senate (42)

 

By Oscar Y. Harward

 

President Obama and/or any others are ‘off target’ in referring to ObamaCare as the ‘Affordable Care Act’.  ‘Affordable’ is actually the reverse.   ObamaCare in not ‘affordable’ for almost all Americans with the exception being to those whose plan is to ascertain their Health Care ‘free’.

 

America, we have and had a very well working Health Care system prior to ObamaCare legislation.  A majority of Americans were pleased with their own Medicare, employer/employee group(s), family and/or individual plans, or other forms of Health Care; including Medicaid.

 

Obama’s and Capitol Hill Democrats’ ObamaCare is merely a ‘redistribution’ of the wealth.  ObamaCare is taking more from the working ‘middle class’ employers and employees while giving more to so many who are unwilling to work at all, or unenthusiastic about working smarter and harder for greater personal achievement(s).

 

President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats continue to say Republicans haven’t offered any alternative.  While you and I understand that is a ‘lie’, the Democrats are making points with the ‘less than informed’.  Capitol Hill Republicans have offered multiple responsible plans in Health Care; all voted down by Liberal Democrats.

 

Again, a large majority of working and retired Americans were satisfied and/or pleased with their previous plans of Health Care.  All Americans must be reminded as such.

Read more…
An open letterChairman, House Judicial CommitteeThe Honorable Bob GoodlatteCongressman Goodlatte,I will grant, I am not one of your constituents - yet you are the Chairman of the House Judicial Committee and to this position do I write.The other day I discovered Senate Resolution 511 dated April 10, 2008. The official document is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/textIt appears (then) Senator's Clinton and Obama signed as submission a resolution to the Senate Judiciary Committee; the resolution Senator McCain was #1. Born on US Soil and #2. Born of two (2) parents who were US Citizens, resolving the controversy of his bid for the Presidency in the 2008 elections...I cannot find a similar resolution determining Barack Hussein Obama meets the same Constitutional requirement of "Natural Born Citizen" and I defer to Supreme Court case 88 U.S. 162, Minor v. Happersett, 1875; for Supreme Justice Waite's definition of the term - which landmark reference is not found in the White Paper the House Judicial Committee wrote on the topic...Sir, I charge you, as the Chairman of the House Judicial Committee, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the rules of the House of Representatives, the Rule of Law and US Code and remove Barack Hussein Obama and this administration as quickly as possible.I need not cite all of the evidence from Congressional inquiries, Investigations and intelligence Congress has already gathered documenting the lawlessness of this entire administration - the simple fact Mr. Obama does not meet Constitutional eligibility requirements for the office of President is sufficient to remove him and this administration.Yes Sir, it is just as simple as that.I and millions of Americans - Democrats and Republicans - understand the implications of this - the requirement of overturning every law he has signed, the requirement of removing every person he has appointed - and we are good with that.As a Nation, we can work through that. I strongly suspect that you will discover millions of Americans who - like me - will willingly devote their time and skills to this effort at the direction of Congress - without pay.The House and Senate need to uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law - else, what are we as a Nation? This goes far beyond party bounds - this is the freedom of the People of this Nation at stake, our National Security at stake.This is not something that can be neglected nor simply swept under the rug to be forgotten later - this is the Rule of Law and a requirement of the Constitution this Nation was founded upon - the same document our Nation is supposed to be run by.Here, you have a Senate document validating the exact issue of Constitutional eligibility for Senator McCain in his bid for Presidency in 2008 and President Obama, in the long form Birth Certificate presented on the White House website, affirms his Father was a Kenyan - a British subject - not an American Citizen as required under the Constitution of the United States for the position of President.I find no Senate resolution verifying Barack Hussein Obama is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States!To wit; Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible for the office of President in 2008 and he and his administration must be immediately removed in its entirety.Congressman Boehner must be appointed interim President until such a time as lawful elections can be arranged and we as a Nation need to return our Federal Government to the grounds this Nation was founded upon. The Constitution of the United States.Our Constitution is quite clear on this topic; there is no elite class in the United States.Respectfully,SFC (retired) Aubrey Mason13306 Gable Village Dr.San Antonio, Texas 78231(210) 602-4291cc: Social media, severalTea Party Command Center
Read more…
An open letterChairman, Senate Judiciary CommitteeThe Honorable Patrick LeahySenator Leahy,I will grant, I am not one of your constituents - yet you are the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and to this position do I write.The other day I discovered Senate Resolution 511 dated April 10, 2008. The official document is here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/textIt appears (then) Senator's Clinton and Obama signed as submission a resolution to the Senate Judiciary Committee; the resolution Senator McCain was #1. Born on US Soil and #2. Born of two (2) parents who were US Citizens, resolving the controversy of his bid for the Presidency in the 2008 elections...I cannot find a similar resolution determining Barack Hussein Obama meets the same Constitutional requirement of "Natural Born Citizen" and I defer to Supreme Court case 88 U.S. 162, Minor v. Happersett, 1875; for Supreme Justice Waite's definition of the term - which landmark reference is not found in the White Paper the House Judicial Committee wrote on the topic...Sir, I charge you, as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the rules of the Senate, the Rule of Law and US Code and remove Barack Hussein Obama and this administration as quickly as possible.I need not cite all of the evidence from Congressional inquiries, Investigations and intelligence Congress has already gathered documenting the lawlessness of this entire administration - the simple fact Mr. Obama does not meet Constitutional eligibility requirements for the office of President is sufficient to remove him and this administration.Yes Sir, it is just as simple as that.I and millions of Americans - Democrats and Republicans - understand the implications of this - the requirement of overturning every law he has signed, the requirement of removing every person he has appointed - and we are good with that.As a Nation, we can work through that. I strongly suspect that you will discover millions of Americans who - like me - will willingly devote their time and skills to this effort at the direction of Congress - without pay.The Senate and House need to uphold the Constitution and Rule of Law - else, what are we as a Nation? This goes far beyond party bounds - this is the freedom of the People of this Nation at stake, our National Security at stake.This is not something that can be neglected nor simply swept under the rug to be forgotten later - this is the Rule of Law and a requirement of the Constitution this Nation was founded upon - the same document our Nation is supposed to be run by.Here, you have a Senate document validating the exact issue of Constitutional eligibility for Senator McCain in his bid for Presidency in 2008 and President Obama, in the long form Birth Certificate presented on the White House website, affirms his Father was a Kenyan - a British subject - not an American Citizen as required under the Constitution of the United States for the position of President.I find no Senate resolution verifying Barack Hussein Obama is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States!To wit; Barack Hussein Obama was not eligible for the office of President in 2008 and he and his administration must be immediately removed in its entirety.Congressman Boehner must be appointed interim President until such a time as lawful elections can be arranged and we as a Nation need to return our Federal Government to the grounds this Nation was founded upon. The Constitution of the United States.Our Constitution is quite clear on this topic; there is no elite class in the United States.Respectfully,SFC (retired) Aubrey Mason13306 Gable Village Dr.San Antonio, Texas 78231(210) 602-4291cc: Social media, severalTea Party Command Center
Read more…

We are in deep America!

Whatever happened to the days when all of us felt safe in America? I am not talking about threats from foreign invaders, or cyber-attacks but from inside this nation itself. I am talking about the Politicians that we have elected. I do admit that I am guilty of voting those into office that care more about their political careers and bank accounts than what their constituents in their districts need. Don not get me wrong, a very small percentage may care, but the whole systems needs to be revamped. To my understanding of American history our politicians, either local or federal was to serve one purpose. That is to serve the interest of the American people. Then again look at America 2013, a mess in many senses politically.

I am active in social media and I have seen and read man opinions about politics today. Obama, Biden and their Democratic Party views and so called accomplishments. The Republicans and all of their solutions to our nation’s problems and debts. Wake up America what I see here, and what anyone can see is that these people are not helping, but hurting this great nation. Do you know how much it hurts that every day we have to worry about what is being taking away from us, what taxes are going up, what programs are being lost, and how our lives are suffering because of these people.

What we need to do is change the system. Too many of us are comfortable with the politicians that we currently have in office. But stop and think people about what I am saying here. Take someone voted into Congress 10 years ago. This person was for example a normal everyday lawyer with the average bank account of $100,000. Not he or she is voted into Congress and with a yearly salary of $174,000. Ok in 10 years their total salary was $1, 7400.00. But they had bills, expenses and a family to pay for. Now explain to me why their net worth is 3 or even 10 times more than that. Where did this money come from? Why did they receive it in the first place? If you or I had this mysterious money comes into our bank accounts we would be immediately questioned and possibly audited. My point is that it is seriously obvious that special interest groups are feeding out Politicians money for their own special needs, and that our lovely Politicians are voting for where the money comes from, than what the people need.

I have read somewhere that the modern Politicians that we have in Congress and the Senate hate each other’s party’s so much that no matter what the one proposes the other will automatically vote against it. Whatever happened to “For the People”? In 2013 it is for themselves and their careers. They would rather vote in ways to get their careers boosted than vote on what helps us. I say enough of the way the political system is run now. We need something different.

Change

                What needs to be done is simple. Change things. Change that is in office, change the way the system works, change the way we vote, and change the way we feel. I myself work in a truck stop. If I did not do my job to the requirements of the management of this business I would easily be fired. Why can these politicians. So what do I do, I bust my butt to make sure I do my job to the best of my ability. We need to resort to the days where Congress had to vote for us or be voted out. They have too much security in their offices. Change the system, change the ways our Congress is “helping” America. We need a “Voting Revolution”. If Congress can’t do their job we need to mass vote them out of their respective offices and replace them with individuals who shall work for us, not for themselves.

I am one voice, one vote. We need to get everyone on the same page as I am. Some of you will not agree with me, some more (hopefully many more). But we need to act now because if not our system and out way of life will end as we know it and all of us will be zombies to a corrupt, selfish uncaring political system. There is a heck of a lot riding on change, and not just domestically. Congress is so blindsided by their hatred and stubbornness toward the other party that our American way of life will cease to exist. Look at the threats of China…that is another issue to deal with…

                  

 

Read more…

By Oscar Y. Harward

 

Do you know what Capitol Hill Democrats are doing to you?  Are you aware of Senate and House Democrats’ efforts to add more government debt on you and I as well as more taxes from your take-home pay, and/or leave more owing debt to (y)our children and their children; for them to pay?  Republicans have offered a list for cutting $2.5 Trillion spending.  Capitol Hill Democrats reject almost all spending cuts.  Why does Capitol Hill Democrats refuse to cut out-of-control spending to balance the budget?  Repeal of ObamaCare, alone, would save Hundreds of Billions of dollars for Americans’ working taxpayers.

 

What does Americans know about ObamaCare?  Importantly, a current Rasmussen Reports finds that 54% think the U.S. Health Care System will likely worsen over the next couple of years. 

 

What Americans do know, they do not like.  Regardless, Senate Democrats continue to ‘cram ObamaCare down (y)our throats’.

 

On March 22, 2013, the US Senate voted on a Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) Amendment for full repeal of ObamaCare.  The Amendment is totally clean: ‘To establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and to encourage patient-centered reforms to improve health outcomes and reduce health care costs, promoting economic growth.’

 

With all of these and more barricades harming Americans and our US economy, on a March 22, 2013 Roll Call, the US Senate Democrats rejected ObamaCare repeal.  All 45 Republicans voted “YEA” to ‘repeal’ ObamaCare.  All 52 Democrats and 2 Independents who usually vote Democrat (Exception- Lautenberg (D-NJ)-No Vote) voted “NAY” on repealing ObamaCare.

 

Based on the Congressional Budget Office, ‘ObamaCare is still projected to have a gross cost of over $1.6 trillion from 2013 to 2022.’  Reports now say Americans’ consumer costs under ObamaCare will double their current insurance costs.  With a failing economy with more and more Americans losing their jobs under President Obama’s economic hardship, how will our people survive? 

 

Who is responsible for paying ObamaCare for ‘Illegal immigrants’?  On March 23, 2012, Senate Democrats rejected new legislation that would have prevented ‘illegal immigrants’ granted legal status and federally subsidized health care.  All 44 Republicans except Sen. Murkowski (R-AK) voted “YEA” to stop ObamaCare from insuring ‘illegal immigrants’.  All 52 Democrats and 2 Independents who usually vote Democrat (Exception- Lautenberg (D-NJ)-No Vote) voted “NAY” in allowing ObamaCare to insure ‘illegal immigrants’.

