SAY NO TO OBAMA´S COMMON CORE

It was President George W. Bush who began the federal intervention of education when he implemented the legislation known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002. The aim of NCLB was to standardize testing in all 50 states. It required 100% student competency targets. By threatening funding to the 50 states, the NCLB began the intervention of the federal government in education in a major way.

President Barack Obama continued and increased even more the intervention of federal government in education in the 50 states. After all, the president had to include educational institutions in his plan to fundamentally transform our nation. Obama implemented the Race-to-the-Top (RTTT) in 2009. This was a multi-billion dollar program that put pressure or bribed or blackmailed the states to adopt policies that included test-based teacher evaluation and a nationwide standards and curriculum. The new national curriculum and standards is called the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist, without any discussion, agreed to the CCSS, even before the standards were written. In order to develop the CCSS and create incentives or bribes for the states to adopt it, $4.35 billion dollars from the Stimulus package were used for this purpose. No Child Left Behind waivers were granted to states for agreeing to adopt the CCSS. Multimillion grants were awarded by the Obama administration to states for the implementation of the CCSS. Upon the suggestion of former Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Rick Scott hired Tony Bennett as Florida´s Commissioner of Education. Tony Bennett had lost his job as Indiana´s Education Superintendent due to his strong support of Common Core. Grass roots activists and conservative organizations opposed the Common Core and denounced Bennett and he lost his reelection. Tony Bennett was forced to resign his job in Florida due to an scandal regarding his intervention in the change of the letter grade received by a charter school in Indiana owned by a Republican major donor.

CONTINUED:  http://bwcentral.org/2013/08/say-no-to-obama%C2%B4s-common-core/

Higher education is a government-created cartel | WashingtonExaminer.com

On Monday, after reporting on the closure of an online community college partnership, I tweeted the story to Slate’s Matt Yglesias, hoping he might recognize higher education accreditation as one of those areas where an economic policy idea can “transfer economic resources from a privileged minority to the masses.”

Matt thoughtfully and politely replied: “Sounds bad. Note that accrediting organizations aren’t proper regulators at all — hyper-empowered private cartel enforcers.”

And Matt is right. Higher education accreditation entities “aren’t proper regulators” per se. They are not federal government entities and they are not subject to the Administrative Procedures Act. But, who exactly did “hyper-empower” these accreditation agencies to become “private cartel enforcers”?

The federal government, that is who.

When they were first founded around the turn of the century, accreditation entities, like the North Central Association, were purely voluntary efforts to establish uniform standards across higher education and improve academic quality.

But all that began to change when the federal government began to foot the bill for more and more of higher education spending.

CONTINUED:  http://washingtonexaminer.com/higher-education-is-a-government-created-cartel/article/2533926?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20Reoccurring%20-%2008/07/2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest

The British Banned Guns On Our Founding Fathers and It Brought About A Revolution

Many today don’t realize that we are facing the same sort of tactics by our own Federal government that our forefathers faced from the British just prior to the War for Independence. In fact, I’ll venture to guess that most people never were taught in school what follows in this article. That’s right, gun control is nothing new now, nor was it even new in the twentieth century. It was very much alive in the eighteenth century. So when someone comes along telling you “the founding fathers wouldn’t have envisioned this or that” with regards to arms, just remind them of what they faced during their lifetimes when the primary weapons were single shot muskets and cannons.

Following the events of December 16, 1773 in which the Sons of Liberty in Boston made a political protest of the tax policy of the British government and the East India Company that controlled all the tea that was imported into the colonies in Boston Harbor. Disguised as Indians, a group numbering anywhere from 30 to 130 men dumped 342 chests of tea into the sea over the course of three hours.


As a result of this protest, Parliament, with the direct encouragement of King George III, passed the Coercive Acts, or as they were properly known the Restraining Acts, in 1774. These acts are as follows:

Boston Port Act (June 1, 1774)

Quartering Act (June 2, 1774)

Administration of Justice Act (May 20, 1774)

Massachusetts Government Act (May 20, 1774)

Though Parliament was warned by men like Edmund Burke and Lord Chatham that such legislation would not be wise and would only provoke the colonists more, they failed to listen to reason.

Patriots the heard of the Acts determined that they would fight and die rather than see such laws enforced upon them by the British Army. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” Interestingly enough, a South Carolina newspaper essay, which was reprinted in Virginia at the time, recorded that any law that required the military to enforce it was “necessarily illegitimate,” according to David B. Kopel.


In Massachusetts, the Royal Governor, General Thomas Gage, forbid town meetings from taking place more than once a year. So when an illegal meeting was taking place in Salem, he sent in the British Redcoats to break it up. They were met with 3,000 armed Americans and they retreated. Interestingly enough, Gage’s aide, John Andrews, said that anyone in the area that was 16 years or older owned a firearm and had gunpowder. If you were wondering, yes this is where the issue of the First Amendment came from and where “town hall meetings” originated from. Let’s just say in Massachusetts, it was “getting real.”


The British realized that they could not control the people with only 2,000 troops in Boston. So what did they do? They sought to eliminate the people’s ability to firearms and gun powder.

Remember, at one time it was law in the colonies for militiamen to own their own firearms and have a minimum quantity of gunpowder on hand, though all could not afford it. Remember too, that this powder was not stable like that we use today.


