Obama’s on the verge of outright dictatorship
By Alan Keyes
June 25, 2010
[An excerpt from my latest column at WorldNetDaily]
Throughout his political career, Obama has consistently declared his view that the Constitution’s purposeful restraint of government power is obsolete. Since the outset of his occupation of the White House, he and his faction have signaled their intent to circumvent, undermine or simply set aside the authority of the U.S. Constitution. Both here and in postings on my blog I have repeatedly had occasion to remark upon the design for despotism that has been evident in their actions.
Now “eight Republican senators … are warning that the Obama administration is drafting a plan to ‘unilaterally’ issue blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants as it struggles to win support in Congress for an overhaul of immigration laws.” This represents the decisive step beyond derelict law enforcement. Not content merely to ignore the laws the legislature has properly and constitutionally made, Obama signals the intention to undertake unilateral executive action that alters the clear terms and intention of the established laws, entirely without the constitutionally determined consent of the people. This will be a blatant and presumptuous usurpation of legislative power. This is not just dereliction, it is lawless tyranny. It is outright dictatorship.
Constitutionally exercised, the executive power represents the force of law. Once divorced, however, from constitutional provisions for ascertaining the consent of the people, it asserts instead the law of force, the unjust rule that might makes right. In effect, just laws fall silent, and all that speaks are the government’s instruments of force and intimidation, imposing rules that have no more warrant of lawfulness than the command of a terrorist over those he holds, by threat of violence, hostage to his will. The forces under the authority of the presidency become in that case a weapon, loaded and cocked, held to the head of the American people.
Cicero famously observed “Inter arma enim silent leges,” “under arms the laws fall silent.” For some time now, executive dereliction has effectively silenced what U.S. immigration laws have to say about the status and treatment of those who take up residence in the United States in violation of their provisions. If the Obama faction implements the reported plan to impose amnesty by executive fiat, the illegal immigrants’ violation of the laws will in effect be defended and maintained by the executive forces of the U.S. government. Those forces will be arrayed against state law-enforcement agencies, such as those in Arizona, that continue to respect the provisions of established law. Hence, just as Cicero’s dictum would lead us to expect, Obama’s move to silence the immigration laws through dictatorial abuse of executive power will produce an incipient state of armed conflict between forces acting in conformity with constitutionally established law and U.S. government forces intending unlawfully to impose unilateral executive rule, which is to say, unconstitutional dictatorship.
Though purblind politicos will pretend not to see them, this offensive move has ominous implications for the survival of peace, justice and liberty in the United States, especially if it is successfully carried out. Thereafter, the basis for U.S. government action will no longer be what the laws say, but rather which laws are silent; or which parts of which laws the executive will allow to be heard. The basis for civil peace will no longer be respect for the laws, but submission to unlawful dictatorship. If today the dictator mutes the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to violate them with impunity, then tomorrow what will keep him from muting the laws against murder, extortion, theft or arson so that they may be violated with impunity by people acting as his vindictive agents of repression? By warrant of his executive fiat, will they be allowed to assassinate, intimidate, despoil or destroy the opponents of the lawless tyranny he seeks to impose in place of law?
Under the cloak of compassion for hapless illegals, the Obama faction seeks to establish the practical basis for ruthlessly imposing its will upon us all. Once that has been achieved, the threat of silencing some existing laws will be used to intimidate hapless legislators into making whatever new laws are dictated to them by the whims and purposes of America’s new iteration of the age-old regime of tyranny.
It's clear that the reported consideration of this dictatorial maneuver is already intended as such a threat. Given that fact, the Obama faction's reported plan for fiat amnesty for illegals signals the commencement of the last stage in their consolidation of socialist dictatorship. While they still have the opportunity to do so, the people who oppose this surrender of American sovereignty and liberty must raise a hue and cry like none the nation has seen before. By all reasonable and peaceful means they must communicate and confirm their determination to remove from the seats of legislative power every vestige of the party that thus sponsors the rise of an American dictator.
And when their resolve to do so produces indications of an electoral tidal wave certain to sweep the Obama faction from control of the U.S. Congress in the elections this November, they will have to pray – pray to the God who made and still may keep us free; pray that the likely failure of their schemes of usurpation does not lead the desperate tyrants of the Obama faction to implement their reported plan to silence the laws in order in some way to silence the sovereign voice of the people, as we tell them to surrender the constitutional power they have disgracefully schemed to overthrow.
I'll State It Again; If You Are Not Outraged, You Are Not Paying Attention!
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Where Are The Politicians Who Will Tell Us This Today? Are They ALL Corrupted Socialists At Heart?
Excerpts from a speech by Secretary of Agriculture under the Eisenhower Administration, Ezra Taft Benson:
"Your children will live under communism." Khrushchev said.
"On the contrary," Secretary Benson replied, "My grandchildren will live in freedom as I hope that all people will."
Khrushchev then retorted: "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."
Prophetic? You decide...
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Perhaps You've Heard This Term?
FUBAR
Posted on June 18, 2010 by libertyssong
by Richard H. Frank
The Democratic Congress and President Obama need to consider changing their slogan from “Change you can believe in” to FUBAR. This acronym, familiar to most Americans that have or are serving in the military, aptly describes the damage inflicted by our President and the 111th Congress on our Nation in just 18 short months. For those readers unfamiliar with the term it translates in polite language to “fouled up beyond all recognition.”
Only in America could the public be influenced through soaring rhetoric and a complicit media to elect a totally inexperienced, unqualified, arrogant and completely narcissistic individual to the Office of the President of the Untied States. For those of us that listened carefully to what President Obama said during his campaign for the Presidency, all the code words were there exposing his socialist agenda.
Now after 18 months of living with his incompetent administration, he has exposed himself to the American electorate for the neophyte community organizer that he really is. Every initiative he has championed has moved this nation in the direction of becoming a European-type socialist democracy. We all need to remember the Founders established our Constitution so that we would remain a “Representative Republic” with strict control over the central (Federal) Government as the means to secure and keep our liberty. The Founders abhorred socialism and had tried to make it unconstitutional. Samuel Adams pointed out that to adopt socialism, respect and support for the traditional Constitution had to be eroded and emasculated. Obama by his own admission views the Constitution as seriously flawed and will not hesitate to appoint Judges with socialists leanings in applying the Constitution.
Given the opportunity, Obama and the liberal Democrats would gladly suspend our written Constitution in favor of a European parliamentary form of Government and thus achieve their statist objective to exercise control over each and every facet of America’s life and liberty. Obama no longer hides his agenda for redistribution of wealth through his continued assault upon the free enterprise system. He and his Administration are the enemy of business and will continue to impose regulation and taxation until they have destroyed all incentive in the marketplace to succeed.
There seems little doubt among economists that the policies of “too big to fail,” “bailouts” and “unending deficit spending” have all failed. Yet we see Vice President Joe Biden stand before the White House Press Corps extolling the virtues and magnificent success at creating or saving 2.6 million jobs during this extended recession. With 15 million unemployed individuals in this Country, how long can the Administration continue to defend their policies before the citizens and the media revolt? I expect the revolt will become evident on November 3, 2010.
With regard to National Security, Unemployment, Energy, Health Care and Cap and Trade, President Obama’s agenda is evident and runs counter to the expectations of the people. Redistribution of our national wealth without regard to the consequences for our children and grandchildren seems to be all that matters to this President.
What some observers characterize as political rhetoric I prefer to call what it actually is – Lies! Lies to cover up for the incompetence of an Administration; lies to further a political ideology; lies to convince America that the President is a leader who takes the appropriate time to measure a situation before rendering a decision or proposing a solution.
The truth has been evident for months and apparent in the delay for a decision on General McCrystal’s request for additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan. Evident in his stubborn resistence to controlling illegal immigration under the guise of seeking comprehensive reform. Evident in the recurring missed deadlines set for imposing sanctions on Iran, and a foreign policy that refuses to declare extremist Islam as our enemy.
