Not only shocking but you can understand the lying that has been going on to cover up the dems protecting Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae causing the housing crisis. Go to archived files on this site and read when and who started economic crisis
Showing newest 21 of 47 posts from October 2009. Show older posts
Showing newest 21 of 47 posts from October 2009. Show older posts
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
FAX FREE OPPOSITION TO VAPOR BILL
TO SEND A FREE FAX IN OPPOSITION TO VAPOR HEALTH CARE BILL {doesn't have legal language} THE DEVIL WILL BE IN THE DETAILS THAT WE WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL LATER PELOSI HAS THIS ON FAST TRACK AND WANTS VOTE BY NEXT WEEK ANOTHER BILL TO BE VOTED WITHOUT TIME TO READ.
WE ARE GOING TO BE SCREWED WITHOUT ANY KISSES!!!!The bill will add a new section to the federal tax code: "PART VIII:HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES." Among the new taxes are penalties for individuals who don't purchase insurance and employers who don't provide insurance, income tax surcharges of up to 5....6% to those earning more than $1 million, and a 2.5% excise tax on medical devices To read the bill go to:
|
| | Transparency Resolution…Stop Vapor Bills (Click Here) Fax All Lawmakers Free Your Opinion About The Transparency Resolution |
Join American Voice
|
| | American Voice Community Members faxed 48,000 documents to the Senate Tuesday and Wednesday of this week in opposition of the "Vapor Health Care Bill". We find it unspeakable for the Senate to vote for a bill that they have not read and/or the American people have not read. The transparency resolution enacts a Senate rule change creating a 72-hour waiting period and a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score before considering any legislation in the United States Senate and all of its committees. (Click Here) Fax All Lawmakers Free Your Opinion About The Transparency Resolution "American Voice calls on President Obama who came into office on a platform of transparency in government to urge his former colleague Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to immediately take up this legislation. The American people want it, and as we wade into the health care debate, passage of this commonsense resolution will be critical." | |
| | (Click Here) Fax All Lawmakers Free Your Opinion About The Transparency Resolution Forward this email to friends and family we need to ensure that our Lawmakers know we are engaged and taking action against "Vapor Bills". | |
Pelosi Tax Doublespeak
Since when is a tax hike not a tax hike? Apparently when Nancy Pelosi uses political doublespeak to mislead the American people.Pelosi's linguistic contortions as she argues that a $1.4 trillion dollar tax increase -- one of the largest in America history -- on middle class families and small businesses isn't one at all.
Anyway you put it Patricia, the fact of the matter is the Obama and Pelosi Democrats don't believe you should be able to keep more of your hard earned income.
They support confiscating more of your money through higher taxes to fund their reckless spending and debt, expand the size and scope of government and redistribute your wealth to their liberal allies.
But Pelosi will not stop at $1.4 trillion in new taxes. Under her leadership, the Democrat controlled U.S. House has already passed a national energy Cap and Trade tax that could cost American businesses and families nearly $2 trillion and cause massive job losses.
There is only one way to stop Pelosi and Obama from raiding your pocketbook to pay for their liberal schemes: Electing Republican majorities to the U.S. House and Senate in 2010.
Republican Whip Eric Cantor on the Democrats heath care overhaul
“The striking thing that occurred today is when the Speaker had her announcement and unveiled their public option, she did so on public grounds in the West Front of the Capitol and frankly denied access to the public. I think that says a lot about what is going on behind closed doors in the process through which Democrats are going about crafting this legislation. The people in this country need to know exactly what is at stake."
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Shot Fired Into Home of Lou Dobbs of CNN!
We have just learned that someone has fired a gun at the home of Lou Dobbs, with his wife just a few feet away from the incident. The gunfire followed a series of threatening phone calls. Lou Dobbs is being targeted by the pro-illegal alien groups and pundits who feel that Dobbs is stopping Amnesty from passing. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti Defamation League, the National Council of La Raza, Media Matters, and Geraldo Rivera of Fox News are using false information to foment hatred towards Lou Dobbs or any American who speaks out against Amnesty or illegal immigration. They have pushed for Lou Dobbs to be fired and since CNN has refused to do that some people are now turning to violence to try and achieve their goals. The lies and hate coming from these radical pro-illegal alien groups is now manifesting in the form of gunfire fired into the occupied home of an innocent multi-racial family. Lou Dobbs is a great American who is standing up for the people of the United States and sharing information with the public that the elites want censored.
CONGRE$$ AT WORK
CONGRE$$ AT WORK
Nothing else needs to be said.
This is one of their THREE DAY WORK WEEKS that we all pay for.
I am ready to start from the beginning by voting out all elected officials and not letting any of them stay in office for more than two terms.
No more lifelong healthcare, retirement, voting in their own pay raises, taking perks on our taxes, etc.