On September 1, 1774, just before dawn, Gage sent approximately 260 Redcoats up the Mystic River to seize several hundred barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house and this became known as the “Powder Alarm.”

The militia at the time produced 20,000 men who mobilized and began marching towards Boston. American colonists believed that if the British were going to use force or violence to seize arms or powder, it was an act of war and they would respond in kind. This is what happened the following year.

Kopel writes,


Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.

That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.

The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.

Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”

Perhaps you are seeing exactly where the Bill of Rights came from. It was borne out of the injustices that were done to the Colonists by a tyrannical government.

The Massachusetts Assembly convened so that representatives could reassemble as the “Provincial Congress.” Gage declared the assembly illegal. Notice that didn’t stop it. Then on October 26, 1774 they adopted a resolution which condemned military rule and criticized Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.”

Gage was urged a week prior by Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America to disarm New England. Two days after the letter was dispatched from Dartmouth, King George III and Parliament blocked the importation of arms and ammunition to Americans. While the order required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America, the reality was that no permits were granted. This effectively blocked arms and ammunition being imported to the colonies. Does this sound familiar to the kind of talk we hear today regarding certain types of weapons and ammunition? I think it does.

Founding Father Ben Franklin set out to import arms and ammunition from France, Spain and the Netherlands.

Paul Revere took to New Hampshire to warn of British ships approaching with the express purpose that they were going to be seizing firearms, cannons and gunpowder at Fort William and Mary. Four hundred New Hampshire patriots moved preemptively to capture those arms on December 14, 1774. A prominent New Hampshire paper at the time said the capture was both “prudent” and “proper.” They also reminded their readers of the ancient Carthagians who consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and then overcome by them soon after.

Kopel gives great insight as he writes,

“The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.”

Things became more heated and pressed in the following months. On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry gave his famous speech to the Virginia legislature. During that speech Henry declared, “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.”

That convention put forth a committee which included Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of this committee was “to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient” to defend their commonwealth. This convention then urged “that every Man be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.”

Can you imagine our legislature putting forth something like that today? Frankly, I would love to see it!

Ultimately, do you know what started America’s War for Independence? That’s right, it was a tyrannical government that soft peddled “self-defense” while banning firearms and gunpowder.

On April 19, 1775, British and American soldiers exchanged fire in the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord. On the night of April 18, the royal governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, commanded by King George III to suppress the rebellious Americans, had ordered 700 British soldiers, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith and Marine Major John Pitcairn, to seize the colonists’ arms and gunpowder stores in Concord.

At Lexington Green, the British were met by approximately seventy American Minute Men led by John Parker. At the North Bridge in Concord, the British were confronted again, this time by 300 to 400 armed colonists, and were forced to march back to Boston with the Americans firing on them all the way. By the end of the day, the colonists were singing “Yankee Doodle” and the American Revolution had begun. You can read a timeline of the events that followed here.

With the Americans pushing back against the British use of military force to seize their firearms, Gage sought to offer the people of Boston the opportunity to leave town, but only if they surrendered their arms. Some accepted the offer and some 2,674 guns were surrendered. Gage didn’t let the people go.


While Benjamin Franklin had just returned from London on an unsuccessful diplomatic trip, he “was highly pleased to find the Americans arming and preparing for the worst events.”

On June 19, 1775, Gage finally gave an ultimatum to the Bostonians. They were to surrender their arms. Anyone that was found in possession of arms would be deemed guilty of treason.

Read more:  http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/the-british-banned-guns-on-our-fathers-it-brought-about-a-revolution/#ixzz2IobKbkGX

CCTA FEDERAL WATCHDOG REPORT

Lynn Childs, January 15, 2013

UPCOMING FISCAL FLASH POINTS:

Between Feb. 15 and March 27, the Federal Government will face three separate fiscal flash points:

1) According to a recent report by the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Treasury will, sometime between Feb. 15 and Mar. 1, no longer be able to finance full payment of Federal obligations. In fact, the U.S. Government reached the legal limit of its borrowing authority on Dec. 31, 2012, and has been financing ongoing borrowing using accounting gimmicks (such as delays in payments to certain pension funds, etc.). It is those gimmicks that will expire sometime in mid-February – and with it will expire the Treasury’s ability to pay all the bills that come due on a daily basis.

This is not to say, however, that the U.S. Government would automatically go into default.

“Default” is a term generally recognized to mean the failure to pay one’s debts. Given that the Treasury averages about $200 billion in monthly income (in the form of tax revenues and other payments received), and debt service (that is, paying the interest on the debt) costs about $30 billion per month (based on FY 2012 figures), there would clearly be enough money coming in to make the required interest payments.

Thus, “not raising the debt ceiling” does NOT automatically equate to “default,” despite White House and Treasury Department insistence to the contrary.

The key to understanding this part of the debate is the difference between “obligations” and “debts.” “Obligations” are those payments required by law (in this case, the money appropriated for federal spending – such as defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.); “debts” are those payments due to bondholders and other creditors of the U.S. Government.

Given that we spend a bit more than $300 billion every month (of which interest payments require about $30 billion), but only take in a bit more than $200 billion per month, it’s clear we have enough to pay our debts, but NOT enough to meet our obligations. So unless the debt ceiling is raised, the U.S. Government would be forced to find ways to stop payments on at least a significant portion of its obligations.