America recognizes real leadership and Obama does not meet the requirement to lead the greatest nation in the world. When he encounters opposition to his policies he reverts to threats, intimidation and bullying and calls it leadership. I call it Chicago politics. Just how much more damage can he and his administration do while in office remains to be seen. In the interim his policies , agenda and administration can only be defined with one word. FUBAR!
If This Administration And This Congress (the 111th) Doesn't Outrage You, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Posted on June 18, 2010 by libertyssong
by Richard H. Frank
The Democratic Congress and President Obama need to consider changing their slogan from “Change you can believe in” to FUBAR. This acronym, familiar to most Americans that have or are serving in the military, aptly describes the damage inflicted by our President and the 111th Congress on our Nation in just 18 short months. For those readers unfamiliar with the term it translates in polite language to “fouled up beyond all recognition.”
Only in America could the public be influenced through soaring rhetoric and a complicit media to elect a totally inexperienced, unqualified, arrogant and completely narcissistic individual to the Office of the President of the Untied States. For those of us that listened carefully to what President Obama said during his campaign for the Presidency, all the code words were there exposing his socialist agenda.
Now after 18 months of living with his incompetent administration, he has exposed himself to the American electorate for the neophyte community organizer that he really is. Every initiative he has championed has moved this nation in the direction of becoming a European-type socialist democracy. We all need to remember the Founders established our Constitution so that we would remain a “Representative Republic” with strict control over the central (Federal) Government as the means to secure and keep our liberty. The Founders abhorred socialism and had tried to make it unconstitutional. Samuel Adams pointed out that to adopt socialism, respect and support for the traditional Constitution had to be eroded and emasculated. Obama by his own admission views the Constitution as seriously flawed and will not hesitate to appoint Judges with socialists leanings in applying the Constitution.
Given the opportunity, Obama and the liberal Democrats would gladly suspend our written Constitution in favor of a European parliamentary form of Government and thus achieve their statist objective to exercise control over each and every facet of America’s life and liberty. Obama no longer hides his agenda for redistribution of wealth through his continued assault upon the free enterprise system. He and his Administration are the enemy of business and will continue to impose regulation and taxation until they have destroyed all incentive in the marketplace to succeed.
There seems little doubt among economists that the policies of “too big to fail,” “bailouts” and “unending deficit spending” have all failed. Yet we see Vice President Joe Biden stand before the White House Press Corps extolling the virtues and magnificent success at creating or saving 2.6 million jobs during this extended recession. With 15 million unemployed individuals in this Country, how long can the Administration continue to defend their policies before the citizens and the media revolt? I expect the revolt will become evident on November 3, 2010.
With regard to National Security, Unemployment, Energy, Health Care and Cap and Trade, President Obama’s agenda is evident and runs counter to the expectations of the people. Redistribution of our national wealth without regard to the consequences for our children and grandchildren seems to be all that matters to this President.
What some observers characterize as political rhetoric I prefer to call what it actually is – Lies! Lies to cover up for the incompetence of an Administration; lies to further a political ideology; lies to convince America that the President is a leader who takes the appropriate time to measure a situation before rendering a decision or proposing a solution.
The truth has been evident for months and apparent in the delay for a decision on General McCrystal’s request for additional troops to be sent to Afghanistan. Evident in his stubborn resistence to controlling illegal immigration under the guise of seeking comprehensive reform. Evident in the recurring missed deadlines set for imposing sanctions on Iran, and a foreign policy that refuses to declare extremist Islam as our enemy.
America recognizes real leadership and Obama does not meet the requirement to lead the greatest nation in the world. When he encounters opposition to his policies he reverts to threats, intimidation and bullying and calls it leadership. I call it Chicago politics. Just how much more damage can he and his administration do while in office remains to be seen. In the interim his policies , agenda and administration can only be defined with one word. FUBAR!
If This Administration And This Congress (the 111th) Doesn't Outrage You, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Nice :(
Ceding Arizona To Mexico
June 21, 2010 by Bob Livingston
America is losing the battle along the border with Mexico—apparently without a fight. As proof, a swatch of Arizona 80 miles wide that runs from the Mexican border about three counties deep into the state (encompassing about 3,500 acres) has been ceded to Mexicans. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that armed paramilitary elements control a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and other parts of Arizona. But rather than try and reclaim it, signs have been posted marking the area as off limits to Americans. It was closed in October 2006, due to human safety concerns, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The signs read: “Danger—Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended.” To see a clip of Babeu’s interview click here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjkU_8D4psw
The squad-sized (in American military parlance a squad refers to two teams of four or five soldiers each) armed paramilitary elements Babeu referred to are drug smugglers and human traffickers out of Mexico. And violence there has increased the last fourth months. He conceded that neither he nor other local sheriff’s departments and city police forces had the manpower to take the area back. It’s going to take the U.S. military, he said, and that’s why Babeu, his fellow law enforcement heads and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) recently asked Obama for 3,000 National Guard troops. Obama responded by promising Arizona Governor Jan Brewer he’d get back to her. He hasn’t.
As I wrote last week in Breaking Their Oath, this is not the only place armed elements have crossed the Mexican border in the U.S. There have been many sightings reported—and several videos made to back them up—of either elements of the Mexican military or police forces crossing the border in force. There have also been shootouts with U.S. Border agents. Just recently a young smuggler was killed by U.S. Border agents and armed agents from Mexico fired on them as they investigated the scene of the shooting.
Breaking their Oath demonstrated how Obama and the current Congress, as well as Presidents and Congresses past, have failed to live up to their oath of office and protect America from invasion. The situation in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge demonstrates that the fascist elected elites are either feckless and weak or they have an agenda that is contrary to the best interests of our nation. It also demonstrates why Arizona’s recently passed immigration law was necessary.
There were a lot of interesting comments to last week’s article. The vast majority agreed with Arizona’s soon-to-be-enacted immigration law which will make it a crime to be an illegal alien in the state. Many were like this one from a person calling himself American Citizen who said, “The only pertinent word about all of this is ‘illegal.’ They are criminals as soon as they step foot on our territory. Nationality means nothing here.”
Al Seiber is very familiar with what’s going on in Arizona. He has friends near the border. He posted, “My friends live 1200′ from the border, out of Sierra Vista, Ariz. they told me they find more prayer mats then anything. I find lot’s of back packs, with tortillas and water bottles in them.” Some commenters think the answer is a fence along the border: a fence that Washington obviously has no interest in completing. Typical of that line of thinking comes from someone calling himself bp who wrote, “People are WALKING over the border with their backpacks long before they stand on the street corner for a day job! Fences, we need SERIOUS fences (like the ones we build around our prisons) and the kind of armored vehicles that the Mexican Polizia showed us last week (when one of their smugglers was killed on U.S. soil)! Who knew they had these?!”
Not all agree. A regular liberal commenter who calls himself Denniso had this to say: “Bob Livingston says ‘we are being invaded and the gov’t is doing nothing to stop it’. Is that supposed to be a joke? I just drove along a part of the border and the highway was full of border patrol vehicles, driving back and forth. We have thousands more border patrol agents than we’ve ever had all along the border, at a cost of billions of dollars per year…what is that? doing nothing? Come on Bob, don’t twist the facts just to stir up the hotheads in the country more than they already are. If thousands of agents swarming the border is doing nothing and building a ridiculous and multi billion $$ wall is nothing, then I wonder what it is you would consider doing something?”
No Denniso. Unfortunately it is no joke. Usually you provide coherent dissenting commentary. Not this time.
There are places—like the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding territory—where agents don’t go, but armed insurgents from across the border do. And ask the residents of some of the border towns about the armed Mexican helicopters—sometimes seen hovering over houses and shining spotlights at night as if searching for someone or something—and how they feel about what is being done to protect them.