House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, pictured standing, far right, speaks while colleagues Rep. Barbara Lambert, D-Milford and Rep. Jack F. Hennessy, D-Bridgeport, play solitaire Monday night as the House convened to vote on a new budget. (AP)
The guy sitting in the row in front of these two ... he's on Facebook, and the guy behind Hennessy is checking out the baseball scores.
These are the folks that couldn't get the budget out by Oct. 1!
So, we've got a 30 day budget extension. Well, guess what, 30 days from now we will be in the same boat.
I guess this makes it easy for the news 'reporters' as all they have to do is recycle the same headlines from this week and from 2 years ago. And these yo-yo's will still be playing SOLITAIRE!!!
Editorial: by Barbara Espinosa
I am sure that the millions of Americans who are unemployed would be willing to work more than 3 days a week, let's take them out of the unemployment line and put them in Congress and guess where we need to put Congress? Yep !! Right in the unemployment line.
China, India Cancel Copenhagen
China, India Cancel Out Copenhagen
Climate Change: With less than two months to go before the big Copenhagen Conference on global warming, two major nations have said "no thanks" to the no-growth agenda. For that reason alone, so should we.
Following a deal signed late Thursday between China and India, anything we might agree to do in Copenhagen is likely moot anyway. The two mega-nations — which together account for nearly a third of the world's population — said they won't go along with a new climate treaty being drafted in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012.
They're basically saying no to anything that forces them to impose mandatory limits on their output of greenhouse gas emissions. Other developing nations, including Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, will likely reject any proposals as well.
The deal was already in trouble. Three weeks ago, the Group of 77 developing nations met in Thailand to discuss what they wanted to do about global warming. Their answer: nothing.
William Hawkins, writing in the American Thinker, quotes a piece in China's Science Times journal that sums up how China — and other developing nations — feel:
"Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiations table?" the article's author, Wang Jin, asks. "The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries."
They see clearly what the rest of us seem to miss — that, for all its bad science, the Copenhagen Conference is about the world's Lilliputians tying down its Gullivers, not about global warming at all.
So, thanks to China and India, Copenhagen is dead — just as Kyoto was when it was signed in 1992, though no one knew it at the time. Without them, no global treaty on climate change will be workable.
The two nations are not only the world's most populous (with, together, more than 2 billion people), they are also the fastest-growing major countries. China is now the world's No. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases, and India is catching up fast.
Even with their participation, Copenhagen should have been a non-starter for the U.S. Indeed, the main reason for the greenhouse gas deal, all but admitted to by its major participants, is to cripple the U.S. economy — the most successful economy in the world.
True enough, as green critics keep saying, we produce nearly 20% of the world's CO2 and other greenhouse gases with just 5% of the world's population. But our GDP of roughly $14 trillion is nearly 25% of the world's total — in line with our gas output.
We provide jobs and consumption not just for Americans, but for tens of millions of people overseas whose livelihoods depend on satisfying the massive American market.
In case you're still worried about warming, stop. Since 1998, the data show global temperatures have fallen. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says this can't be happening. None of the IPCC's models shows a possibility of rising CO2 output and declining temperature.
But even Paul Hudson, the pro-warming-theory BBC climate correspondent, recently had to admit: "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise."
Yet, the IPCC estimates that "remediation" of the warming trend will cost about 1.7% of world GDP. In the U.S., that's about $240 billion a year. For the entire world, it's about $1 trillion a year — or $71 trillion over the next 70 years or so.
Proposals to slash CO2 won't work anyway. Department of Energy estimates indicate that 97% of all CO2 emissions would continue even if humans didn't exist.
Even so, climatologist Chip Knappenberger estimates that laws like the recent Waxman-Markey bill would, if fully enacted, reduce future warming by just 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100 — not enough even to measure accurately.
Can the world really afford to give up $71 trillion in the coming decades to solve a phantom problem?
Given the shoddiness of the science behind warming claims and the refusal of the biggest CO2 emitters to play along with the climate change sham, it would be economically ruinous for the U.S. to do anything other than wish the rest of the world a nice day, and go about our business. http://IBDaily.com
Reagan - A Time For Choosing
45 YEARS AGO Ronald Reagan said “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny." that time has come again. As conservatives face off against their own natural party, the GOP, in NY-23, Florida, and elsewhere, we should remember Ronald Reagan's famous speech, "A Time To Choose."
"Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.
And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down-[up] man's old-old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism...
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth...
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny."
"We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness." The full speech can be viewed on You Tube
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
COMMUNIST TYRANNY in AMERICA?
