Dear Fellow Tea-Partiers:
I already have an extensive BLOG of my own which I invite you to read:
http://lkmspeaksout.blogspot.com
Therein, I have already addressed many issues of public interest and concern. I shall update that BLOG from time to time and add my comments to this BLOG as well.
-LKM
It gets tougher and tougher to keep up with the ever-shifting sand underneath America's freedoms and the fight to keep shifty congressional hands away from our pocketbooks, not to mention staying current with the “shifting nature” of Obamatruth itself. It's a monstrous quagmire -- here are a few items you might be interested in . . . .
Item:
Obamacare, should it stand against legal challenges, requires over $3.9 billion in taxes from the middle class according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the official Congressional scorekeeper for legislation's tax effects. The new law begins somewhat gently and overall raises $15.2 Billion over a ten-year period but reaches the $3.9 Billion threshold in 2019 by limiting medical expense deductions on income tax. Present law allows a tax deduction of 10% of adjusted gross income (AGI) for medical expenses, but Obama care would cut that deduction to 7.5% of AGI which makes it not only a new tax on those earning less than $200,000 but surprisingly a new tax on sick middle-class Americans.
Item:
U.S. Congress members and their staffs are furious about Obamacare taking away their present “Cadillac” congressional health insurance (which did NOT happen to Reid, Pelosi and some of the top Democratic committee heads and their staffs). Rajjpuut is shocked. But, of course, these things will happen if you don’t actually read the bill you’re passing, eh?
Item:
The number of legal challenges mounted against the constitutionality of Obamacare by individual states threatened by the new law (Obamacare would eventually bankrupt each and every state of the union) has reached twenty-one while another 18-20 states are considering action. Florida actually has filed two separate suits against the federal government based upon Obamacare’s illegal status. Of course, it would be a lot easier to impose big government on the mass of American voters if all those nasty state governments weren’t in the middle shielding people.
Item:
Today is Tax Day, April 15th. 67 million American families, and most earning under $50,000, will pay little or no taxes and 73 million families will pay 98% of all taxes. In accepted tax theory “the rabble” gets real dangerous as they approach becoming the majority in any democracy because then they theoretically can feel free to demand all sorts of services from government and vote all the taxes upon the minority who will pay for all that government. Nevertheless, over the years 67%-70% of Americans consistently (69% in a recent study) say that the maximum responsible tax load anyone should bear, regardless of income is 20%. Currently 35% is the maximum tax level on any Americans due to the Bush policies. When those laws expire on January 1, 2011, the Obama tax requirements will immediately jump to 40% maximum taxes and aim at conversion to 77% taxes by 2013. Since many who pay no taxes also get “refundable tax credits” which thus amounts to a tiny, but guaranteed income . . . . we already have socialism in America.
Item:
Seven of the top eight state income taxers are suffering the seven highest rates of emigration out of their states. High tax states like New York, New Jersey, Massachussets and California are actually losing taxpayers to states like Florida, Texas, Nevada, Colorado or New Hampshire. New Hampshire with no state income tax benefits immeasurably when talented high earners from New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts get frustrated and decide to pull up stakes. The high tax states are the ones with the largest number or percentages of state employees; where the states involved offer them the highest pay and highest benefits; and those employees are members of the most vocal and strongest unions.
Item:
Kudos to President Obama for the words spoken about his new space agenda as he revealed in his Florida speech today, Far from dismantling the space program, he talked about revitalizing NASA and revealed some very ambitious forward-thinking dreams. Remember this for pennies on the dollar, NASA has been the best investment American Government has ever made. Flat screen TVS; Tang (hee-hee); GPS navigation systems; cell phones; etc. are just 0.1% Too many jobs were at stake. Too much technical advancement was at stake. Too much national pride was at stake. Rajjpuut would, however, advise the president, to replace his own totally-inept NASA supervisory staff or perhaps better yet, eliminate them altogether. Right now his speech amounts to a lot of pretty words only . . . unless competent people are put in charge of things, that’s all they’ll remain pretty words.
Item:
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
Two questions I always try to ask myself when self educating are "so what?" and "what now?"
For many years my friends and family have gathered around the dinner table and vented about the government getting out of control. For all of Bill Clinton's 8 years, that seemed to be all we did. At times I thought we were all kind of nuts, maybe a strange cell group that given the wrong kinda meat loaf would suddenly "turn rogue". However there was a closeness, an intamacy that we all experienced, knowing we were not alone. I remember times when new people would show up to dinner and we'd all get excited to find out they shared a lot of the same dissatisfactions we did. So we would re-hash all the same 'ol arguments with a lot of emphasis and visseral not really knowing who we were arguing with, being as we were all on the same side. I guess we could say it was iron sharpening iron. We all became experts at expressing our opinions about what was wrong with our country.