Certainly more could be done by the Federal government if the fascist elites in power wanted something done. Big John in Virginia had a good suggestion. He wrote, “Why do we have 37,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, but we can’t put enough on our borders to protect us? Let’s all go to Arizona for vacations this year. I am. I’ve always wanted to see the Grand Canyon!! Help make up for the boycotts. See ya there!!!”
Or, we could reduce the size of Empire America and just bring those troops home and put them along our border. But visiting Arizona is always a good idea. And refuse2lose commented, sarcastically I suppose,
“I would like to challenge any person that is against the Arizona immigration bill to call your representatives in congress, also write a letter to Obama and tell them that the federal immigration law needs to be shredded and a new one needs to be written up. Because, in case you are like Obama, Holder and Napolitano who didn’t take time to read the bill but got on tv and condemned it, I have actually read the bill and it is EXACTLY like the federal bill. So if you are accusing Arizonians of being profilers then you are in fact accusing your liberal icons of profiling.”
The grammar’s not great, but you get the drift. Actually, letting your fascist elected representative know how you feel about the illegal immigration situation is not a bad idea. So we’ve come up with a way you can do that. First, you can go here and vote in our Immigration Reform Poll. http://www.personalliberty.com/poll/immigration-reform/index.php?SC=BEL1185
So far 97 percent of those who’ve voted believe America should follow Arizona’s lead when it comes to immigration reform. And a whopping 92 percent of respondents would like to see their state pass a similar immigration law. After you’ve voted, send the link to your friends and family and ask them to vote as well. The results will be shared with major media outlets across the country, so the more votes cast the better.
You can also contact your Congressweasel (or Congressman if his or her name happens to be Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman or one or two others) and let him or her know how you feel. If you don’t know how to contact your Senator or Representative you can find him or her by going here. http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
As rob posted: “’We the People’ need to start being seen in ‘GREATER’ numbers and heard from in masses. We need to see and hear from candidates where they stand on major issues and hold them accountable. Why is it we are not asking our candidates or elected officials outright on their stance with major issues as immigration. Quit hiding….. NOW is our opportunity to be heard….NOW is our opportunity to be seen…. November is coming soon…. don’t pass it up.”
Why indeed? What better way to know where they stand than by asking them yourself? We’ve done the hard part for you. You no longer have an excuse.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention
June 21, 2010 by Bob Livingston
America is losing the battle along the border with Mexico—apparently without a fight. As proof, a swatch of Arizona 80 miles wide that runs from the Mexican border about three counties deep into the state (encompassing about 3,500 acres) has been ceded to Mexicans. Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that armed paramilitary elements control a portion of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and other parts of Arizona. But rather than try and reclaim it, signs have been posted marking the area as off limits to Americans. It was closed in October 2006, due to human safety concerns, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The signs read: “Danger—Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended.” To see a clip of Babeu’s interview click here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjkU_8D4psw
The squad-sized (in American military parlance a squad refers to two teams of four or five soldiers each) armed paramilitary elements Babeu referred to are drug smugglers and human traffickers out of Mexico. And violence there has increased the last fourth months. He conceded that neither he nor other local sheriff’s departments and city police forces had the manpower to take the area back. It’s going to take the U.S. military, he said, and that’s why Babeu, his fellow law enforcement heads and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) recently asked Obama for 3,000 National Guard troops. Obama responded by promising Arizona Governor Jan Brewer he’d get back to her. He hasn’t.
As I wrote last week in Breaking Their Oath, this is not the only place armed elements have crossed the Mexican border in the U.S. There have been many sightings reported—and several videos made to back them up—of either elements of the Mexican military or police forces crossing the border in force. There have also been shootouts with U.S. Border agents. Just recently a young smuggler was killed by U.S. Border agents and armed agents from Mexico fired on them as they investigated the scene of the shooting.
Breaking their Oath demonstrated how Obama and the current Congress, as well as Presidents and Congresses past, have failed to live up to their oath of office and protect America from invasion. The situation in the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge demonstrates that the fascist elected elites are either feckless and weak or they have an agenda that is contrary to the best interests of our nation. It also demonstrates why Arizona’s recently passed immigration law was necessary.
There were a lot of interesting comments to last week’s article. The vast majority agreed with Arizona’s soon-to-be-enacted immigration law which will make it a crime to be an illegal alien in the state. Many were like this one from a person calling himself American Citizen who said, “The only pertinent word about all of this is ‘illegal.’ They are criminals as soon as they step foot on our territory. Nationality means nothing here.”
Al Seiber is very familiar with what’s going on in Arizona. He has friends near the border. He posted, “My friends live 1200′ from the border, out of Sierra Vista, Ariz. they told me they find more prayer mats then anything. I find lot’s of back packs, with tortillas and water bottles in them.” Some commenters think the answer is a fence along the border: a fence that Washington obviously has no interest in completing. Typical of that line of thinking comes from someone calling himself bp who wrote, “People are WALKING over the border with their backpacks long before they stand on the street corner for a day job! Fences, we need SERIOUS fences (like the ones we build around our prisons) and the kind of armored vehicles that the Mexican Polizia showed us last week (when one of their smugglers was killed on U.S. soil)! Who knew they had these?!”
Not all agree. A regular liberal commenter who calls himself Denniso had this to say: “Bob Livingston says ‘we are being invaded and the gov’t is doing nothing to stop it’. Is that supposed to be a joke? I just drove along a part of the border and the highway was full of border patrol vehicles, driving back and forth. We have thousands more border patrol agents than we’ve ever had all along the border, at a cost of billions of dollars per year…what is that? doing nothing? Come on Bob, don’t twist the facts just to stir up the hotheads in the country more than they already are. If thousands of agents swarming the border is doing nothing and building a ridiculous and multi billion $$ wall is nothing, then I wonder what it is you would consider doing something?”
No Denniso. Unfortunately it is no joke. Usually you provide coherent dissenting commentary. Not this time.
There are places—like the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding territory—where agents don’t go, but armed insurgents from across the border do. And ask the residents of some of the border towns about the armed Mexican helicopters—sometimes seen hovering over houses and shining spotlights at night as if searching for someone or something—and how they feel about what is being done to protect them.
Certainly more could be done by the Federal government if the fascist elites in power wanted something done. Big John in Virginia had a good suggestion. He wrote, “Why do we have 37,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, but we can’t put enough on our borders to protect us? Let’s all go to Arizona for vacations this year. I am. I’ve always wanted to see the Grand Canyon!! Help make up for the boycotts. See ya there!!!”
Or, we could reduce the size of Empire America and just bring those troops home and put them along our border. But visiting Arizona is always a good idea. And refuse2lose commented, sarcastically I suppose,
“I would like to challenge any person that is against the Arizona immigration bill to call your representatives in congress, also write a letter to Obama and tell them that the federal immigration law needs to be shredded and a new one needs to be written up. Because, in case you are like Obama, Holder and Napolitano who didn’t take time to read the bill but got on tv and condemned it, I have actually read the bill and it is EXACTLY like the federal bill. So if you are accusing Arizonians of being profilers then you are in fact accusing your liberal icons of profiling.”
The grammar’s not great, but you get the drift. Actually, letting your fascist elected representative know how you feel about the illegal immigration situation is not a bad idea. So we’ve come up with a way you can do that. First, you can go here and vote in our Immigration Reform Poll. http://www.personalliberty.com/poll/immigration-reform/index.php?SC=BEL1185
So far 97 percent of those who’ve voted believe America should follow Arizona’s lead when it comes to immigration reform. And a whopping 92 percent of respondents would like to see their state pass a similar immigration law. After you’ve voted, send the link to your friends and family and ask them to vote as well. The results will be shared with major media outlets across the country, so the more votes cast the better.