 

The Hill says, ‘Comprehensive immigration reform could make millions of people suddenly eligible for assistance under President Obama's healthcare law, assuming a final deal paves the way for undocumented immigrants to receive papers.’

 

In most states, owners/operators of most cars, trucks, and other motorized vehicles driven on our public roads and highways are required to maintain liability insurance.  The liability insurance costs are based on his/her vehicle(s), their personal and/or hazardous lifestyle, their personal history, their driving record, and/or other histories, etc.  Each individual’s liability insurance cost is reflective to the individual and their vehicle(s), and each person must pay accordingly.

 

Under ObamaCare, the more “good living and healthier lifestyle” individuals are “penalized” and “forced to pay” the excessive costs for the “not so good living with a more different, and, perhaps, dangerous lifestyle” individual.  Regardless of anyone’s age, sex, personal, and/or hazardous lifestyle (illegal drugs, alcohol. etc.), and/or any other reason, all individuals and their costs are treated exactly the same; just as others in Socialists and/or Communists countries.

 

The Wall Street Journal reports, ‘Central to ObamaCare are requirements that health insurers (1) accept everyone who applies (guaranteed issue), (2) cannot charge more based on serious medical conditions (modified community rating), and (3) include numerous coverage mandates that force insurance to pay for many often uncovered medical conditions.’

 

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) says, “Defunding Obamacare would save the government a few billion dollars."  Beyond that, Huelskamp said "it will help millions of Americans keep their current employer-sponsored health insurance, it will stop HHS (Health and Human Services Department) from continuing to implement a very unpopular law that's driving up premiums."

 

Repeal of ObamaCare will benefit all working Americans personal budgets while helping to create and expand more jobs leading to an American economic recovery.

 

In today’s society, there are folks who ‘work for a living’, and there are folks who ‘vote for a living’.  These prior listed motives include and are revealing as to how President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats are playing Santa Clause spending (y)our taxpayers’ money on countless ‘giveaways’ to others who ‘vote for a living’ as well as on issues to ascertain ‘illegal immigrants’ in voting on elections, if approved.  Are there any uncertainties?

Read more…

4063680048?profile=original            Save America Gun rights advocates rally for Second Amendment in Utah

Round one of the gun control battle on Capitol Hill has been seemingly won by default by the protectors and supporters of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. This win for gun rights advocates became obvious to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this week. He ordered Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to pull the so-called assault weapons provision from the bill. This bill had been passed by the Democrat controlled Judiciary Committee.

This comes on the heels of what appeared by many vote counters inside the Washington D.C. Beltway to be headed for total defeat. Even Reid’s own count reportedly indicated the most Democrat votes, that could be mustered to support the assault weapons ban was only 40. This is far less than the 60 votes President Obama needed to prevent a Republican filibuster of the bill. This is a victory for gun rights in the continuing congressional gun control battle

For the hysterical claims and attacks raised by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's in an attempt to strong arm national gun rights supporters with their bluster, it is a bitter defeat. This is also an important set back to the hysterical theatrics that the president displayed as he attempted to use his bully pulpit to force congress to submit to his will after the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

Despite the facts that demonstrate the shooter Adam Lanza, was suffering from apparent severe mental illness issues, Obama resorted to scare tactics to pin the blame on gun rights. This is where he failed to exercise true presidential leadership. He clearly purposed his focused on fear mongering because it was what the liberal media hysteria machine wanted and craved. After all, who would be able to sustain the withering assaults from the main stream media, he had to reason.

But, Obama and the alphabet soup of media networks underestimated the commitment of gun rights and constitutional advocates who were unwilling to witness nor permit the undoing of those basic rights Americans who dear. When the president felt he was falling back on what he thought was an easy target, gun owners, gun owners and supporters instead locked arms and moved forward!

Even former astronaut Mark Kelly’s recent cheap trick to spur on support against gun owners did not prevail. He tried to resurrect the legitimate sincere sympathy Americans felt over the attack upon his wife, former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. She had survived a vicious attack in an armed assault against her which resulted in the tragic deaths of six victims in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011.

Kelly tried in vain, in March to dramatize that the legal buying of an AR-15 style weapon was somehow a national news story special bulletin about the evils of assault style weapons. It fell flat, because Kelly had purchased the gun legally and had gone through the proper legal guidelines to register the weapon. So where was the story and where was the news if everything he did was legal?

( click to read more )

Read more…

My latest blogs have concerned themselves with the means at our disposal to effect positive changes in the government.  During our discussion today I will be talking about the Tea Parties.  Yeah.  That pluralization is deliberate.

 

Let’s talk about three things in that regard.

  1. Unity of Purpose
  2. Unity of Core Values
  3. Unity on Issues

 

 

There seems to be three tea parties in our country and they differ in kind. 

There is The Tea Party Patriots with a web site located here. They claim to be the original and have three basic principles which almost all conservatives can agree on.

Then there is the Tea Party Command Center a somewhat pretentious name and organization that has fifteen “core values”.  All of them good, but they represent a shot gun approach to what is essentially a surgical situation.  Their primary benefit to the movement is their strict adherence to the first amendment and allowing any member to post blogs with any content.  Good site, but you sometimes have to get through the rants to find the good stuff.  Website here

Then there is The Tea Party Express.  The web site is here.  if you look in their “about” page you will see six mission statements.  The second of which is pertinent here:  Reduce the size and intrusiveness of government.  I don’t really know much about this one except I have learned to read the news they put out.  Usually quite trustworthy.

OK.  Let’s talk about that solution I mentioned.

There are actually enough votes out there to stop the liberal agenda if these groups and their spinoffs can just get together on a one or two issue agenda for the very next election.  Yes I am saying we could take over the senate and put some real conservatives in the house.  We could begin to correct the Obama agenda of destruction.

The key (and hardest part) of that program is getting so many people to agree on which is the right path.  Of course I have some suggestions and some reasoning to back them up.

The very FIRST thing is a voter ID law in the key states at the very least.  Let’s take a look at the state of Nevada as a prime example.  Harry Reid has been elected each time after going into election day behind in the poles by a considerable number of points and that number grows with each election.  He also gets elected each time regardless of those polls.  Makes one wonder how many of the dead in that state come back to life for the election.  Or try California.  Yeah, I know lots of illegals voting but that doesn’t account for Feinstein.  A true mental midget and devout Democratic minion and voter, regardless of her constituency.  Pennsylvania:  Mitt Romney actually got ZERO votes in some precincts!  Now that is just not feasible!  Florida – it would seem that many admitted non citizens took pleasure in voting, some more than once, if we are to believe the news.  Legal actions?  None.  Ohio – a democrat poll worker openly admitted to voting twice for Obama and in fact for the entire democratic ticket.  It even made the news! Action taken?  None.  She wasn’t even removed from the list of poll workers for upcoming election.  The list goes on and on and on.

Enforced voter official ID laws will stop many if not most of these abuses.  The left argues that Voter ID will disenfranchise the elderly and others.  Again this is a gross exaggeration.  The complex I live in is almost entirely senor citizen in population and I know of not one person that didn’t vote because of age or infirmity. Voter ID would not change that.  A certified photo copy of your state ID, already a requirement in almost all states, works just fine for the absentee voter.  So just who would it disenfranchise?  Only those unable to vote legally.  So I guess it might truly disenfranchise a lot of the liberal support.  No wonder they oppose it.

The only other thing we need in the immediate future is a term limit amendment.  One of my earlier posts used the figures of one term for the US Senate.  3 terms for the US House. 

Don’t misunderstand me here I like the proposed “28th amendment that is all over the emails for the last few years.  I just believe this one is more, much more, necessary in the immediate future..

The only way I see any of this happening is for the various Tea Party factions to get their act together and present a united front for once.  Perhaps firing a couple of their more unanalytical analysts. I honestly believe that if they and we concentrate and I mean CONCENTRATE our resources on just one big thing like the voter ID in most states, we will have a good chance of reversing some of the damage commencing right after the next congress is sworn in.  Think about it.  Please.

Read more…

To Serve Man

There is a debt of service due from every man to his country, proportioned to the bounties which nature and fortune have measured to him.

Thomas Jefferson[i]

 

Have you ever wondered what is meant by the term ‘public servants?’ I suppose these days it depends on who is either using or misusing the term. If you look at any of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution, you will see men who believed in public service. And I will show you examples of this. I have absolutely no doubt the founding fathers of this nation knew what the term meant: to serve the public for the greater good; public servants. But what is today’s meaning? As I have shown in other treatises about the Legislative and Executive Branches, our politicians are extremely self-serving. They concern themselves with the aggrandizement of their bank accounts by trading stocks using classified information, they take money from lobbyists, they believe in nepotism even though House Ethics Rules forbid the practice and there have been earmarks where Congressmen have made vast sums of money at our expense. There have been incidents such as Watergate and Iran/Contra, plus there have been organizations like the Suite 8F Group. All of these examples have been of our present day public servants, but they only served themselves. I believe our illustrious, or should I say lusterless politicians believe public servant means something altogether different, such as the public as servants; public servants. The term public servants isn’t really a double entendre, but it has been perverted into just that; a term with a double meaning, which when used by our smiling two-faced professional prevaricators, has rendered us all into nothing more than offal on the slaughterhouse floor, to be devoured as carrion by our vulture-like politicians. I suggest we take a look at some of our forefathers and find out just what it means to be a public servant.

I found something interesting on a blog called Dover Beach. John Adams wrote, “Public business…must always be done by somebody…If wise men decline it, others will not; if honest men refuse it; others will not…Integrity should be preserved in all events…through every stage of his existence. His first maxim should be to place his honor out of reach of all men[ii].” John Adams does make me ask a few questions. Do our elected leaders today have this same belief? Are our leaders in any way wise or honest? Do they have integrity or honor? One might think that as the most powerful nation on the planet, the answer to these questions would be an unequivocal yes. Unfortunately, just the opposite would appear to be true. Our elected leaders are only wise in their deception to the public and their honesty is always a matter for debate. As far as integrity and honor, I seriously doubt you can have either if you aren’t wise and honest, but I would state our politicians possess neither. But there isn’t a reason to go over the dirty-laundry list of our politicians again; I would simply direct you to read some of my other treatises or read whatever you can find on our leaders of today, then you can answer the question yourself. This is more about the founding fathers of this nation and their beliefs with regard to public service, so we will know exactly what it is to serve the public. We can easily look back at history and state with certainty, the founders were an extremely wise and honorable group of men, who possessed a great deal of integrity and honor. All one really needs to do in order to know this is read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and they will come to that conclusion.  John Adams finished his thoughts for the most part with these words, “In order to do this he must make it a rule never to become dependent on public employments for subsistence. Let him have a trade, a profession, a farm, a shop, something where he can honestly live, and then he may engage in public affairs, if invited, upon independent principles.” I cannot fathom in this day and age, a politician who isn’t a career politician; much less one who has undertook public affairs upon independent principles. Certainly some have been quite successful before they entered public office, but we see these people feeding from the public trough for twenty, thirty years at a time, while gorging themselves at the cost of our nation’s wealth and well being. And they consider themselves to be righteous! No matter how much they have, they want more and actually increase their net worth while in office at an astronomical rate. This isn’t public service, it’s gluttony and avarice.

 

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it is obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.

James Madison[iii]

 

As I was reading George Washington’s first inaugural address, it made me think about what was just written about John Adams and his beliefs regarding public service. While it may seem as though I am actually going backwards, from the 2nd U.S. President to the 1st U.S. President, I believe what George Washington said in his first address simply underscores what John Adams averred. George Washington stated, “Since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained[iv].” Washington’s ardent belief that man is perpetually bound by his association to the truth through the immutable bond between his virtue and his happiness, his moral obligation and his circumstance, his generous course of action and the blissful rewards of his office, reminds me of Adams when he spoke of wisdom, honesty, integrity and honor; without these four maxims which Adams spoke of so fervently, there can be no truth which Washington spoke of so eloquently. As our first President, Washington knew this new nation would rely on his wisdom, honesty, integrity and honor, and his duty as our first President relied on truth to the people. His reward was not only his happiness but the divine advantage given to him by the people and by God. Washington was happy to serve, he sought nothing more than the opportunity to be a public servant in a prosperous nation of people, “When I was first honored with a call into the service of my country…the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation…I must decline as inapplicable to myself any share in the personal emoluments…and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the station which I am placed…be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.” I cannot say it enough times; George Washington’s only desire was to serve the public. His reward was the honor of the office itself; he eschewed any monetary compensation other than the expenses which were appropriate in relation to the Office or greater good of the nation. I realize there are politicians in this day and age who receive no more than $1 for their service, which is admirable. I can only believe they are not only fans, but followers of our forefathers. Men like Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison truly believed leadership was best accomplished by being a public servant, and by being a public servant they were able to lead by example.