Well, now, a few years down the road, looking at this tea party movement, it would appear there were many dinner tables where people met at to discuss the status of the government and how it has become totally out of control. For years we've been talking about the "so what", but now, it seems we're asking "what now".
Erick Erickson wrote a good blog today on Redstate.com http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/04/14/tea-party-movement-20/ where he was back-peddling a little, trying to explain his flippant remarks in his blog yesterday. For the most part I really enjoyed what he said today, but the following is what I've been asking myself and I believe many of you have been asking as well:
"But I go to tea party events all over the country and hear people say "Get involved," only to have actual tea party activists go home, email me, and ask the "how" that the person on stage never bothered to get to.
We must move beyond the protests and get to the fight. We are effective now. We should not settle. "
He goes on to list some very smart ways the average American can "get involved":
I couldn't agree more, and would encourage all of you to follow through and not only do these things, but, pick one or two in particular and become an expert at them. Self governance takes people that are experts at all different kinds of skills. What good will it do if we are all just cookie cutter activists?
I would also like to add one to the list that we can all do. Like Glenn Beck says, we need to become an evangelist of this movement, we need to spread the word and invite others to come check it out. With that said, I hope to see you all the next tea party meet-up, you and someone you brought with you.
The Tea Party Express?
Please people, correct me if I'm wrong on this one.
Tea Party.org is the authentic movement.
It seems the Tea Party Express has hi-jacked our grass roots movement for thier "Throw the bums out campaign"??
They are not who they appear to be in my opinion.
They ...are NOT us!
I am a member of THIS movement here in Rhode Island.
My concerns are non-partician and so are the people that I meet with.
I would rather vote the bums out ourselves than to "sell out" attending a Tea Party Express rally.
Are you all with me on this??
I want them (the politicians) to come to us for our support,
I dont want to go to support them because they use the name "Tea Party Express"
If you are with me on this..what do we do about it.
How can we distance ourselves from them? Or should we?
Your thoughts please
My e-mail Cutwagman@aol.com
Or shout me an e-mail to my Inbox
It was one of those nights, not paying much attention, when I heard -- "and my next guest is Jon Voight!" Being a lifelong fan, I was glued and elated to have caught this special moment. Pajamas Media was also impressed enough to include it in their superb collection of great works.
A LETTER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM JON VOIGHT
A call for the American people to join the tea party movement
A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy5. Limited Government Governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" - (Declaration of Independence)The Principle 1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that government must be limited in power if Individual Liberty is to be safeguarded, if each Individual's God-given, unalienable rights are to be made and kept enduringly secure. "Just Powers" Defined 2. This philosophy asserts that the self-governing people allow any government they may organize to possess, by grant from them, only the limited and few powers with which the people think the particular government may sensibly be entrusted in order to serve their purposes without endangering their rights--their liberties or freedoms. These powers constitute the "just powers" of government, as the Declaration of Independence phrases it. This is in keeping with the primary purpose for which the people organize governments: to make and keep these unalienable rights secure and most beneficial to themselves and to Posterity--time without end. "Limited" - a Key Word 3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.) Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty 4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits. Division of Powers and Checks and Balances 5. As a further safeguard for the people's rights, The Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution provided for division of powers not only between the Federal and State governments but also within the Federal government between its three, separate Branches and, further, specified various checks and balances among these Branches, to help prevent either usurpation of power (grasping unauthorized power) or misuse of the limited quantity of power granted to it by the people: as explained, for instance, by Madison in The Federalist number 51. Each of the Branches was designed to help restrain the other Branches from any violation of the Constitution. The admonition on this topic expressed in Washington's Farewell Address reflected the conviction of all of The Founders.