This same process occurred in Venezuela in 1999, today, Chavez is a virtual Marxist dictator
Communist tyranny in America? What must we know and do
By Toby Westerman Monday, October 26, 2009
There is the very real danger that a Communist tyranny could be coming to America. The key elements already are beginning to come into place: an attempt to concentrate power in the hands of the central government, the ongoing attack on the private sector, and the use of intimidation against all important media opposition. This same process occurred in Venezuela in 1999 after the election of Hugo Chavez. Today, Chavez is a virtual Marxist dictator.
While the United States certainly is not in the same position as Venezuela when Chavez was elected, all freedom loving Americans should be very wary of how mid-term elections in 2010 will be conducted, or if some "emergency" delays or prevents the midterm vote. Communists and "internationalists"—a new name for the same ideology—are elitists. They view themselves as the bearers of truth and righteousness, and, as a result, are intolerant of any opposition from Fox News to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Vital to the enduring success of any elected Communist government is the certainty that the opposition will never again gain power.The Marxist ruler of Ecuador (and Chavez clone), Rafael Correa, has recently stated his Communist government would never relinquish power. Chavez himself has made similar statements, as has another Chavez clone, Evo Morales of Bolivia.Chavez, who initiated the latest Communist drive in Latin America, is much admired among many in the Obama administration, especially by Bill Ayers who helped launch Obama's political career. There is the very real danger that Chavez's admirers may attempt to carry over not only the ideology but also the authoritarian lessons from Venezuela to the United States.
Attack on private property and the Internet
The latest in a series of attacks on private property and freedom of speech is being mounted against the Internet. The Obama administration's push for "network neutrality" is a thinly veiled attempt by the federal government to push out private investment and gain complete control of the last unregulated source of information. Leading the push to destroy the Internet as we know it is Susan Crawford, the so-called Internet Czar.
The Internet Freedom Coalition is leading the fight against this threat.
The presence of Communists or Communist sympathizers in the Obama administration is by now well known. There is, however, little public outcry. Imagine if instead of Communist, the term Nazi was applied, or, instead of Mao, the name Adolf Hitler was used.The left has adroitly dulled our reaction to the word Communist and what it means to human life. It is a lesson we must learn from others very quickly, or we ourselves will learn about the terror, imprisonment, and death which are essential ingredients of the Communist system.An estimated one hundred million people died from the time of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.And they are still dying. In prisons in Cuba, at the hands of pro-government gangs in Venezuela, in ambushes and bombings unleashed by Marxist guerrillas across Latin America (including Mexico) as well as in the Philippines and India.Death is essential to Communist rule. Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Bolshevik revolution, knew it and he initiated a reign of terror. In the first few months following the Communist seizure of power in Russia, Lenin killed more political enemies that did the Czars in the previous 100 years.Lenin established a secret police to protect his revolution, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage, best known by its Russian abbreviation, Cheka. Lenin put in charge of this newly founded organization Felix Dzerzhinsky, a committed Communist revolutionary who called for "hard men without pity" to fill the ranks of the Cheka.Every Communist revolution since 1917 has brought forth other "men [and women] without pity." From China to Cuba, and now to Venezuela and other nations in Latin America and beyond, the pitiless are again on the march, but this time some of the Communist revolutionaries are in American government.In a sense this has happened before. During the Roosevelt administration, Soviet agents held high positions in the government. Alger Hiss was a key adviser to Roosevelt and the first General Secretary of the United Nations at its founding in 1945. So was Harry Dexter White who guided the founding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as was Lauchlin Currie was a key figure in misdirecting our policy in China before Mao's defeat of Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-Shek. While Hiss, White, Currie, and others were Soviet agents, they did not directly attack the freedoms of U.S. citizens as is being done today. Americans at all levels of society must realize what being a Communist really means, both now and historically.Ignorance of the history of Communism is dangerous to those who hope to keep their God-given freedom, while it is shameful to neglect the memory of the millions who died because of this evil ideology.
There are efforts to change this situation. Dr. Lee Edwards, chairman of The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has told International News Analysis Today that his group is working with U.S. school teachers to provide a deeper understanding of the damage done to humanity by Communist tyranny. Edwards stated that teachers are open to his organization's efforts.There is hope, but we as a people must be alert, informed, and act reasonably upon the facts as they are discovered - no matter where they lead. It is time to challenge the lies, READ: Lies, Terror, and the Rise of the Neo-Communist Empire: Origins and Direction, order from http://www.inatoday.com/ or go to your favorite online book seller (locate by title). Toby Westerman Most recent columns http://canadafreepress.com
Monday, October 26, 2009
ON THE ROAD AGAIN
TEA PARTY ON THE ROAD AGAIN
OCTOBER 25 to NOVEMBER 12th Check the pictures below.