You can also contact your Congressweasel (or Congressman if his or her name happens to be Ron Paul or Michelle Bachman or one or two others) and let him or her know how you feel. If you don’t know how to contact your Senator or Representative you can find him or her by going here. http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
As rob posted: “’We the People’ need to start being seen in ‘GREATER’ numbers and heard from in masses. We need to see and hear from candidates where they stand on major issues and hold them accountable. Why is it we are not asking our candidates or elected officials outright on their stance with major issues as immigration. Quit hiding….. NOW is our opportunity to be heard….NOW is our opportunity to be seen…. November is coming soon…. don’t pass it up.”
Why indeed? What better way to know where they stand than by asking them yourself? We’ve done the hard part for you. You no longer have an excuse.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention
4th Of July Is Just Around The Corner; Express Your Gratitude To Every Serviceman You Know, For Freedom Isn't Free
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!
Acknowledge and support All of our military personnel, wherever they may be who so steadfastly protect and defend our Country and our Freedom. Thanks to them, and their sacrifices, we can celebrate the 4th of July . We must never forget who gets the credit for the freedoms we have, of which we should be Eternally grateful. - our servicemen!
I watched the flag pass by one day,
It fluttered in the breeze.
A young Marine saluted it,
And then he stood at ease..
I looked at him in uniform
So young, so tall, so proud,
With hair cut square and eyes alert
He'd stand out in any crowd .
I thought how many men like him
Had fallen through the years.
How many died on foreign soil
How many mothers' tears?
How many pilots' planes shot down?
How many died at sea
How many foxholes were soldiers' graves ?
No, freedom isn't free
I heard the sound of Taps one night,
When everything was still,
I listened to the bugler play
And felt a sudden chill.
I wondered just how many times
That Taps had meant 'Amen,'
When a flag had draped a coffin.
Of a brother or a friend.
I thought of all the children,
Of the mothers and the wives,
Of fathers, sons and husbands
With interrupted lives.
I Thought about a graveyard
At the bottom of the sea
Of unmarked graves in Arlington .
No, freedom isn't free . - Anonymous
Enjoy Your Freedom & God Bless Our Troops; please say a prayer for our servicemen. Of all the gifts you could give a US serviceman, prayer is the very best one; followed closely by unwavering support.
I love you all for your service, you do immeasurable good for our country. Hold firm to your oaths, your honor and your integrity - for in the end, they DO mean something! Our Founders knew that, and countless serviceman from wars past knew it as well. God Bless You All!
If You Aren't Outraged By What You See In Your Country, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Acknowledge and support All of our military personnel, wherever they may be who so steadfastly protect and defend our Country and our Freedom. Thanks to them, and their sacrifices, we can celebrate the 4th of July . We must never forget who gets the credit for the freedoms we have, of which we should be Eternally grateful. - our servicemen!
I watched the flag pass by one day,
It fluttered in the breeze.
A young Marine saluted it,
And then he stood at ease..
I looked at him in uniform
So young, so tall, so proud,
With hair cut square and eyes alert
He'd stand out in any crowd .
I thought how many men like him
Had fallen through the years.
How many died on foreign soil
How many mothers' tears?
How many pilots' planes shot down?
How many died at sea
How many foxholes were soldiers' graves ?
No, freedom isn't free
I heard the sound of Taps one night,
When everything was still,
I listened to the bugler play
And felt a sudden chill.
I wondered just how many times
That Taps had meant 'Amen,'
When a flag had draped a coffin.
Of a brother or a friend.
I thought of all the children,
Of the mothers and the wives,
Of fathers, sons and husbands
With interrupted lives.
I Thought about a graveyard
At the bottom of the sea
Of unmarked graves in Arlington .
No, freedom isn't free . - Anonymous
Enjoy Your Freedom & God Bless Our Troops; please say a prayer for our servicemen. Of all the gifts you could give a US serviceman, prayer is the very best one; followed closely by unwavering support.
I love you all for your service, you do immeasurable good for our country. Hold firm to your oaths, your honor and your integrity - for in the end, they DO mean something! Our Founders knew that, and countless serviceman from wars past knew it as well. God Bless You All!
If You Aren't Outraged By What You See In Your Country, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Monday, June 21, 2010
Where Has All The Wisdom Gone?
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. - Albert Einstein
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees. If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children." -- Confucius
Restoration, Not Transformation!
"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees. If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children." -- Confucius
Restoration, Not Transformation!
This Doesn't Scare You?
New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet
Government would have “absolute power” to seize control of the world wide web under Lieberman legislation
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.
Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.
“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.
The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.
Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”
The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.
The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.
“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.
Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.
As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.
We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.
The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.
Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.
We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.
The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
Government would have “absolute power” to seize control of the world wide web under Lieberman legislation
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.
Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.
“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.
The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.
Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”
The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.
The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.
“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.
Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.
As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.
We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.
The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.
Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.
We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.
The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention!
I Can't Imagine They'd Mean Us Any Harm...
Have you heard anything about this over the past 18 months? More security breaches the Obama administration can't explain and can't afford to allow wide knowledge of. A complicit media? You think?
EXCLUSIVE: Alert Issued for 17 Afghan Military Members AWOL From U.S. Air Force Base
By Jana Winter
Published June 17, 2010 FOXNews.com
U.S. Air Force
A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned.
The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, "Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.]," written by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas and obtained by FoxNews.com.
The Be-On-the-Lookout (BOLO) bulletin was distributed to local and federal law enforcement officials on Wednesday night.
The Afghans were attending the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. The DLI program teaches English to military pilot candidates and other air force prospects from foreign countries allied with the U.S.
"I can confirm that 17 have gone missing from the Defense Language Institute," said Gary Emery, Chief of Public Affairs, 37th Training Wing, at Lackland AFB. "They disappeared over the course of the last two years, and none in the last three months."
The most recent Afghan to disappear from Lackland was First Lt. Javed Aryan, who went AWOL in January 2010, Emery told FoxNews.com. The others listed in the NCIS report disappeared at various times last year.
Each of the missing Afghans was issued a Department of Defense Common Access Card, an identification card used to gain access to secure military installations, with which they "could attempt to enter DOD installations," according to the bulletin. Base security officers were encouraged to disseminate the bulletin to their personnel.
"The visas issued to these personnel have been revoked, or are in the process of being revoked. Lookouts have been placed in TECS," it reads.
Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), which is shared by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, is a computer-based database used to identify people suspected of violating federal law.
Afghans are not the only foreign military who have gone AWOL from Lackland, Emery said.
"In 2009, the Defense Language Institute English Language Center reported two other students from countries other than Afghanistan went missing," he told FoxNews.com. "They include one Iraqi who requested asylum in Houston and one Djiboutian whose status is unknown. To date in 2010, one student from Tunisia and one from Guinea Bissau have gone AWOL in addition to the Afghani student [Aryan] who went AWOL in January.
"To put these numbers in perspective," Emery said, "more than 3,400 international students entered training at DLI in 2009, including 228 from Afghanistan."
A senior law enforcement official said Friday that the Afghans' disappearance was more of an immigration violation than a security threat, saying there are no "strong indications to any terrorism nexus or impending threat."
The official further said that an unspecified number of the 17 have been caught. "A number of these guys have already been located or accounted for by now," the official said. "Some are in removal proceedings to be deported already. (Authorities) still need to locate the others, and that is why the bulletin went out."
The official said the information is "kind of old" -- up to two years -- but added, "It is important in the sense that some people look to come to the U.S. and will take advantage of invitations to train or attend a conference or to study, etc. But their real intention is to get to the U.S. and start a new life. It is not completely rare for this to happen....
"Although we are vigilant and need to work toward not allowing this to happen," the official said, this alert should "not necessarily" be described as "a national security threat, more of a 'hey these guys violated our laws and we need to find them.'"
Included in the bulletin are photos of the 17 men, accompanied by their dates of birth and their TECS Lookout numbers.