I would like to take a moment and speak about the 5th President of the United States, a man who is considered to be the last founding father of this nation who was President, James Monroe[v]. Monroe had a long history of public service to this nation; his final service was obviously as the President. Just prior to Monroe’s departure for Europe after being appointed as Minister to France in 1794, he gave his nephew some advice which gives us some insight into Monroe himself, “You may by your industry, prudence, and studious attention to your business…advance your fortune and reputation in the world, whereby alone your happiness or even tranquility can be secured[vi].” I believe Monroe was telling his nephew that only through the careful and diligent application of his endeavors would he truly be able to increase his wealth and his repute or good name. And from those endeavors alone would he find happiness and the inner-peace of an honest businessman. How many men these days tell their own sons such things? Monroe then said, “Solid merit and virtue alone will support and carry you with credit through the world.” Once again, here is a man who espouses good, hard, work not only done honestly but done with a good moral center or righteousness as a mantra for a way to live a good life.  But if you look at Monroe’s reasoning for telling his nephew this, you can see where public service comes into play. “The principle danger…if he errs, he inflicts the most incurable wound on his reputation, is the abuse of pecuniary confidence. Let me, therefore, warn you never to use your client’s money…for the protection of virtue, it should never be commenced.” This was really just the beginning of Monroe’s cautionary advice to his nephew with regard to vice and virtue. Monroe, like the rest of the founders, believed that virtues were Heavenly as vices were not. The belief that a man’s reputation was his name meant everything. If one was to get caught with their hand in the so-called cookie jar the lack of confidence in the man and his name would simply be irreconcilable. This all goes right back to George Washington and trust, John Adams and wisdom, honesty, integrity and honor. Without any of those five traits, there is no virtue, no good reputation and certainly no happiness or tranquility would or could follow a man throughout his life. Monroe further stated to his nephew, “I would make it one of those sacred rules of my life which should not be violated.” There can be no doubt James Monroe knew any type of service to others, especially public service, cannot be done without a virtuous reputation which fosters trust. Are we able to say this of our present day politicians? Think about the seven deadly sins and the seven Heavenly virtues for a moment. Most people could name the sins, but not the virtues. Which seven do our politicians follow?

 

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

George Washington[vii]

 

I have been asked why I write these papers. My only response can be that I find what the founders said and wrote to be extremely enthralling. That being said, and with regard to this paper, in no way do I claim these treatises are a public service of any kind. If anything, I believe they are simply a vehicle for me to express what infuriates me with regard to our government today and if these treatises actually possess anyone to think about the state of the union, if I am allowed to make that pun, I believe it is a good thing. But I cannot help but to compare our modern times and political leaders of the day with that time of our past political leaders which we call our forefathers and recognize the predominant chasm which exists between them. Truly, I believe if our politicians carried themselves in a manner akin to the forefathers of this nation, with the same passion for our Constitution and showed the wisdom and an honorable determination to lead by virtue rather than vice; perhaps I could and would be content. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

I was asked by a friend, “Why do you put your own name on these treatises rather than using a pen name? Don’t you think if they ever read this stuff you will get into trouble?” My response was actually quite simple. I told him, “Do you really think the shameless lot of bottom-feeders who are running this nation into the ground care about what I think or say? After all, I really have nothing to lose.” Certainly, any fraudulent charge could be trumped-up against anyone, but that’s nothing more than an exercise in futility. I say this because it would only tend to confirm what I write and what I claim to believe. Of course, the point is moot. After all, today’s politicians habitually speak out publicly against each other without a modicum of truth to what they say and in as harmful a manner as possible. I at least give honest examples of what I believe. Their sole purpose is to publically malign and destroy their political rival for personal and political gain. As I have previously stated, I only want people to think. But privately, I would bet they [these political rivals] are friendly sipping Dom Perignon, eating fillet mignon and lobster while washing it down with a bottle of Chateau Lafite-Rothschild together, and on our dime. I simply can’t imagine the founding fathers of this nation carrying on in such a dishonorable manner. What we witness is nothing more than a public dog and pony show which is meant to appease us, as well as divide us in a partisan manner, while they privately scratch each other’s backs and reap the abundant rewards of the dishonest lawmaker. Besides, if you look at the bigger picture, such as the way our infant-like politicians constantly bicker with each other and the odious nature of their discourse (especially during an election year), I would have to say that I’m really being quite generous.

Think about John Hancock for a minute. This man didn’t just sign the declaration of Independence, his signature was so large compared to the rest of the signers, he may as well have had a neon-sign with arrows pointing directly at him. John Hancock had his wealth, property, position, family and his life to lose. Of course, in no way am I or would I compare myself with John Hancock who I consider to be a great man and leader. So that comparison just isn’t possible. I am only trying to point out a man, a leader, who really had something to lose, but did the honorable thing despite the overwhelming risk. The vast majority of us today are a mere fraction of what any of our founding fathers were, and we should all be extremely grateful for their sacrifice, intelligence, courage, selflessness, honor, integrity and public service. We should also remember to view them as true role models.

Stop and think about what it is to really put yourself in jeopardy. Look to our troops throughout the history of this great nation who courageously put themselves in harm’s way on a daily basis, that’s public service. Or look at the fire departments throughout the nation, while people are running out of burning buildings, who risks their lives by running inside to save people and property? The firemen do and that’s public service. When there is an armed robbery or a kidnapping or any number of other violent crimes being committed, who wades in while putting themselves in danger? Someone in law enforcement does. These people have families and they have something to lose, yet they still come to the aid of others, that’s public service. And there is a seemingly endless list of other professions which also provide a public service to our nation. Are any of these people our servants? No, of course they are not. However, they are all public servants and they all do their duty which serves the public interest. How can it be that the leaders of a nation are not held in such high esteem? Personally, if I was a politician, I believe I would be offended. Yet the ordinary people of America who are in these various professions, don’t stand there telling you how great they are, they stand there and tell you how great America is. Yet our politician can’t wait to have a press conference and tell you about their exploits and accomplishments, which are nothing more than mere fantasies! So I would have to ask you, who really are our leaders?

So, after all of this has been said.  Who are our leaders and public servants? Is it our forefathers, our elected and appointed politicians, or those Americans who daily risk their lives for us? The easy answer is our forefathers, there can be no doubt they knew what public service was all about; George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Hancock as well as every other founder who was an honest and honorable upstanding man. Then there are the regular Americans who work within the vast variety of professions who daily risk their lives or who work under conditions so deplorable that most of us would not wish it on an enemy, these people are certainly our leaders. Perhaps they aren’t elected, but they are leaders nonetheless and they certainly know what public service is. And lastly, we come to our elected and appointed politicians. What can I say? If these people had the wisdom, honor, integrity, honesty or sense of duty the size of a mustard seed I would undoubtedly fall over dead. But it would appear as though all they desire from public office is to find the lamp which holds their Djinn, so they may rub it and be granted whatever they wish. Sadly, what they wish for is the public to be their servants.

 

 

 

An avaricious man, who might happen to fill the office, looking forward to a time when he must at all events yield up the emoluments he enjoyed, would feel a propensity…to make the best use of the opportunity he enjoyed while it lasted, and might not scruple to have recourse to the most corrupt expedients to make the harvest as abundant as it was transitory.

Alexander Hamilton[viii]

 

 

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

 

 

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

 

References



[i] Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government; Duties of Citizens, http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1700.htm

[ii] Dover Beach; John Adams on the obligation of honest people to engage in public service, http://lifeondoverbeach.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/john-adams-on-the-obligation-of-honest-people-to-engage-in-public-service/

[iii] Founding Fathers Info; Federalist No. 51, James Madison. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

[iv] American Presidents Life Portraits; First Inaugural Address, George Washington, Thursday, April 30, 1789: New York City. http://www.americanpresidents.org/inaugural/01a.asp

[vi] American Statesman James Monroe; In his Relations To The Public Service During Half A Century, 1776-1826, pp 179-180. http://archive.org/stream/jamesmonroeinhis00gilmuoft#page/n7/mode/2up

[viii] Founding Fathers Info; Federalist No. 72, Alexander Hamilton. http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

Read more…

Backwards Thinking

A general dissolution of principals and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Samuel Adams[i]

 

The sanctioned backwards display of the U.S. flag is a perfect example of the backwards thinking of our federal and State governments, as well as our laughable policy-makers in general within the United States. The sad examples of what we call leaders, do much more than support this sort of idiocy, they enthusiastically promote more of the same. But there are other examples of backwards thinking we can look at, not just the flag. Let’s look at the bills Congress passes or attempts to pass. Even a moron tries to read what he is going to sign, although he may be incapable. But Congress routinely signs bills without reading them. The Legislative and Executive Branches have created more public debt than could be paid off in a millennia, yet they continue to foolishly borrow more money from foreign nations with the sole intent of giving that same money to other foreign nations in the form of aid which will never be repaid, only to leave the U.S. taxpayer dangling on the hook with more debt to suffocate him. We allow this by giving the so-called fix to our junkie lawmakers time and time again. Another example is government refusal to police our international borders while we police the borders of foreign nations who neither pay for the service nor wish for our presence in those nations. At the same time, they encourage and we allow overzealous policing of ourselves by an overly militarized police force right here in the United States. Then there is the hypocrisy of government when they speak of the evils of China and Russia (or the former Soviet Union if you will), only to turn around and gladly incarcerate more U.S. citizens than either China or Russia incarcerate, and at a staggering cost. But remember, we are the ‘land of the free.’

So what do We the People do? We enable these forked-tongued prevaricators by giving them whatever they desire, rather than disabling them so they have to slither on their bellies like the snakes which they actually are. This is the backwards thinking of our government officials at every level and these are just some of the tools which they are using to happily bury us with what appears to be our consent.

If you look at the U.S. flag code Section 175 (i), which deals with the position and manner of display of the flag. It states, “When displayed either horizontally or vertically against a wall, the union should be uppermost and to the flag’s own right, that is, to the observers left[ii].” Just so you are not confused by this, it is quite simple. The canton or union, which is blue and holds the stars, always, goes in the upper left hand corner as the crowd is looking at it. So if you hang the flag from your porch, while you look out of your own window and see the canton in the upper right corner, to the people who pass by and see the flag, the canton is in the upper left hand corner. Now we get to my problem. The backwards display of the flag on military uniforms as ordered by the federal government. While the U.S. Army claims this ‘backwards’ display has always been the case (at least for the Army), so the soldiers appear to be advancing and not retreating is really nothing more than a misleading argument. In no way is it possible for a patch of the U.S. flag on the shoulder of a uniform capable of giving anyone the appearance of retreating. I looked at hundreds if not thousands of photos of troops who fought in WWII through the Viet Nam War; I could not find one photo of the patch which was displayed in that fashion. If there was a patch, the canton was always in the upper left corner, I don’t care on what sleeve the patch was on. If you look at old photos of U.S. military aircraft, if there was a flag on the starboard side of the aircraft, the canton was in the upper left hand corner. I asked a friend of mine who is a retired U.S. Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant if I was right or wrong, he agreed with me. He stated, with a disturbed look on his face, “The canton always goes in the upper left corner, but in the upper right…that was never the case.” The canton always was in the upper left hand corner, until maybe 2002-2003 when some mental midget in the government thought it would be a good idea. I know people think this is a good idea, I personally think it is disgraceful, wrong and it makes me sick. Let’s move on, because the government and at least some of the people seem to have what they want, something backwards.

 

A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the objects of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can best be attained.