This is the Tea Party Express left yesterday from San Diego for it's second trip across America. Check to see when it will in your area and meet the bus. Check http://teapartyexpress.org/ for all the details
Sunday, Oct.25
San Diego, CA Los Angeles, CA
Monday, Oct.26
Bakersfield, CA Fresno, CA Tuesday, Oct.27 Tonopah, NV Hawthorne, NV Fallon, NV Wednesday, Oct.28
Carson City, NV Walnut Creek, CAThursday, Oct.29
Redding, CA Medford,OR Friday, Oct.30
Portland, OR Tacoma, WA Saturday, Oct.31
Tri-Cities, WA Spokane, WASunday, Nov.1
Helena, MT Bozeman, MTMonday, Nov.2
Rapid City, SD Tuesday, Nov.3
Cheyenne, WY Fort Collins, CO Denver, COWednesday, Nov.4
Wichita, KS Oklahoma City, OKThursday, Nov.5
Amarillo, TX Lubbock, TXFriday, Nov.6
Abilene, TX Austin, TXSaturday, Nov.7
Brenham, TX Houston, TX Beaumont, TXSunday, Nov.8
Baton Rouge, LA Jackson, MSMonday, Nov.9
Birmingham, AL Atlanta, GATuesday, Nov.10
Augusta, GA Beaufort, SCWednesday, Nov.11
Jacksonville, FLThursday, Nov.12
Orlando, FL
Lots and Lots More Pictures - click on the thumbnail to make the picture full size.
http://www.nomoreinvasion.com/forum/index.php?topic=4293.0
FOUNDING FATHERS
WHAT WOULD THE FOUNDING FATHERS THINK!!!!!
Tom Brokaw labeled the World War II generation the "Greatest Generation" -- but he was wrong. That honor belongs to the Founders -- the men who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for the cause of liberty, and who established the United States. The Founders were conservatives by today's standards -- for gun rights, limited government, and religion in public life. This was a generation without equal, and it deserves to be rescued from the politically correct textbooks, teachers, and professors who want to dismiss the Founders as a cadre of dead, white, sexist, slave-holding males.
Now, a clear-sighted conservative historian, Dr. Brion McClanahan, sets the record straight and revives the true history of these great men. In The Politically Incorrect GuideT to the Founding Fathers, he profiles all the leading Founders (and some unjustly neglected ones), debunks false attacks on their reputations, and shows how they have better answers to today's problems than our current politicians do.
George Washington fervently believed that God Himself saved the Revolution
Thomas Jefferson would have vetoed all federal domestic programs of the last one hundred years
John Adams considered virtue, morality, and religion to the bulwarks of a free republic
Alexander Hamilton did not believe in direct taxation or a large government debt
John Taylor of Caroline County, Virginia, predicted the problems of modern state capitalism and central bankingThe Founders believed in states' rights -- including the right to secede from the Union. for more information go to http://humanevents.com
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Defending the Constitution
Does the U.S. Constitution authorize congress to force Americans to buy health Does the U.S. Constitution insurance?
By
Publius Huldah Friday, October 23, 2009
Defending The Constitution From It's Domestic Enemies.
CNSNews.com recently posted an article, "Hoyer Says Constitution's 'General Welfare' Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance". In the article, Steny Hoyer (Democrat House Majority Leader) said Congress has "broad authority" to force Americans to purchase health insurance, so long as it was trying to promote "the general welfare". Oh my! Does Steny Hoyer not know that his view was thoroughly examined and soundly rejected by our Founders?
The Truth is that Congress is NOT authorized to pass laws just because a majority in Congress say the laws promote the "general welfare"! As shown below, James Madison, Father of The Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton, author of most of The Federalist Papers, expressly said The Constitution does not give a general grant of legislative authority to Congress! Rather, ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. If a power isn't specifically granted to Congress in The Constitution, Congress doesn't have the power. It really is that easy - and our beloved Madison and Hamilton prove it.
1. Let us look at the so-called "general welfare" clause: Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:
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…
Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. If you will spend 20 minutes carefully reading through the entire Constitution and highlighting the powers delegated to Congress, you will find (depending upon how you count) that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress. This is what is meant when it is said that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers!
2. But Steny Hoyer and his gang of statists claim that the "general welfare" clause is a blank check which gives them power to pass any law they want which they say promotes the "general welfare". Further, they claim the power to FORCE their view of such on us.
3. Let us analyze this. Since words change meaning throughout time [200 years ago, "nice" meant "precise"], we must learn what the word, "welfare", meant when the Constitution was ratified. "Welfare", as used in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, meant:
Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil govern-ment (Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).
But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: "Public relief—on welfare. Dependent on public relief". Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings? Or when the words of The Constitution are treated as if they have no meaning at all except that which the statists assign to them?
4.Both Madison and Hamilton squarely addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the "general welfare" clause constitutes a general grant of power to Congress. In Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an "absurd" "misconstruction" the notion that
...the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….