Click here for the names of the 17 Afghan military members named in the alert.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/17/afghan-military-members-sought/
The bulletin requests, "If any Afghan pictured herein is encountered, detain the subject and contact your local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office, the FBI or NCIS."
"When a DLI student goes missing," Emery said, "officials report the incident to the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as the sponsoring service branch. Invitational Travel Orders, passports, driver licenses, and airline tickets are revoked in order to hamper travel opportunities for the missing students."
The FBI and NCIS did not respond to requests for comment. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman referred FoxNews.com to the FBI.
I'm Feeling Mighty Secure: Porous Borders, Foreign Nationals With Whom We're At War AWOL From American Military Bases, An Administration Bent On Allowing Nuclear Proliferation In Countries Where That Should Not Be Allowed; Yep, I'm Feeling Mighty Secure...
EXCLUSIVE: Alert Issued for 17 Afghan Military Members AWOL From U.S. Air Force Base
By Jana Winter
Published June 17, 2010 FOXNews.com
U.S. Air Force
A nationwide alert has been issued for 17 members of the Afghan military who have gone AWOL from an Air Force base in Texas where foreign military officers who are training to become pilots are taught English, FoxNews.com has learned.
The Afghan officers and enlisted men have security badges that give them access to secure U.S. defense installations, according to the lookout bulletin, "Afghan Military Deserters in CONUS [Continental U.S.]," written by Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Dallas and obtained by FoxNews.com.
The Be-On-the-Lookout (BOLO) bulletin was distributed to local and federal law enforcement officials on Wednesday night.
The Afghans were attending the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas. The DLI program teaches English to military pilot candidates and other air force prospects from foreign countries allied with the U.S.
"I can confirm that 17 have gone missing from the Defense Language Institute," said Gary Emery, Chief of Public Affairs, 37th Training Wing, at Lackland AFB. "They disappeared over the course of the last two years, and none in the last three months."
The most recent Afghan to disappear from Lackland was First Lt. Javed Aryan, who went AWOL in January 2010, Emery told FoxNews.com. The others listed in the NCIS report disappeared at various times last year.
Each of the missing Afghans was issued a Department of Defense Common Access Card, an identification card used to gain access to secure military installations, with which they "could attempt to enter DOD installations," according to the bulletin. Base security officers were encouraged to disseminate the bulletin to their personnel.
"The visas issued to these personnel have been revoked, or are in the process of being revoked. Lookouts have been placed in TECS," it reads.
Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), which is shared by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, is a computer-based database used to identify people suspected of violating federal law.
Afghans are not the only foreign military who have gone AWOL from Lackland, Emery said.
"In 2009, the Defense Language Institute English Language Center reported two other students from countries other than Afghanistan went missing," he told FoxNews.com. "They include one Iraqi who requested asylum in Houston and one Djiboutian whose status is unknown. To date in 2010, one student from Tunisia and one from Guinea Bissau have gone AWOL in addition to the Afghani student [Aryan] who went AWOL in January.
"To put these numbers in perspective," Emery said, "more than 3,400 international students entered training at DLI in 2009, including 228 from Afghanistan."
A senior law enforcement official said Friday that the Afghans' disappearance was more of an immigration violation than a security threat, saying there are no "strong indications to any terrorism nexus or impending threat."
The official further said that an unspecified number of the 17 have been caught. "A number of these guys have already been located or accounted for by now," the official said. "Some are in removal proceedings to be deported already. (Authorities) still need to locate the others, and that is why the bulletin went out."
The official said the information is "kind of old" -- up to two years -- but added, "It is important in the sense that some people look to come to the U.S. and will take advantage of invitations to train or attend a conference or to study, etc. But their real intention is to get to the U.S. and start a new life. It is not completely rare for this to happen....
"Although we are vigilant and need to work toward not allowing this to happen," the official said, this alert should "not necessarily" be described as "a national security threat, more of a 'hey these guys violated our laws and we need to find them.'"
Included in the bulletin are photos of the 17 men, accompanied by their dates of birth and their TECS Lookout numbers.
Click here for the names of the 17 Afghan military members named in the alert.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/17/afghan-military-members-sought/
The bulletin requests, "If any Afghan pictured herein is encountered, detain the subject and contact your local Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office, the FBI or NCIS."
"When a DLI student goes missing," Emery said, "officials report the incident to the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as the sponsoring service branch. Invitational Travel Orders, passports, driver licenses, and airline tickets are revoked in order to hamper travel opportunities for the missing students."
The FBI and NCIS did not respond to requests for comment. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman referred FoxNews.com to the FBI.
I'm Feeling Mighty Secure: Porous Borders, Foreign Nationals With Whom We're At War AWOL From American Military Bases, An Administration Bent On Allowing Nuclear Proliferation In Countries Where That Should Not Be Allowed; Yep, I'm Feeling Mighty Secure...
Friday, June 18, 2010
Where Is Our Next Great Thinker/Leader/Satesman; We Have Been Sorely Missing One
“A Republic—If You Can Keep It”
June 18, 2010 by Chip Wood, Personal Liberty Digest
At first I couldn’t believe my eyes. In fact, I had to look away and blink a couple of times before reading the email again. But it still said the same thing: “Benjamin Franklin said, ‘We have given you a democratic-republic… if you can keep it.”
No, he didn’t!
I had to face the fact: A Straight Talk reader had fallen victim to 100 years of liberal brainwashing. What he said was such a gross perversion of the truth—and the difference is so incredibly important to preserving what liberties we have left—I hope you’ll indulge me in a brief history lesson this week.
If you remember much from your high school history classes about the founding of this country, you know there was a great deal of controversy about what type of government the newly independent states should create.
The first effort, the Articles of Confederation, was generally regarded as a failure. But what should replace them? Each state sent a group of representatives to meet in Philadelphia and hammer out a new agreement. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended, eager to learn what had been produced behind those closed doors.
As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”
With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.”
Over the past four decades I have recounted this story several hundred times. For many years I traveled the country giving speeches about the threats to this Republic. I always enjoyed the opportunity to talk to high school students when I could wrangle an invitation. When I did, I loved to tell them about the differences between a republic and a democracy.
“A lynch mob is democracy in action,” I would say. “While if you believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, that they deserve their day in court and that a jury of their peers should decide their fate, then you believe in a nation of laws, not just the whims of a mob.”
Another line I used a lot was, “Democracy is five wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. If you were the sheep, which would you rather live in—a republic or a democracy?”
I told them about the importance of “binding men down with the chains of a Constitution.” That this was the only sure way to protect their freedom. And that anyone who wanted to change this republic into a democracy was an enemy of liberty.
A century or two earlier there would have been no need to give such a talk—and no interest if one did. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, every American who could read and write (and probably most of those who couldn’t), knew we were a republic. The campaign to brainwash us into believing we were a democracy didn’t begin until 100 years ago. Today, if you take a poll of high school or college students, the overwhelming majority will tell you that we are a democracy.
Please don’t dismiss this as a mere quarrel over semantics. Understanding the difference between the two systems of government is absolutely vital. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that our very liberties depend on getting more Americans to realize the importance of this seemingly arcane dispute.
Our Founding Fathers Feared And Hated Democracy
Most high school students who heard me say such a thing were surprised and shocked. They had been taught that the United States was, and had always been, a democracy. That “majority rule” was the fairest of all possible forms of government.
Who was this guy to tell them they’d been lied to?
So I quoted what some of our founding fathers had to say. I asked if they had heard of The Federalist Papers—the collection of articles written during the debate over ratifying the new constitution.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison, often referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” had this to say:
“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”
Alexander Hamilton concurred. In a speech he gave in June 1788, urging ratification of the Constitution, he thundered:
“The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Fisher Ames, a member of Congress during the eight years that George Washington was president, wrote an essay called “the Mire of Democracy.” In it, he said that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from despotism.”
Yes, our founding fathers were well aware of the differences between a republic and a democracy. They revered the former; but as I said above, they hated and feared the latter.