Joseph Story[iii]

 

Since the Republican National Convention just happened in Tampa Florida and the Democratic National Convention is happening right now in Charlotte North Carolina, these are good examples. According to an article, “Congress set aside $50 million for security at each of the party conventions for 2012, for a total of $100 million. The total cost to taxpayers of the two national party conventions in 2012 exceeded $136 million[iv].” Here in Tampa, it was like some sort of police state. I personally have never asked the government to protect me in this manner. There were barricades impeding pedestrians and vehicles, cops in gangs roaming about. In fact you couldn’t walk 100 ft. without encountering a bunch of them. Did they bother people? No, but that isn’t the point. If I wanted to live in the Middle East, that’s where I would go. So are we to actually believe, our so-called leaders need this type of security? If they do, then they are obviously doing something wrong. I cannot believe the security was to protect them against al Qaeda, because we know it was to protect them from Americans. What would possibly make U.S. politicians feel as though they need that type of security to protect themselves from U.S. citizens? If the massive security was to protect property from protesters, then it also seems like overkill. People do have the right to protest, whether I agree with them or not. But to assume they will be a violent mob in some way violates the 1st Amendment; the right to the people to peaceably assemble. Where does it say peaceably assemble under threat of an overly militarized police force? Or in the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; nor be deprived of…liberty…without due process of law. Barricades and an excessive police presence do in fact deprive us of our liberty. But once again I will state, in no way did the police act in a Nazi-like fashion. However, I still have a problem with the apparent lack of trust by our elected government officials who feel this type of security is needed with regard to U.S. citizens.

An example of our leaders not paying attention is the Read the Bills Act of 2011 (RTBA). Why would there need to be such an Act if our legislators actually read what they were signing? According to Downsize DC, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens. Neither should it be for Congress[v].” The report goes on to state, “Any member of Congress wishing to cast an affirmative vote for more spending, greater regulation, or the creation or retention of a program of bureaucracy, must sign an affidavit swearing that he or she has either…read the entire bill or heard the entire bill read.” Can you actually imagine our geniuses in Congress passing legislation without reading the bill first? Keep in mind, this isn’t like reading a thousand page novel, this is difficult stuff and takes time, effort and thought. We know there is absolutely no way they can read and understand something that large or complex in a short period of time. Maybe if the plumbing wasn’t so difficult, it wouldn’t be so easy to stop up the drain. Bills should be simplified and they should stick to the proposed idea or intent of the bill and not have phony pork-laden trailers added ad nauseam. So the easy answer to what has been happening is, Congress is and has been passing bills without reading them. I believe this is criminal behavior. Why you ask? Simple, fraud is a crime in the United States. To enact a law which affects us all without knowing what is actually in the law is fraudulent. The devil is always in the details and lawmakers should know that. US News reported, “Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives…all but admitted that few if any members of Congress will read the healthcare reform bill before voting for it[vi].” Representative Hoyer further stated, “If every member pledged not to vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes.” That would actually be a good thing. But be that as it may, it certainly is nice to know our elected leaders don’t find it important enough to take the time to read, digest and discuss the bills which have a huge impact on American citizens. Someone should really slip in something that states these fools will accept a 95% pay cut, but you can bet they would read that part of any bill.

 

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.

John Marshall[vii]

 

A perfect example of us borrowing money just so we can give it back to the same nation would be China. House “Republicans and Democrats bashed the programs during a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Asia and Pacific panel, calling them a “giant mistake of thinking” by the State Department and “an insult” to taxpayers in America[viii].” For once I can actually applaud the words of some politicians. But, even though Congress controls the purse-strings, they still allow this to happen. So once again the State Department and their misguided foreign policy agenda strikes and our impotent House members can only be ‘insulted.’ According to the Daily Mail in the UK, “The U.S. is providing hundreds of millions of dollars of foreign aid to some of the world’s richest countries – while at the same time borrowing billions back[ix].” Articles like this one make it very difficult to think that U.S. lawmakers aren’t slightly ‘special’ when it comes to intelligence. The report went on to name some of the countries receiving the aid in 2010, “China…$27.2m, India $126.6m, Brazil $25m, and Russia $71.5m. Mexico also received $316.7m and Egypt $255.7m.” This is why we pay so much money in taxes. The government throws our money around the globe like the Secret Service does while on duty in a Columbian brothel. How and why we allow this to continue is beyond me, but it is quite easy to see why our public debt as of 4 September 2012 is a whopping $16,009,448,000,594.65[x]. Remember how Thomas Jefferson described public debt, as “A departure of principle” which reduces us to “Mere automations of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering…The fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression[xi].” Thomas Jefferson was not wrong.

According to Vet Friends, “No military in the history of the world has been more widely deployed as the United States. Currently, the United States has military personnel deployed in about 150 countries…This covers 75% of The World’s Nations[xii].” In a Tampa Bay Times report, Ron Paul states, “We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke[xiii].” Even if we split the difference between 150 and 130 nations, that’s still 140 nations out of roughly 196 nations (that number changes depending  on who is calculating the number). Still, if we had those troops in the United States, securing our borders instead of everyone else’s borders, do you think it would cost so much? Plus, the United States and our borders would be better protected and at a much lower cost to the taxpayer. Does South Korea really need us there to secure the DMZ? I’ll bet if we left and told them what they do is their business, the ROK would stomp on North Korea in no time. How about Europe? Maybe Europeans nations should guard their own borders, I like Europe, but if they can’t handle their own security, maybe they should be called something else. Either way, that wouldn’t be my concern, it would be theirs. My concern as should be the concern of all Americans is the United States of America, not every other nation on the planet. Read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. To ‘provide for the common defence… to ourselves and to our Posterity’ is for the United States, not Korea, Germany, or any other nation. I don’t believe in the U.S. being the policemen of the world and if we are going to be that, then I believe people of other nations should be paying us handsomely for the service.

Let’s take a moment to talk about prison populations around the globe. While we all know for a fact we are the land of the free, which might not actually be true when you stop to consider we have more people in prison than any other nation on this planet. According to Nation Master[xiv], we have 715 people out of 100K people in prison, while Russia has 584 per 100K and China has 119 out of 100K. If you take these numbers, you come up with about 2.5m incarcerated in the U.S. to China’s 7.14m. If Nation Master’s figures are correct, and if you figure China has 6 billion people and we have 350 million, then we still incarcerate the most per capita. Stop and consider the fact that China has a population over 17 times greater than the United States, but we have a third as many people incarcerated. However, in a 2006 report by Natural News, “The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population.” The report goes on to state, “A report released by the justice department…a record 7 million people -- were incarcerated, on probation or on parole at the end of 2005, with 2.2 million of them in prison or jail[xv].” So how ever you do the math, the United States has far more people incarcerated than any other nation per population. Then there is “China ranking second with 1.5 million prisoners, and Russia sitting in third with 870,000.” A CBS News report about the U.S. prisons or ‘Incarceration Nation’ stated, “A report by the organization, “The Price of Prisons,” states that the cost of incarcerating one inmate in Fiscal 2010 was $31,307 per year. In states like Connecticut, Washington state, New York, it’s anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000[xvi].” It seems fairly obvious there has been a push in the United States to incarcerate as many people as possible in order to sustain what I believe is an institution which has no intention of ever getting smaller. Prisons are now being built and operated by private companies, not that it wasn’t bad enough to have the government doing this to their own people, now it is for-profit prisons and we all know they are only going to get bigger. “Is it fair to call the United States “incarceration nation”?” Fairness has nothing to do with what is happening in the United States to the people through petty laws meant to strip us of our freedoms and keep us locked up in prisons so a profit can be turned.

 

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Patrick Henry[xvii]

 

We should all remember how the founding fathers of this nation wanted limited federal government. While the people within each sovereign State can easily make up the laws as they see fit, nobody needs to go there if those laws are too draconian. But when the federal government gets it claws into you, there is little chance you will ever break free. While you may or may not like my analogy of the backwards flag, keep in mind our so-called leaders are backwards, and they prove it time and time again. Why else would they pay $100 million for security for 2 weeks of political conventions, when we know they are trying to protect themselves from us, not to protect the cities from a foreign attack. Why would they sign bills without reading them? Those bills impact us greatly. Why would they borrow money from foreign nations only to give it back to foreign nations, while we suffocate under a $16 trillion plus public debt? Why would we have our troops in 75% of the nations of the world, while we are policed by an overly militarized police force right here at home? Are we that much of a threat? Yet our borders protections are much like a malfunctioning sieve, allowing practically anyone or anything to pass. I guess in the end that is why we have 5% of the world’s population and 25% of the world’s prison population. It’s nice to know the U.S. government has such affection for its people. Perhaps we should show our government the same kind of affection. I realize they don’t think the laws apply to them, but they do.

 

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

 

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

 

REFERENCES

[i] Mark’s Quotes; Founding Fathers Quotes, Samuel Adams. http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/

[ii] The Flag of the United States of America; U.S. Flag Code, http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

[iii] Mark’s Quotes; Founding Fathers Quotes, Joseph Story. http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/

[v] Downsize DC; The Read the Bills Act of 2011 (RTBA), https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/

[vii] Mark’s Quotes; Founding Fathers Quotes, John Marshall. http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/

[ix] Daily Mail UK; U.S. gives billions of dollars in foreign aid to world’s richest countries – then asks to borrow it back, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393960/US-gives-billions-foreign-aid-worlds-richest-countries-asks-borrow-back.html

[x] US National Debt Clock; The Outstanding Public Debt, Ed Hall. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[xi] Spirit of America Liberty Quotes; Quotes from the Founding Fathers, http://dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

[xii] VETFRIENDS; US Deployment Facts – How many US Troops are Overseas? http://www.vetfriends.com/US-deployments-overseas/

[xiii] The Tampa Bay Times; Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/

[xv] Natural News; United States imprisons more people than China, Russia or any other nation, experts say, http://www.naturalnews.com/021290_prison_system_incarceration.html

[xvii] Mark’s Quotes; Founding Fathers Quotes, Patrick Henry. http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/index2.htm

Read more…

How to Legislate for Yourself

Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.

Thomas Jefferson[i]

 

Has our Legislative branch of government become a mere legislature for the legislators? The only time either side of the aisle seems to be in agreement is when they legislate for themselves. Of course in regard to partisan politics the results are more egregious. But when it comes to the people of the United States, or in the larger sense, the United States itself as the people are the United States, the Legislative branch of government appears to be absent. Why is this the case? If you consider the fact that elected officials are supposed to serve the people, then why is it that they only tend to serve themselves? And how does this happen? To make matters even worse, it’s not just the Congress, it is our government officials at every level; Governors, Mayors, City Councils, you name it. While I’ll never understand how these degenerates get elected in the first place, I absolutely will never understand how they continue to get re-elected over and over again. These are the questions which will be the focus of this treatise and I believe the answers will shed light on an unfortunate, but very real set of facts; the Legislative branch of government or any type of legislator in general, only serves itself.

Illinois is a good example of the self-serving politician. In a 6 March 2012 report, “Just a week after Democratic Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois gave his State of the State address in which he announced massive cuts throughout the system due to the state being broke, the governor and other lawmakers have given themselves a pay raise[ii].” The truth is the U.S. Congress has been at this for quite some time. An article by Robert Longley reports, “For the fifth year in a row, lawmakers voted not to reject their automatic “cost of living” raise that will increase the annual salary of members by $3,400 to a total of $158,103 per year[iii].” Mr. Longley continues, “In 1989, Congress passed an amendment allowing for the automatic raises.” The report also states, “The fiscal year 2004 Transportation and Treasury Department Appropriations bill included Congress’ 2.2 percent pay raise.” It’s no wonder so many people look down on our elected leaders, these politicians only vote for themselves, and they do it time and time again. When the States, the nation and the people are broke, only the most shameless bunch of self centered frauds the United States has to offer would actually vote for automatic pay raises and accept them. Of course their childish, petty and partisan bickering must entitle them to these raises, because they accomplish nothing else. The Congress can’t even follow the U.S. Constitution as stated in Article I, Section 8. For proof of that I will cite two wars, one which is still ongoing, Iraq and Afghanistan. Our Congress was too cowardly to even Declare War, but they did allow them to last for a decade and even longer in the case of Afghanistan which is still ongoing. This is a perfect example of politicians thumbing their noses at the people.

