ACTION

Americans,
You make your own destiny, no one rules when no one complies, RESIST AND DEFY.  If you do not choose your path in life others will choose it for you!
Elevengun
I AM PATRIOT!

While the official motto of the Tenth Amendment Center is “Concordia res parvae crescunt” (Small things grow great by concord), one of our “unofficial” mottoes is “The Constitution. Every Issue, Every Time. No Exceptions, no Excuses.”

It’s a great standard to stick to. Here’s an example why.

Earlier this year, Dr. Gary North put up a short post on his “Tea Party Economist” blog, where he mentioned a topic that a number of people have asked me about:

“In a dozen states, there are bills to make gold legal tender… What is significant is this: there is enough interest in gold today to call forth such bills. It indicates a major shift in the fringes of public opinion. Such bills would have been unthinkable in 2007.”

He’s absolutely correct: thanks to a number of factors (the Crash of ’08, the Great Recession, the monetary policy-focused Presidential campaign of Rep. Ron Paul, etc.), more Americans than ever have had an “awakening” of sorts regarding gold and silver, and as a result, we’ve had several different types of “sound money” bills introduced in State legislatures across the country. What North is referring to in particular here is what are commonly called “State Legal Tender” bills. These bills have been introduced in a number of States around the country over the last few years. It’s a growing movement (see the main website here), and has already been successful in getting a law passed in Utah declaring gold and silver coins to be “legal tender” (and they were almost successful in Arizona, where both legislative houses passed a similar bill, only to have Gov. Jan Brewer veto it).

Now, before I get into any details, let me start off by making one thing perfectly clear: I like the fact that “State Legal Tender” bills (and gold and silver coin “Sales Tax Elimination” bills, discussed below) are being introduced and passed in the States. I agree with Dr. North that what’s significant is that “there is enough interest in gold today to call forth such bills,” which “indicates a major shift in the fringes of public opinion.” And I agree with a number of my friends who promote these kinds of bills, as being “incremental steps” towards “returning to sound money” in America. But there’s a few things I need to clear up.

I’ve been asked a number of times, “Hey, isn’t this ‘State Legal Tender’ thing the same thing that you’re trying to do, with the Constitutional Tender Act?” Well, no, in fact, it’s not what we’re trying to do, for a number of reasons — some of which North mentions, when he discusses why he doesn’t think these bills will lead anywhere right now. So let’s discuss some of these reasons, starting with his second reason first:

“…most of these bills will not become law this year.”

I’ll grant him that. But that’s not a reason for us to declare, as North does, that “nothing much will come of this.” A lot could “come of this” next year, or the year after or the year after that; it could depend on a lot of things, from grassroots activism in support of various bills, to a currency crisis and the complete devaluation of the dollar, either of which (or some event in between) could bring about passage of sound money-related bills in the States. Regardless, it’s unlikely that Constitutional Tender bills will become law this year, either, so I’m not disagreeing with North here. So let’s look at his third reason:

“…most voters don’t care. People use plastic or currency.”

This is true, too. But one of the goals of both State Legal Tender bills and the Constitutional Tender Act is to enable people to continue using what they’re used to using, only now what they use can be backed by real money (gold and silver). They could use debit cards based on gold or silver accounts, they could write checks based on such accounts, etc. (In fact, the Constitutional Tender Act requires State-chartered banks to create gold- and silver-based accounts.) Or, they could continue using Federal Reserve Notes currency in their everyday transactions, if they like.

So, let’s go back to North’s first reason:

“…the concept of legal tender is anti-free market. A state should not declare anything as legal tender. It should limit itself to declaring the proper currency for the payment of taxes.”

Now, I agree with North, as far as he goes: Congress, for sure, has no Constitutionally-delegated, enumerated power to declare one particular form of money as “legal tender,” and as a conceptual matter, they really shouldn’t do that (which is why the Framers of the Constitution didn’t give them that power, even if the Supreme Court has pretended that they did). But there’s something that is left unsaid, which “strikes at the heart” of this matter: North is talking about the modern definition of “legal tender” here — that is, currency that the law declares may be offered in payment of a debt and that a creditor is supposed to accept. And, in fact, that’s what proponents of “State Legal Tender” bills are talking about, too: having the government make an official declaration that a form of money is acceptable for using as payment. They say that States can declare by law that gold and silver coins are “legal tender,” because the U.S. Constitution says in Article I, Section 10, “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. Therefore, the reasoning goes, a State may make gold and silver coins “legal tender.”

They then go on to say that, like other forms of “legal tender,” no one has to accept legal tender as payment; “it simply designates it as acceptable currency. It is not uncommon for retailers to decline to accept U.S. paper dollars and coins, for example, as a matter of policy (such as a convenience store refusing to accept large denominations). No one is forced to tender or accept gold and silver legal tender coins.”

So, that’s all well and good — if a State passes a “State Legal Tender” law (as Utah did), no one (including the State itself) is required to use gold and silver coins; it only says they can use them. More specifically, it says they can use them at their actual value (the value of their gold or silver content), rather than at the “face value” that the U.S. Mint stamped on them. In addition, it removes the “sales taxes” in any “commodities exchange” of legal tender Federal Reserve Notes for legal tender gold or silver coins (that is, instead of treating such an exchange as “buying gold or silver coins,” it treats the exchange just like you would treat an exchange of legal tender $1 bills for a legal tender $20 bill).

