Showing posts with label unconstitutional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label unconstitutional. Show all posts

Friday, January 24, 2014

West Virginia Introduces Legislation to Nullify Federal Gun Laws

The Federalists papers.org,BY STEVE STRAUB ON 
It would be AWESOME if more states took action to nullify unconstitutional laws, don’t you agree?
Via Tim Brown at Freedom Outpost:
Last week I reported on the fact that Tennessee made the move to nullify all federal gun laws by introducing new legislation. Now West Virginia is following suit with their version of the “Firearm Protection Act.”



Friday, August 16, 2013

Obama Gives Congress Obamacare Relief — Illegally

“Heavens, I have staff who don’t make much money. This would be a really big bite for them.”

That could be any employer talking about the costs of Obamacare. But it’s a Member of Congress—who’s happy the President will soften the blow for him and his employees.
Ironically, when Members of Congress passed Obamacare, they kicked themselves and their staffs out of their current subsidized employer (federal government) coverage.

As Robert Pear, veteran health reporter for The New York Times, noted back in 2010, “If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?”
Now, the Obama Administration says, “No problem.” Congress can keep their health care subsidies ($5,000 for individual coverage or $11,000 for family coverage) and use them in the new Obamacare exchanges.

In a surprise to no one, the President doesn’t actually have legal authority to do that.
Heritage’s Ed Haislmaier explained in detail how the Administration twisted its interpretation of the law to fix Congress’s little problem. As he put it, “It was bad enough that Congress had to pass the law to find out what was in it. Now, the Administration is ignoring the law when they don’t like what they find.”

Obamacare is riddled with problems—but the Administration is only trying to fix the ones that create political problems for the President.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

A Nation Turning Into Hell

“For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.” –Isaiah 60:12


If it’s not this unconstitutional and godless administration advocating criminal activity in one form or another (Amnesty for illegals, IRS scandal, NSA spying, Benghazi, Obamacare, abortion, homosexuality, Fast and Furious,etc.),then they are funding the crime through taxpayer money.   Read that line again.

In some ways,it is not so much what the American people are sowing, but it is what they are letting this godless administration sow by force into a field they want everyone to harvest with them – like it or not. And if the American people are to stand back and allow this totalitarianism,then they are guilty of perpetuating this evil by refusing to stand against it.

Let me give you an analogy, taken from D.L. Moody’s book “Sowing and Reaping”:

One day,the master of Lukman,an Eastern fabulist,said to him,“Go into such a field,and sow barley.” Lukman sowed oats instead. At the time of harvest,his master went to the place and,seeing the green oats springing up,asked him:

“Did I not tell you to sow barley here? Why,then,have you sown oats?”   “Did I not tell you to sow barley here? Why,then,have you sown oats?”

He answered,“I sowed oats in the hope that barley would grow up.”

His master said,“What foolish idea is this? Have you ever heard of the like?”

Lukman replied,“You yourself are constantly sowing in the field of the world the seeds of evil,and yet expect to reap in the resurrection day the fruits of virtue. Therefore I thought,also,I might get barley by sowing oats.”

The master was abashed at the reply and set Lukman free.

Oh how history will repeat itself if we do not learn from it.

Past history

What has become of the monarchies and empires of the world? What brought ruin on Babylon? Her king and people would not obey God,and ruin came upon them. What has become of Greece and all her powers? She once ruled the world.

Look at the history of America. With an open Bible,our forefathers planted slavery;but judgment came at last. In the Civil War,there was not a family North or South that didn’t mourn over someone taken from them.

Take the case of France. It is said that in the 1700s,men were spending millions every year in France in the publication and distribution of infidel literature. What was the harvest? Has France not reaped? Mark the result:The Bible was suppressed. God was denied. Hell broke loose – more than a million people were beheaded,shot,or drowned between September 1792 and December 1795.

From that time, France had 13 revolutions in 80 years;and in the republic,there was an oveturn of power on an average of once every nine months. One-third of the births in Paris were illegitimate;10,000 newborn infants had been fished out at the outlet of the city sewers in a single year;the native population of France decreased;the percentage of suicides were greater in Paris than in any city in Christendom;and after the French Revolution,there were enough French men and women slaughtered in the streets of Paris in the various insurrections to average more than 2,500 each year!

Let’s take a look at present America and see if she is making the same mistakes that others failed to learn from:  VIDEO http://www.exposeobama.com/2013/06/26/a-nation-turning-into-hell/

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Letter to the Editor: Take Another Look by CCTA Member Lou Call

July 2, 2012


The Sun Journal, Letter to the Editor

Take another look….

Like most people I was initially disappointed over the ruling of Chief Justice Roberts regarding Obamacare; I felt betrayed. After a cooling down period I delved into the Courts decision and began to realize that the Chief Justice is nothing short of genius. Let’s look at the decision itself.

The Chief Justice emphatically stated that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. He then stated that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution.

This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill.

Obama has stated many times that the provisions in Obamacare requiring Americans to purchase health care insurance is not a tax. Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.

All is not lost. The November election will be about the economy and Obamacare. The Supreme Court decision will help Romney and those Republicans seeking election in the Senate. More importantly is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. This means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

There is no question that the Congress will vote to repeal with the shadow of the outcome of the 2010 elections still looming over them. When one considers that more than 60% of the voters going to the polls are in favor of repeal we have within our grasp the opportunity to rid Washington of our socialist president and his minions that surround him; his ‘czars’.

The future of this great Country rests in all our hands. I implore you to write, email and FAX our elected representatives demanding they repeal Obamacare. The vote of Chief Justice Roberts has put the ball back in our court. It is up to all of us to move that ball forward. Remember, ‘evil triumphs when good men (and women) do nothing’!


Louis Call
New Bern, NC

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The Congressional Constitution Caucus regarding the recent passage of the 2012 NDAA

It brings us no pleasure in pointing out the utter failure of Congress to protect our God-given Rights in the name of national security.


Benjamin Franklin said the definition of insanity was doing the same the over and over again, expecting a different outcome. I assure you sir, that the American People are sick to their stomachs of the games being played with our freedoms each year during the Christmas season, and 2011 was no different.