Nevertheless, a failure to raise the debt ceiling could result in a credit downgrade by at least one of the three major credit rating agencies if Congress doesn’t implement any kind of major reforms to prioritize spending and enact meaningful changes to entitlements and mandatory spending programs. Standard & Poors downgraded U.S. debt from AAA to AA+ as a result of the August 2011 debt ceiling fight because Washington failed to implement any reforms to tackle our debt problems. If either Moody’s or Fitch decided to follow suit, that would mean two of the three major credit rating agencies had downgraded U.S. debt – and that would trigger selloffs by major institutional investors (such as pension funds) that are required by their own charters only to hold securities rated at the AAA level. The results for the U.S. economy could be catastrophic.

2) On March 1, the delayed 10-year Sequester spending cuts will hit. The Sequester – a $1.2 trillion cut in projected future spending increases, with 50% taken from defense, 34% taken from nondefense discretionary spending, and roughly 15% taken from mandatory spending programs (exempting Social Security and Medicaid) – was born of the August 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA), offered by President Obama’s White House during negotiations in the summer of 2011 over raising the debt limit.

Opponents of “taking the sequester” – that is, simply allowing the scheduled cuts to go into effect – point out that while defense spending only makes up about 17% of federal spending, cuts to the Pentagon budget make up almost 50% of the planned sequester cuts.

Meanwhile, mandatory spending – principally, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – now take up almost 64% of annual federal spending, but would only be responsible for about 14% of the planned sequester cuts.

And non-defense discretionary spending (the Dept. of the Interior, HHS, the Dept. of Justice, etc.) now takes up just over 13% of annual federal spending, but would be responsible for more than 35% of the planned sequester cuts.

3) On March 27, the 6-month Continuing Resolution that’s been used to finance the operations of the U.S. Government in Fiscal Year 2013 (which runs from Oct. 1, 2012, to Sep. 30, 2013) will expire. Before then, the Congress will have to pass, and the President will have to sign into a law, an appropriations bill(s) to continue to fund the U.S. Government for the rest of FY 2013.

Each of these fiscal flash points provide leverage for fiscal hawks, and offer conservatives the opportunity to press for reductions in planned future spending. But while each offers leverage, each also comes with a price – and the current thinking of House GOP Leadership is that the price related to raising the debt ceiling is too high to pay.

Consequently, the House GOP Leadership will likely introduce legislation in the coming weeks to raise the debt ceiling enough to get through the next few months, so that the order of the upcoming fiscal flash points is staggered differently, with the debt ceiling flash point coming last.

Safe from attack on the grounds that they are willing to throw the U.S. and global economy into further turmoil for their narrow ideological reasons, think the House GOP Leadership, they will be free to press their insistence on reductions in planned future spending by threatening to refuse to pass the needed appropriations bill to fund U.S. Government operations through the rest of the year.

Important Dates:

• January 19, 2013 - Gun Appreciation Day: Many people around the country will be visiting local gun shops, ranges, state capital buildings, etc. to express their appreciation of the 2nd Amendment. You may want to find out where events are happening in your local areas and plan to go to these events to register people to vote and/or get them involved in your local Tea Party group.

• February 15 - March 27, 2013 - Debt Ceiling: Sometime in this date range we are expected to reach the debt ceiling (Technically we have already hit the debt ceiling, but this is the date range when we will reach a point where the Treasury can no longer implement "extraordinary measures" to meet our spending obligations.

• February 28, 2013 - Sequestration: The "fiscal cliff" bill created a new manufactured crisis that will happen sometime at the end of February. This is when the sequestration can was kicked down the road.

• March 31, 2013 - Continuing Resolution: The current Continuing Resolution that the government is operating under expires on March 31. This means that they will have to pass a CR between now and then.

• April 15, 2013 - Budget Resolution: This is the date by law in which both Houses should have a budget resolution passed. We are already hearing that the President is late in submitting his budget, the House is reporting that they will not meet their deadline for a budget, and the Senate... well they haven't passed a budget in over 1,350 days.

Tea Party Patriots

12 Days of Solutions - Downsizing Government

December 13, 2012

Right now, Washington is discussing how many billions of your hard-earned incomes don’t belong to you. Rather than cut spending, your elected officials want to increase your taxes.

When it comes to balancing the budget, hard choices must be made across the entire federal government’s budget. Downsizinggovernment.org, a project of the libertarian think tank, has outlined ways to cut well over 10% of the federal budget through devolving of the federal government’s powers back to the states and elimination of certain federal spending. These include reforms to subsidies, the Defense Department, Transportation, and many other agencies and spending.

Unfortunately, it seems that Republicans and Democrats alike are okay with taking your money to make up for their corruption and errors with the federal budget. We urge you to call your Member of Congress and tell him or her to instead consider Cato’s great work, and begin returning federal spending to that to which it is limited in the Constitution.

Go to http://www.teapartypatriots.org for more information.

What if the government rejects the Constitution?

What if the government never took the Constitution seriously? What if the same generation -- in some cases the same human beings -- that wrote in the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech," also enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government? What if the feds don't regard the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land?