(By the way, there are other States, like Texas and Louisiana, which have also passed gold & silver “Sales Tax Elimination” bills into law, eliminating the State taxation of “legal tender” exchanges as described. This is a “no-brainer” — of course you shouldn’t tax legal tender currency exchanges… but of course, the national government still does. Because the IRS considers “precious metals,” including legal tender gold and silver coins, to be “collectibles,” a special capital gains rate applies to any “profits” on their “sale.”)

So, what’s the problem with any of these State Legal Tender bills? Actually, there are several.

First, as I said earlier, all of these folks are using the modern definition of “legal tender” — when what we need to be using is whatever definition was used by the people who actually wrote the Constitution. Allow me to explain:

In Article I, Section 10, the national government has been given most of the responsibility regarding money in America: to coin it (notice it does not give Congress the power to “emit bills of credit”, the common parlance of “print fiat currency”, nor does it give Congress the power to bestow that power on any other entity); to regulate the value of (literally, “make regular” or “make consistent” – to make sure there is no deviance in the gold or silver specie content of) the money they have coined; to regulate (again, “make regular”) the value of foreign coins (which meant they could be used here, but they had to be of a specific amount of gold or silver content); to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures for circulating coins (grains, ounces, pounds, etc.); and to declare what the punishment should be for anyone who counterfeits what the U.S. Mint coins (which, by the way, was death — that’s how seriously they took the idea of making our money worth less).

Now remember, in reading the Constitution, we should always try to understand it as written, with the definitions it was meant to be understood by, and not by overlaying modern definitions or understandings upon it. (Can you imagine the international uproar if Congress were to “regulate the Value of foreign currency” today, according to today’s definitions? “Congress hereby declares that one German Mark can only buy 50¢ worth of goods!”) If we don’t like what the framers meant, then they gave us the means to change it: the Amendment process.

So, Article I, Section 8 declares specifically what Congress can do (Section 9 makes some specific declarations of what they can’t do); Section 10 declares specifically what the States cannot do. Included in there is that States can’t print fiat currency (“emit bills of credit”), that they can’t coin money, AND that they can’t “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”. Now, that’s pretty clear: if a State owes money to anyone or anything, it can’t “make a tender” (offer to pay the debt) to those entities in anything but gold or silver coin; and if the State is owed money, the State can’t accept any tender made (any offer to pay that debt) unless it is made in gold or silver coin.

This is a key point here: for the correct (in context) understanding of this phrase “to make something a tender in payment of debt,” see the original 1828 Webster’s Dictionary – “TENDER: In law, an offer, either of money to pay a debt, or of service to be performed, in order to save a penalty or forfeiture which would be incurred by non-payment or non-performance; as the tender of rent due, or of the amount of a note or bond with interest. To constitute a legal tender, such money must be offered as the law prescribes; the offer of bank notes is not a legal tender.”

So the Framers of the Constitution were being very clear here: No State is allowed to make or accept payments in anything but gold or silver coins. It doesn’t matter what the national government does with so-called “legal tender” laws; it’s not up to the national government to determine whether or not States can now disobey that direct prohibition, any more than it’s up to the federal government to determine whether or not States can now disobey the direct prohibition on passing an ex post facto Law or granting any Title of Nobility. The Constitution says the State CANNOT do it – so the State must simply obey the Constitution, NO MATTER WHAT the federal government says or does. It is the duty of every State, and it is the duty of every State’s elected officials, in keeping with their oath of office, to pass laws that conform to the explicit directives of the U.S. Constitution.

And this leads directly to what North doesn’t mention, but what I consider to be the biggest reason why States DO need to pass Constitutional Tender bills rather than State Legal Tender bills: all of the State Legal Tender bills specifically declare that the State can use either gold & silver coins OR they can use Federal Reserve Notes. But the U.S. Constitution specifically says that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts” — which means that any law that declares that a State can use Federal Reserve Notes (make them “a Tender in Payment of Debts”) is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. By passing such a law, they are making some other “Thing” an offer as payment — they are by law declaring that they will accept, and pay out, Federal Reserve Notes for any debts owed by or to them.

On the other hand, the Constitutional Tender Act takes Article I, Section 10 at “face value” — it unambiguously declares that the State may NOT make anything besides gold or silver a “tender in payment” (which means they cannot “make something else an offer as payment”) for any debts, which would include debts owed by and to the State. It sets up a process by which the State, which is currently in violation of the Constitution (because it accepts and pays out Federal Reserve Notes, which aren’t backed by gold, silver, or anything else), can move back to adherence to the Constitution’s actual “legal tender” provisions. And in doing so, it establishes de facto “competitive currencies” of real money vs. fiat money — and in a level-field playing environment in the free market, real money wins.

Which brings us to the other big reason that I believe States need to pass Constitutional Tender bills rather than State Legal Tender bills: the results. In other words, “What will happen if this or that bill is passed into law?” While no State has passed the Constitutional Tender Act yet (so we can’t know for sure), I discuss the likely outcome in much more detail in the paper I presented at the Mises Institute, “Ending the Federal Reserve From the Bottom Up: Re-Introducing Competitive Currency by State Adherence to Article I, Section 10″:

“Upon going into effect, the Constitutional Tender Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes, by outlawing their use in transactions with the State.  Ordinary citizens of the State, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to open bank accounts in those denominations.  Businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same; and in order to acquire such coins, they would begin to offer their goods and services in “dual currency” denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes (which would still be necessary to pay Federal fees and taxes) or gold and silver coins (including checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins).  Customers, having found the need to open such accounts in order to deal with the State, would be able to engage in commerce using those accounts.