Attaching unconstitutional provisions embodied in sections 1021, 1022, (and others) to the 2012 NDAA is nothing short of an 'intolerable act.'


The proverbial 'sleeping giant' still lives in America, and is awakening from a coma, during which most of our liberties have become shackled with sophisticated language crafted by wordsmiths the Devil himself would be proud of.


There are dozens and dozens of caucuses in Congress, yet only one claims to be a caucus of champions of the Constitution. We the People expect better of our public servants who boast membership in the Congressional Constitution Caucus.


That membership MUST be worth more than simple lapel-brushing value.


Many of your members are co-sponsors of H.R. 3676, Rep. Jeff Landry's bill. The 'due diligence' of Thomas Jefferson advises that this bill does nothing to protect/restore our God-given Rights being usurped by the unconstitutional provisions of the 2012 NDAA, and appears to be little more than a placebo to appease the restless natives in an election year. We the People deserve and demand better.


Thomas Jefferson said, "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."


Giving up liberty for security has never worked, and only serves to turn the United States into a police state, ruled by despots.


Benjamin Franklin said, "A great empire, like a great cake, is most easily diminished at the edges."


The nibbling away of our God-given unalienable Rights must not only be stopped, but our Rights restored. The supreme law of the land must be upheld.

GO TO "The Intolerable Acts" NOW:  http://theintolerableacts.org/

Americans for Prosperity: Hands Off My Health Care Rally in DC

Later this month I'm going to stand up at the U.S. Supreme Court with Senator Pat Toomey, Representative Michelle Bachmann, and thousands of Americans for Prosperity activists at the Hands Off My Health Care rally on March 27th.


Would you like to join me and your fellow AFP-NC activists?

Click here to ride the bus from North Carolina to DC!

As you likely know, later this month the U.S. Supreme Court will be considering the constitutionality of several elements of the President's intensely unpopular health care package. President Obama and his leftist allies managed to force the health care package upon the American people almost two years ago, but now we have a real chance to get it struck down.

Since 2008, Americans for Prosperity has been a leader on the issue of health care freedom. Americans for Prosperity believes that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and that it cannot be judicially severed from the underlying law. We believe the President's entire health care law must be struck down. That's why we're hosting a Hands Off My Health Care rally along with many coalition allies (listed here) to let the Court and all of Washington know that we oppose this unconstitutional affront to our health care freedoms.


Speakers at the Hands Off My Health Care rally will include:
•Sen. Pat Toomey
•Rep. Michele Bachmann
•Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity
•Jim Martin, 60 Plus
•Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
•Amy Kramer, Tea Party Express
•Tracy Walsh, Breast Cancer Survivor

Sign up today to ride a bus to the rally on March 27th!

The President's health care package is an egregious offense against the principles of economic freedom and the free market. Please join me, and remind Washington that the ObamaCare law is unconstitutional!

Can't make the rally, but still believe in health care freedom? You can still take action by signing onto Americans for Prosperity's Statement, which will be provided to the Court on March 27th. Click here to sign on to AFP's Statement now!

Yours in the fight for freedom and prosperity,
Dallas Woodhouse
North Carolina State Director
Americans for Prosperity

Friday, February 17, 2012

Help Stop Obama’s Assault on Our Religious Liberties

Obama has no constitutional authority to demand Americans turn their backs on their religious convictions to indirectly fund contraception and sterilization procedures including “The Morning After” pill and abortion. That’s why Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee is calling on 50,000 conservative grassroots women and likeminded men to confront Obama’s assault on our religious liberties through our national petition effort. Join CWA to Stop this Unconstitutional Mandate CWALAC and sign the petition!


http://www.cwalac.org/article_1113.shtml

Monday, August 22, 2011

Rep. West: Obama's Rules Scorn Constitution

Monday, 22 Aug 2011
By David A. Patten and Ashley Martella


Conservative firebrand Rep. Allen West is castigating President Barack Obama for “shredding” the U.S. Constitution by aggressively pushing to impose his agenda through executive-branch rule-making rather than via Congress.


In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview, West cited Homeland Security Department chief Janet Napolitano’s announcement last week that the federal government will allow illegals not charged with other crimes to remain in the country and will not deport them.

“It’s absolutely a form of amnesty, and it does go against our Constitution,” says West, who called for a congressional investigation into the administration action.

Story and video:  http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/West-Obama-constitution-illegals/2011/08/22/id/408171

Sunday, April 17, 2011

NC RENEGADE: Eat the Reich

Eat the Reich


An interesting weekend concerning respect for the president (lower case intentional) of the United States of America. The debate centers on respect of Obama versus respect for the office of the Presidency. Pouring water over an Obama mask at the Raleigh Tea Party was considered to be an act of disrespect for the office of the President by some people or an act of disrespect for the man. Arguments could be made for both sides but let’s consider another viewpoint concerning respect.


http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/eat-the-reich/#comment-1078

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

ObamaCare–One Year Later

By Adam Bitely – One year ago yesterday, ObamaCare was passed in the House of Representatives. And just one year later, the fate of the legislation is still unknown.

Since Obama signed the ironically named “Affordable Health Care Act”, a federal court in Florida has ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional, a federal court in Virginia ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional, and Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen has completely stopped implementing the law on the grounds that the Florida ruling reversed ObamaCare from being a law. And all that happened before ObamaCare celebrated its first birthday.

READ ON AND GET THE FACTS:  http://netrightdaily.com/2011/03/obamacare-one-year-later/

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Nullifying Tyranny

By George C. Leef

Campaign for Liberty, March 17, 2011

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century


by Thomas E. Woods Jr. (Regnery, 2010); 309 pages.

One of the big mistakes made by the drafters of the Constitution was their omission of any provision that says what is to be done if the Congress or president acts unconstitutionally. Although the Constitution places limits on their authority, nowhere does it specify the course or courses of action open to citizens or states who want to block the offending action. That omission has plagued the nation almost since its beginning.

Americans are used to one course of action available to challenge the legitimacy of government action, namely review by the judiciary. There is no language in the Constitution stating that courts have the power to declare laws unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, much less that judicial review is the remedy.

Why shouldn't state governments have at least as much authority to overturn unconstitutional acts as the courts? The states, after all, came together to form the compact called The United States of America. Moreover, state governments are more accountable to the people than are judges serving lifetime appointments on appellate courts. (Government accountability is a weak reed, but at least it is possible to vote out governors and state legislators.)