What if the government regards the Constitution as merely a guideline to be referred to from time to time, or a myth to be foisted upon the voters, but not as a historic delegation of power that lawfully limits the federal government? What if Congress knows that most of what it regulates puts it outside the confines of the Constitution, but it does whatever it can get away with? What if the feds don't think that the Constitution was written to keep them off the people's backs?


What if there's no substantial difference between the two major political parties? What if the same political mentality that gave us the Patriot Act, with its federal agent-written search warrants that permit unconstitutional spying on us, also gave us ObamaCare, with its mandate to buy health insurance, even if we don't want or need it? What if both political parties love power more than freedom? What if both parties have used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution to stretch the power of the federal government far beyond its constitutionally ordained boundaries and well beyond the plain meaning of words?


What if both parties love war because the public is more docile during war and permits higher taxes and more federal theft of freedom from individuals and power from the states? What if none of these recent wars has made us freer or safer, but just poorer?


What if Congress bribed the states with cash in return for their enacting legislation that Congress likes, but cannot lawfully enact? What if Congress went to all states in the union and offered them cash to repave their interstate highways, if the states only lowered their speed limits? What if the states took that deal? What if the Supreme Court approved this bribery and then Congress did it again and again? What if this bribery were a way for Congress to get around the few constitutional limitations that Congress acknowledges?


What if Congress believes that it can spend tax dollars on anything it pleases and tie any strings it wants to that spending? What if Congress uses its taxing and spending power to regulate anything it wants to control, whether authorized by the Constitution or not? What if anyone other than members of Congress offered state legislatures cash in return for favorable legislation? What if Congress wrote laws that let it break laws that ordinary people would be prosecuted for breaking?


What if the Declaration of Independence says that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed? What if the government claims to derive powers from some other source that it will not -- because it cannot -- name? What if we never gave the government the power to spy on us, to print worthless cash, to kill in our names, to force us to buy health insurance or to waste our money by telling us that exercise is good and sugar is bad?


What if we never gave the government the power to bribe the poor with welfare or the middle class with tax breaks or the rich with bailouts or the states with cash? What if we don't consent to what has become of the government? What if the Constitution has been tacitly amended by the consent of both political parties, whereby instead of ratifying amendments, all three branches of government merely look the other way when the government violates the Constitution? What if the president cannot constitutionally bomb whatever country he wants? What if the Congress cannot constitutionally exempt its members from the laws that govern the rest of us? What if the courts cannot constitutionally invent a right to kill babies in the womb?


What if the federal government is out of control, no matter which party controls it? What if there is only harmony on Capitol Hill when government is growing and personal liberty is shrinking? What if the presidential race this fall will not be between good and evil, between right and left, between free markets and central planning or even between constitutional government and Big Government; but only about how much bigger Big Government should get?

What if enough is enough? What do we do about it? What if it's too late?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written six books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is "It Is Dangerous To Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom." To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit http://www.creators.com/

SOURCE:  http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=2734278%3ATopic%3A354620&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Who owns the West? The Effect of Agenda 21 in Rural Communities

Utah intends to own the land within its state. The state legislature enacted and the Governor signed a law that informs the federal government that if the federal government has not turned over all federal land within Utah by the end of 2014, then the state will take the federal land by eminent domain. For years now, the feds have not only been expanding their ownership and control of land, including private property, but are driving people off their land. See what happened to Kit Laney and Cliven Bundy.

This is the effect of Agenda 21 in rural communities. The same kind of control of land use has been expanding in urban communities since Agenda 21 was signed by George H.W. Bush, and the creation of the President's Council on Sustainable Development by Bill Clinton in 1993.

Learn how to deal with these issues when they come to your community, or how to get rid of these land use restrictions if they are already in your community. Get a supply of these booklets and view and share this DVD with your friends and neighbors.

READ IT HERE!  http://www.freedom21.org/Newsletters/NL-2012/nl-041412-1.pdf

Legislative Update: February 12, 2012

Compliments of Tea Party Patriots!

TPP Legislative Update & Newsletter

February 13, 2012

Passion to Action:  There are SO many things going on right now, but you can make a huge difference with the following small actions.

 CLASS ACT! Call/email/fax your Senators and ask them to bring the CLASS Act Repeal (HR 1173) up for a vote in the Senate, and tell them to vote YES!
 NON-RECESS! While you’re on the phone, ask them what they are planning to do about the President’s unconstitutional non-recess appointments, and tell them you expect them to fight back.
 REPEAL! Tell everyone you know about the Road to Repeal Rally in Washington DC on March 24. This is the Saturday before the Supreme Court begins to hear arguments on Obamacare. We need to show the world that Americans still want that law repealed.