This same obnoxious behavior by politicians happens at every level. I came across a letter to the editor for Cumberland County Voices in New Jersey. The letter starts out, “Our city government is underpaid for the hours of service they perform. Sitting for hours at a time puts a tremendous amount of stress on their decision-making muscle. Yes, this group has the nerve to take a 42 percent pay raise[iv].” The letter goes on to state, “They [the city council] want it retroactive…They even had the unmitigated gall to attach their raise to the salary schedule for city employees, so if it does not pass the city employees will have to wait for their raises, too.” The individual who is being talked about is the Mayor of Bridgeton New Jersey, James B. Begley. Apparently this man is the least visible Mayor in history and really only wants to secure pay raises for him and his fellow crooked city politicians, without actually working. That seems about right for a politician. Begley proves you don’t have to be in the House or the Senate to be a crooked politician. You don’t even have to be governor! Just a pathetic little city mayor, in a town where violence runs rampant throughout the streets and the mayor can only seem to secure himself a 42% pay increase! But I guess he’s been in office for about 20 years, so that tells you something about the voters. My suggestion would be getting Begley out of office and never vote him back in under any circumstance.

I saw an interesting article on the Yellow Hammer Politics web-site. Apparently, not surprisingly, there is a very self-serving Democratic Alabama Senator named Roger Bedford. This man was “The architect of the 2007 pay raise.” The report states, “In 2007, in some dark crevice of the Alabama State House, Democrat legislators hatched a plan to give themselves a 62-percent pay raise. With the next election still several years away, they figured that while the voters may be upset initially, they would have plenty of time to forget about this inexplicable violation of public trust. They were wrong[v].” Apparently, the people of Alabama didn’t take a shine to this sort of behavior. What eventually happened was, in April of 2012 the Alabama House passed a bill repealing the 62% pay increase, “And passed enabling legislation that will place a constitutional amendment on the ballot which will provide voters with control over legislative pay.” The idea behind this GOP push in the Alabama House was to make certain this could never happen again; voters would control pay raises for their State legislature. The Alabama Senate attempted to follow suit, but Senator Bedford “Jumped into action offering amendment after amendment in a death-by-a-million-paper-cuts strategy…his amendments allowed the legislature to retain control over legislative pay rather than giving that power back to the voters – which is the true spirit of the GOP’s plan.” This is a perfect example of politicians serving themselves. Even when there are some members who wish to do the right thing, the self-serving leaches somehow are able to maintain their advantage. What strikes me as funny is this so-called Senator, Roger Bedford, who is obviously an enemy of the people of State of Alabama, is able to walk free. Bedford is a public servant, but he is only serving himself. Why is this man not in a prison cell? The reason, is because the people of the State of Alabama allow this to happen (just as we all do). Fortunately, the fight isn’t over, “I’ve withstood as much hypocrisy as I can for one day,” Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh stated, “What came out today was a monstrosity that we want to correct in conference committee.” I wish the people of the Great State of Alabama luck with their endeavor.

Of course, legislators who give themselves pay raises need even more. According to a Washington Post analysis, “One hundred-thirty members of Congress or their families have traded stocks collectively worth hundreds of millions of dollars in companies lobbying on bills that came before their committees, a practice that is permitted under current ethics rules[vi].” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines ethics, “The discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation; a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values; the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group; a guiding philosophy; a consciousness of moral importance; a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness)[vii].” It would appear as though members of Congress believe their moral duty, obligation and guiding philosophy is to amass as much wealth as possible while in office. I had to laugh when I read, “The Post analysis does not provide evidence of insider trading, which requires showing that Lawmakers knowingly used confidential information to make trades benefitting themselves.” The article only stated that this, “Raise[d] questions about potential conflicts and illustrate[s] the weaker standard that Congress applies to itself.” Fortunately, Martha Stewart wasn’t a lawmaker or the government wouldn’t have been able to throw her in prison for five months for lying about dumping ImClone stock before the price plunged. Yet the Washington Post article states, “Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) sold between $50,000 and $100,000 in General Electric stock shortly before a republican filibuster killed legislation sought by the company.” What strikes me as funny about this is, politicians are the biggest liars on the planet, so why go after Stewart? The Post analysis did state an interesting fact, “Almost one in every eight trades – 5,531 – intersected with legislation…The party affiliation of the lawmakers was almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, 68 to 62.” It’s good to know there is a little bipartisanship in Washington. That being said, this is still the worst type of so-called leadership; it’s self-serving and arrogant to say the least.

 

Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men.

Samuel Adams[viii]

 

But legislators have even more unscrupulous ways to make money. Fox News reported on a deal made by former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, “In February 2004, Hastert…through a trust…bought up 69 acres of land that adjoined his farm…transferred an additional 69 acres from his farm into the trust…Two months later, Congress passed a spending bill into which Hastert inserted a $207 million earmark…in August 2005..Hastert and his partners flipped the land for what appeared to be a multi-million dollar profit[ix].” The Fox documentary which was called ‘Porked: Earmarks for Profit’ named other wastes of taxpayer money which benefitted politicians and their families, “A $223 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, a $500,000 teapot museum in North Carolina, a $10 million extension to Coconut Road in Florida.” Personally, I think these ‘pigs’ are already fat enough and don’t need our taxpayer money to fill their troughs or to line their already golden pockets.

Of course there is more. Democratic Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington State is also crooked, according to the Seattle Weekly, “In 2008, Dicks, as an appropriations chairman, secured a $1.82 million earmark for a Washington State environmental agency where his son worked as executive director…the congressman also sent $15 million to the Environmental Protection Agency, which gave the funds in noncompetitive grants to his son’s agency, the Puget sound Partnership[x].” I cannot believe we allow our money, our tax dollars to be siphoned from our bank accounts only to fuel the engines of the depraved, so-called leaders who have absolutely no shame or honor. These are just a few examples; I could easily go on with many more examples. If an individual citizen (who wasn’t related to a politician) did this, then I have no doubt there would be jail time involved. Is it a surprise our legislators continue to increase their wealth, but we continue to get closer to poverty? But the truth is once again, when it’s connected to an elected legislator, we can see how they are given (or give themselves) carte blanche to do as they please. Where does the service to your constituents or to your country fit into this type of leadership?

I think now is a good time to take a look at one of our elected legislators and see just what we uncover. Let’s look at Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who according to Citizens for Ethics states, “Her ethics issues stem from the exercise of this power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son. Rep. Waters’ family has earned a total of more than $1 million in the last eight years through business dealings with companies and issue organizations Rep. Waters has assisted[xi].” Among the organizations are, “L.A. Vote, the African American Committee 2000, the firm of Siebert, Brandford and Shank, and the Chester Washington Golf Course. It would appear that Rep. Waters believes her position in the House of Representatives entitles her to make backroom deals which benefit her family to the sum of $1 million. This is actually a perfect example of how politicians in the U.S. get rich on our taxpayer money. The report states, “Of the $1.7 million collected by L.A. Vote over the past 8 years…$450,000 has gone to Karen Waters and her consulting firm, Progressive Connections, and $115,000 to Rep. Waters’ son, Edward.” The report also notes, “Karen Waters also has collected $20,000 from…African American Committee 2000 & Beyond…Many corporations and organizations seeking to win Rep. Waters’ favor have donated…The non-profit has used this money to pay for parties hosted by Rep. Waters at the Democratic national conventions. Sponsors…include Fannie Mae.” Apparently, Rep. Waters believes non-profits exist to fill the bank accounts of her family members for her favors as a member of the House. Rep. Waters and her children weren’t the only beneficiaries, “Rep. Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams…working as a part-time consultant for…Siebert, Brandford and Shank…collected close to $500,000 by  making valuable introductions for Siebert to politicians who have received his wife’s support.” The report gives an example, Waters “Guaranteed a $10 million loan from the Department of Housing and Urban Development…to handle a $40 million school bond sale, they chose Siebert. Mr. Williams earned $54,000 in commission from the deal.” A $500,000 payout for a part-time consulting job, that’s a pretty sweet deal. Of course as we all know, ordinary Americans work for peanuts and allow these criminals to ‘govern.’ And then there was the Chester Washington Golf Course, “Waters’ son, Edward Waters…her husband Sidney Williams…won a 20 year lease to run the county-owned Chester Washington Golf Course in South Los Angeles. The key decision-maker for the deal was County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke…Rep. Waters handed the County Supervisor a victory just several months earlier…Mr. Williams and Mr. Waters earned between $140,000 and $400,000 through the golf venture.” It really does pay to go into politics, especially if you are Rep. Maxine Waters or one of her family members.

I should mention, the report also states, “Rule 23 of the House Ethics Manual requires all members of the House to conduct themselves “at all times in a manner that reflects credibility on the House.”” I’m guessing that House Ethics Manual has collected a lot of dust over the years.

Before I move on I would like to mention one more item in the CREW report, “5 CFR §2635.702(a)…An employee shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person…to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a non-governmental capacity.”

How can I put this? It is blatantly obvious that Rep. Maxine Waters did everything she wasn’t supposed to do with regard to her position in the House of Representatives. As we all know, Maxine Waters hasn’t been charged, tried or convicted with regard to any of the above offences. If you are asking yourselves why, the answer is quite simple. Our elected so-called leaders are nothing more than a gang of unethical, self-serving criminals who are above the law. But I urge each and every one of you, don’t get caught smoking a joint on the street, because you will go directly to jail. Are any of you starting to see the problem here? It’s really quite simple as demonstrated by Maxine Waters; the legislators only legislate for benefit of themselves, their families and their confederates.

Let’s take a look at how our legislators spend our money. We have already seen how Governor Pat Quinn, Mayor James Begley, Senator Roger Bedford, Representative Ed Whitfield, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, House Appropriations Chairman Norm Dick and Representative Maxine Waters serve themselves and their families. But there are more.

I think the place to wind this up is Solyndra. In a report from The Center for Public Integrity, “Time and again, the government handed breaks to Solyndra Inc.; an upstart California solar panel firm backed by a major supporter of the president…benefits flowed from Washington despite warning signs that the government’s $535 million investment was a risky bet, at best[xii].” First I must say, it wasn’t the government’s $535 million, it belonged to the people of the United States, the taxpayers who got fleeced. A major backer of Obama, in this case “George Kaiser, an Oklahoma oil billionaire who raised at least $50,000 for Obama’s 2008 campaign and is a frequent visitor to the White House,” received over a half a billion taxpayer dollars for his efforts. I can’t blame Kaiser, if I thought I could give $50,000 for over 10,000 times that amount in return, I suppose I would. The report went on to state, “The House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations escalated its examination of DOE spending by focusing on Solyndra.” Of course, it is the Congress who holds the purse-strings in the United States. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[xiii].” So it would appear the Congress was in fact involved just as much as Obama with giving $535 million in taxpayer money to Solyndra. The result was 1,100 employees got fired in the end; that’s a little over a $486,000 investment for each employee to have a job. Solyndra as we all know went bankrupt and the company has been shut down. But I believe this is a perfect example of the short-sightedness of our government. From the top down, both the President and Congress are fools and crooks. What the taxpayers get in return is a U-6 unemployment rate of about 15% according to Portal Seven[xiv], and as of 28 August 2012, according to Ed Hall a national debt of $15,988,985,503,358.85[xv].

It’s fitting that Mars (Nimrod) guards the entrance to the U.S. Capitol Building as our legislators spew gibberish out of their mouths whenever they speak. It’s also fitting Persephone; the Queen of the Underworld (Semiramis) sits atop the U.S. Capitol Building looking down upon us, as our legislators by all appearances look down upon us as mere fodder for their arsenal of evil misdeeds. Our forefathers believed in service to the people, the State and to the nation. Now our elected officials, the so-called leaders of our nation, have elevated a self-serving and egocentric way of life and quasi-form of governance and/or leadership to new highs, which effectively, have left the people of this nation in a position of servitude and poverty. Service to the people is a spectre; it no longer exists. It really makes you proud to be an American when you see how our elected leaders behave. Nepotism, cronyism, unethical behavior at every turn, self-serving criminal attitudes and actions; these are what the people of the United States receive from their elected officials. And in return, we continue to re-elect the same set of reprobates so they can continue to serve themselves.