Does it make any sense to have one branch of the federal government be the sole judge of the legality of acts of the other branches of the federal government?

CONTINUED:  http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1371

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Member's Corner: LOU CALLING!

Tue, February 15, 2011

BREAKING NEWS: Committee rejects plan to fully defund ObamaCare


Time to play hard ball with House Republicans. Please consider sending a $15. FAX. There is too much at stake not to get involved. ~ Lou

TUESDAY MIDDAY---BREAKING NEWS ON OBAMACARE REPEAL:

The House Rules Committee has rejected Rep. Steve King's proposal to FULLY DEFUND ObamaCare, failing to agree to "protect" King's amendment when it comes to the House floor.

Bottom line -- Republicans on the Rules Committee refused to play hardball to fully defund ObamaCare. By doing so, they are allowing Pelosi's "mandatory" self-funding provisions -- which many say are unconscionable if not unconstitutional -- to stand! This will force this Congress to approve most of the funding for ObamaCare.

FoxNews says King's provision would "cripple all government operations devoted to executing the health law."

DEBATE BEGINS THIS AFTERNOON.  IT IS URGENT THAT CITIZENS EXPRESS THEIR VOICE ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OBAMACARE SHOULD BE FULLY DEFUNDED RIGHT NOW.


GO HERE TO SEND YOUR FAXES: 
http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?U=37456&CID=146&RID=27111131

Grassfire Nation

Grassfire Nation, a division of Grassroots Action, Inc., is a million-strong network of grassroots conservatives that is dedicated to equipping you with the tools that give you a real impact on the key issues of our day.

Copyright 2011 Grassroots Action, Inc.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

American Thinker

Rule of Law in the Age of Obama


January 02, 2011


By Scott Strzelczyk

Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the individual mandate under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. While a significant ruling in context of expansive federal powers under the commerce clause, of paramount importance is the underlying fundamental principle of the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law is often overlooked and misunderstood when constitutional issues arise. A general misconception is a law is constitutional if Congress passes a bill and the president signs the bill into law, or the Supreme Court of the United States upholds a laws constitutionality. Not only is this wrong, but it is inherently dangerous to our constitutional republic, limited government and federalism, and the protection of man's natural rights and liberty.

The Rule of Law is defined as follows: "Individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or group of individuals" [i]. In other words, nobody is above the law, nor can anybody act outside the constraints established under the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is incorporated in the Constitution of the United States.

The Rule of Law embodies certain indispensable characteristics which are necessary and proper in a government of laws (as opposed to a government of men). Those indispensable characteristics are the supremacy of law and justice. The absence of either supremacy of law or justice represents a fatal flaw in our form of government.

Supremacy of Law

Supremacy of Law requires both citizens and government to be subject to known and standing laws. By subjugating government to a set of known and standing laws, the Rule of Law constrains government bureaucrats and political rulers' arbitrary power over the citizenry. Today, political expediency and ideology result in a myriad of laws subjugating citizens to political will, which ultimately violates the Rule of Law.

People conflate the supremacy clause, found in Article VI of the Constitution, with Supremacy of Law. Many people believe the supremacy clause states that the federal government is supreme in all matters of law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Such wishful thinking is the rational basis used to usurp power otherwise not granted to the federal government in the Constitution. The key provision of the supremacy clause is "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof."

Limitations on arbitrary power were incorporated into the Constitution under Article I, Section VIII. This section enumerated the powers ceded by the several states to the federal government. The Constitution established a federal government with limited powers. The several states created the Constitution, ratified the Constitution, and are the ultimate authority required to amend the Constitution.

After years of despotic rule under the British Crown and fighting a war of independence, it is inconceivable that the framers would create and establish a system of government under the Constitution which granted unlimited power and authority to the federal government. For the federal government to be supreme in all matters of law raises the following questions:

Why did the framers labor to define and enumerate the powers ceded to Congress under Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution?

By default, all acts of Congress would be supreme, therefore rendering most of the Constitution meaningless. There would be absolutely no limits on congressional power and authority. Why would the colonies fight a war of independence to establish a new system of government capable of subjugating the people to laws under a new tyrant?

Supremacy of Law doesn't support any conclusion as to whether the federal government is supreme over state governments or vice-versa. The proper interpretation is that those powers reserved to the states and those powers delegated to the federal government must be adhered to because it is stated in the Constitution, and the Rule of Law embodies supremacy of law.

Likewise, the supremacy clause is applicable only to those powers ceded to the federal government. If Congress passes an act within the limited powers ceded to it, then the law is binding and supreme over any state law or state constitution. This is what "shall be made in Pursuance thereof" means. Otherwise, the law is not binding and, therefore, not supreme law.

Justice

Justice is another indispensable characteristic of the Rule of Law. In the state of nature, man possesses certain rights as a matter of being -- the right to associate, to contract, to self-defense, etc. These are referred to as natural rights. In the Declaration of Independence, natural rights are stated as certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness conferred upon man by his Creator. These natural rights cannot be conferred by man unto man. That is, government does not confer natural rights, nor can government deny or abridge natural rights. The Constitution protects man's natural rights and liberty from government.

In a state of nature, a formal justice system doesn't exist. One man steals property from another man, and the aggrieved man seeks retribution for his loss of property. The aggrieved man enacts his own form of justice to compensate for his loss. That retribution may be excessive or unjustly applied in the mind of a disinterested third party. For instance, a man steals food from another man. The aggrieved man seeks retribution and kills the man that stole from him. Most would conclude that the aggrieved man's action was excessively unjust.

One of the primary reasons man enters into civil society is the resolution of conflicts between individuals. To ensure that government treats citizens fairly when resolving conflicts, certain protections are necessary to preclude government's arbitrarily taking action against its citizens.

Personal liberty must be protected. That is, man must be safe and secure in knowing he cannot be arrested without cause, and his private belongings and things cannot be seized or searched without probable cause. Man must violate the law for the government to justify encroaching upon his personal liberty.

Lastly, due process under the law is paramount to the protection of personal liberty, natural rights, and private property. Laws regarding procedural and evidentiary rules, jury trials, and the presumption of innocence are necessary safeguards under the Rule of Law.