In refuting this "misconstruction", Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs "general terms" which are "immediately" followed by the "enumeration of particular powers" which "explain and qualify", by a "recital of particulars", the general terms. Madison also said:...Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…Madison was emphatic: He said it was "error" to focus on the "general expressions" and disregard "the specifications which ascertain and limit their import"; and to argue that the general expression provides "an unlimited power" to provide for "the common defense and general welfare", is "an absurdity".
No. 83 (7th para), Hamilton said:...The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an
affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended... [italics added]
5. And what else did Madison and Hamilton say about the "enumerated" powers of the federal government? In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), Madison said:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…[emphasis added] Madison said it again in Federalist No. 39 (3rd para from end):
...the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects…." [emphasis added]
In Federalist No. 14 (8th para), Madison said:... the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...[emphasis added] In Federalist No. 27 (last para), Hamilton said:...It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…[caps in original]
6. Now, let's look at the 10th Amendment:
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, we can understand the true meaning of the "general welfare" clause: OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the "general Welfare", i.e., the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society and civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited and restricted in what it was given power to do!
7. So! How did we get to the point where the federal government claims the power to regulate every aspect of our lives, including forcing us to buy health insurance? Consider Prohibition: During 1919, everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply "pass a law" banning alcoholic beverages! So the
Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).
But with Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the federal government abandoned our Constitution: FDR proposed "New Deal" schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that "New Deal" programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to "pack the court" by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).Since then, law schools don't teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the "general welfare" clause, along with the "interstate commerce" and the "necessary and proper" clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!
Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute nailed it in his recent post on Politico.com:
Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don't? Absolutely—if we lived under the Constitution. But we don't.
Today we live under something called "constitutional law"—an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions—and that "law" reflects the Constitution only occasionally.
Now you see how the statists justify the totalitarian dictatorship they are attempting to foist upon the American People. The statists and the brainwashed products of our law schools go by U.S. Supreme Court opinions which reject Our Constitution! (But Publius Huldah goes by The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers).
8. But is the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on the meaning of our Constitution?
NO! Hamilton said the people are "the natural guardians of the Constitution", and he called upon us to become "enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority." (Federalist No.16, next to last para). Madison (or Hamilton) said that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by "..the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance" (Federalist No. 49, 3rd Para).
Folks! Your duty is clear: Study The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Federalist Papers. Live up to the expectations of Hamilton and Madison; and throw off the chains which the usurpers are forging for you and Our Posterity.
Using primarily The Federalist Papers, which were written during 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay, in order to explain the proposed Constitution to the American People and induce them to ratify it, Publius Huldah explains the true & original meaning of the U.S. Constitution. She also shows how modern day judges on the U.S. federal courts have completely abandoned the U.S. Constitution and have substituted their own personal views and opinions for The Constitution. Publius Huldah is a retired lawyer who lives in Tennessee USA http://canadafreepress.com/
Oath of office for President:
Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution specifies the President's Oath of office.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Oath of Office for Congressman and Senators
For Congressmen, Senators of the United States as set forth in the US Constitution
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The first oath that was enacted in 1789 had only 14 words
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."
Today's oath since late 1800's
I ( name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God
My observation is that the above oaths of office have not been taken seriously for several years { aprox. 60} that elected politicians have not read the constitution or choose to blatantly ignore it and do as they please "We the People" shall be ignored. editorial by: be
AMERICAN FREEDOM
'
Let's not discuss Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize any longer, it's old news, let's move on to other things.
One last thing as an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any
FREE CELL PHONE
ADVICE OF THE DAY
"Never make someone your priority when you are merely their option" The worst thing is holding on to someone who doesn't want to be held on to.
HAIR ON FIRE STORYThis one will really drive you nuts..............................
I'll wager you didn't know this. Wonder what else we are paying for that we do not know about....
I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation
he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his Obama phone. I asked him what an Obama phone was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive (1) a FREE new phone and (2) approx 70 minutes
of FREE minutes every month. I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES. This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window. You can click on the link below to read more about the Obama phone¦.