Over time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect,  where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes).  As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State’s treasury, an influx of banking business from outside of the State (as citizens residing in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money), and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions.  At that point, the Federal Reserve system will have become unwanted and irrelevant, and can be easily abolished by the people’s elected Representatives in Washington, D.C.”

And what about State Legal Tender laws? What results would they bring? Well, we have a real-world example to look at there: Utah. In 2011, the Governor signed H.B 317, the “Utah Legal Tender Act,” which declared that U.S. Mint-issued gold and silver coins were “legal tender” in Utah, and monetary exchanges of these coins could no longer be taxed by the State. It allowed banks to set up gold- and silver-based accounts; it allowed people to pay their taxes and fees in gold and silver coins; and it allowed the State to pay its debts in gold and silver as well.

But it didn’t require any of those things — most of which the Constitution clearly states are required. It simply allowed them — and then noted that “A person may not compel any other person to tender or accept gold and silver coin that is issued by the federal government.” Apparently, that includes any “person” who works as a tax collector in Utah, as one man found out who tried to pay his taxes in “legal tender” silver coins:

Carlton Bowen is frustrated.The Orem man says all he wants to do is pay his property tax, but the Utah County treasurer says no. The reason: Bowen wants to pay his taxes in silver.

“When is Utah going to accept its own legal tender?” Bowen asked.

Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature passed groundbreaking legislation, stating that gold and silver coins can be used as legal tender in Utah… The practical impact of the Legislature’s move has been minimal… the Utah County and state treasurers have rejected Bowen’s payment.

“In my mind there’s still no practical way of making this happen,” said Richard Ellis, the Utah State Treasurer. He said the state simply isn’t equipped to accept, authenticate and store gold and silver, and doesn’t see it becoming a reality in the near future.

So, the Utah Treasurer won’t accept payment in “legal tender” gold or silver coins, even though Utah passed a “State Legal Tender” law. And why not?

Ellis, the treasurer, says gold and silver transactions present enormous risks to the state that have to be addressed before he’s comfortable with the idea. How would the state determine the value of a coin? What’s the exchange rate? How do the state or counties secure the precious metals?

“There are a lot of things that put the treasurer in the middle of it, but I’m not anxious to necessarily be in that role,” Ellis said… “Nobody’s fleshed out all these details, and they want to have as little regulation and oversight as possible,” Ellis said. “I haven’t tried to make preparations to [accept payments] because there’s just not a practical way of making this work.”

So, what are the practical results of passing a State Legal Tender law? Apparently… nothing. In the one case where such a bill has become law, the result has been (a) the State still won’t use gold or silver coins, (b) bank accounts still can’t be set up using gold or silver coins, and — most importantly — (c) the State is still violating Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, by making some other “Thing” besides gold and silver coin a “Tender in Payment of Debts”.

I’m sorry. I just don’t see those “results” as being beneficial in any way.

Again, let me reiterate that I like the fact that State Legal Tender bills (and gold & silver Sales Tax Elimination bills) are being introduced and passed in the States. I agree with Dr. North that what’s significant is that “there is enough interest in gold today to call forth such bills,” which “indicates a major shift in the fringes of public opinion.” And I agree with a number of my friends who promote these kinds of bills, as being “incremental steps” towards “returning to sound money” in America.

What I have a problem with is when these bills, in attempting to return States to obedience to the U.S. Constitution, end up violating the very same Constitution — in fact, the very same Clause that they’re supposedly based on. That’s why we’re so strongly encouraging States to pass the Constitutional Tender Act — a bill template that can be introduced in every State legislature in the nation, setting up clear and methodical systems to return each of them to adherence to the United States Constitution’s actual legal tender provisions.

Which, in turn, will “Nullify the Fed” in the long run, which is itself unconstitutional. Not a bad deal.

Apparently we have forgotten the main problem that, we the citizens of the United States,are facing. The amnesty bill that European brought before Congress is so much more dangerous than Obama care could ever be. This  Bill will give amnesty to over 10 million illegal aliens. If this bill passes it would mean  10 million undocumented people would be allowed all rights that any legal citizens enjoys. My wife is third-generation Danish and knows what her grand parents had to go through to be a citizen of this great country. So why not these 10 million free loader have to do the same thing . All citizens must obey the laws of this country. One of those laws is to enter the country legally. They should have to go through the same process that any other alien who wishes citizenship in this country has to go through. That includes entering this country legally.

Megyn Kelly of FOXNews, "The Kelly Files", 11/08/2013, interviewed filmmaker, Dennis Michael Lynch.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2821459991001/ after viewing this interview you will see why there is a problem with illegal in this country. We must not change or add anything to the existing laws we should enforce the ones on the book.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

( Galatians 5:22-23 KJV 1611 AV )

Ye Know Jesus Spoke the TRUTH, so, Please TRUST Him Now!!Jesus is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE, no one comes unto the FATHER, but through Me ( Jesus Christ )!!

Love Always, YSIC \o/

Kristi Ann

Kristi Ann's Haven

And I will Bless them that Bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all Families of the Earth be Blessed.

( Genesis 13:3 KJV 1611 AV )

I am a Member to Christians United for Israel ! You can Join them and be a Member also!! Jesus Christ was Born there and DIED on the CROSS there in Israel!! Jesus Christ is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE, No one comes unto the FATHER, but through Me ( Jesus Christ )!!

Jesus Christ COMMANDED us to LOVE one Another, the WAY He LOVED us FIRST!!! Ye Know there is a God in Heaven, ye also Know His Name is to Praised twenty four hours a Day, His Name is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, and WORTHY, He is Our FATHER in Heaven Jesus Christ!! 