A quick glance at the constitutional amendments illustrates the importance of justice under the Rule of Law, particularly on the limitation of arbitrary and discretionary government powers. Amendments IV through VIII all deal with some aspect of justice. The fourteenth amendment is frequently referenced in regards to justice and due process under the law. Amendments I, II, IX, and X are restrictions on government infringing upon man's rights and liberty.

Coercive Government

Whenever government violates the Rule of Law, government becomes coercive. Regardless of the government's rationale, citizens' popular opinion, or intended outcomes, any government action which violates the Rule of Law is coercive, unconstitutional, and unjust. The Rule of Law and coercive government are of utmost concern to the survival of our constitutional republic.

In many cases, elected officials or government bureaucrats use humanitarian reasons to justify their actions. We are doing this for the children. We are doing this to protect you from some harm. We are compassionate and must help those who are disadvantaged. All are attempts to justify the use of arbitrary power to achieve political or ideological outcomes that often abridge individual rights, property rights, or liberty.

How does government usurp powers and act arbitrarily in violation of the Rule of Law?

First and foremost, the federal government usurps powers that were intended to be reserved by the states. Consider a traditional power like local police. If Congress were to pass a bill taking control of all local police powers, the president to sign the bill into law, and the Supreme Court to rule that the law is constitutional, then state powers would be usurped by the federal government [ii].

The Supreme Court has presumed powers not otherwise granted to it by the Constitution and established itself as the final and ultimate word on all constitutional matters. The framers did not intend to vest the Supreme Court with this ultimate authority. It is akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Furthermore, constitutional interpretation exacerbates the problem of authority, as it affords judges the opportunity to institute distributive and social justice rather than commutative and legal justice. The framers did not intend to vest nine people in black robes with the power to change the meaning of the Constitution [iii]. Only a properly ratified constitutional amendment can change the Constitution.

Congress established numerous federal agencies and programs administered by the executive branch. Legislation often grants agencies broad general powers to implement and regulate programs. Unelected government bureaucrats establish rules and regulations which are considered equivalent to statutory law. These rules and regulations may run afoul of the Constitution, be used to redistribute private property, take control of private industries, or further an administration's political ideology. Dozens of czars were appointed without the consent of the people. The Declaration of Independence states, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." Regulations are another method used by government to arbitrarily exercise power over the citizenry.

Those who swear an oath to uphold the Constitution are stating that they will uphold the Rule of Law.  In the next breath, the same people say the Constitution is a living and breathing document, the Constitution is stale and doesn't reflect modern realities, or the federal government has the power to do whatever it wants under the Constitution.

Expansive views and interpretations of the commerce clause, general welfare clause, necessary and proper clause, etc. are referenced by elected officials as their constitutional authority to enact legislation, institute rules and regulations, and usurp powers otherwise reserved to the states.

These are arguments of tyrants and ideologues. A person either reveres the Rule of Law or rejects the Rule of Law. There is no middle ground. There is no cafeteria plan where certain aspects of the Rule of Law can be followed or ignored as one pleases.

Those who revere the Rule of Law understand it is meant to constrain government against arbitrary use of power. Those who reject the Rule of Law use government power arbitrarily to constrain the people.

The founding fathers and framers revered the Rule of Law. The Tea Party and the 2010 elections are about the Rule of Law. The next two election cycles are critical to the country's future and the Rule of Law. Nothing less than our constitutional republic is at stake.

[i] Several definitions exist for the rule of law. The definition I chose for this article is here.

[ii] Federalism was established under the Constitution. All powers originated as states' powers, and certain limited powers were ceded to the federal government by the states. James Madison addresses the question of state and federal powers in Federalist 45. The second and third paragraphs from the end of the paper encapsulate the framers' thinking regarding state and federal powers.

[iii] The current Supreme Court has nine judges. This has varied over time from as few as six to as many as ten. The Supreme Court has remained at nine judges since 1869.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/rule_of_law_in_the_age_of_obam.html at January 02, 2011 - 05:51:25 PM CST

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

What Republicans Should Do in January, 2011

OPEN LETTER TO REPUBLICANS: NOW IT'S YOUR TURN. DON'T SCREW IT UP!

By Jared Law (Founder, The 9.12 Project Network), December 28th, 2010

House Republicans have a sacred responsibility to taxpayers, Tea Partiers/Conservative Republicans (who unquestionably handed them their victories in November), and to every American, whether they agree with us or not, to begin fulfilling their Constitutional duty to limit the size of government, to reduce federal taxation and spending to match the original intent of the Constitution of the United States of America, which document I believe to be inspired by God himself.


Republicans and independents, those of us who kicked Nancy Pelosi and her co-conspirators out of their leadership positions (for betraying the trust the American people mistakenly placed in them in 2008)...WE know what's coming, WE know what must be done, and if the House Republicans don't begin moving in this direction, IMMEDIATELY, they'll have nobody to blame but themselves for a third party or total irrelevance, as the Whigs also did to themselves long ago. I am not a fan of the idea of a third party, but Republicans REALLY, REALLY need to do what we've asked them to do if they expect to remain in office, much less earn an expanded majority in the House, and control of the U.S. Senate, and the Presidency in 2012, or any of the above.

America is awake. We know what 'Progressives' are, and that they are a cancer on America, they infest both parties, and they are a cancer which must be removed ASAP. We must undo the damage they've done, or America will be nothing but a tragic footnote in the history of the world. America is literally fighting for our life, and after Nancy Pelosi & co. pumped America full of toxic progressive policies while America was under the knife, we're at the brink, right at the razor's edge.

You must be extremely careful, but you MUST eliminate the destructive 'progressive' policies, legislation, and government spending which has brought America to her knees, and laid her low on the operating table of the surgical center. Her life is in your hands. DO NOT FAIL AMERICA! We're watching you like hawks. Scratch that...Eagles. Millions of Bald Eagles with attitudes.