I wonder how many drug deals are made on these phones?? We should have drug testing for the free phone recipients don't you think?? Like welfare in general .... if they have enoughmoney for illegal drugs ... they should be dropped from the roles we have to pay for https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx
"STIMULUS NOT WORKING"
The White House is walking back its extraordinary claims about the "stimulus" legislation. A top administration economist admits that the $787 spending bill will likely have minimal effects going forward. In addition, she said unemployment will remain above 9.5 percent for another year -- this after the administration claimed the program would cap unemployment at eight percent. As a result of the federal government's spending binge, Congress will soon have to increase the national debt limit to more than $13 trillion. A more serious reform would rein in runaway spending and pare back waste. http://heritage,org/'CZAR'S WON'T TESTIFY"
The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress - a decision senators said goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the administration's actions. Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress. Miss Collins said that doesn't make sense when some of those czars are actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama. "I think Congress should be able to call the president's climate czar, Carol Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the negotiations she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant policy changes with regard to emissions standards," Miss Collins said at a hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars. The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to have advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to fear being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be able to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the president advice. At issue are the 18 positions Miss Collins says Mr. Obama has created since he took office. Of those, she says 10 - the White House says eight - are in the executive office and not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests or requests for testimony. Czar is an informal term given to the positions. Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the government affairs committee, asked the White House to provide a witness for Thursday's hearing but it did not send one. In a letter last week to Miss Collins, though, Mr. Craig explained that the White House is not trying to circumvent Congress. "We recognize that it is theoretically possible that a president could create new positions that inhibit transparency or undermine congressional oversight. That is simply not the case, however, in the current administration," Mr. Craig wrote. Mr. Craig said the new positions Mr. Obama has created within the White House "are solely advisory in nature" and have no independent authority. Senators disagreed with that evaluation, pointing to Mrs. Browner and health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is Mr. Obama's health care adviser. "We do happen to have a Cabinet officer with Health and Human Services with whom I have never had a conversation on health care, not because I have any opposition to her but because it's my perception Nancy-Ann DeParle is calling the shots," said Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican. Criticism of czars has boiled over after talk-show host Glenn Beck - who senators at the hearing repeatedly referred to as "he who shall not be named" - began a campaign to highlight their proliferation in the Obama administration. But Miss Collins said she's been looking at czars for months, and she doesn't have problems with many of the czars Mr. Beck has criticized. Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins critiquing Mr. Beck's positions. Legal experts testifying before the Senate panel said Congress needs to be careful not to overreach in reacting. They said options open to lawmakers include writing new laws to restrict advisers' authority or writing the positions into law as needing Senate confirmation. A White House aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are trying to work to accommodate "all reasonable congressional requests for information" and said some White House advisers have given informal briefings to members of Congress in lieu of testimony. The aide also said some czars are outside the White House itself and they can be called to testify. The aide said five of them have already done so. Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri Democrat, blasted Republicans for raising the issue and said she took offense at their comparisons between Mr. Obama and President Nixon. She said Congress should instead be looking at the legality of presidential signing statements to shape how laws are implemented - a tool whose use expanded substantially under President George W. Bush. Last month, Miss Collins offered an amendment to compel administration officials to testify, but it was ruled not germane to the bill being debate. Democrats said it went too far because it would have covered all executive branch employees, including the national security adviser and the chief of staff, who have always been recognized as out of bounds. Miss Collins said the issue shouldn't be so intractable and that Congress and the White House should be able to agree on a list of people who should be able to testify. For his part, Mr. Lieberman said he's still looking for a good solution. "We both share a desire to do something about this to help Congress uphold our responsibility for oversight, but we understand the balance here as reflected in the Constitution," he said http:washingtontimes.com.com
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Orson Welles Battle Hymn of the Republic
This is BEAUTIFUL! Our Republic. Our United States of America. Will there need to be another march to this song, or will Washington "HEAR US NOW" Folks lets take back our country.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?
We can no longer afford to sit back and let other people take the
lead. There is no time left. As the man says in this video, we are in the eleventh hour, the fifty-ninth minute and the fifty-ninth second. Every one of us is needed to stop this out of control freight train that is about to run us over. We must become the majority voice and speak out against socialism and tyranny. We can only do this with your help. If you think that you can stay home and let others voice their concern then you don't understand how important and serious this is and how dangerous inactivity will be to your freedom. This administration is about to take control of every aspect of your life and I guarantee that they will do it in a way that you will not like. They want to LOWER your standard of living with higher taxes, they want to control your healthcare, your utility and fuel usage,your freedom of speech, your right to own and use guns, your freedom of religion, etc. They are about to take away every right we are guaranteed by the constitution and they are in the process of doing it RIGHT NOW!.....I don't think the President can do this on his own I believe if I read the Constitution correctly it would have to ratified by 2/3 of Condress and the Senate. Check it out for yourself before you take it as gospel. BE
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Don't Shut Us Out
As President, Obama has reverted to closed-door politics, especially when it comes to health care reform. He has held multiple meetings that have been closed to Republicans, journalists and cameras, not to mention the very citizens that elected him. America must respond. We have too much at stake to be shut out or silent in this crucial moment.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
FIRED UP!!
READY TO GO (AFTER EACH OTHER)!
While Obama Attempts To Rally Support For His Health Care Experiment, Congressional Dems In "Civil War"
TONIGHT, OBAMA HOLDS WEBCAST RALLY FOR GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE: "President Obama will join Organizing For America's 'Time To Deliver' events via webcast tomorrow, in an effort to drum up support for his health reform bill ..."