In view of the founders’ ardent convictions, it is no surprise that you cannot find the word “democracy” anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the U.S. Indeed, the Constitution not only proclaimed that our Federal government should be a republic; it went further and mandated that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”
These principles used to be widely understood and commonly accepted. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 until 1835, said that, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.”
Nor was it only Americans who feared and despised democracy. Lord Acton, the famous Englishman who coined the aphorism that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” had this to say:
“The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
It was only during the last century that the falsehood about this country being a democracy became widely accepted. Woodrow Wilson declared that we fought World War I “to make the world safe for democracy.” Franklin Roosevelt said that the U.S. “must be the great arsenal of democracy.”
So today, almost every schoolchild in America believes that the U.S. is a democracy. Why did the liberal intelligentsia in this country, supported by their slavish followers in the media and their docile puppets in politics, pull this “bait and switch” on us?
For the answer, let’s turn to another Englishman, Alexander Fraser Tytler, also known as Lord Woodhouselee, who wrote:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
The only part of Mr. Tytler’s warning I’ll dispute is his use of the word “always.” You and I have been given the power to prevent our country’s descent into a democracy. It’s called the ballot box. Let’s hope enough of us use it this coming Nov. 2 to begin the process of taking our country back.
Until next time, keep some powder dry. — Chip Wood
To Have Lived During The Time Of These Great Men & Minds; Who Among Us Today Could Have Held Our Own Against Any Of Them In A Debate? And To Think We've Neglected The Warning They So Generously Provided...
June 18, 2010 by Chip Wood, Personal Liberty Digest
At first I couldn’t believe my eyes. In fact, I had to look away and blink a couple of times before reading the email again. But it still said the same thing: “Benjamin Franklin said, ‘We have given you a democratic-republic… if you can keep it.”
No, he didn’t!
I had to face the fact: A Straight Talk reader had fallen victim to 100 years of liberal brainwashing. What he said was such a gross perversion of the truth—and the difference is so incredibly important to preserving what liberties we have left—I hope you’ll indulge me in a brief history lesson this week.
If you remember much from your high school history classes about the founding of this country, you know there was a great deal of controversy about what type of government the newly independent states should create.
The first effort, the Articles of Confederation, was generally regarded as a failure. But what should replace them? Each state sent a group of representatives to meet in Philadelphia and hammer out a new agreement. The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended, eager to learn what had been produced behind those closed doors.
As the delegates left the building, a Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got?”
With no hesitation, Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Not a democracy, not a democratic republic. But “a republic, if you can keep it.”
Over the past four decades I have recounted this story several hundred times. For many years I traveled the country giving speeches about the threats to this Republic. I always enjoyed the opportunity to talk to high school students when I could wrangle an invitation. When I did, I loved to tell them about the differences between a republic and a democracy.
“A lynch mob is democracy in action,” I would say. “While if you believe someone is innocent until proven guilty, that they deserve their day in court and that a jury of their peers should decide their fate, then you believe in a nation of laws, not just the whims of a mob.”
Another line I used a lot was, “Democracy is five wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. If you were the sheep, which would you rather live in—a republic or a democracy?”
I told them about the importance of “binding men down with the chains of a Constitution.” That this was the only sure way to protect their freedom. And that anyone who wanted to change this republic into a democracy was an enemy of liberty.
A century or two earlier there would have been no need to give such a talk—and no interest if one did. Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, every American who could read and write (and probably most of those who couldn’t), knew we were a republic. The campaign to brainwash us into believing we were a democracy didn’t begin until 100 years ago. Today, if you take a poll of high school or college students, the overwhelming majority will tell you that we are a democracy.
Please don’t dismiss this as a mere quarrel over semantics. Understanding the difference between the two systems of government is absolutely vital. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that our very liberties depend on getting more Americans to realize the importance of this seemingly arcane dispute.
Our Founding Fathers Feared And Hated Democracy
Most high school students who heard me say such a thing were surprised and shocked. They had been taught that the United States was, and had always been, a democracy. That “majority rule” was the fairest of all possible forms of government.
Who was this guy to tell them they’d been lied to?
So I quoted what some of our founding fathers had to say. I asked if they had heard of The Federalist Papers—the collection of articles written during the debate over ratifying the new constitution.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison, often referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” had this to say:
“…democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.”
Alexander Hamilton concurred. In a speech he gave in June 1788, urging ratification of the Constitution, he thundered:
“The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”
Fisher Ames, a member of Congress during the eight years that George Washington was president, wrote an essay called “the Mire of Democracy.” In it, he said that the framers of the Constitution “intended our government should be a republic, which differs more widely from a democracy than a democracy from despotism.”
Yes, our founding fathers were well aware of the differences between a republic and a democracy. They revered the former; but as I said above, they hated and feared the latter.
In view of the founders’ ardent convictions, it is no surprise that you cannot find the word “democracy” anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the U.S. Indeed, the Constitution not only proclaimed that our Federal government should be a republic; it went further and mandated that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.”
These principles used to be widely understood and commonly accepted. John Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 until 1835, said that, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that “democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.”
Nor was it only Americans who feared and despised democracy. Lord Acton, the famous Englishman who coined the aphorism that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” had this to say:
“The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
It was only during the last century that the falsehood about this country being a democracy became widely accepted. Woodrow Wilson declared that we fought World War I “to make the world safe for democracy.” Franklin Roosevelt said that the U.S. “must be the great arsenal of democracy.”
So today, almost every schoolchild in America believes that the U.S. is a democracy. Why did the liberal intelligentsia in this country, supported by their slavish followers in the media and their docile puppets in politics, pull this “bait and switch” on us?
For the answer, let’s turn to another Englishman, Alexander Fraser Tytler, also known as Lord Woodhouselee, who wrote:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
The only part of Mr. Tytler’s warning I’ll dispute is his use of the word “always.” You and I have been given the power to prevent our country’s descent into a democracy. It’s called the ballot box. Let’s hope enough of us use it this coming Nov. 2 to begin the process of taking our country back.
Until next time, keep some powder dry. — Chip Wood
To Have Lived During The Time Of These Great Men & Minds; Who Among Us Today Could Have Held Our Own Against Any Of Them In A Debate? And To Think We've Neglected The Warning They So Generously Provided...
Continued Shredding Of The Constitution
The Federal Government will assume no power not expressly given it by the states. The Federal Government also has done nothing, and continues to do nothing, about border security and immigration enforcement in America. So why then would a sitting President authorize a lawsuit against a state for doing something the Federal Government should be doing, but refuses to do?
Has anyone seen Dorothy?
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention!
Has anyone seen Dorothy?
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't paying Attention!
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Nope, No Problem(s) On The Border...
The U.S. Gov: giving parts of Arizona back to MexicoBy Michael Webster: Syndicated Investigative reporter June 14, 2010 at 5:00 PM PDT
Thousands of acres of the Sonoran Desert closed to Americans
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has closed large portion of Southern Arizona in and around the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and all along the southern side of I-8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend. This is 80 miles north of the Mexican border and its now off limits to American citizens!!
A reliable informant known to us as “Duck Hunter” has told the U.S. Border Fire Report that the Mexican Drug cartels now control large areas of Southern Arizona. According to the Pinal County Sheriff large areas in Southern Arizona are very dangerous and is off limits to U.S. citizens. " We do not have control of this area"
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/06/pinal-county-sheriff-mexican-drug.html
No one is working this area, Not ICE, DEA, ATF, Customs and Border Protection, FBI, Pinal County, BLM ........... That tells me that the cronies in Washington does not give a sh... about the publics safety.This is going on 80 miles north of the border. Their actions are telling me that is fine that the Mexican Drug Cartels has full control of our desert.
Where is Congress and DHS in this new Mexican-American war that we seem to be losing?