6. The limitation of government's power, by a written Constitution adopted by the people (by the electorate), is the main distinguishing characteristic of a Republic. The correct definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Each American government, Federal and State, is a Republic; and such a form of government is expressly guaranteed to each State by the United States Constitution. (Article IV, Section 4.) This makes the American system a combination, or federation , of Republics--a compound Republic as noted in The Federalist number 51 by Madison. Although the term "Federal Republic" has sometimes been used to refer both to the central (Federal) government and to the federated system of Republics--including both central government and State governments (all Republics)--it will facilitate clear thinking if this term "Federal Republic" is applied only to the central government while using the phrase "federated system of Republics" or "federation of Republics" to designate the combination, or confederation, of all of these Republics. Clarity of understanding will be best assured by referring to the central government as the central Republic. The electorate adopt a Constitution as their basic law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention to frame it for their final approval, or ratification, as was done successfully for the first time in history by the people of Massachusetts with regard to its Constitution of 1780; it was so framed by a convention specially chosen by the people for this sole purpose and then submitted to the people for approval. Final adoption, or ratification, may also be effected in behalf of the people by a specially chosen convention for this sole purpose; and later amendments may be so approved for the people or through the regular legislative body--the alternatives specified in the United States Constitution. This Constitution was framed by the Federal (Constitutional) Convention in 1787 and then adopted in 1787-1788 by State Ratifying Conventions especially chosen by the people for this sole purpose; which is the complete and perfect method of Constitution-making. A Constitutional Convention--one chosen by the people for the sole purpose of framing or ratifying a Constitution--is one of America's greatest contributions, to the mechanics of self-government through constitutionally limited government. Federal Delegated-Power, and State Full-Power, Republics 7. The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison. It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" (again quoting number 45). The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual. (See Par. 3, Principle 4.) The "General Welfare" in Relation to the Constitution 8. The Preamble of the United States Constitution specifies "the general Welfare" merely as one of the listed goals to be served by the Federal government in the exercise of the limited powers delegated to it, as enumerated in the body of that instrument. This mention of "the general Welfare" in the Preamble was intended, therefore, to serve in effect as a limit on the use of those delegated powers. The Preamble does not constitute a grant of any power whatever to the government. The only other mention of the words "general welfare" in the Constitution is in the Taxing Clause (Article I, Section 8) which authorizes Congress to collect taxes ". . . to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . ." Here, too, the words "general Welfare" were designed to serve as a limitation in effect--as a limit on the power granted under that clause. This excludes any power to tax and spend for all purposes which would not qualify as being for the "general Welfare of the United States" as a whole--for instance, it is excluded if for the benefit merely of a locality or some Individuals in the United States. The clause does not empower Congress to spend tax monies for any and every purpose it might select merely on the pretense, or even in the belief, that it is for the "general welfare." (Discussed also in Pars. 4 and 5 of Principle 11.) Congress possesses no "general legislative authority," as Hamilton stated in The Federalist number 83. Hamilton's Opinion 9. All of those who framed and ratified the Constitution were in agreement on this point of the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause. As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton contended for the first time in 1791 ("Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States") in favor of a broader interpretation of this clause than he had formerly espoused and broader than that which Madison - with Hamilton's silent acquiescence--had presented in 1788 in The Federalist (especially number 41) as reflecting the controlling intent of the Framing Convention, which Madison and Jefferson consistently supported. Hamilton did not claim, however, that this clause gives to the Federal government any power, through taxing-spending, so as in effect to control directly or indirectly anything or anybody, or any activities of the people or of the State governments. Despite his assertion that this clause gives Congress a separate and substantive spending power, Hamilton cautioned expressly (Report on "Manufactures," 1791) that it only authorizes taxing and spending within the limits of what would serve the "general welfare" and does not imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the "general welfare"--that it does "not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication." The Supreme Court's 1936 Decision Ascertaining and Defining the Original, Controlling Intent 10. As the Supreme Court decided (1936 Carter case) in ascertaining and defining the original, controlling intent of the Constitution as proved by all pertinent records and confirming its prior decisions over the generations since the adoption of the Constitution, the contentions advanced from time to time that "Congress, entirely apart from those powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to promote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely rejected by this court." It also decided that the Framing Convention "made no grant of authority to Congress to legislate substantively for the general welfare . . . [citing 1936 Butler case] . . . and no such authority exists, save as the general welfare may be promoted by the exercise of the powers which are granted." The American people have never amended the Constitution so as to change the limited and limiting meaning of the words "general Welfare" in the Taxing Clause, as thus originally intended by The Framers and Adopters in 1787-1788. The Founders' Warnings 11. As Jefferson warned many times in his writings, public and private--for instance in the Kentucky Resolution--in keeping with the traditional American philosophy, strict enforcement of the Constitution's limits on the Federal government's power is essential for the protection of the people's liberties. This point was stressed at great length in The Federalist (notably numbers 17, 28, 33 and 78 by Hamilton and 44 and 46 by Madison) in reporting and explaining the intent of the Framing Convention expressed in the Constitution--as