(Jillian Rayfield, "Obama To Join OFA's 'Time To Deliver' Health Reform Webcast," Talking Points Memo, 10/19/09)
BUT RALLYING CONGRESSIONAL DEMS IMPOSSIBLE AS THEY FIGHT OVER WHO'S TO BLAME
NBC'S Ken Strickland: "[T]here Is Clearly A Civil War Within The Democratic Ranks." (MSNBC's "Live," 10/16/09)
Associated Press: "You May Think Democrats And Republicans Are At Odds Over Health Care. Well, They've Got Nothing On House And Senate Democrats Going After Each Other." (Erica Werner, "House, Senate Dems At Odds On Health Care Overhaul," The Associated Press, 10/19/09)
Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) Blames Obama For "Failing To Lead Democratic Troops" On Health Care. "'[A]s much as I want this administration to succeed, they did not present a piece of legislation to the United States Congress. We still don't have a piece of paper that says what his plan is. We're kind of like pilots flying blind,' he added. The congressman also faulted the president for failing to lead Democratic troo ps during the contentious August recess period. 'It was the perception of many that the administration stayed on the sidelines of the summertime healthcare debate until the president, rightly so, addressed a joint session of Congress and solidified this as being a top priority.'" (Michael O'Brien, "House Dem: Obama Not Leading On Healthcare," The Hill's "Briefing Room" Blog, 10/19/09)
White House Attacks AFSCME President Gerry McEntee For Speaking Out Against Health Insurance Tax. "'We have had just about enough of his gratuitous slaps,' said a senior White House official Friday, calling the politically charged language 'outrageous and unacceptable' from an ally -- even from one that had, the official noted, devoted substantial resources to health care efforts. 'He's doing his members a real disservice,' said the official, who said that while all other labor leaders had been careful to keep their opposition to elements of health care proposals modulated and largely inside the tent, McEntee was 'beyond the pale.'" (Ben Smith, "Labor Chief Takes On White House," Politico, 10/17/09)
Left-Wing Group Attacks Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) With TV Ad Over Public Option. "The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is launching an ad Wednesday asking whether Senate Majority Leader Reid is a strong enough leader to pass a public option. The ad will air on cable and broadcast channels in the Las Vegas market." (Chris Frates, "Reid's Political Fix Could Mean Public Option Slips Into Senate Bill -- Progressives Buy Ads On Las Vegas TV -- White House Annoyed By Slaps From Labor Allies -- Palin Turns Wonky," Politico's "Politico Pulse" Blog, 10/19/09)
AND DEMS STILL IN DISARRAY OVER PUBLIC OPTION, TAXES TO PAY FOR EXPERIMENT
Senate HELP Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) Wants Senate Dems Opposed To Public Option To Give Up. "'There are 52 solid Democrats for the public option,' said Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who is chairman of the health committee. 'Only about five Democrats oppose it. Should the 52 give in to the five? Or should the five go along with the vast majority of the Democratic caucus?'" (Carl Hulse & Robert Pear, "Health Care Poses Stiff Tests For Top Democrats," The New York Times, 10/18/09)
But Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) Says Public Option "Alive" But Doubts There Will Be Enough Votes. "On a conference call with reporters moments ago, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus said that the public option is still alive, adding, in a familiar refrain, that the question for Democrats now is what kind of public option can get 60 votes. ... 'It's alive... We're trying to see what makes the most sense.' . .. [H]e did ultimately hit that point, casting doubt on the idea that a health care bill that includes a public option that pays hospitals and doctors at Medicare-like rates, could overcome a filibuster ...'" (Brian Beutler, "Baucus: The Public Option Is Alive...We're Just Not Sure What Type," TPMDC, 10/19/09)
Senate Dems Won't Pass Strong Public Option, But House Dems Insist On It. "House Democrats are adamant about allowing the government to sell insurance to people who don't have affordable care and are too young for Medicare or make too much money for Medicaid. The leading Senate bill contains no such public option and even if senators ultimately agree to some public plan variant, it's certain to be much weaker th an the House version. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has staked out an uncompromising position on the issue. 'I want to send our conferees to the table with the most muscle for America's middle class,' she says." (Erica Werner, "House, Senate Dems At Odds On Health Care Overhaul," The Associated Press, 10/19/09)
Senate Finance Dems' Bill Doesn't Have Employer Mandate To Buy Insurance While Other Dems' Bills Do. "The House includes a requirement for employers to provide insurance coverage to their employees or pay a penalty. There's no such mandate in the leading Senate bill. Instead, employers would be required to pay a fee for any employee who obtains coverage with government subsidies. The distinction may seem subtle, but it makes a big difference to business groups and Democrats on both ends of the ideological spectrum." (Erica Werner, "House, Senate Dems At Odds On Health Care Overhaul," The Associated Press, 10/19/09)