According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife this area is about 3500 acres in size. Our concern for public safety is paramount. The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent. The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been adversely affected by border-related activities. The international border with Mexico has also become increasingly violent.
Assaults on law enforcement officers, U.S. Citizens and violence against migrants have escalated in recent times. Violence on the Refuge associated with smugglers and border bandits has been well documented.
Many of these activities are concentrated at the border and inland for 80 miles.The concentration of illegal activity, surveillance and law enforcement interdictions make these zones dangerous. Closure is in effect until further notice according to Mitch Ellis Buenos Aires NWR Refuge Manager.
Concerned Citizens group say “there are now signs posted here in AZ just off I-8. No more camping south of I-8. So, our government has surrendered and ceded part of Arizona to the smugglers and cartels of Mexico?
What do you think would happen if signs like this were to be found back East? But this is just backwater, flyover AZ so it doesn’t count to the media and Congress , I guess. Folks, this nation better wake up and pay attention. This is only the beginning of what you can expect in YOUR backyards. This is not an exaggeration: I stopped hiking some of my favorite mountains and canyons because of the smuggling dangers. Who wants to carry more guns and ammo than water in order to survive in the Arizona desert? That is what it has become. Maybe your state is next?
Duck Hunter said “How much land are we going to allow the Drug and Smuggling trade to take from the States.” Here is another area that is "Officially" CLOSED This area is completely closed and has been for almost 4 yrs due to the violence of border issues.
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/
According to Duck Hunter ARMED TROOPS TO THE ARIZONA BORDER NOW! OR WE CAN DO THE ARMED MINUTEMAN THING. Either way this must be and it will be dealt with by American Concerned Citizens!
Michael Webster’s Syndicated Investigative Reports have been read worldwide, in 100 or more U.S. outlets and in at least 136 countries and territories. He publishes articles in association with global news agencies and media information services with more than 350 news affiliates in 136 countries. Many of Mr. Webster’s articles are printed in six working languages: English, French, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Spanish. With ten more languages planed in the near future.
Mr. Webster is America's leading authority on Venture Capital/Equity Funding. He served as a trustee on some of the nation’s largest trade Union funds. A noted Author, Lecturer, Educator, Emergency Manager, Counter-Terrorist, War on Drugs and War on Terrorist Specialist, Business Consultant, Newspaper Publisher. Radio News caster. Labor Law generalist, Teamster Union Business Agent, General Organizer, Union Rank and File Member Grievances Representative, NLRB Union Representative, Union Contract Negotiator, Workers Compensation Appeals Board Hearing Representative. Mr. Webster represented management on that side of the table as the former Director of Federated of Nevada. Mr. Webster publishes on-line newspapers at www.lagunajournal.com and www.usborderfirereport.com and does investigative reports for print, electronic and on-line News Agencies. All of Mr. Webster's articles, books/CD's can be read or downloaded free at: http://www.lagunajournal.com/michael_webster.htm or MICHAEL WEBSTER'S OTHER WRITINGS Contact e-mail: wibcom@aol.com
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention
Thousands of acres of the Sonoran Desert closed to Americans
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has closed large portion of Southern Arizona in and around the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and all along the southern side of I-8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend. This is 80 miles north of the Mexican border and its now off limits to American citizens!!
A reliable informant known to us as “Duck Hunter” has told the U.S. Border Fire Report that the Mexican Drug cartels now control large areas of Southern Arizona. According to the Pinal County Sheriff large areas in Southern Arizona are very dangerous and is off limits to U.S. citizens. " We do not have control of this area"
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2010/06/pinal-county-sheriff-mexican-drug.html
No one is working this area, Not ICE, DEA, ATF, Customs and Border Protection, FBI, Pinal County, BLM ........... That tells me that the cronies in Washington does not give a sh... about the publics safety.This is going on 80 miles north of the border. Their actions are telling me that is fine that the Mexican Drug Cartels has full control of our desert.
Where is Congress and DHS in this new Mexican-American war that we seem to be losing?
According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife this area is about 3500 acres in size. Our concern for public safety is paramount. The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent. The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge has been adversely affected by border-related activities. The international border with Mexico has also become increasingly violent.
Assaults on law enforcement officers, U.S. Citizens and violence against migrants have escalated in recent times. Violence on the Refuge associated with smugglers and border bandits has been well documented.
Many of these activities are concentrated at the border and inland for 80 miles.The concentration of illegal activity, surveillance and law enforcement interdictions make these zones dangerous. Closure is in effect until further notice according to Mitch Ellis Buenos Aires NWR Refuge Manager.
Concerned Citizens group say “there are now signs posted here in AZ just off I-8. No more camping south of I-8. So, our government has surrendered and ceded part of Arizona to the smugglers and cartels of Mexico?
What do you think would happen if signs like this were to be found back East? But this is just backwater, flyover AZ so it doesn’t count to the media and Congress , I guess. Folks, this nation better wake up and pay attention. This is only the beginning of what you can expect in YOUR backyards. This is not an exaggeration: I stopped hiking some of my favorite mountains and canyons because of the smuggling dangers. Who wants to carry more guns and ammo than water in order to survive in the Arizona desert? That is what it has become. Maybe your state is next?
Duck Hunter said “How much land are we going to allow the Drug and Smuggling trade to take from the States.” Here is another area that is "Officially" CLOSED This area is completely closed and has been for almost 4 yrs due to the violence of border issues.
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/arizona/
According to Duck Hunter ARMED TROOPS TO THE ARIZONA BORDER NOW! OR WE CAN DO THE ARMED MINUTEMAN THING. Either way this must be and it will be dealt with by American Concerned Citizens!
Michael Webster’s Syndicated Investigative Reports have been read worldwide, in 100 or more U.S. outlets and in at least 136 countries and territories. He publishes articles in association with global news agencies and media information services with more than 350 news affiliates in 136 countries. Many of Mr. Webster’s articles are printed in six working languages: English, French, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Spanish. With ten more languages planed in the near future.
Mr. Webster is America's leading authority on Venture Capital/Equity Funding. He served as a trustee on some of the nation’s largest trade Union funds. A noted Author, Lecturer, Educator, Emergency Manager, Counter-Terrorist, War on Drugs and War on Terrorist Specialist, Business Consultant, Newspaper Publisher. Radio News caster. Labor Law generalist, Teamster Union Business Agent, General Organizer, Union Rank and File Member Grievances Representative, NLRB Union Representative, Union Contract Negotiator, Workers Compensation Appeals Board Hearing Representative. Mr. Webster represented management on that side of the table as the former Director of Federated of Nevada. Mr. Webster publishes on-line newspapers at www.lagunajournal.com and www.usborderfirereport.com and does investigative reports for print, electronic and on-line News Agencies. All of Mr. Webster's articles, books/CD's can be read or downloaded free at: http://www.lagunajournal.com/michael_webster.htm or MICHAEL WEBSTER'S OTHER WRITINGS Contact e-mail: wibcom@aol.com
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Still Think Your Liberty (And The Constitution) Aren't In Jeopardy?
By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer Jim Fitzgerald, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jun 15, 4:08 pm ET
PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.
Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.
Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.
Furano and his wife, Gloria Furano, voted Thursday.
"That was very strange," Arthur Furano, 80, said after voting. "I'm not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, `one man, one vote.'"
It's the first time any municipality in New York has used cumulative voting, said Amy Ngai, a director at FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group that has been hired to consult. The system is used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill.
The judge also ordered Port Chester to implement in-person early voting, allowing residents to show up on any of five days to cast ballots. That, too, is a first in New York, Ngai said.
Village clerk Joan Mancuso said Monday that 604 residents voted early.
Gloria Furano gave one vote each to six candidates. Aaron Conetta gave two votes each to three candidates.
Frances Nurena talked to the inspectors about the new system, grabbed some educational material and went home to study. After all, it was only Thursday. She could vote on Friday, Saturday or Tuesday.