 

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

James Madison[xvi]

 

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America

 

Brett L. Baker

 

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com/ 

 

References

 



[i] Founding Father Quotes; Thomas Jefferson, http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/father/id/6/s/75

[ii] The Conservatory; Illinois Politicians Vote themselves A Pay Raise, Dan Collins, March 6, 2012. http://www.conservativecommune.com/2012/03/illinois-politicians-vote-themselves-a-raise/

[iii] About.com, US Government Info; Congress Votes Itself a Pay Raise, Robert Longley. http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/agencies/a/raise4congress.htm

[iv] NJ.com, Cumberland County Voices; Letters to the Editor/The News of Cumberland County, http://www.nj.com/cumberland/voices/index.ssf/2012/07/bridgeton_leaders_put_themselv.html

[v] Yellow Hammer; Democrat Senator Maneuvers to Muck Up Pay Raise Repeal, Cliff Sims, 19 April 2012. http://yellowhammerpolitics.com/blog/democrat-senator-maneuvers-to-muck-up-pay-raise-repeal/

[vi] The Washington Post; Members of Congress trade in companies while making laws that affect those same firms, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/members-of-congress-trade-in-companies-while-making-laws-that-affect-those-same-firms/2012/06/23/gJQAlXwVyV_story.html

[vii] Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary; Ethics, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics

[viii] Founding Father Quotes; Samuel Adams, http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/father/id/2/s/15

[ix] Fox News; Fox News Documentary Shows Congressmen Sent Millions in Earmarks to Their Own Families, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361061,00.html

[x] Seattle Weekly; Washington Reps. Norm Dicks and Doc Hastings Called Out in Congressional Earmarks Investigation, http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/02/washington_reps_norm_dicks_and.php/

[xi] Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW); Beyond Delay; The 13 Most Corrupt Members of Congress, http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Reports/Most%20Corrupt%20Reports/Most%20Corrupt%20Report%202005%20-%20Beyond%20DeLay%20Report.pdf?nocdn=1

[xii] The Center for Public Integrity; Solyndra: Recurring red flags failed to slow Obama administration’s race to help Solyndra, http://www.publicintegrity.org/environment/energy/solyndra

[xiii] Charters of Freedom; Constitution of the United States, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[xv] US National Debt Clock; Ed Hall, http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[xvi] Founding Father Quotes; James Madison, http://www.foundingfatherquotes.com/father/id/7

Read more…
Senator Richard J. "Dick" LaRossa, Ph.D.
President & CEO A - Team Corporate Strategies
Re-printed with permission by Jeff Bruzzo,
Publisher & Editor, Project Shining City

David Christian
4063479328?profile=originalPennsylvania is the Keystone State, symbolic of the center stone that supports an arch. However it is also a “key” in that no candidate has won the presidency in the last 50 years without capturing Pennsylvania. 
 

Because Pennsylvania plays such a critical role in the election of the President, the recent actions of Governor Tom Corbett and State Chairman Tom Gleason must be severely questioned. The Corrupt Corbett Coalition was conspiring to keep David Christian, a true Reagan Republican and war hero off the ballot. Instead of supporting the best candidate, they are backing a former Democrat and Obama supporter for the US Senate, by the name of Steve Welch, who is less likely to stand up to the Obama agenda.

Pennsylvania already has one Democrat and Obama supporter in the US Senate, why would they want another?

Once you read this strange and puzzling story, you will have to question the motives of the Corrupt Corbett Coalition and wonder what kind of deal they struck.

At the State Committee meeting in January, Governor Corbett, through local organizations, forced an endorsement for his candidate; former Democrat and Obama supporter Steve Welch.1 Delegates were threatened with losing their jobs and were told that if any committee person stood, nominated, or seconded anyone other than Steve Welch, they would no longer be considered committee people. It seems that the First Amendment does not exist in the Pennsylvania GOP!

Welch has put over a million dollars of his own money in the campaign2 and is the last person a Republican should support, let alone a Republican Governor. Welch changed his party affiliation to Democrat as far back as 2006 and then admitted to voting for Obama in 2008. After that, he changed his party affiliation back to Republican but continued to contribute to Democrat candidates, such as Joe Sestak.1 Welch even held an event for Sestak at his home.

In politics, you are known by the company you keep. Steve Welch’s support for the very liberal Joe Sestak, a Democratic Pennsylvania Congressman is quite odd. Sestak has a reputation of being “temperamental and demanding,” and “Sestak was fired on the first day on his job as deputy chief of naval operations for warfare requirements and programs.” After that, Sestak only held lower profile desk jobs until he retired. The fact that Welch would support someone like that over a Republican is very disturbing and definitely calls his judgment into question.

Now we learn that Sestak is attempting to run an occupy candidate for the US Senate4 Yes, you read that correctly. Steve Welch, who is backed by Governor Corbett, has held fundraisers for liberal Democrat Congressman Joe Sestak, who is now attempting to put up an occupy” candidate. 4.

Welch’s vote for Obama should have been enough to have kept him from being endorsed by any Republican. However, Governor Corbett defended him by saying, “My understanding is that he did this as part of ‘Operation Chaos… referring to Rush Limbaugh’s encouragement of Republican voters to cross over into Democratic primaries in ’08.”1

Unfortunately, for Corbett, that’s a lie.

Operation Chaos was not about voting for Obama.5  As one reader commented,

“Anyone that is familiar with Limbaugh's 'Operation Chaos' knows that he was encouraging people to vote for Hillary Clinton in that Primary! Welch's vote for Obama means he is either not very smart or lying.”1

So, first the Corrupt Corbett Coalition backs an Obama Democrat, and then they lie about why they did it!6 These actions definitely call into question Corbett’s integrity, party loyalty, and motives.

The PA GOP are now using all resources in an attempt to force Republicans to vote for Welch in the US Senate Primary. In a further example of Corbett’s Corrupt Coalition, only Welch was allowed to be invited to, or speak at any Pa. GOP sponsored events throughout the entire state.7

Already there are signs that Corbett overplayed his hand. The final results of an online poll show Welch only moving up from fourth place to the third place position. David Christian, Corbett’s latest victim, is second.8Public Policy Polling conducted a survey from March 8 to 119 Welch, the endorsed one, has been interviewed and has been attending events, yet his results show that since the poll in November, he has only increased from 1% to 5%. The survey was conducted during the time that David Christian was still settling the legal challenges and had not been on the campaign trail in over twenty days. Taking that into consideration, his stats are amazing. If, up against Casey, it shows him only 2 points under Sam Rohrer, the leader in this poll, then think what David Christian will be able to accomplish now that he is back on the campaign trail! As an advocate for Veterans, he could be picking up votes from the military and he just might be the only one who can beat Casey in November.

There were many people who came out of the state meeting reporting that Governor Corbett was pressuring everyone, and many of them said they had to vote the way he wanted out of fear or obligation and many were threatened with their jobs. However, when there are reports of threats against people, 1 the Governor has crossed the line over to that point of “no return”…which also might now be the chant of the people when he com es up for re-election.

However, the intimidation of the Corrupt Corbett Coalition did not stop after winning the rigged convention.

Governor Corbett and other leaders contacted David Christian shortly thereafter, just before the deadline for the nomination papers to be filed, on Tuesday, January 21, and told Christian to drop from the race or face unprecedented challenges of his petition papers.10 Can you say “ The People’s Republic of Pennsylvania?

And, that is exactly what they did. David Christian’s petitions were challenged by three people who were clearly put up to it by the PA GOP. One of the more outrageous reasons for challenging Christian’s petitions is the claim that people signed with their nickname, not their given name. The names that were challenged were names like Richard, Michael, Craig, Janet, Linda, Rose, Mary etc., etc.

Please read David Christian’s statement on the petition challenge http://www.scribd.com/doc/82441133/PAGOP-Attacks-American-War-Hero-.... Hear more details about the calls from the Governor, David Christian’s military career, and his life in this short video of Christian speaking at a group meeting. http://youtu.be/BoZP3xY8Kg4

A Senate candidate only needs 2,000 petition signatures and David Christian got over 3,100. The Corrupt Corbett Coalition knew they could not knock off enough signatures on David’s petitions to keep him from being on the ballot. This was a blatant attempt to tie David Christian up in court thus precluding his ability to attend important campaign events. In addition, it was aimed at draining his campaign’s account to pay for legal fees in order to keep him from being successful in the April 24th primary. 

After re-presenting his petitions and having them reviewed by an impartial judge, the state GOP was forced to back off. David Christian has won the petition challenge and will be on the April primary ballot; however, the Corrupt Corbett Coalition has cost him twenty-one days of legal fees and lost time on the campaign trail.  Read David’s Victory statement  http://bit.ly/w02Sjb

Now, more than ever, David Christian needs support not only from the citizens of Pennsylvania but from across the country. A message needs to be sent to Pennsylvania’s GOP establishment that the people have a right to choose their candidate. The harassment of David Christian, his friends and family by the Corrupt Corbett Coalition and his minions will only be stopped when David Christian wins the Republican US Senate primary. Only that victory will send the loud and clear message to the political establishment that we abhor this behavior and that we are not going to tolerate it.

David Christian is a military hero, an advocate for Veterans, and a true Reagan Conservative.  He is someone who has stood up for what he believes no matter what it has cost him. David Christian bled for his country. (7 purple hearts, 2 Silver Stars, Bronze Star, Distinguished Service Medal and 2 Medal of Honor recommendations.)

That is the kind of person we all need to endorse, support and get behind.  He is the type of person the country needs to turn things around.  You can read more about him on his amazing website. http://davechristian.com

If you have a radio program or blog or if you know someone who does, then please help spread the word about this injustice. Share with any military groups so they will know what is happening to one of their own, a person who stands up for their rights.

Everyone, please support David Christian any way you can. Share information and follow him on Facebook and Twitter. Volunteer to help get the word out about David Christian in order to make up for the lost time caused by the Corrupt Corbett Coalition. If you can, donate $20.12 and if not, even a $1, will demonstrate the support that will strike fear into the political establishment in Pennsylvania. You can donate now at: https://secure.donationreport.com/donate.html?key=WDXYRCTBXFSM.

Even though we didn’t know it, David Christian has fought for us many times.

Now, it is time for us to fight for him.

We cannot allow a critical state like Pennsylvania to go Democrat just because the Governor has his own agenda. You can get a better idea of the fight David Christian has ahead of him by reading the following:

PAGOP to County Chairs: Non-Endorsed Candidates Need Not Apply and the letter the PAGOP sent out to each county.7 PoliticsPA has both posted at http://www.politicspa.com/pagop-to-county-chairs-non-endorsed-candi...

Here is the list of senate candidates with information about each of them. 

  • Bob Casey, Jr., is the Democratic incumbent. “His support for the stimulus and the president's signature health care law”11 and his overall voting record shows he is an Obama yes man, even if he is trying now to avoid Obama.11 Casey claims to be pro-life but his actions say otherwise.12  You can review his voting record and other information at VoteSmart13 and other sites. He has voted with Obama 97% of the time.

Republican Candidates

  • David Christian owns a consulting company that helps American companies sell their services and products to emerging nations around the world.
  • He is one of the most highly decorated US Army Veterans to come out of the Vietnam War: 7 Purple Hearts, the Distinguished Service Cross,14 two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star, nominated for the Medal of Honor twice and was the youngest commissioned officer since the Civil War.15 He is listed as one of the past national commanders holding a lifetime position on the Board of Directors for The Legion of Valor.16 
  • He was instrumental in creating job training programs for returning Vietnam veterans and helped make Pennsylvania the only state compliant with federal employment law for returning veterans. As a result, tens of thousands of our veterans have found meaningful jobs.
  • He has advised U.S. Senators and 6 different Presidential Administrations, with his closest relationship being with Ronald Reagan. He was called to Washington to solve problems in an insecure world. Relying on his international contacts, the government sent him to Cambodia, Bosnia, Russia, Lithuania, Chechnya and other dangerous places that were critical to the security of the United States. David was tasked to gather information and debrief U.S. officials.15 He is also a former Fox News Military Analyst.17
  • Sam Rohrer was elected to the State House in 1992. Rohrer voted in favor of the 2005 legislative pay raise, as well as voting in 2001 in favor of a plan to increase lawmaker pensions by upwards of 50 percent.18 He also ran for Governor in 2010, and lost 69% to 31%.19  His voting record and stances on issues can be found at VoteSmart.20     He spend 18 years in the Pennsylvania legislature and did not get a single bill passed and signed into law. He did nothing as a state senator. Do we really need someone who did nothing as a state legislature become a do nothing U.S. Senator?
  • Marc Scaringi, an attorney who has never held public office and has been running for a year and a half. He announced his run Nov 2010.21 He, however, has not picked up the support he expected, and is placing in the bottom two in various polls.[8][9]
  • Tom Smith was a 2010 Armstrong County Democrat committeeman22…yes, Democrat. He changed to Republican so he could run for U.S. Senate 6 weeks before declaring his candidacy. He has put over $4 million into his own campaign23 and says he will put more if needed. Do we really want someone who just thinks he can buy the vote, let alone a candidate who has spent a lifetime as a democrat?
  • Steve Welch, “The Establishment Choice,” who “switched his party registration to Democrat in 2005, donated money to former Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak in 2006 and voted for President Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary.”24 He has run twice before yet says he is new to the process. See the article written about how new he really is.25

DOCUMENTATION

NOTE: There is additional material listed for your review that was not included in the writing.