Federal Budget

 Not so happy Valentines Day: Tuesday, February 14 marks the 1021st day since the Senate has passed a budget. Over the last couple of weeks we’ve seen Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and President Obama try to dodge their responsibility in this budget fiasco. They said they had already passed a budget through passing the debt ceiling deal. Everyone knows that’s not accurate. Now they are trying to straight-up lie about what it takes to get a budget passed. On Sunday, the President’s new Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, told the morning news shows that it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate because of the filibuster and the Republican “obstructionist.” THIS IS A BLATANT LIE. As we all learned during the Obamacare debate, the Senate may use the process of reconciliation to pass budgetary items with only 51 votes so that budgets are immune to filibustering. This also doesn’t address the fact that the Democrats had total control of the House, the Senate, and the White House for two years and only managed to pass one budget instead of two.
 Obama’s Budget: The President finally released his budget today, and as expected, it would give us deeper deficits, increased spending, bigger government, and higher taxes. Key facts from his budget:
          o Spends Too Much:
                $47 trillion of government spending over the next decade
                Proposes a net increase over current spending projections
         o Taxes Too Much:
               $1.9 trillion in new taxes
               Raises taxes, not to pay down the debt, but to fuel more government
                  spending
         o Borrows Too Much:
              Four straight years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits; no plan to reduce the debt
              Gross debt at the end of FY22: $25.9 trillion
        o Budget Gimmicks & Broken Promises
              Overstates new deficit reduction by taking credit for savings already enacted
              Exploits discredited budget gimmick by “not spending” nearly $1 trillion that
                 was never going to be spent

Read more about President Obama’s budget here. And don’t forget, Obama has missed the budget deadline three out of four years. If you’d like to read the President’s one-pager on his budget, click here.
 Reports: The RSC puts out a weekly Budget and Spending Task Force report. Check it out here. They also put out a report called “Money Monitors” so be sure to check them both out, as there is good information there.
 History of Deficits: Read a paper titled, “A short history of federal deficits and surpluses,” and stay ahead of the spin regarding the budget.

Constitutional Issues

 New Website: Please check out a new website called the Intolerable Acts at http://www.theintolerableacts.org/. There you will find resources to fight against the unconstitutional provisions embedded within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). There are a number of states that are fighting back by passing resolutions. You can find templates, etc. on the website to use with your own local and state elected officials.
 Still Confused? Are you still confused about NDAA? Click here for a good explanation of why it’s so bad.

Jobs & Economic Growth

 Increasing American Competitiveness: Check out Mercatus Center’s research fellows’ testimony to the Senate Committee on Finance on tax reform. Also take a look at their testimony to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce about how government can’t really “create” jobs and what it takes for long-term prosperity.
 Green Jobs: The fraud behind the President’s “green jobs” initiatives.
 Real Energy Jobs: The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012 (HR 7) passed through committee and is now moving through the Rules Committee in preparation of bringing it to the floor for a vote. Read more about it here. According to the Speaker & the Republicans, HR 7:
     o Removes barriers to job growth by approving the Keystone pipeline rejected
        by President Obama, lifting the president’s offshore drilling ban, opening a small
        portion of ANWR, and more;
     o Eliminates wasteful spending and earmarks, eliminates nearly 70 duplicative
        federal transportation programs, and ensures taxpayer dollars are spent on
        highways – not ‘beautification’ projects and other non-highway activities;
     o Cuts the permitting time in half by speeding up bureaucratic approvals, and
        delegates more decision-making authority to where it belongs: individual states, not
        Washington; and more.

Note: See below in the summary of what the House is up to this week to read about conservative concerns with HR 7.

Obamacare

 Business group states case against health care mandate
 Obama appointee muzzled Army chaplains, forbade reading of anti-Obamacare Catholic Archdiocese letter
 Obama’s covert war on insurers succeeding
 Final rules make a mish-mash of ACO’s
 Medicaid bait and switch
 Everything you wanted to know about Medicare Premium Support & more here
 Obama’s war on religion causes buyer’s remorse Loopholes may cost sick workers their coverage
 Supreme Court must consider threat to doctor-patient relationship
 Obama’s war on religion: No ceasefire on either side & the statement from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops
 Obamacare mastermind admits premiums to soar
 Cuccinelli and Coakley debate on C-SPAN
 43 Republican Senators filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court to challenge the individual mandate
 Liberty Legal Foundation file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court that connects Obamacare with the 1942 precedent of Wickard v. Filburn that allowed for the expansion of the commerce clause
 American Action Forum filed two amicus briefs with the Supreme Court that explain how the expansion of Medicaid and the individual mandate render the entire law unconsitutional
 CMS refuses to answer question about whether or not seniors can purchase health care with their own money
 Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has introduced legislation to restore religious freedom to repeal the new Obamacare mandate that was just created by the Health and Human Services – the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012
 Democrats abandoning unconstitutional violation of religious liberties
 Obama’s fraudulent “accommodation” on mandates for Catholic Church
 Obama’s Chief of Staff says there will be no more compromises on mandates

Education

 Teacher’s Unions Don’t Care: On the New Jersey Capitol Report this past weekend, New Jersey Education Association Director Vincent Giordano was asked his views on a legislative proposal to offer private scholarships to low-income students who attend public schools judged to be under-performing. Giordano, who according to Newark Star-Ledger earned roughly $422,000 from the union in 2010, said he supported low-income children attending private schools as long as they paid for it themselves. When asked whether that was a practical solution, given their household income, Giordano responded: “Well, you know, life’s not always fair and I’m sorry about that.”