"I understand the voting," she said. "But since I have time, I'm going to learn more about the candidates."
On Tuesday, Candida Sandoval voted at the Don Bosco Center, where a soup kitchen and day-laborer hiring center added to the activity, and where federal observers watched the voting from a table in the corner.
"I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don't know, but I hope so."
FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates. Two of the 13 Port Chester trustee candidates — one Democrat and one Republican — are Hispanic. A third Hispanic is running a write-in campaign after being taken off the ballot on a technicality.
Campaigning was generally low key, and the election itself was less of an issue than housing density and taxes.
Hispanic candidates Fabiola Montoya and Luis Marino emphasized their volunteer work and said they would represent all residents if elected.
Gregg Gregory gave all his votes to one candidate, then said: "I think this is terrific. It's good for Port Chester. It opens it up to a lot more people, not just Hispanics but independents, too."
Vote coordinator Martha Lopez said that if turnout is higher than in recent years, when it hovered around 25 percent, the election would be a success — regardless of whether a Hispanic was elected.
"I think we'll make it," she said. "I'm happy to report the people seem very interested."
But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but "to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice."
That could be a non-Hispanic, he acknowledged, and until exit polling is done, "it won't be known for sure whether the winners were Hispanic-preferred."
The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row — some of them twice if they have two party lines — and then the same candidates are listed five more times. In all, there are 114 levers; voters can flip any six.
Besides the forums, bright yellow T-shirts, tote bags and lawn signs declared "Your voice, your vote, your village," part of the educational materials also mandated in the government agreement. Announcements were made on cable TV in each language.
All such materials — the ballot, the brochures, the TV spots, the reminders sent home in schoolkids' backpacks — had to be approved in advance, in English and Spanish versions, by the Department of Justice.
Conetta said the voter education effort was so thorough he found voting easier than usual.
"It was very different but actually quite simple," he said. "No problem."
I Guess If You Can't Win An Election Cleanly, It's OK To Steal One - And With The Help Of The Justice Department No Less...
PORT CHESTER, N.Y. – Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.
Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.
Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.
Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.
Furano and his wife, Gloria Furano, voted Thursday.
"That was very strange," Arthur Furano, 80, said after voting. "I'm not sure I liked it. All my life, I've heard, `one man, one vote.'"
It's the first time any municipality in New York has used cumulative voting, said Amy Ngai, a director at FairVote, a nonprofit election research and reform group that has been hired to consult. The system is used to elect the school board in Amarillo, Texas, the county commission in Chilton County, Ala., and the City Council in Peoria, Ill.
The judge also ordered Port Chester to implement in-person early voting, allowing residents to show up on any of five days to cast ballots. That, too, is a first in New York, Ngai said.
Village clerk Joan Mancuso said Monday that 604 residents voted early.
Gloria Furano gave one vote each to six candidates. Aaron Conetta gave two votes each to three candidates.
Frances Nurena talked to the inspectors about the new system, grabbed some educational material and went home to study. After all, it was only Thursday. She could vote on Friday, Saturday or Tuesday.
"I understand the voting," she said. "But since I have time, I'm going to learn more about the candidates."
On Tuesday, Candida Sandoval voted at the Don Bosco Center, where a soup kitchen and day-laborer hiring center added to the activity, and where federal observers watched the voting from a table in the corner.
"I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don't know, but I hope so."
FairVote said cumulative voting allows a political minority to gain representation if it organizes and focuses its voting strength on specific candidates. Two of the 13 Port Chester trustee candidates — one Democrat and one Republican — are Hispanic. A third Hispanic is running a write-in campaign after being taken off the ballot on a technicality.
Campaigning was generally low key, and the election itself was less of an issue than housing density and taxes.
Hispanic candidates Fabiola Montoya and Luis Marino emphasized their volunteer work and said they would represent all residents if elected.
Gregg Gregory gave all his votes to one candidate, then said: "I think this is terrific. It's good for Port Chester. It opens it up to a lot more people, not just Hispanics but independents, too."
Vote coordinator Martha Lopez said that if turnout is higher than in recent years, when it hovered around 25 percent, the election would be a success — regardless of whether a Hispanic was elected.
"I think we'll make it," she said. "I'm happy to report the people seem very interested."
But Randolph McLaughlin, who represented a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the goal was not merely to encourage more Hispanics to vote but "to create a system whereby the Hispanic community would be able to nominate and elect a candidate of their choice."
That could be a non-Hispanic, he acknowledged, and until exit polling is done, "it won't be known for sure whether the winners were Hispanic-preferred."
The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row — some of them twice if they have two party lines — and then the same candidates are listed five more times. In all, there are 114 levers; voters can flip any six.
Besides the forums, bright yellow T-shirts, tote bags and lawn signs declared "Your voice, your vote, your village," part of the educational materials also mandated in the government agreement. Announcements were made on cable TV in each language.
All such materials — the ballot, the brochures, the TV spots, the reminders sent home in schoolkids' backpacks — had to be approved in advance, in English and Spanish versions, by the Department of Justice.
Conetta said the voter education effort was so thorough he found voting easier than usual.
"It was very different but actually quite simple," he said. "No problem."
I Guess If You Can't Win An Election Cleanly, It's OK To Steal One - And With The Help Of The Justice Department No Less...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
From The Center For Individual Freedom
After spending millions of dollars to get Barack Obama and their liberal allies in Congress elected, Big Labor Unions are now poised to become the beneficiaries of a 165 billion dollar taxpayer-funded bailout.
You read that right.
Ignoring the widespread public anger over bailouts for the financial sector... bailouts for the auto industry... and their failed “stimulus” scheme, Congress is now considering a bailout for Big Labor.
Specifically, Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) recently introduced legislation euphemistically called the "Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act" (S. 3157), which puts U.S. taxpayers on the hook for guaranteeing poorly and improperly managed Labor Union pension plans.
And if Senetor Casey gets his way, we taxpayers will be stuck with a 165 billion dollar tab, or more. In fact, according to some reports, 165 billion dollars is just the initial cost. Eventual taxpayer liability is potentially unlimited as pension benefits must be paid for life.
As the editors of the Wall Street Journal recently put it: “They [Union chiefs] are now counting on Mr. Casey to preserve their power by making taxpayers pick up the tab for years of pension mismanagement. With the union priority of ‘card check’ stalled, word is that the Casey bailout is Big Labor's consolation prize. Taxpayers should let Congress know they don't want to pay.”
And that’s exactly what we must do. This legislation must never see the light of day. It's time for patriotic Americans to rise up and say to Congress, in no uncertain terms, enough is enough. No bailouts for Big Labor... No more bailouts, period.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention
You read that right.
Ignoring the widespread public anger over bailouts for the financial sector... bailouts for the auto industry... and their failed “stimulus” scheme, Congress is now considering a bailout for Big Labor.
Specifically, Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) recently introduced legislation euphemistically called the "Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act" (S. 3157), which puts U.S. taxpayers on the hook for guaranteeing poorly and improperly managed Labor Union pension plans.
And if Senetor Casey gets his way, we taxpayers will be stuck with a 165 billion dollar tab, or more. In fact, according to some reports, 165 billion dollars is just the initial cost. Eventual taxpayer liability is potentially unlimited as pension benefits must be paid for life.
As the editors of the Wall Street Journal recently put it: “They [Union chiefs] are now counting on Mr. Casey to preserve their power by making taxpayers pick up the tab for years of pension mismanagement. With the union priority of ‘card check’ stalled, word is that the Casey bailout is Big Labor's consolation prize. Taxpayers should let Congress know they don't want to pay.”
And that’s exactly what we must do. This legislation must never see the light of day. It's time for patriotic Americans to rise up and say to Congress, in no uncertain terms, enough is enough. No bailouts for Big Labor... No more bailouts, period.
If You Aren't Outraged, You Aren't Paying Attention
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)