David Christian

Senate Campaign Website: www.davechristian.com.

David Christian for U.S. Senate Facebook http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/David-Christian-for-US-Senate/268007499881009

David Christian Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/DaveChristianUS

Veteran Tributes: http://www.veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.asp?ID=1097

Legion of Valor Officers: http://www.legionofvalor.com/officers.php

David A. Christian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Christian
Dave Christian – Video from group meeting discussing threats on volunteers, his military, and more http://youtu.be/BoZP3xY8Kg4


PAGOP Attacks American War Hero's Senatorial Campaign. http://www.scribd.com/doc/82441133/PAGOP-Attacks-American-War-Hero-s-Senatorial-Campaign.

David’s Victory statement http://bit.ly/w02Sjb

From the Desk of Sharon Angle: Endorsement of David Christian. http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=10150623466568610

And the Award for First SuperPAC in the Senate Race Goes to: David Christian! http://www.politicspa.com/and-the-award-for-first-superpac-in-the-s...


1 Pa. governor draws ire for interfering in state's Senate seat battle by John Gizzi, Human Events. March 3, 2012 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49905#comments

2. Welch Announces $1 Mil on Hand by Keegan Gibson. PoliticsPa. January 3, 2012. http://www.politicspa.com/welch-announces-1-mil-on-hand/30392/

3. Sestak has bad rep with staff, paper reports by Zachary M. Peterson. Navy Times. September 4, 2007. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/09/navy_sestakstaff_070904w/

4. Sestak Fundraising for ‘Occupy’ Challenger to Schwartz by Keegan Gibson. PoliricsPA. March 7, 2012   http://www.politicspa.com/sestak-fundraising-for-occupy-challenger-to-schwartz/32467/

5. Is Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos Working? by Jennifer Parker. ABC News. May 6, 2008

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/05/is-limbaughs-op/

6. Gov. Tom Corbett Apparently Doesn’t Understand His Own Lies. by Randy LoBasso. Mar 12, 2012. http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2012/03/12/gov-tom-corbett-apparently-doesn%e2%80%99t-understand-his-own-lies/

7. PAGOP to County Chairs: Non-Endorsed Candidates Need Not Apply by Keegan Gibson.  February 7th, 2012. http://www.politicspa.com/pagop-to-county-chairs-non-endorsed-candidates-need-not-apply/31676/

8. Rohrer Wins PoliticsPA Reader Poll by Keegan Gibson. PoliticsPa. February 28th, 2012 http://www.politicspa.com/rohrer-wins-politicspa-reader-poll/32185/

9. Poll: Rohrer Leads Senate Field, But Trails Casey by 15. by Keegan Gibson. March 14th, 2012. PoliticsPa. http://www.politicspa.com/poll-rohrer-leads-senate-field-but-trails-casey-by-15/32742/

10. David Christian – Video from group meeting discussing threats on volunteers, his military, and more http://youtu.be/BoZP3xY8Kg4

11. Casey Navigating Obama Relationship, By Sean Sullivan, National Journal. November 30, 2011.http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/11/casey-navigatin.php?mrefid=site_search

12. Sen. Bob Casey's voting record questioned by Scranton pro-life leader, video, WILK 103.1 FM, http://media.wilknewsradio.com/a/36119013/sen-bob-casey-s-voting-record-questioned-by-scranton-pro-life-leader.htm

13. VoteSmart http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/2541/bob-casey-jr

14. Veteran Tributes: http://www.veterantributes.org/TributeDetail.asp?ID=1097

15. From the Desk of Sharon Angle: Endorsement of David Christian. http://www.facebook.com/#!/note.php?note_id=10150623466568610

16. Legion of Valor Officers: http://www.legionofvalor.com/officers.php

17. David A. Christian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._Christian

18. Question to ask all candidates: Did you vote for the pay raise? By Oren M. Spiegler. March 8, 2010. http://citizensvoice.com/opinion/letters/question-to-ask-all-candid...

19. Department of State Election Results http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?Fu...

20. VoteSmart http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/9223/samuel-rohrer

21. Scaringi to run for U.S. Senate Thursday, by Thom Casey, November 18, 2010,

http://www.pennlive.com/perry-county-times/index.ssf/2010/11/scarin...

22. Pennsylvania Republicans mull Senate endorsement: Party divided over large field heading into weekend meeting. By Colby Itkowitz, The Morning Call. January 27, 2012

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-pa-republican...

23. Smith Leads GOP Self-Funders Running Against Casey, By Sean Sullivan. National Journal. January 4, 2012

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/01/smith-lea...

24. GOP Field Against Bob Casey to Be Narrowed this Weekend, By Kevin Brennan. National Journal. January 27, 2012  http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2012/01/gop-field...

25..Steve Welch says…  by David Madeira, The David Madeira Show, 94.5 FM http://thedavidmadeirashow.com/articles/2012/steve-welch-says/

26. The Real Sam Rohrer http://therealsamrohrer.com/minimumwage

27. Burns Exits Senate Race by Keegan Gibson. PoliticsPA. February 2, 2012. http://www.politicspa.com/burns-exits-senate-race/31520/

Read more…

 

Republicans Seek Another Huge Shellacking
(For Obama’s Nonsensical “Jobs” Bill)
In the Democrat-Controlled Senate
 
                Has the world turned upside down? You be the judge. 
Item #1: As promised the House Republicans are taking pieces of the Obama American Jobs Act bill they believe in and designing their own bill with the best parts of Obama’s bill IN and the destructive parts of Obama’s bill for the economy LEFT OUT.
Item: #2: The last time (before his Jobs Bill was proposed in September that instead of merely haranguing Congress and the nation without substance) President Barack Obama actually put something in writing for the Congress to examine was in February this year. That “something” was a bogus budget drawn up to oppose the real and thoughtful pro-active budget from House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin). Ryan’s plan , the “Roadmap for America’s Future” was the first effort made in our history to deal not only with deficits and hyper-spending but also with the nation’s $116 TRillion UNfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid) crisis. After submitting his own atrocious budget, Obama called for an immediate vote . . . His Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid warned that would be a bad idea and put off that vote until the President clamored “Now!” three months later. Reid would have preferred not to vote but had to. The result was a 0-97 defeat in the Democrat-controlled Senate . . . perhaps the worst rebuff from Congress that any president has ever received . . . a historical drubbing of monumental proportions.
Item #3: Now Obama’s at it again with his so-called American Jobs Act which is really just a huge pretense at cutting spending which actually raises taxes on middle-class Americans dramatically.    Sounds like just the thing for the Democratically-controlled Senate to vote on, right? Not so quick! 
Item #4: Majority leader Harry Reid knowing that any tax increases during the current economic malaise will not be popular with voters, especially all those independent voters that Obama and all members of Congress (House and Senate) will need on their side come the 2012 elections. Reid has tried to tell the President again NOT to plow ahead. Obama today says “Go!” however and now Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has called for a vote in the Senate. Reid is, of course, still opposed and today Reid blocked the procedural vote from further consideration. We believe that Republican Mc Connell will continue to call for the vote.
Item#5: Even IF Mc Connell had his way today, the procedural vote required to get Obama’s bill voted on appears 100% likely to be blocked by the Democrats with the prospect that somehow, some way IF the matter ever did come up for a vote on its merits, this bill too would face an ignominious defeat. 
Item #6: To avoid that likely debacle, Reid and the Dems will block the matter from further consideration they would vote as a unit on the procedural matter against the president’s Jobs Bill while the Republicans are voting as a bloc FOR Obama’s bill to be voted on. That’s how bad the president’s bill is . . . about 85% of Democrats don’t like it at all and almost no Democrat, even those who do like it, wants to vote for higher taxes now. 
Item #7: The Democrats, we’re told from polls, are deeply split over the president’s jobs bill. The latest attempt to find consensus among the Dems is to make two major changes to the president’s bill A) instead of raising taxes on households earning $200,000 or more beginning in 2013, the Senate Dems are talking about a 5% surcharge on millionaires and up beginning three months from now in January, 2012. Harry Reid surprisingly did NOT downplay the split among his Dems in the Senate describing it this way for the press, “If some of our members wanted permission to go to the bathroom, there’s a good chance that many others would shout ‘NO!’”
            Again that’s how bad the president’s bill is . . . about 85% of Democrats don’t like it at all and almost no Democrat, even those who do like it, wants to vote for higher taxes now. The Republicans hate the bill and want to show it up with something akin to the 0-97 shellacking that the Senate gave Obama’s ridiculous budget when they finally voted on that bill itself in May of this year three full months after it was submitted by the President. This is the leader of the Free World our campaigner-in-chief who has NOT the slightest clue about how to govern. 
How does one govern? By getting the most you can with what you’ve got. Instead of ramming Obamacare through in a hateful manner, imagine if you will that despite controlling the House and Senate in 2009 when he came into office that: President Obama had called on the Republicans to help craft a healthcare bill with his Congressional majorities . . . . Not only would there have been no need for the unconstitutional procedural tricks that Nancy Pelosi pulled on the nation (“We’ll have to pass it so you can see what’s in it.”) or the lie personally signed by Obama for Bart Stupak saying NO abortions would be funded by Obamacare (incredibly, the first three official Obamacare procedures done were abortions). The result would not have been an acrimonious battle for 15 months and would not have been the 2,700-page monstrosity that’s likely to be ruled unconstitutional and which is already bankrupting the nation just in its earliest stages of implementation. 
The result probably would have been a 425-10 vote in the House and a 98-2 vote in the senate for a smart 100-page bill that would have actually worked (malpractice tort reform; insurance across state lines; taking care of fraud in Medicare and streamlining Medicaid) to get more people healthcare and to cut overall healthcare costs. That’s what governing is all about . . . getting a near-unanimous consensus and real results that help with almost zero-downside. President Obama is not capable of such a feat, alas. Two vital questions must be answered in 2012:
A.     Are you better off than you were four years ago?
B.     Are you better off than you were $4+ TRillion ago?
 
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut


Read more…

I Called To Stop Super Committee

I called Senator Roy Blunt and Rep Billy Long and told them to put a stop to the Super Committee. I mentioned that this committee doesn't answer to the House or Senate at all and at most is against the Constitution. I even mentioned that I'm voting all them out anyway first chance I get. I didn't call Senator McCaskill because she's a waste of good breathe. She will probably be voted out next year anyway but we will work just as hard as if she's a good fighter. : ) American Patriots www.cafepress.com/americanrevolution
Read more…

The 545 PEOPLE Responsible for Americas Woes

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese


Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million aredirectly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for thedomestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated itsConstitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federallychartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce asenator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-pickingthing. Idon't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.

The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility todetermine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this commoncon regardless of party.


What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall ofa Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creatingdeficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force theCongress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating andapproving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party.

She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over hisveto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- ofincompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domesticproblem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When youfully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of thefederal government, then it must follow that what exists is what theywant to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red .

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want itthat way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose giftsand advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the powerto regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do notlet them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mysticalforces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent themfrom doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.

Read more…

We must stop ratification of UN Treaty!

ParentalRights

Why Not? - http://eepurl.com/BV9x Call and ask your Senator WHY NOT cosponsor SR 519 to halt the UN CRC?

SR 519 is sponsored by Sen. De Mint to stop Pres. Obama from even introducing the UN Treaty right of a child. Frankly I don't want anything to do with the UN Treaty and I believe it must not be ratified. Don't wait for OBama to bring it to the floor of the Senate. Act now! GOP Senate Names and Phone Numbers are provided for those Senators who have not signed the resolution to block OBama...

Read more…
Coming up Thurs, this week:

Even if Obama fails to pass the Carbon Tax through
Congress next month, he will still get the Carbon
Scheme imposed through the EPA.

The only thing standing in his way is a resolution by
Sen. Murkowski's (R-Alaska). This resolution would
stop the EPA's global regulatory agenda dead in its
tracks.