Senate Dems Want Tax On Health Insurance While House Dems Prefer Income Tax Hike On Small Businesses. "The Cadillac plan tax faces major opposition in the House, where more than 100 Democrats oppose it. Some of the opposition stems from organized labor which fears its members could be subject to the tax. House members say their approach -- a tax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year and households maki ng more than $1 million -- is a fairer way to go and would find more favor with the public. Some senators share concerns about the high-value insurance plan tax and have already decided to adjust it so more plans are exempt, according to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa. But some senators are skeptical about making a small group of the highest-income Americans pay for everyone else, and they're adamant about the need to use a financing mechanism that would have the benefit of keeping down health care costs." (Erica Werner, "House, Senate Dems At Odds On Health Care Overhaul," The Associated Press, 10/19 /09)
Behind Closed Doors
Just like President Obama, Senator Reid and Congressional Democrats promised a more open and transparent government. But Senator Reid is crafting the Democrats’ government-run health care experiment behind closed doors with his handpicked liberal allies in the Capitol. The American people should not be fooled by empty promises – any legislation that Harry Reid and Chris Dodd assemble behind closed doors will increase taxes on American families and small businesses, cut Medicare for seniors, cripple state budgets, and lead to a government takeover of health care. Sadly, Harry Reid and Chris Dodd are more interested in backroom deals than living up to their own promise of transparency.” – RNC Chairman Michael Steele
Behind Closed Doors
Just like President Obama, Senator Reid and Congressional Democrats promised a more open and transparent government. But Senator Reid is crafting the Democrats’ government-run health care experiment behind closed doors with his handpicked liberal allies in the Capitol. The American people should not be fooled by empty promises – any legislation that Harry Reid and Chris Dodd assemble behind closed doors will increase taxes on American families and small businesses, cut Medicare for seniors, cripple state budgets, and lead to a government takeover of health care. Sadly, Harry Reid and Chris Dodd are more interested in backroom deals than living up to their own promise of transparency.” – RNC Chairman Michael Steele
Sunday, October 18, 2009
AMERICAN FREEDOM Money Money
The Obama administration spending money "like it grows on trees" or you have your own printing press. Oh! I forgot he has the Treasury and they have a printing press. Beside the point the more they print the less the dollar is worth. Hey! But, let's just print some more.
Several noted economist say that this administration in a few short months in office has the largest deficit in history. A former CBO administrator said in an interview that the way the Obama administration is spending America cannot reduce the deficit anytime soon. Is Obama on the road to bankrupting America or is part of the 12 step plan for America to join other nations in becoming a communist/socialist country. More on 12 step plan….http://www.cpusa.org BE
Greenspan proves he's not a Krugman-Keynesian, calling for no new stimulus and a wait-and-see approach to the nascent recovery. He issued his harshest words for the out-of-control debt and deficit numbers saying we are nearing the Def-Con 5 level for Treasury's capacity to fund our grand debt experiment.
21 straight months of job losses,
the longest stretch in 70 years.
6 Americans for every 1 job opening... 7 million jobs gone since Dec 2007.
We are on track for almost 3% growth in the fourth quarter.
We will penetrate the 10% unemployment barrier and stay there for a while.
"NO NEW STIMULUS!" No new stimulus because only 40% of the first stimulus has been used, and there is a lot of debate in the economics community as to just how effective this is (tell me about it!)...stimulus still has 60% left to go.
"If you try to do too much to help the recovery, you can actually be counterproductive."
"This is what a recovery looks like."
"Medicare is only 50% funded."
"...quite concerned about the debt and deficit levels and projections for future levels. The national debt cushion we have kept for generations is being threatened."
AP: 'The Obama administration projects deficits will total $9.1 trillion over the next decade unless corrective action is taken. 'SHOT -- PETER ORSZAG, White House budget director, in a statement yesterday revealing a record $1.42 trillion deficit for year ending Sept. 30, more than triple the figure for the previous year: 'As part of the FY 2011 budget policy process, we are considering proposals to put our country back on firm fiscal footing.
--Wash Post lead story, 'Record-High Deficit May Dash Big Plans: $1.4 Trillion in Red Ink Means Less to Spend On Obama's Ambitious Jobs, Stimulus Policies,' by Lori Montgomery and Neil Irwin: 'The federal budget deficit soared to a record $1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ended in September, a chasm of red ink unequaled in the postwar era that threatens to complicate the most ambitious goals of the Obama administration, including plans for fresh spending to create jobs and spur economic recovery. Still, the figure represents a significant improvement over the darkest deficit projections, which had been as much as $400 billion higher earlier this year, when the economy was wallowing in recession. ... At about 10 percent of the overall economy, the gap between federal spending and tax collections is the largest on record since the end of World War II, and bigger in nominal terms than the past four years of deficits combined. Next year is unlikely to be much better, budget analysts say. And Obama's current policies would drive the budget gap into the trillion-dollar range for much of the next decade.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