Sustainable Development

 We must be making a difference: The left now feels obligated make fun of us. In their view, critics MUST be extremists. Read here and here.
 UN Treaties: Dick Morris discusses various UN treaties that President Obama’s administration is considering.
 Property Rights Council: The Property Rights Council is a group that has formed to be proactive in the fight to protect property rights. So rather than always playing defense, it’s time we started playing offense.
 RNC Resolution: The RNC resolution opposing sustainable development is making a big splash. Here’s a taste – ‘Lawson read an excerpt of the resolution: "Whereas, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment…”’ Will your legislators sign the RNC Resolution?
 From Across the Pond: Please listen to our friends across the pond and the horror of sustainable development as it destroys Europe. Listen here.
 Confused about America's Poor Economy? Here is why...
 EPA now "regulates" affordable housing: Affordable housing is subsidized housing, and just like with anything else subsidized by the government, this is why these Smart Growth neighborhoods are so expensive. When you seal off the majority of the land from development the remaining land becomes extremely scarce and expensive. Then throw in affordable housing (subsidized housing) which generates no taxes and you have truly unaffordable living standards for those that go to work everyday. Look at CA. This is why it is so expensive to live there and getting worse. People are leaving CA by the truckload.
 HR 3864: Legislation in the House that seeks to eliminate dedicated funding for the Mass Transit Account. Mass Transit is a staple of sustainable development so defunding this would be great.
 For Local Government Officials: Need help explaining why sustainable development practices are dangerous to property rights? Send this video to your local government officials to educate them.
 Petition: Recently President Obama signed an executive order establishing the President's Global Development Council. This Council is tasked with implementing sustainable development programs across the country. You can sign a petition here to ask Speaker Boehner to do something to combat this.

Illegal Immigration

 Documentary: TPP North Carolina State Coordinator Mark Hager assisted with the documentary titled, “Invasion: Freedom Under Fire!” about the struggles of American citizens who live along the southern border. If you would like to order a copy, please click here for more information.
 Waivermania: Kansas’ Agriculture Secretary is asking the Department of Homeland Security for a waiver so that agricultural businesses in Kansas could hire illegal immigrants. The agriculture businesses and others in the business community are supporting this effort. So far the Obama administration have handed out healthcare waivers and educational waivers. Are illegal immigrant waivers next? When waivers become the law of the land, there is no law.
 Alabama Too: The Attorney General in Alabama is trying to get the legislature to gut their new, stricter laws dealing with illegal aliens because he doesn’t want to have to go to court to fight for it. The Chamber of Commerce and the agricultural businesses are also supportive of the attempt to gut the laws.

House of Representatives

*Summary information provided by the RSC

Weekly Wrap Up

 Civilian Property Realignment Act — Last week, the House approved H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act, by a vote of 259-164. The Federal government owns more real property than any other entity in America (900,000 buildings). Republicans have long advocated selling the most wasteful of these properties. H.R. 1734 establishes an independent commission known as the Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) to provide recommendations on civilian federal properties that can be sold, transferred, exchanged, consolidated, or redeveloped, so as to reduce the civilian real property inventory, reduce the operating costs of the government, and create the highest value and return for the taxpayer. Specifically, the CPRC would be required to identify not less than five federal properties that have a total market value of at least $500 million and transmit the list to the president and Congress within 180 days. Once approved by the president, CPRC’s recommendations would be considered in Congress under expedited procedures. Under the bill, the CPRC would sunset six years after enactment. According to CBO, the bill would cost $3 million in FY 2012 and $68 million over the FY 2012 through FY 2017 period. However, H.R. 1734 could result in the sale of at least five high-value federal properties with an estimated total fair market value of at least $500 million, which would fully offset the funding provided in the bill and reduce the deficit by an additional $432 million.
 Budget Transparency — Also last week, the House approved H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act, by a vote of 245-180. This legislation will require federal credit programs to be accounted for on a fair value accounting basis. This means that federal accounting would have to consider not just the borrowing costs to the federal government, but also the cost of the market risk the federal government is incurring. The purpose of the bill is to bring federal budgeting practices in line with the private-sector in order to paint a more accurate picture of federal finances. Under current law, the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) requires that the credit subsidy cost of federal direct loans and loan guarantees be measured on a “net present value” basis, which determines the cost of a loan program based on calculations using the interest rates on Treasury securities. However, this calculation ignores additional costs associated with market risks. According the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “By incorporating a market-based risk premium, fair-value estimates recognize that the financial risk that the government assumes when issuing credit guarantees is more costly to taxpayers than FCRA-based estimates suggest.” By more accurately accounting for the costs of federal credit programs, H.R. 3581 increases the estimated costs of such programs compared to measures used under current law. According to CBO, if fair-value procedures were used to estimate the cost of new credit activity in 2012, the total deficit for the year would be about $55 billion greater than the deficit as measured under current estimating procedures. However, since the legislation would not
change the terms of such credit programs, but would change what is recorded in the budget as the cost of credit assistance, the changes in the estimates of the costs of credit programs would not be scored by CBO as attributable to H.R. 3581.
 Line-Item Veto — On Wednesday, the House approved H.R. 3521, the Expedited Line-Item Veto and Rescissions Act, by a vote of 254-173. H.R. 3521 establishes an expedited procedure for consideration of presidential proposals to rescind certain spending provisions in newly enacted spending legislation. Under the expedited procedure, Congress will be required to consider proposals to rescind specific funding included in spending legislation if the rescission is proposed by the president within 45 days of the spending bill’s enactment. Under the legislation, any savings achieved through these procedures would be used for reducing the deficit or increasing the surplus. The authority of the president to propose rescission packages for expedited consideration established by H.R. 3521 would expire on December 15, 2015. According to CBO, “enacting H.R. 3521, by itself, would not have a significant impact on the federal budget. Any impact on the budget would depend on the extent of the President’s use of the new cancellation procedure and on future Congressional actions.”
 STOCK Act — Yesterday, the House approved an amendment to S. 2038, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, by a vote of 417-2. The bill makes clear that Members of Congress, Congressional employees, and executive and judicial branch employees are prohibited from using nonpublic information for private profit. The bill also amends the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and the Ethics in Government Act and would require the Senate and the House of Representatives to implement an electronic filing system for financial disclosure forms, as well as provide the public with on-line access to that information in a searchable database. In addition, the legislation requires timelier reporting of certain financial transactions by Members of Congress, Congressional employees, and executive and judicial branch officials and employees. The House amendment strengthens the Senate’s STOCK Act, expands the scope of the bill to require more financial disclosures by government employees, and ensures that the law is workable and meets the goal of preventing those who hold public office (and their staff) from profiting from insider information. According to CBO, implementing this legislation would cost $4 million over the 2012-2013 period primarily for new computer hardware and software and additional labor to support the financial disclosure system required under the bill. In addition, maintaining the new system would cost $1 million annually, CBO estimates. In total, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would cost about $9 million over the 2012-2017 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.