Like the rest of the Tea Party/9.12 Project/Freedom movement, I love America with every fiber of my being. I am so incredibly grateful to be an American, and thankfully, I woke up years ago, and was educated by myself and others, over the past few years (especially the past 22 months), so that like most Tea Partiers, I know of what I speak. While I am not perfect, nor am I a lawyer, not a Senator or Congressman, and certainly not a politician (in fact, perhaps FOR this reason), I have studied the Constitution and the Principles of Freedom enshrined therein, so I know what my rights are. I know what natural rights and natural law is. I understand the laws of nature and of Nature's God. We all do.

The whole Tea Party /9.12 Project movement has been studying, self-educating, through books, seminars, videos, and discussion. We know what we want. And the first priority of the mandate we handed to House Republicans on November 2nd, 2010, is to END THE GROWTH OF FEDERAL SPENDING IMMEDIATELY, and END DEFICIT SPENDING ASAP. The great decline of the wasteful, unconstitutional spending by the federal government MUST FINALLY BEGIN!

In addition to this reality, we must also begin the final repayment of America's national debt. We know the true number is many times the $13.9 Trillion that is officially being reported. National Debt interest payments in FY2010 were about $164 BILLION DOLLARS. That's a bit absurd, don't you think? Why is the most powerful, successful nation on earth the largest debtor nation? This is absolutely unsustainable, and you know it. Sadly, for Americans, the window of opportunity to pay it off in a RELATIVELY painless fashion has passed. It's going to be painful, but it must be done. The time for easy solutions is long gone, and the 111th Congress made your job indescribably more difficult. And if you fail, they'll blame you, and spend $Billions convincing America it's your fault. Only the Tea Party MOVEMENT (not individual Tea Party leaders, groups, etc.) can and WILL defend you, assuming you do the right thing.

Now we realize you don't have all the power you need to get everything done this first year, but don't think you can let off or compromise. You have a sacred duty, and if you fail to honor your duty, you will not only be thrown out of office, but your name will become a hiss and a byword. Nancy Pelosi has destroyed her name among honest, tax-paying Americans. Now it's your turn to either shine or self-destruct! Show us what you're made of, Republicans! We have granted you the power of the purse; use it to the fullest extent possible so we can praise, defend, and re-elect you in 2012, with an expanded majority in the House, and a Majority in the Senate, not to mention the Presidency!

If you fail to honor the Principles of Freedom which are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America, if you ignore us, if you fail to honor your oath of office, in which you will "solemnly swear (or affirm)" that you will "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." and that you "will well faithfully discharge the duties of the office" you are about to enter. So help you GOD...then you'd better pray for God's help. Because you'll get none from those who love America if you refuse to honor that oath of office!

For this reason, here are some of my suggestions, as a 9.12 Project/Tea Party organizer and network creator of the largest 9.12 Project-specific social network in the world. We don't number in the millions, only the tens of thousands nationwide, but we are quite representative of the cross section of principled Tea Partiers nationwide. You would do well to heed our message.

So with our purpose crystal clear, and with a solid understanding of what's at stake, let's define Constitutionality:

Any part of the United States Federal Government which fails to be justified, using the Founding Fathers' original intent, by Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution of the United States of..., is inherently UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and must be eliminated from the federal budget. EVERYTHING.

The only question is how fast do we eliminate them; not if. Just when.

And please note, Republicans, that the so-called 'General Welfare Clause' of the Constitution isn't a clause, it's a statement of intent, or in other words, it's a purpose, and the Constitution does that by LIMITING government as Congress would if it stuck with justifying every single bill passed by Congress with Article I, SectionVIII. Here is the preamble, the statement of intent, of the Constitution of the United States of America:

"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Basically, the 'general welfare clause' isn't a clause, it's part of the statement of intent, or the preamble, and the structure they laid out in the Constitution IS SUPPOSED TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, BY LIMITING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH GIVES WE THE PEOPLE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF FREEDOM WHILE MAINTAINING A PROPERLY-POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, that is, when compared to inadequately-powerful governments, such as the previous ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. Those created a federal government which was TOO WEAK to allow America to become what we have become, but our federal government is now so incredibly powerful and large, so UNCONSTITUTIONAL, that is is severely limiting America's potential! We need to abolish every federal agency and department which IS NOT justified under Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution of the United States of...:
--------

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
--------
And remember, the NECESSARY AND PROPER clause (the last paragraph above) does NOT mean you get to make up new powers, gobble up the states' or the peoples' rights, and ignore the ninth and tenth Amendments:
-------
Amendment IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:  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.
--------

The 'Necessary and Proper' clause simply means Congress can make common-sense laws which enable the carrying out of Article I, Section VIII (and the rest of the Constitution). It is NOT a blank check of unlimited power.

So let's get into some common-sense details.

To avoid riots, I would start it by an across-the-board freeze in the budget of every federal department, without exception, rather than eliminating all of them and starting over. In addition, I would insist upon an across-the-board federal pay cut of all taxpayer-funded salaries over the average salary of the American people (let's say $50,000/year), INCLUDING Senators & Representatives. All federal salaries should decrease by something on the order of 20% each year until we reach private sector parity. For those making UNDER $50K/year, they can accept a $10% pay cut in each of the first two years.

On the other hand, I think that active-duty servicemen (& women) deserve an immediate 20% raise, with another one the following year, to help make up for the fact that they've been vastly under-compensated ever since they signed up. All raises should not be allowed to increase somebody's salary beyond $100,000.00/year. All such individuals would get a 10% raise instead (these are rough figures, and could be adjusted as needed to make for a more smooth transition). And anybody who is killed while active duty should be immediately paid $100,000.00 to their estate (plus $20,000 additional for each child dependent under the age of 18). And everybody who completes a tour of duty in harm's way should get a $5,000 'thank you' from the American taxpayers ($10K if they have children under 18). Every time.

Also, in the first year, I would insist upon a 25% funding cut for all unconstitutional agencies/departments, and a 25% workforce reduction in those departments/agencies, with equal (25% of the original funding/payroll) cuts each of the following three years. In the fourth year, we would celebrate the total elimination of the unconstitutional departments/agencies.

See? A 'Managed Decline' of unconstitutional tax expenditures! I would prefer to do it immediately at 100%, but I would also like to avoid a civil war.