Love Always, YSIC \o/

Kristi Ann

Kristi Ann's Haven

Ron Paul, in his paper “The Political and Economic Agenda for a Real Gold Standard” (originally delivered at the Mises Institute‘s 1985 conference on the gold standard), discusses the steps which the economist Ludwig von Mises laid out for us to be able to return to a sound currency (which was in his 1952 epilogue to “The Theory of Money and Credit“).

What’s particularly relevant about this discussion is that, where the attempts at the national level to implement these steps have been halting at best, the Constitutional Tender Act actually builds on what HAS been accomplished and uses it to implement those steps starting at the STATE level… where they actually have the chance to SUCCEED.

The first step we need to take, writes Paul, is “Gold Coinage“:

The heart of Mises’s proposal to restore gold to our monetary system is a gold coinage. He wrote,

Gold must be in the cash holdings of everyone. Everybody must see gold coins changing hands, must be used to having gold coins in his pockets, to receiving gold coins when he cashes his paycheck, and to spending gold coins when he buys in a store.[7]

In this one detail — the critical importance of the gold coinage — I believe lies the key to establishing a new gold standard.

We should make no mistake about it: the more progress we make toward reestablishing the gold standard, the more aggressive our opposition will become. Some vested interests, as you know, have a lot to lose if we succeed in getting the monetary system reconstructed on a gold basis. The first political step is, therefore, to get the coinage into circulation.

One objective might be to aim for every American to become a gold owner. We must encourage a broader base of political support for gold ownership and the availability of gold for personal economic objectives. Certainly a broader base of gold ownership in the country would help to reduce the threats of discriminatory taxation or regulation of gold ownership and gold coin transactions, which are seriously favored in Congress today.

Under the Constitutional Tender Act (a proposed State law which re-applies the U.S. Constitution’s negative mandate in Article I, Section 10, that “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”), the State would be required to only use gold and silver coins (or their equivalents, such as checks or electronic transfers) for payments of any debt owed by or to the State (e.g., taxes, fees, contract payments, etc.). All contracts, tax bills, etc. would be required to be denominated in legal tender gold and silver U.S. coins, including Gold Eagles, Silver Eagles, and pre-1965 90% silver coins. All State-chartered banks, as well as any other bank that is a depository for State funds, would be required to offer accounts denominated in those types of gold and silver coins, and to keep such accounts segregated from other types of accounts such as Federal Reserve Notes.

So, with the “ConTen Act”, the foundation is now laid. Dr. Paul goes on:

What we must first do is get the coinage into circulation, and then build the political base to lock the government’s fiscal folly with golden handcuffs. People have always understood the tangible value of gold coins in circulation. They don’t need to agree or even understand the fine points of monetary theory to own gold coins, trade gold coins, or use gold coins to satisfy part of their marginal-utility demand for cash balances.

Most people understand very little about economics or monetary theory. When they see supposed experts in disagreement, the status quo wins by default, because nobody with the power to change it has the courage of conviction. The majority of voters see the debate among experts and hesitate to support any leaders with comprehensive reform schemes. This is why all efforts to rebuild a gold monetary system have met with frustration and stalemate in the past.

And this is the beauty of the Constitutional Tender Act: instead of being a top-down, federal-level effort, it is a bottom-up, State-level effort, thus giving it a higher likelihood of eventual success (see my paper presented at the Mises Institute’s Austrian Scholars Conference, “Ending the Federal Reserve From the Bottom Up: Re-introducing Competitive Currency by State Adherence to Article I, Section 10“). Upon going into effect, the ConTen Act would introduce currency competition with Federal Reserve Notes, by outlawing their use in transactions with the State (as the Constitution requires). Ordinary citizens of the State, being required to pay their State taxes in gold and silver coins, would find it necessary to open bank accounts in those denominations. Businesses operating within the State, being required to pay their State sales taxes and license fees in gold and silver coins, would need to do the same; and in order to acquire such coins, instead of just relying on the U.S. Mint or coin dealers, they would begin to offer their goods and services in “dual currency” denominations, where customers could choose to pay in Federal Reserve Notes (which would still be necessary to pay Federal fees and taxes) or gold and silver coins (including checks and debit cards based on bank accounts denominated in such coins). Customers, having found the need to open such accounts in order to deal with the State, would be able to engage in commerce using those accounts.

Over time, as residents of the State use both Federal Reserve Notes and silver and gold coins, the fact that the coins hold their value more than Federal Reserve Notes do will lead to a “reverse Gresham’s Law” effect, where good money (gold and silver coins) will drive out bad money (Federal Reserve Notes). (Gresham’s law may be stated as, “Where legal tender laws exist, bad money drives out good money.” A reverse of this would be, “In the absence of legal tender laws, when people are given the free choice between using and accepting good money or using and accepting bad money, bad money becomes less popular than good money, and is driven out of the marketplace.”) As this happens, a cascade of events can begin to occur, including the flow of real wealth toward the State’s treasury (instead of ever-devaluing FRNs), an influx of banking business from outside of the State (as citizens residing in other States carry out their desire to bank with sound money), and an eventual outcry against the use of Federal Reserve Notes for any transactions (because the average citizen will see with their own eyes that it keeps costing more and more FRNs to purchase things, while the cost in real money stays constant). At that point, the Federal Reserve system will have become unwanted and irrelevant, and can be easily abolished by the people’s elected Representatives in Washington, D.C. — and thus open the door for a return to sound money, nationwide.