The Week Ahead

 Transportation Bill — This week, the House may consider H.R. 7, the American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act. The American Energy & Infrastructure Jobs Act would provide a five-year extension of federal highway and transit programs. The bill would eliminate all earmarks from the highway bill. The last surface transportation law approved by Congress in 2005 contained over 6,300 earmarks. The bill would cut red tape and streamline highway funding by consolidating or eliminating nearly 70 highway programs and eliminating mandates that prevent states from funding infrastructure needs. However, there are two main areas that cause serious concern for many conservatives. First, the cost of the legislation. The bill proposes $262 billion in spending over the next five years. This is an increase over the amount of $191.5 billion that was proposed in July and consistent with the House-passed budget. Furthermore, CBO estimates that gas tax revenues will be $193 billion over the next five years. That leaves a funding gap of roughly $70 billion. And while some of that gap may be covered from revenues from increased domestic energy production, many conservatives believe that we should use that revenue to reduce the deficit, not for new spending. The legislation also makes it harder to make the conservative case that road users—through the gas tax—pay the cost of the federal highway program. Second, many conservatives have long argued that the overwhelming majority of transportation programs and spending should be devolved to the states. While there is increased state flexibility in this bill, it falls short of devolution.
 Payroll Tax Cut Extension — Also this week, the House may consider legislation relating to H.R. 3630, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2011. H.R. 3630 was approved in the House on December 13, 2011 by a vote of 234–193. The House-passed version of H.R. 3630 provided an offset one-year extension of the current payroll tax rates, a delay in the implementation of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (the so-called “Doc Fix”), and an extension of reformed Unemployment Insurance benefits. Currently these programs are operating under two-month extension (H.R.3765) set to expire on February 29, 2012.

Senate

 The Senate will convened at 2:00 p.m. today and was in Morning Business until 4:30 p.m. At 4:30 p.m., the Senate began debate on cloture on Executive Calendar #437, Adalberto Jose Jordan, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit. At 5:30 p.m., the Senate should be voting on cloture on the nomination.
 Once the Senate completes action on the Jordan nomination, the Senate will pivot back to S.1813, the Highway bill (current extension expires 3/31/12). Currently pending to S.1813 is Reid (for Johnson (SD)/Shelby) amendment #1515 (transit title). They expect the remaining Committee measures (Commerce and Finance) will also be voted on as separate amendments later this week. At this point, it is unclear if they will complete action on the Highway bill this week.
 In addition to the Highway bill, other items which are possible for floor action this week include: Payroll Conference Report and/or STOCK Act. The House amended S.2038, the STOCK Act, by a vote of 417 to 2 last week. It is unclear if a Conference Committee will be convened or if Leader Reid will turn to the House passed bill.
 Next scheduled Senate and House recess: February 20th – February 24th.
 Legislative items which are possible during the next work period include: Cybersecurity; Postal Reform; CLASS Act Repeal (H.R.1173).
 Upcoming “No Vote Days” in the Senate: March 5th, March 12th, and March 19th.
 Harry Reid resurrects SOPA.

Oath Keepers: Michael LeMieux: NDAA FOLLOW-UP AND FURTHER TREASONOUS ACTS

http://www.newswithviews.com/LeMieux/michael160.htm

By Michael LeMieux
January 4, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Directly on the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that arguably makes US Citizens detainable by the military, comes the coup de grace in the form of a new bill called the "Enemy Expatriation Act."

But before I get into this bill let me preface that with a few observations.

First, our nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty and self-determination. A belief that all men were created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights imbued within each of us at the time of our birth. We did not, and do not, derive our rights from government and therefore cannot legally have them taken from us by that government.

Second, as our Declaration of Independence states, the purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, and as important, they derive their powers from the consent of the people. I ask you to think upon the following question in light of the previous statement: If the government derives its power from the people, how can the government wield power that the people do not have? If the people do not have such a power then the government, on their behalf, cannot likewise yield such power.