was understood and accepted by the State Ratifying Conventions. Hamilton's repeated warnings against permitting public servants to flout the people's mandate as to the limits on government's power, as specified in their basic laws (Constitutions) creating their governments, were in keeping with his words on one occasion in relation to the New York State Constitution. He stated ("Letters of Phocion," 1784) that any such defiance, by public servants, of the Constitution would be "a treasonable usurpation upon the power and majesty of the people . . ." Washington's Farewell Address expressed the conviction of The Founders of the Republic and their fellow leaders, in keeping with history's lesson, when he warned that usurpation "is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Resistance to Usurpers, as Tyrants, Is Obedience to God 12. It is a traditional American motto that: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." This motto was suggested by Benjamin Franklin in mid-1776 in the Congress as being an appropriate one for the seal of the United States; and it was so truly expressive of traditional American thinking that Jefferson adopted it for use on his personal seal. A major part of the American philosophy underlying the resistance to the tyranny of king and parliament prior to the Declaration of Independence, and in support of that Declaration in 1776, was as follows. Public officials who exceed the limits of the powers delegated to them by the people under their fundamental law and thus violate, or endanger, the people's God-given, unalienable rights thereby and to this extent make of themselves defaulting trustees, usurpers, oppressors and tyrants. They thereby act outside of this supreme law, which defines these limits and the scope of their authority and office, and therefore act without authority from the people. By thus seceding and violating the restrictions of this law, they act outside of Law: lawlessly, as "out-laws." As Samuel Adams stated: "Let us remember, that 'if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others [Posterity] in our doom'" (Emphasis added.) They thereby, in practice, replace Rule-by-Law with Rule-by-Man. These defaulting trustees--thus acting lawlessly--thereby free the people from any duty of obedience; because legally and morally, under Rule-by-Law, obedience by the self-governing people is required only to Law and not to law-defying public servants. The reasoning supporting the above-quoted motto's concept of moral duty is this: Man, being given by his Creator unalienable rights which are accompanied by corresponding duties, has the moral duty--duty to God--to safeguard these rights for the benefit of self and others, including Posterity. Man is therefore obligated to oppose all violators of these rights; and such failure betrays Man's duty as the temporary trustee of Posterity's just heritage. This is in keeping with the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence as reiterated in part, for example, in 1788 in the Virginia Ratifying Convention's proposals for amendments to the Constitution including a Bill of Rights stating in part as follows:
Applied to the United States Constitution, which Federal and State officials are sworn to support, this means that--in resisting Federal officials who, as usurpers, defy the limits on their powers imposed by the "supreme Law of the Land"--the people and governments of the States are opposing Rule-by-Man and defending Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law: the Constitution). They are thus defending the Constitution against its violators: the Federal usurpers; and they are acting in defense of the people's God-given, unalienable rights and the States' reserved powers. The American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government contemplates that the people of the several States--acting through their State governments--will, in last resort, use force to oppose any force employed by the Federal usurpers, that they will use military force (Militia of the States) to oppose any military force used by such usurpers; as Hamilton and Madison explained in detail in The Federalist, numbers 28 and 46. The Conclusion 13. The American philosophy reflects the knowledge that the history of Individual Liberty is the history of the effective limitation of government's power, which is expressed in the traditional principle summarized in the phrase: Limited for Liberty. Quotes from The American Ideal of 1776 supporting this Principle. |
So hot -- youtube won't let it on theri site!!
See it at:
And please forward it off to your friends
brando
In the scriptures of the big book and what they say is that all anxiety and doubt is cast from the devil. People become addicted to this or have mental issues with it and if not treated feed off it. This leads often to resentment and when stuck in resentment, people naturally want to get even. That is where poison envy comes in. It stems from the fact that Satan was the most beautiful on the outside, but was not on the inside and he was extremely envious (poison envy ) regarding Jesus. I believe all the Socialists are stuck in this and the '60's rad's are perfect examples. They can't get past resentment and that the people of the capitalist world built a better and more productive nation because God granted us the serenity to accept the things we could not change, gave us the key to wisdom, along with the freedom to come up with our great land of Capitalism -minimal gov,t. I just want to say to all you Socialists, Karl Marx, Lenin Mussolini,Hitler,Mao are(were) tea party all false leaders (IDOLATRY). At the tea party from the Mark 7:20-22 CRASHERS REMEMBER THIS
"AND HE SAID "WHAT COMES OUT OF A MAN, THAT DEFILES A MAN. FOR FAR FROM WITHIN, OUT OF THE HEART OF MEN, PROCEED EVIL THOUGHTS, ADULTERIES, FORNICATIONS,MURDERS, THEFTS,COVETOUSNESS, WICKEDNESS,DECEIT,LICENTIOUSNESS, AN EVIL EYE,BLASPHEMY, PRIDE,FOOLISHNESS. Doesn't this sound all way too familiar.
Item: 66% of those polled say Americans are overtaxed including 81% of mainstream America feeling we are overtaxed . . . but in contrast 69% of the political class feels Americans are NOT over taxed
-- Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more - the American people or America’s political leaders?
-- Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?
-- Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors?
To create the designations, each response earns a plus 1 for the mainstream answer "YES", a minus 1 for the political class answer "NO", and a 0 for not sure.
Those who score 2 or higher are considered part of the Mainstream. Those who score -2 or lower are considered to be aligned with the Political Class. Those who score +1 or -1 are considered leaners in one direction or the other.
In practical terms, if someone is classified with the Mainstream, they agree with the mainstream view on at least two of the three questions and don’t agree with the Political Class on any; and someone is classified as part of the political class if they agree with the political class view on at least two of the three questions and don't agree with the mainstream view on any.