All of this can take place because Dr. Paul helped bring about the minting once again of legal tender U.S. gold and silver coins, which can now be used to return every State to its Constitutional mandate for honest money. He recognized that this first step was a necessity: “There must certainly be no restrictions on the private production of coins, but I believe that getting the US Mint further into the act, producing a gold coinage with some of the mystique of the government, will be useful in the further political stages of monetary reform. Honest money, after all, is a political objective; it is fitting that people should demand honesty from their government, as well as an economic policy that permits individuals to compete honestly.” Now, with the Constitutional Tender Act, that political objective is within reach.

Thank you, Dr. Paul. Now, it’s up to US to finish the job, in our own States.

07ThursdayNov 2013

Press Release of Senator Cruz

TEXANS LISTEN-UP!
In a law suite Wendy Davis filed a few years ago she claimed she was disabled because of remarks a news report made about her and "mentally incapable of holding political office"!
Elevengun

http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/Report_Illegal_Immigration/

Like any other Patriot who loves their blessed land, I felt it was my responsibility to report two illegal aliens and the agricultural based employer who hired them. I had names, addresses, and every detail I would need to file this report with ICE. Thinking I was doing my part to keep our future safe for our children and grandchildren I went to the website to make my report; however, I was angered when I read the first few paragraphs.

It starts out by saying "Americans Working to Stop Illegal Immigration". That part sounded right but after reading a little more it tells you that 'they always explain that broader political involvement is needed because our government is barely enforcing any of the existing immigration laws at this time." In the next paragraph they tell you that "the chances of ICE taking any actions on your report is slim to none", but they still encourage Americans "to do their part in this struggle".

This sound like a sick joke and an insult to all Americans. It's like they are telling us to go ahead and make our reports (but they'll be ignored); ICE won't do anything so you're wasting your time. I'm not pleased with this and I don't know of anyone who would be. If such government agencies aren't doing their jobs why do they still 'pretend' to exist and waste our tax dollars?

I'm fed up with such stupidity and I'm fed up with Obama. We, the American People, are stranded in an ocean of uncertainty on a raft that could sink anytime. Let's take our country back!

My version of  " the talk " generations of young Black men have gotten in America came from grand parents who survived Jim Crow et al without bitterness but with healthy caution about how some in society misperceive law abiding Black males.  

http://PocketMoneyJob.com/?id=Casmer88

Millions of American Families losing health care must stand up for their Healthcare Freedom

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” Samuel Adams, January 21, 1776

For many of the 3.5 million American families that according to the Associated Press, the loss of their family health insurance came at them like a wrecking ball. Their very economic health and stability for their family members has been shattered because of a president who comforted millions of citizens with the one phrase which shall live in historical infamy: “If you like your health care you can keep your health care guaranteed and period!” Barack Obama – 35 times!

That one statement which as it turns out was a carefully plotted assault upon the comfort and trusting nature of the middle of the road America was used to plant the Trojan horse into the health care system like a deadly killer virus causing mass destruction. Now, 3.5 million families, much like you or your neighbor or co-workers are faced with the onerous choice of Obama’s one size fits all brand of engineered socialism or face possible excessive fines, liens against your home and in the end a surgical neutering of your own self determination and freedom. You have been obamafied!

Recent responses from readers as well as on conservative radio and in print have examined the horror and dismay that many families are facing as they attempt to deal with providing health insurance for a family member undergoing an operation, or a child who is faced with an illness or a female member who is suffering from breast cancer. Tens of thousands of examples of the gloomy prospects are pouring in, and yet in each one there is a solution.

Instead of worrying about what and when the congress will remedy this debacle it is clear that the solution lies with the family that has suffered this individual injustice. This is truly the point in the American experience when your neighbor, your distant relative and even your babysitter or church member can create your own distinctly American Insurance Freedom From Obamacare Campaign.

Imagine how the nation’s founding fathers felt at the beginning of the American Revolution and even months and years before. Sure there were writers and patriots in the colonies that were demanding justice from the British, which were largely ignored. Did that deter the common patriot who decided that his neighbor’s home that had been invaded time and time again by the British was not his fight? What about the British loyalists who were working to destroy the rights and freedoms which were God given to each and every American colonist member? These rights were stripped away by colonial government loyalists that cared more for the cruel boot and heel on their necks than the true essence of what freedom from continued oppression represented. These modern day sympathizers are the Obama democrats that stand with the socialist-in-chief and continue to mine the harbors of freedom.

( click to read more )

Rick A. Geisler posted about Progressives, although what counts is how one votes. Many comments gave a list of votes which tells us, no matter if they ran as a Progressive, Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative, how they voted. The vote is what counts and some conclusions can be made by looking at who they suggest they represent and how they voted. We must remember to look at the vote to judge if America has been represented. Most of us are oath men and women as we all should be. We are oath keepers to our Country and our people. Just as Promise Keepers is an oath supporting organization for marriage. What say yee? Are we together in support of our Constitution and our rights or are we foolish enough to think these are outdated? It is not our Amendments; our Constitution; or Bill of Rights that are outdated. It is those who were elected that DO NOT keep their oath of office! Just as life tells us by experience that keeping ones oath is always a thing we all should do, we need them to keep their oath.

DO UNTO THE GOVERNMENT AS IT WANTS TO DO UNTO YOU, only do it first!!!

It is time "WE THE PEOPLE", place they the government, under legal CONSTITUTIONAL LAW before the illegitimate Un-Constitutional President places us under illegal martial law.

Elevengun

I AM PATRIOT

 As it stands today, 3.5 million Americans have had their health insurance cancelled due to Obama care and the number could go as high as 16.5 million according to industry experts. So the 30 million uninsured that this inept Legislation was intended to aid has now reached 33.5 million and may go as high as 47 million before the exchanges are even open. I don't think this was an accident, I believe it was by design.

