Boldin. “The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have not been amended, and the original Constitutional meanings of those clauses do not permit the federal government to exercise such powers.”
According to the Center, on a political level, the new health care reform legislation not only violates conservative principles by greatly enlarging federal power and control, but also is an affront to traditional progressive principles because it requires millions of people to their money to an industry that many liberals revile, and interferes with the ability of states and local communities from enacting their own health care programs as they see fit.
“It’s time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around,” said Boldin. “Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keeping our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they’d be and where they belong…close to home.”
About the Tenth Amendment Center: The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as an educational forum on issues related to the 10th Amendment and Constitutional governance. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
If the ideas this proposal interest you, I STRONGLY recommend seeking out work done by Thomas Woods of the Ludwig von Mises Institute with regard to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Also, he will be releasing a book on the subjects of nullification and interposition this year.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5375-state-ags-miss-target-with-health-care-lawsuit-says-the-tenth-amendment-center
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Constitutional Awakening
Constitutional Awakening
by Walter E. Williams
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=63ef6e7f-29e4-49ac-9c10-299ccac6327d&t=c
by Walter E. Williams
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=63ef6e7f-29e4-49ac-9c10-299ccac6327d&t=c
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