Third, the federal government was created by consent and compact, a Constitution. Within that Constitution the branches of government were laid out, defined, and scope assigned. Each branch of government was given certain powers to act for the betterment of the nation as representatives of a collective set of nation states that recognized the need for a single voice in foreign matters and as an arbiter between the states to ensure regular trade and commerce between the states and settle disputes.

To ensure that the federal government did not go further than the prescribed powers they enumerated the legislative powers of the government to a few distinct areas (Article 1, Section 8). But they went a step further, to emphasize the point to the federal government and to put to rest some resistance within the states, that federal government would not stay confined, they added the Tenth Amendment stating: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now I ask of you; with the enormity of our federal government, with its massive spending, size, and laws that reaches into every aspect of every citizen's life, is our government today one of limited power? I think the answer is a blatant no.

So how does a government, such as ours, go from limited power that literally had no direct impact on the lives of the citizens of the states to one of tyrannical proportions? You cannot make improvements to your own property without permission and paying a tribute. You have the flow of toilets and shower heads dictated to you on what you can and cannot have. We have been using incandescent light bulbs for years but now the government is forcing you to use highly toxic, mercury filled, bulbs (for our own good). And the list of expansive government powers is as long as the list of government agencies and sub-agencies within the federal government. But it did not happen overnight.

We have heard from those of this administration that they do not want crises to go to waste. This is not a new concept - every major governmental expansion has been preceded by one crises or another, manufactured or real, it does not matter. Politicians know that they can take advantage of the public, using their positions of power, during times of national crises and pass laws they know they would not be able to do otherwise.

Inch by inch, nudge by nudge, taking more and more power with each passing legislative session until one day we will (have) awake to find ourselves living under an unconstitutional tyrannical government. I do not say this lightly, I have spent most of my adult life in the service of my country and have offered up my life if need be, but I am abhorred by what I have seen her become.

This brings me to this newest legislation by "our representatives" in Congress. This is Senate bill S. 1698, entitled as the "Enemy Expatriation Act." This bill is two pages, a novelty in the age of 1,000+ page bills, and states (relevant parts):

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

CONTINUE READING:
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Michael-LeMieux--NDAA-FOLLOW-UP-AND-FURTHER-TREASONOUS-ACTS.html?soid=1102755758632&aid=NKbAnsTlgGw#fblike

Chuck Norris: Feds' War on Religion (Part 1 of 2)

December 20, 2011

By Chuck Norris

Anyone who knows me knows that for my whole life, I've been a huge supporter of our U.S. military personnel, whom I congratulate about their victory in Iraq. But when our president and officials in the U.S. Department of Defense exchange a war abroad for a religious war at home, can't we see that something else is seriously awry in this administration?

It's one thing to watch "merry Christmas" be omitted from signs in your favorite department store but quite another to see Bibles withheld from wounded warriors at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. It's true! On Dec. 2, the Family Research Council reported that it had discovered a memo released in September at the esteemed military hospital, in which Navy officials announced that "no religious items (including Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit."

Thank God for those in the FRC, as well as Rep. Randy Forbes and other members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, who demanded to meet with officials at Walter Reed and in the Navy about the matter. Just a few days ago, Vice Adm. John Mateczun confessed that the memo had not been properly evaluated and was being rescinded, and Walter Reed posted a public apology on its website.

But imagine if the FRC had not found this memo. Imagine how many others like it aren't found and are circulated around the federal government.

If you think this is an isolated incident, consider the following dozen-plus examples reported in the past six months alone by the FRC and Rep. Forbes' office and a few of my own I found, which document how religious freedom and Christian liberty in particular have been limited, quarantined, omitted or outright obliterated.

--The Air Force Academy apologized for merely announcing Operation Christmas Child --a Christian-based charity and relief program designed to send holiday gifts to impoverished children around the world.

--Yet the Air Force is building an $80,000 Stonehenge-like worship site for "earth-based" religions, including "pagans, Wiccans, druids, witches and followers of Native American faiths."

--The Marine Corps considered tearing down a Camp Pendleton cross meant to honor fallen heroes.

--Air Force officials stripped religious curriculum from a 20-year-old course on "just war theory."

--The Department of Veterans Affairs censored references to God and Jesus during prayers at Houston National Cemetery.

--The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate passed the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which included a repeal of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which states: "Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy."

--The Department of Health and Human Services unveiled new health care rules that ignore basic conscience protections for medical workers with faith-based objections to abortion and contraception.

--Officials at HHS denied funding for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' successful program for sex trafficking victims because of the church's teaching on human life.

--Administration officials refused to intervene in the closing of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom.

--President Barack Obama has lobbied for the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would trample on the faith of employers in hiring, firing and promotion decisions.

--The Pentagon released new regulations that force chaplains to perform same-sex "weddings" despite their religious objections.

--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demonized other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights.

--Just this past week, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation sent a letter to officials at Travis Air Force Base, demanding the removal or transfer of a Nativity scene and a menorah that are part of a larger holiday display on the base.

What is going on in the U.S. military? Why is it so difficult for the feds to understand the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which says they "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

And how many of these restrictions of our religious liberties are direct results of President Obama's being in office? And if these occurred in just the past six months, imagine what would happen in another four years if Obama were to be re-elected. Our service members, as well as our devoted military Christian chaplains, deserve better.

MORE:
http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/12/20/feds_war_on_religion_part_1_of_2