  Obama care will only work if it has initial high enrollment numbers in the exchanges themselves. I believe shortly after the implantation of this program they realized it was going to suffer from low turnout from the young contributors, That is to say that all their data pointed to the majority of young people being more likely  pay the fine rather than purchase health insurance through the exchanges. To salvage the program the needed a surrogate; enter private policies.

 Private insurance policies work differently due to the fact that there is no "group" statistics" to dilute the cost of  potential losses to the insurer. Therefor the insured is scrutinized more harshly, the cost is higher, and the unneeded benefits are stripped away from the policy to bring the price down. An example is that a 56 year old single man will not need maternity benefits or annual free breast screening so that benefit is removed from his policy to offset the higher non group  cost he has incurred.  Obama care had offered to grandfather these policies in but after learning the despairing projections from the “Youth Turn out" they decided to tighten the criteria to include 10 benefits that are not negotiable. Now the 56 year old single man has to have a plan that includes breast exams and other things that he does not need. This was a godsend for many private insurers who could now cancel their clients due to the inability to provide compliant coverage at a reasonable cost.

 You see, many of these private policies were written for people with pre-existing conditions. By cancelling these policies they eliminated these pre-existing policies and lowered their own risk. In short, Obama care purposely aided big insurance companies in purging their roles of the most vulnerable (those with no group policies and pre-existing conditions) in order to facilitate a need for Obama care . They have now brought in as many as 16 million people who have no place to go except the exchanges. A nice bi-product of this action is that when they count the policies in a year or so and tally up the effectiveness of the program they will use the estimated 14 to 16 million canceled private policies as proof that at least half the 30 million expected were helped. They will conveniently ignore the fact that they themselves caused these people to lose the coverage they had.

 This is not a new game, In the 30s and 40s in Chicago it was common for organizations to create a problem and then offer their services to solve it. It was called "The Protection Racket" and the people who carried it out were known as "Racketeers" and the organization was "Organized Crime". Americans should expected more from their Government than the actions of a Chicago Racketeer.

Perry

The betrayal of Ken Cuccinelli has the GOP going back to the future

A Guest Blog By JEFFREY LORD

Call them the Sabotage Republicans.

They have been busily at work in Virginia these last few weeks, sabotaging the gubernatorial campaign of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

But first?

Remember these headlines?

• From 2012: Romney Loses; Conservatives Weigh Limiting Clout of GOP Establishment

• From 2008: McCain Loses: Conservatives Call for GOP Reform

• From 2004: Bush Narrowly Beats Kerry; Conservatives Call for Rove Resignation

• From 2000: Bush wins by Supreme Court vote: Conservatives Call for End of “Compassionate Conservatism”

• From 1996: Dole Loses: Conservatives Demand End to Moderate Nominees

• From 1992: Bush Loses to Clinton: Conservatives Weigh Restrictions on GOP Establishment

If you don’t recall these headlines, no, your memory isn’t failing. They were never written. And if you saw these headlines yesterday your eyes weren’t failing you either. They were written:

• From the New York Times: GOP Weighs Limiting Clout of Right Wing

• From the Washington Post: Close Result in Va. Governor’s Race Hardens GOP Divisions

• From Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal: Lessons for 2014 From a Virginia Defeat

While we’re at it, let’s throw in one more headline, like the last three from yesterday, this headline too is a real one:

• From 1976 in the New York Times: Reagan Urges His Party to Save Itself By Declaring Its Conservative Beliefs

Now, notice anything here?

Every time some Establishment GOP nominee loses the White House or a hot gubernatorial, Senate or other race — conservatives have been silent about this unending ability of Establishment Republicans to lose either close elections or win them by unnecessarily close margins..

Yet if one conservative — that would be Ken Cuccinelli this week — loses a race, Katie bar the door.

Worse, up until now not much has been made of the long, disgraceful trait of Establishment Republicans to demand party unity — unless they lose a primary or a convention. In which case they simply refuse to unite behind the winning conservative. And deliberately, with malice aforethought — actively seek to sabotage that conservative.

There was one notable exception to this, captured in that 1976 New York Times headline which we have cited in this space many times. Ronald Reagan had finally had enough — and in the aftermath of yet another Establishment GOP presidential crash he made clear what path the GOP had to follow if it really wanted to win. Losing to Gerald Ford in the battle for the 1976 nomination, Reagan made a rallying speech for Ford at the convention and campaigned for him that fall. Ford lost. A month after the 1976 election, Reagan made a point of breaking the traditional conservative silence on losing Establishment races and turned the tables. A political party was not a “fraternal order” he said tartly to the Times, and that was the real problem with moderate, Establishment Republicanism. Which is why they kept setting the party up for repeated defeats.

In fact, one of the real problems here — as exemplified by the Cuccinelli defeat — is that moderate Republicans not only refuse to pull together. They go out of their way to sabotage the conservative.

Say it again? That word is sabotage. Betrayal. The Establishment GOP goes out…of…its…way to sabotage. Spelled s-a-b-o-t-a-g-e.

Let’s name some names here, shall we? Present and past to illustrate the point.

We’ll start here with this story in Breitbart by Matthew Boyle. The headline?

Cantor’s Ex-Chief of Staff Helped McAuliffe to Victory

The story begins thusly:

The ex-chief of staff for House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) helped Democrat Terry McAuliffe beat Republican Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia’s gubernatorial election race.