The obvious exception to these cuts would be the following departments: Education, Energy, Environmental Protection. HUD, and Labor, as well as 100% of Medicaid/SCHIP payments (let the states pay for such things if they wish to keep those programs). Since these departments/agencies all contribute directly to the 'fundamental transformation' of America from a Constitutional Republic to a fascist state, they must go immediately, as in de-funded 100%. Welfare would immediately be slashed by 25%/year until it's totally phased out in year four.

The steps listed above, alone, would save an estimated $579 billion in year one, $722 Billion in year two, $866 Billion in year three, and just over a $Trillion dollars in the fourth year, based on FY2010 numbers. This only reflects the elimination of welfare and the unconstitutional departments/programs listed. The cuts in the additional unconstitutional departments/agencies, when combined with federal pay cuts, would add another half $Trillion in savings by the fifth year.

In fact, by the end of the fifth year, we'd be spending about $1.5 Trillion less than before, not counting savings from reduced Social Security and Medicare costs. I would estimate we would realize another half-$Trillion in savings there by the half-decade mark. That means $2 Trillion/year savings from year five going forward, and adding to that as we continue to reduce our interest payments, SS/Medicare expenditures over time, etc. From year five onward, there is A REAL BUDGET SURPLUS, assuming the freeze remains, we don't enter additional wars, and our interest rates remain close to what they are today, since we're paying down the debt, for once!

As for Social Security, I would privatize all accounts for those under the age of 40, extend the age of eligibility to 75, and do a thorough audit of all accounts, eliminating all which are paying fraudulent 'benefits.'

Medicare? That's the trickiest one, but we'd need to rescind Medicare Part 'D' ASAP. Probably phase it out over a 5-year period, by reducing benefits by 20% of the original amounts each year for a half-decade. Perhaps that sort of thing would work for Medicare itself, as well, but stretch it out to 10% annually for a decade.

And 'Federal Employee Unions' would be immediately abolished. There should not be unions capable of extorting additional cash from taxpayers!

This may seem simplistic, but imagine the amount of investment which would begin to flow into America again once we got into surplus territory, started paying down the national debt (once we had cleared a couple $Trillion, people would take us seriously, and borrowing costs would plummet!), and cut corporate and income taxes to reasonable rates, in preparation for an eventual flat tax of no more than 10%!

We'd have the "official' national debt paid off within 15-20 years, depending upon economic growth. As for the 'off the books' national debt, such as the unfunded liabilities from Social Security and Medicare, well, those start to look much, much better once we restructure them and prepare them for eventual phase-out. Two decades down the road, we're where we would have been today had we started ten years ago, rather than waiting until near-total collapse!

Of course, that PRESUMES that we'll continue our efforts to eliminate Progressivism from polite society, and keep it on the run from then on. You leave that to us.

But the best thing is that we don't have to cower and fear the future. It may take us five years to show the world we mean business, but it CAN be done, and without bloody, violent revolution! And seriously, the accomplishments begin to be realized, and especially once we cross that critical line to a real, no-gimmicks BUDGET SURPLUS, our opponents will become politically-toxic to even moderate, ignorant Americans, for an entire generation (assuming we have restored our education system)!

Then it will be up to our children to keep up the good fight, to defend America from progressives, Communists, Fascists, and other evil leftists who wish to destroy America. Yes, there are people like that out there. Many of them meet regularly at (or via secure videoconferencing, in) the White House. They are progressives, fascists, and communists, and they despise what America is, and what she can become, if only we'll rid her of the cancer that is progressivism!

http://www.the912project.us/forum/topic/show?id=2881797%3ATopic%3A1827479&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Monday, December 20, 2010

The Patriot Post--Voice of Essential Liberty!

Monday, December 20, 2010


The Foundation

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison

Liberty

One reason the Founding Fathers decided to break with England was their dismay with England's mercantilist system, which generally required colonists to purchase manufactured goods from, or through, England rather than produce them in the colonies. Hatred for this system inspired a Virginia farmer named George Washington to try to convert his colonial farm into a self-sufficient unit -- where ... he could produce and consume what he wanted without trading with others, especially those in England. The Framers, who had not forgotten English mercantilism, wrote the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to create a free-trade zone among the American states. Their aim was to facilitate freedom, not restrict it. ... [Judge Henry] Hudson, while carefully staying within the Supreme Court precedent of Wickard v. Filburn, correctly understood that the issue raised by Obamacare's individual mandate ... is freedom itself. 'The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers,' Hudson wrote in his opinion. ... And you thought liberals believed in freedom of choice?" --columnist Terence Jeffrey

Government


"Fighting government intrusion into our lives is becoming increasingly difficult for at least two reasons. The first reason is that educators at the primary, secondary and university levels have been successful in teaching our youngsters to despise the values of our Constitution and the founders of our nation -- 'those dead, old, racist white men.' Their success in that arena might explain why educators have been unable to get our youngsters to read, write and compute on a level comparable with other developed nations; they are too busy proselytizing students. The second reason is we've become a nation of thieves, accustomed to living at the expense of one another and to accommodate that we're obliged to support tyrannical and overreaching government. Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, 'How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.'" --economist Walter E. Williams

READ THE ENTIRE DIGEST:  http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/12/20/brief/

Friday, September 24, 2010

Folks, we may be getting close to Civil War II.

Is the Fix in Against Lt. Col. Lakin?


By James H. Roberson

Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin (M.D.- Active Army) – first asked the Army to affirm that Obama was constitutionally eligible to serve as President, and when his chain of command refused, he then refused to deploy to Afghanistan until “eligibility” was established (to force the issue to a head). Lakin’s argument is simple and direct: a soldier must not be compelled to obey an “unlawful order”; an “ineligible person” cannot serve as President and Commander-in-Chief and, thus, cannot issue “lawful orders.” He has thereby laid his liberty and whole career on the line in order to honor his Oath to Support and Defend the Constitution (especially Article II, Section 1, Clause 5), which must not be violated!


In preparation for his court martial, scheduled for October, his defense counsel asked the Judge Advocate General (JAG) court to authorize “discovery” of Obama’s birth records in order to prove Lakin’s innocence. Col. Lind, Presiding JAG Judge, has recently ruled that LTC Lakin can’t depose (question under oath) the Hawaiian Custodian of Birth Records, nor view any of their documents. The judge claimed that birth records might contain “embarrassing information” about the putative President.
 