+ + Fax Key Senators Today

Grassfire offers either their fax service, or you can copy text and fax yourself:
Senate to vote Thurs to STOP Obama's scheme on EPA Carbon Tax
Read more…

Please read the entire article:

URGENT! Federal legislation would override North Carolina, and other states bans on union organizing. It would bankrupt state and local gov. and municipalities. Harry Reid introduced S. 3194 under a rule that allows it to bypass committee review and proceed to the floor in as little as 48 hours. And guess which union ...is involved? SEIU!


http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=6428

Collective Bargaining Bill for Public Safety Workers Could Cost Taxpayers

Federal legislation would override North Carolina ban on union organizing

By Donna Martinez

May 18, 2010

RALEIGH — Nearly 32,000 North Carolina state and local public safety employees could begin negotiating contracts with unions if recently introduced federal legislation becomes law. S. 3194, The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2009, sponsored and introduced April 12 by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would override North Carolina law forcing the state, municipalities, and counties to recognize and bargain collectively with unions representing police, firefighters, emergency medical responders, and others.

Union officials refused to speak to Carolina Journal about the pending legislation. Neither the SEIU, which is affiliated with the State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC), the North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police, nor the International Association of Firefighters responded to repeated requests for comment.

Organized labor’s silence stands in contrast to vocal concerns expressed by local officials and associations over costs to taxpayers, burdens to administrators, the ability of law enforcement to nimbly respond, and constitutionality of the legislation.

The bill could become law quickly and without substantive debate. Reid introduced S. 3194 under a rule that allows it to bypass committee review and proceed to the floor in as little as 48 hours.

No action had occurred as of press time.

S. 3194 would override North Carolina General Statute 95-98, which for 51 years has prohibited public sector collective bargaining. S. 3194 would let public safety employees choose to be represented by a union and have their hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment determined by collective bargaining. Supervisors and managers would be exempt.

The North Carolina League of Municipalities estimates 28,000 municipal and county law enforcement workers and paid firefighters would fall under the bill. The State Office of Personnel puts the number of public safety positions in state government at nearly 3,800, including members of Highway Patrol, employees of the State Bureau of Investigation, and others.

“From my experience, it would be costly to local governments,” said Wayne Bowers, city manager of Greenville and former city manager of Gainesville, Fla., where collective bargaining is law. “We had one full-time labor relations person, we had a staff assistant to that labor relations director, we had one city attorney who spent just about full time on labor relations issues, and we occasionally had to hire outside attorneys.” Cost to Gainesville: roughly $250,000.

Mint Hill Police Chief Tim Ledford, president of the North Carolina Association of Chiefs of Police, believes collective bargaining would bring tax increases and layoffs. NCACP opposes the bill. Ledford, once a union official in a different industry, says he understands rank-and-file officers see collective bargaining as a path to higher compensation. However, his experience showed him union contracts hurt good workers by protecting slackers: “With unions, everybody gets the same across the board.”

Compensation costs will rise with a unionized public sector work force, according to Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies for the Cato Institute. In the Cato report Public-Sector Unions (PDF), Edwards writes that after adjusting for state-to-state differences in the labor market, “public-sector unions increase average pay levels by roughly 10 percent.”

Rebecca Troutman of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners says local law enforcement officers receive a competitive salary, a 5 percent 401(k) contribution by their employers every year, a robust pension plan, and a separation allowance.

S. 3194 is an expensive, unfunded mandate, according to Ellis Hankins of the League of Municipalities. “It’s going to result in the same services being delivered at a much higher cost,” Hankins said. Like the county commissioners’ group, the league views collective bargaining and S. 3194 as a major threat that would create an adversarial relationship between employee and employer and lead to collective bargaining with other public employees.

Hankins points to Vallejo, Calif., as the poster child for what can happen when officials have no flexibility to cut budgets. In 2008, Vallejo declared bankruptcy after unions refused to renegotiate contracts. Three-quarters of Vallejo’s general fund budget went to public safety worker compensation. A bankruptcy appellate panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed the city was insolvent and ordered changes to the agreements.

Lack of operational flexibility is Ledford’s concern. “You’ve got to be able to make decisions on the fly and on the spot — make immediate decisions. With a union you can’t do that. You’ve got to get buy-in from the union rep before you can make decisions about anything that affects the employee,” he said.

Fraternal Order of Police President Chuck Canterbury addressed “the boogeyman of collective bargaining having an adverse affect on public safety” before Congress last month. He said public safety officers who responded after the 9/11 attacks and Pentagon police who responded to a shooting this year were covered by collective bargaining agreements. “None of those called to action in these most extreme of circumstances paused to contemplate whether any of their actions would impact current or future negotiations,” Canterbury said.

The North Carolina Association of Fire Chiefs hasn’t taken a position on the bill, but President Frank Burns thinks North Carolina’s small towns could become all-volunteer forces if S. 3194 passes. Burns, fire chief of Kings Mountain, questions whether small towns could afford collective bargaining rules on hours worked, pay rates, benefits, and duty requirements. He doesn’t think an all-volunteer force would impact service adversely. Burns says volunteers comprise 80 percent of North Carolina’s 50,000-strong firefighting force, while 20 percent are paid.

Among North Carolina's Washington delegation, Republican Sen. Richard Burr opposes S. 3194. On May 7, he told NewsRadio680 WPTF he doesn’t see the bill coming up during the regular session of Congress but Burr did say, “I’m alarmed at what might happen in a lame-duck session of Congress post the November election, between then and January when the new Senate is seated.”

Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan’s office didn’t respond to CJ’s request to learn her position. In September 2008, then-candidate Hagan told Greensboro News & Record reporter Mark Binker, in a voice-mail message posted on the paper’s website: “Once I’m elected to the U.S. Senate, I want you to know that I will never support a bill at the federal level that mandates states allow collective bargaining of state government employees. I truly believe that’s a state rights issue. That’s my strong belief and that’s how I’ll vote.”

Hankins believes S. 3194 violates every principle of federalism and might be unconstitutional. “There really are good legal arguments that the legislation is beyond constitutional powers of the Congress. If they can do this, they can do about everything,” Hankins said.

Donna Martinez is a contributor to Carolina Journal

By Grizzlymama....Contact you Senators. Let them know we are aware of what's being done in the Senate. We oppose such legislation and the process they intend on using. We're watching them.... November is coming and we will be voting....It's the American way!

Read more…
Libertarian Rajjpuut is Offended by

Rand Paul's Ignorance

It’s always nasty when a politician gets hoisted upon his own petard especially if corruption or ignorance is involved. Rand Paul, a Republican (he calls himself a Libertarian) candidate, who just earned the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky is now mired in serious controversy. Paul says that while he approves strongly of nine of the ten provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act . . . had he been around he would have tried to modify the 10th provision which concerns potential discrimination in private businesses. The other nine provisions affect discrimination in publicly-funded institutions and government and Paul states his agreement with them.

Rajjpuut, is a REAL Libertarian. Let’s be clear here, 100% clear: Bill Clintonesque word-parsing is NOT what Libertarianism is all about. Mr. Paul does have a teensy-tiny point in what he says . . . but then he ignores 99.999999% of the spirit of Libertarianism in making his foolish argument. Too bad Mr. Rand, son of the well-known Ron Paul, doesn’t actually understand the political philosophy he espouses. So, exactly how is Paul right in saying that the private business provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act might have been improved? And how exactly did he miss the boat (the spirit of Libertarianism) with 99.999999% of his comment?

We’ve all seen those signs on business walls “The proprietor reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.” That’s the teensy-tiny part that Rand Paul got correct. No business should be forced to ever serve all customers entering its establishment. There are customers who come in shirtless, shoeless, stinking, etc. There are would-be repeat customers that have previously been kicked out of an establishment for obnoxious behavior. Refusing this class of undesirable customers is definitely within business owners’ rights. So far, so good, Mr. Paul. However, Mr. Paul clearly abused and misstated Libertarianism in virtually all of his objection to the ’64 Civil Rights Act and in the process, showed himself an extreme light-weight in intellectual ability.

“Whites Only” signs in the windows of a few Missouri businesses and all over the segregated south . . . “No sailors or dogs allowed in city parks” . . . “Our business is offered to ‘restricted clientele’ only” . . . “Jewish business is NOT desired” . . . “Colored” bathrooms and drinking fountains . . . are we getting the picture? That is clearly the core issue here. Should a private business open to the public be allowed to ban people because of skin color? religion? national origin? or other extraneous issues? Extending the question, can a private business open to the public, refuse to hire people because they’re, for example, freckled? black? a naturalized rather than a native-born citizen? etc.? etc.? That Mr. Paul does NOT understand the differences between what’s being described in this paragraph and the one immediately preceding it is a dramatic indictment of his lightweight-thinker status.

Once again, people MAY be legally refused service from a business for CAUSE, and for cause only. Then, if they violate the owner’s prerogative to ban them for cause , they can be legally barred by restraining orders issued by our courts. Eventually repeated violations can result in arrest and imprisonment. Banning people for extraneous reasons such as skin color, religion, etc. is a violation of their civil rights. Do you get that now, Mr. Rand Paul? A wise general picks his battles carefully, but you decided to debate on how many angels can stand on a pinpoint . . . foolish.

As a side issue, Rajjpuut would like to advise any serious conservative candidate to respond to questions on abortion, civil rights, “don’t ask-don’t tell, and the like with the simple declarative, “It’s the law of the land.” Conservatives need to stick to the point: discussions of fiscal responsibility; border security; security against terrorism; balanced budgets; Pay-Go legislations; unending deficits; runaway National Debt; almost $109 TRillion in unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid -- unfunded obligations which are stealing our children’s and grandchildren’s future. Add in Obamacare, bailouts, stimulus packages, cap and trade, and lies about openness-transparency-and cleaning up Washington, D.C. and there are enough relevant issues that no sane statesman needs to get involved in legal hair-splitting . . . especially when he claims to be a Libertarian and hasn’t a clue about what Libertarianism is all about.

Politics is a strategic endeavor. In warfare, in business, in every strategic game you can think of . . . the road to victory always lies with creating a plan of attack making your own strong points into the crucial elements of the conflict and your weak points and your opposition’s strong points totally irrelevant. And, one more thing, holding the ball in the air and igniting a celebration on the ten-yard line is utterly stupid as well. Some conservatives are already cheering for their victory in November's elections . . . day-dreaming, in other words. Conservatives need to “do the frigging job” well and keep on doing the frigging job well and forget about headlines and applause and premature celebrations. The country is a center-right nation on the Constitution and on Taxes and Government spending and long has been a center-right nation. Irresponsible Conservatives today, Republicans and TEA Party folks who might feel that the country’s highest priorities are to repeal or weaken the civil rights laws; or the abortion laws or to institute creationism in public schools are misreading the sentiment of the voters even worse than Mr. Obama and his cronies are. Stick to business. Save America.

The country needs jobs. The country needs statesmen and stateswomen elected to Congress and then for them to clean up our financial messes and unchain the free markets and to initiate a new era of respect for the United States Constitution. Americans are almost completely offended by progressivism, particularly the economic results of that misconceived doctrine . . . perhaps wise conservatives need to learn to stick to the subject? Get real, if an issue does NOT advance the cause of fiscal conservativism and constitutional conservativism and help retake the country ignore it. ‘Nuff said.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut



Read more…
I soon found out out that recruiting candidates to run for office is not such an easy task, for after 3 weeks we had only recruited 2 candidates with our presuppositions. So, with one week to go before the filing deadline, I decided that I ought to run and find out first hand what everyone was so apprehensive about. Again, with the permission of the California School Project Board, I filed to run for the California State Senate in the 30th District where I live (La Mirada, Whittier, Norwalk, Santa Fe Springs, Montebello, East LA, etc) to run against Ron Calderon, the Head of the State Banking and Finance Committee. By March 12 my name was qualified to be placed on the June 8 California Primary ballot.

Amazing! Retired missionary, now running for the CA State Senate. Am I qualified? I certainly know how to vote "No" on an unbalanced budget, so maybe in the view of the Liberals, I am not qualified, but then that one thing makes me more than qualified then all of them in my mind.

This is a very interesting education and a much bigger undertaking than I had imagined. No wonder most express reluctance to run for an office. And then there are are the two formerly unknown big questions that suddenly loom....(smile) "What if I don't win?" and the other (even bigger smile) "What if I do win?"


Read more…