Boyle goes on to detail how GOP House Majority Leader’s ex-chief of staff Boyd Marcus, who had supported the GOP moderate Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling over Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for governor. Cuccinelli won the day — so what to do? Why but of course! Marcus was out the door to help defeat Cuccinelli by actively working to elect Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

Marcus is quoted as saying — and I have supplied the bold print for emphasis:

“I was looking at the candidates, and I saw Terry McAuliffe as the guy who will work with everybody to get things done… Virginia needs an experienced businessman who will put the practical needs of our people ahead of political ideology. I’ve never before supported any Democrat, but this election Terry is the clear choice for mainstream conservatives. I am excited to work with him to grow the already-long list of prominent Republican leaders who are supporting his campaign.”

Got that?

Terry McAuliffe — your basic left-wing liberal, huge supporter of Obamacare, abortion on demand, high taxes and big government among other things (does the name Hillary Clinton ring a bell?) — and Boyd Marcus the Cantor/Bolling guy, plus an “already-long list of prominent Republicans,” see Ken Cuccinelli as the ideologue. And these guys are, they say, the “mainstream conservatives.”

Scratch a “mainstream conservative” on Eric Cantor’s staff, apparently, and what you really have is a left-wing liberal.

Is there any wonder why the GOP House Leadership has had so many problems dealing with conservative members? Clearly there is reason to believe the Leader’s staff of the supposedly conservative party isn’t even close to being “mainstream conservative.” In the case of Marcus, he has vividly illustrated that in fact he was all too willing to go over the side to a far-left ideology.

Marcus isn’t alone in the Sabotage Republican category. In fact, he is merely typical of the breed.

Here’s the difference between conservatives and Establishment Republicans.

Back in the paleo-days of American political history — 1960 — Barry Goldwater’s name was placed in nomination for the presidency. He lost — he actually never ran a real campaign — but be that as it may, when he went to the podium of the 1960 GOP convention to withdraw his name and endorse Establishment winner Vice President Richard Nixon he said this, bold print added for emphasis:

Now you conservatives and all Republicans, I’d like you to listen to this. While Dick and I may disagree on some points, they’re not many. I would not want any negative action of mine to enhance the possibility of a victory going to those who by their very words have lost faith in America….. And you conservatives think this over—we don’t gain anything when you get mad at a candidate because you don’t agree with his every philosophy. We don’t gain anything when you disagree with the platform and then do not go out and work and vote for your party.

…I know what you say. You say, “I’ll get even with that fellow. I’ll show this party something!” But what are you doing when you stay at home? You are helping the opposition party elect candidates dedicated to the destruction of this country!

…Now I implore you. Forget it! We’ve had our chance, and I think the conservatives have made a splendid showing at this convention! 

We’ve had our chance: we’ve fought our battle. Now let’s put our shoulders to the wheels of Dick Nixon and push him across the line. Let’s not stand back. This country is too important for anyone’s feelings: this country in its majesty is too great for any man, be he conservative or liberal, to stay home and not work just because he doesn’t agree. Let’s grow up, conservatives. 

Let’s, if we want to take this party back—and I think we can someday—let’s get to work.

I’m a conservative and I’m going to devote all my time from now until November to electing Republicans from the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ticket, and I call upon my fellow conservatives to do the same. Just let us remember that we are facing Democrat candidates and a Democrat platform that signify a new type of New Deal, far more menacing than anything we have seen in the past.”

Then comes 1964. Barry Goldwater and his conservatives defeat liberal Republican New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Like Goldwater the loser fours earlier, Rockefeller the loser this time gets his five minutes to address the delegates and the nation via television.

Unlike the conservative loser Goldwater in 1960, the Establishment loser Rockefeller took a very different approach to losing.

Said Rockefeller, and we will leave in the notations of “Crowd Boos” as they happened in the original, with bold print supplied for emphasis:

During this year I have criss-crossed this nation fighting—to keep the Republican party the party of all the people and warning of the extremist threat, it’s a danger to the party.

—It’s danger to the party and it’s danger to the nation. The methods of these extremist elements, I have experienced first hand. [Crowd boos.] That’s right. Their tactics have ranged from cancellation by coercion of a speaking engagement before a college to outright threats of personal violence.

This is still a free country ladies and gentlemen. [Crowd boos.] These things, ladies and gentlemen have no place in America, but I can personally testify to their existence. And, so can countless others who have also experienced anonymous mid-night and early morning telephone calls. That’s right. [Crowd boos.] Unsigned and threatening letters. Smear and hate literature, strong-arm goon tactics, bomb threats and bombings. Infiltration and takeover of established political organizations by Communist and Nazi methods! [Crowd boos.]

Some of you don’t like to hear it ladies and gentlemen, but it’s the truth. These extremists feed on fear, hate and terror…There is no place in this Republican party…for such hawkers of hate, such purveyors of prejudice, such fabricators of fear. [Crowd boos.] Whether Communist, Ku Klux Klan or Birchers! [Crowd boos and begins continuous cheer of “We want Barry!] There is no place in this Republican Party for those who would infiltrate its ranks, distort its aims and convert it into a cloak of apparent respectability for a dangerous extremism. And make no mistake about it, the hidden members of the John Birch Society and other like them are out to do just that.

Lovely. Not a word there about the real opponent in 1964 — Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society, the impending deluge of Big Government that would swamp the country and set it on the road to fiscal disaster. No, Rockefeller’s approach was to go after conservatives and trash them. They were Nazis. Klan members. Haters.

Then there was this jewel.