The judge further ruled that it is “irrelevant” for the military to prove that Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief. She said that LTC Lakin’s deployment orders came from the Pentagon and, “on its face,” that’s all he needs to know. In other words, along with her Commanding General, Col. Lind has just decided that the chain of command originates at the Pentagon, and the President is NOT an integral part of it. Both Lind and her commanding general have now violated the Constitution’s clear specification that the “President is the Commander-in-Chief.


Col. Lind is either a disgrace to the uniform, or a coward who has just covertly handed LTC Lakin’s defense team a “home-run” issue to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court! A lengthy but very insightful interview with a legal military justice expert explains the background and history of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and WHY we must never give Obama an opportunity to declare “martial law,” which is brutal and NOT civilized, constitutional law as we normally comprehend it.

So far, three generals, all retired, have offered support for Lt. Col. Lakin. Retired Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, the highest-ranking officer yet to lend public support, has supplied an affidavit “in support of defense request for discovery/motion to compel.” The affidavit acknowledges widespread concerns over the putative President’s constitutional eligibility and demands that he release his birth records or the court authorize discovery. Lakin faces trial on October 13-15.

Extracts from the affidavit include:

The President of the United States, as the Commander in Chief, is the source of all military authority. The Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to hold office. If he is ineligible under the Constitution to serve in that office that creates a break in the chain of command of such magnitude that its significance can scarcely be imagined.

As a practical example from my background I recall commanding forces that were equipped with nuclear weapons. In my command capacity I was responsible that the personnel with access to these weapons had an unwavering and absolute confidence in the unified chain of command, because such confidence was absolutely essential — vital– in the event the use of those weapons was authorized. I cannot overstate how imperative it is to train such personnel to have confidence in the unified chain of command. Today, because of the widespread and legitimate concerns that the presumed President is constitutionally ineligible to hold office, I fear what would happen should such a crisis occur today.

In refusing to obey orders because of his doubts as to their legality, LTC Lakin has acted exactly as proper training dictates. That training mandates that he determine in his own conscience that an order is legal before obeying it…

For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that LTC Lakin’s request for discovery relating to the President’s birth records in Hawaii is absolutely essential to determining not merely his guilt or innocence but to reassuring all military personnel once and for all for this President > whether his service as Commander in Chief is Constitutionally proper. He is the one single person in the Chain of Command that the Constitution demands proof of natural born citizenship. This determination is fundamental to our Republic, where civilian control over the military is the rule. According to our Constitution, the Commander in Chief must now, in the face of serious– and widely held– concerns that he is ineligible, either voluntarily establish his eligibility by authorizing release of his birth records or this court must authorize their discovery. The invasion of his privacy in these records is utterly trivial compared to the issues at stake here. Our military MUST have confidence their Commander in Chief lawfully holds this office and absent which confidence grievous consequences may ensue.

The second general, Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely (Ret.) was less subtle when he said: “We need to demand resignations of Obama, his cabinet, and members of Congress.” He also stated that Obama is both “incompetent” and “ineligible.” Further, “The fix is in” and “The damages have been so great that we can’t afford to wait until the 2012 elections.”

The third General, Army Major General (Ret.) Jerry Curry, a decorated combat veteran, has issued a statement indicating that he agrees with Lakin that the (putative) President should provide proof of eligibility. Curry served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Carter administration, as Press Secretary to the Secretary of Defense for the Reagan administration, and has worked in international relations, public affairs, management, aviation, and research and development.

Folks, I’m terribly concerned about the future of our Republic. It is disgraceful that nearly every member of Congress knows Obama is ineligible. What are they afraid of? Are they are all afraid to act for fear that this will cause more racial uprisings — with big cities looting and burning — as happened before, following the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rodney King events? Or is there some other powerful force keeping them — and major media — silent about this matter? When people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Neal Boortz, and Sean Hannity are all afraid to discuss the matter, there is cause for real alarm. Even the U.S. Supreme Court is afraid to address the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas, testifying before Congress, stated, “We (the Supreme Court) are “evading that issue.” At the 1:00 min. mark of this 1:17 min video, Justice Thomas “spills the beans” — and then tries to act as if it were a joke.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA&feature=related

Attorney General Eric Holder (a demonstrated racist) was talking about our fears of honestly discussing racial issues when he asserted, “We are a nation of cowards!” He was indeed correct. Nevertheless, as a Citizen, you do need to understand this important issue of “eligibility” if you don’t already. Every patriotic citizen has a positive duty to understand the limitations imposed on our governments by the Constitution so that our liberties can be protected.

A five-minute video clearly explains why Obama is ineligible under the U.S. Constitution to be President (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5). Please view it. You will then understand why he is a bold Usurper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V77e6NfeBU

Some Closing Thoughts

Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must first arm themselves with the power that knowledge imparts. — James Madison ( “father of the U.S. Constitution”)

Hold on to the Constitution…and the Republic for which it stands — what has happened once in 6,000 years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution. — Daniel Webster

We must not let an audacious, clever, glib Marxist subvert it, nor diminish it. “Native born” (born in the land), is NOT the same as “natural born” (both parents must be U.S. citizens at the time of birth). Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 makes clear that the Founders recognized that there were various categories of “Citizens.” They decided that only “natural born” met the strict criterion of undivided allegiance needed for the President.

“Remember in November.” We must settle this with ballots; otherwise, bullets may be the ultimate solution.

Please, pray for our Republic.



© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved internationally, unless otherwise specified. To read more on our copyright restrictions, see our Copyright notice on the subheader of every page, along the left margin.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/09/23/jags-protecting-obama-have-committed-treason/

Saturday, September 4, 2010

'Highest law in this country is not Supreme Court, not commander in chief'

Battle-scarred judge: Lakin decision ignores Constitution

'Highest law in this country is not Supreme Court, not commander in chief'

The military judge who curiously noted without explanation that uncovering evidence about President Obama's birth records could prove "embarrassing" and denied an officer the right to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence in a court-martial simply has forgotten the Constitution, the supreme rule of the United States.