In the closing hours of that 1964 nomination battle, when it was abundantly clear to all that Goldwater had well-more than a majority of the votes, out came this charming missive over the name of Rockefeller’s last minute replacement as the liberal GOP hope to defeat Goldwater. Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton. Tellingly, it was written by Scranton’s staff and not seen by their boss, but it reflected the liberal GOP mindset. The letter was, as presidential campaign chronicler Theodore H. White described it, theoretically a debate challenge. But in fact it read “less like a challenge to debate than an indictment, a summons to Goldwater to stand trial before the Convention delegates.” The letter read, in part, with bold print added for emphasis:

Your organization…feel they have bought, beaten and compromised enough delegate support to make the result a foregone conclusion. With open contempt for the dignity, integrity and common sense of the convention, your managers say in effect that the delegates are little more than a flock of chickens whose necks will be wrung at will…

You have too often casually prescribed nuclear war as a solution to a troubled world.

You have too often allowed the radical extremists to use you.

You have too often stood for irresponsibility in the serious question of racial holocaust.

You have too often read Taft and Eisenhower and Lincoln out of the Republican Party.

In short, Goldwaterism has come to stand for a whole crazy-quilt collection of absurd and dangerous positions that would be soundly repudiated by the American people in November.

Got that? The winner of the GOP nomination was “absurd,” his positions “dangerous.”

When the 1964 convention was over, instead of uniting behind Goldwater as Goldwater had done with Nixon — and asked his supporters to do the same — the Establishment/Rockefeller wing of the GOP took a walk. They sat on their hands — or went out of their way to sabotage Goldwater.

Decades later, moderates were still at it. In 2010 Delaware, GOP moderate Congressman Mike Castle was filled with soothing calls for party unity — until he lost the GOP Senate nomination to the conservative Christine O’Donnell. And promptly sat on his hands along with the Delaware and Washington GOP Establishments. Which spent their time shorting her on funds and attacking her.

Now the same stunt has been pulled in Virginia with the GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli. The moderates, led by moderate Lieutenant Governor Bolling and Eric Cantor’s ex-chief of staff, lost in a convention to the conservative Cuccinelli. So Bolling spends his time, like Nelson Rockefeller and liberal Republicans all the way back in 1964, and does the minimal. With Cantor’s friend Marcus simply going over to the other side, period.

What, pray tell, was going on with Reince Priebus and the Republican National Committee? With the Chamber of Commerce? Here’s this from Politico:

McAuliffe outraised Cuccinelli by almost $15 million, and he used the cash advantage to pummel him on the airwaves. A lack of resources forced the Republican to go dark in the D.C. media market during the final two weeks.

The Republican National Committee spent about $3 million on Virginia this year, compared to $9 million in the 2009 governor’s race.

The Chamber of Commerce spent $1 million boosting McDonnell in 2009 and none this time.

“If the Republicans would have rallied around the nominee instead of refusing to support Cuccinelli, he would have won,” said a GOP source involved in the race.

Then there is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and the Republican Governors Association deciding to take their money and, instead of giving directly to Cuccinelli, going off on their own to do commercials talking about… China. That’s right…not Obamacare, but China.

Here’s Matt Lewis on this over at the Daily Caller:

“Bobby Jindal’s presidential campaign is over,” said the Cuccinelli advisor. “He screwed this up so bad. And I don’t know why. The campaign knew it was moving numbers over ObamaCare. And the RGA was not very far from that information, they could have obtained it themselves,” the advisor continued. “They should have given the money to the campaign to spend as opposed to running these stupid China ads. They just blew it.”

About the only thing one can say for Jindal is that this was political incompetence as opposed to political sabotage.

And who will forget Chris Christie? Last year, as the key moment of the presidential campaign arrived along with Hurricane Sandy, Christie went out of his way to put his arm around Romney opponent President Obama. This year….cruising to a 60% percent victory and asked to spare a few hours for Cuccinelli, Christie refused. Once again, it was all about Christie..

And this is the guy who is supposed to be the new leader of the party?

The fact here is that sabotaging conservatives is built into the DNA of the GOP Establishment. Unable to win themselves a considerable bit of the time — and then continuing to move the country left when they do win, just not as fast and so much better managed don’t you know — they have never ever changed.

Governor Christie is being touted as some sort of inevitable nominee in 2016. The next Tom Dewey, the next Gerald Ford, the next Bob Dole and John McCain and Mitt Romney.

And if by chance he flames out? With the conservative base in open rebellion in the 2016 primaries, awarding the nomination to, say, Texas Senator Ted Cruz? You can bet that America will be treated to yet another knee-jerk, reflexive response from the quarters of the GOP Establishment.

Sabotage.

The GOP Establishment will find a way — quietly or not so quietly — to sabotage the conservative nominee if there is a conservative nominee in 2016. This is what they do. They did it to Barry Goldwater in 1964, they tried to do it to Ronald Reagan in 1980 with liberal GOP Congressman John Anderson. Anderson who lost in the primaries to Reagan, running as a third party candidate in a deliberate attempt to sabotage Reagan. Anderson failed — but it wasn’t for a lack of trying.

The Republican Party has two serious problems on its hands.

The first is with those like Eric Cantor’s ex-chief of staff who are invited into leadership positions in the party — when they in fact are not conservatives at all and quietly or openly seek to sabotage the party.

The second is with those Establishment Republicans who do manage to win — and then see their job as merely managing the leftist status quo.

This time around the target was Ken Cuccinelli.

But Ken Cuccinelli wasn’t the first — and he isn’t going to be the last.

That is the Republican Party’s real problem. And it’s a big one.

Republished with permission from The American Spectator

Full Definition of APOLOGY