So says Judge Roy Moore, who battled the politically correct climate as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court a decade ago and ultimately was removed from office by a state panel that refused to review the constitutionality of a federal court order.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=199001

Thursday, September 2, 2010

AMERICAN THINKER

U.N. report clearly not treason, just treasonous
September 02, 2010

Mark J. Fitzgibbons


Apparently the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton's State Department consider our republican form of government a human rights deficiency.

As Carol Taber wrote, "Last week, the Obama State Department submitted a report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on the supposed human rights violations taking place in the United States." Michelle Malkin does her usual great job as well blasting the report.

Arizona's immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070, is referenced in the report's ugly circumstances:

"A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, justifiably upset, wrote a letter calling the report "unconstitutional" and "downright offensive."

Enacted lawfully by the State of Arizona, with provisions consistent with a federal statute, currently in a court challenge (opposed 2 -1 by Americans) by the Obama administration initiated before the law was implemented, and, of course, having violated no human rights, S.B. 1070 is a typical product of our American republican form of government, enacted at law and being litigated in our judicial system.

To air its displeasure with S.B. 1070 by referencing it in a human rights violation report to the U.N. clearly gives our foreign detractors and enemies comfort. This is a not-so-subtle attack on our republican form of government, the majority of Americans who support the law, and the majority of Americans who oppose the Obama administration's litigation against it.

It is treasonous, albeit, not an act of treason.

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Obama Administration 'Most Corrupt of All Time'

Glenn Beck: Obama Administration 'Most Corrupt of All Time'

August 20, 2010

Fox News host Glenn Beck tells Newsmax that President Barack Obama's White House qualifies as the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.

"There are so many things that this administration has done that I think will go down in history as ... it's going to go down in history as the most corrupt administration ever," Beck says in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview.

Beck's no-holds-barred assessment of the Obama administration's ethics comes as he is promoting an Aug. 28 celebration at the Lincoln Memorial called Restoring Honor.

The remark came as Newsmax.TV sought Beck's reaction to a recent statement that GOP Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl attributed to Obama.

Kyl said he asked Obama to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, but the president refused because it would reduce Republicans' incentive to compromise on immigration reform. The White House denied Kyl's account, but former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo wrote in op-ed column that Obama's stance "constitutes an impeachable offense."

Asked if he agrees with Tancredo, Beck replies "I'll leave that up to them."

But he goes on to say: "If the story is ever told, if the journalists ever decide to regain their soul to their journalist god – whoever that is, Walter Lippmann or I don't know who – if they ever care to redeem their soul, and actually look into the corruption and things that are going on in this administration, this administration will be exposed as the most corrupt of all time."

The Fox News luminary added that former President George W. Bush also failed in his duty to secure the border.

Beck spoke at length about Restoring Honor, described as a non-political effort to re-establish the values expressed when the nation was created.

"Trying to restore our country," Beck explains, "it's impossible to do it if we don't have honor."

According to the GlennBeck.com/828 website, the Restoring Honor celebration will pay tribute to America's military personnel for their embodiment of the virtue of honor.

The event is free, and all proceeds raised will go to the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which awards scholarships to the children of special-operations personnel who die in combat or training.

In the interview, Beck points to a recent Gallup poll that shows the 76 percent of Americans have a great deal of confidence in the U.S. military – much higher than the public has in any other institution.

Congress, by comparison, enjoys the confidence of 11 percent. The presidency has the confidence of 36 percent.

Big business and organized labor score 19 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

"I was pondering why [the military], and it's because they're honorable," Becks says. "They'll do the tough things. They'll do them because they're the right things to do. And we still believe in them ... generally speaking, they are the only things we still believe in, that and our religious organizations."

Controversy seems to follow Beck around wherever he goes these days, so it's no surprise his foes on the left are planning to hold a demonstration against his Restoring Honor rally. How could an event supporting U.S. war heroes and their families possibly be controversial?

Well, it turns out Aug. 28 happens to be the 47th anniversary of the day Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech, which also was delivered from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Beck says the choice of dates was accidental. But a smattering of protesters say they'll also be there on the Mall.

Beck opens up in the interview about the key role faith has played in securing the nation's future. Helping Americans rediscover their true identity, and their most cherished beliefs, is even more important than influencing political outcomes, he says.

"I have news for you," Beck tells Newsmax. "If anybody thinks this is going to be an easy transition, either into socialism, into the slavery of Marxism, or the transition back into our founding principles, it's not going to be an easy ride.

"It's going to get very, very bumpy. We're not at the bottom yet. However, there's one way to make it a lot easier. That is, for us to be the people we truly are, not the people that we've allowed ourselves to become. To reconnect with those inner virtues and values within ourselves.

"We do it naturally at the time of trouble, we did it on 9/12," he adds. "That's who we naturally are. Now let's master that to be able to be that way without the crisis, so we can logically think our way out of the trouble that we're in."

The Fox News host and perennial best-selling author also describes Sarah Palin's role in the event. "She's going to be introducing some of the heroes who will be on stage ... wonderful military people," he says. "She'll be introducing them, and talking about the honor and integrity of our military."

Other speakers scheduled to appear at Restoring Honor include Marcus Luttrell, former Navy Seal and author of the best-selling “Lone Survivor”; and Alveda King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. Country music artist Jo Dee Messina is expected to perform as well.

During the exclusive interview, Beck reserves his toughest critique for the current administration.

Asked whether a court decision granting the administration the authority require people to buy health coverage would lead to tyranny, Beck says, "Totally. I mean, we're there. If they can do this ... It's unconstitutional."

Beck says he won't try to predict how the courts might rule on the state-level challenge to healthcare reform's individual mandate. But he insists his track record for making predictions has been pretty good.

"Everyone who disagreed with me two years ago, said none of these things can happen. ... I'd ask them 'Why?' They'd say, 'Well, because, you don't understand politics.' Or 'You don't understand this or you don't understand this.'

"I said, 'You don't understand this: They don't care. Progressives don't care. They're not playing on the same rulebook.

"And now you've taken progressives and added revolutionary right next to them. The game is entirely different. So, predictions: Think the unthinkable," Beck says.

"What you thought couldn't happen a year ago, has. What you think can't happen next year, could."



Friday, 20 Aug 2010 04:50 PM By: David A. Patten Source:
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/glenn-beck-obama-corrupt-restoring-honor-military/2010/08/20/id/368040