"The time for rhetoric and fledgling organizations has now come to an end. 2010 is the year that we collaborate nationally, with all groups and organizations with similar convictions working together, and stand up as We, the People as we take our country back and begin the road to right the wrongs that have been and are being thrust upon us. This is my call to Liberty; what say you?!"
Consider that a direct quote from me. For the last eight months, various groups/organizations like ours (9.12) have been talking about how We, the People, are tired about our Constitutional rights being trampled on by our federal and states’ governments. We all have organized and pushed various agendas, such as promoting the return of a political party (Republican), supporting an Independent party and organizing rallies and petitions. All are noble causes but the efforts have been splintered with limited coordination. We, the People must collaborate together during this election year and beyond and find out how all organizations can work together to achieve the same common cause: The Restoration of Our Beloved Republic. It is time to put the petty differences aside and work/organize together. Efforts have already been underway with groups like Unite In Action (Nighta Davis), GOOOH (Tim Cox), and others meeting in Washington, D.C. earlier this month to work towards this goal. Even more influential groups, such as listed below, are needed to become involved in a collaborative effort.
Listed are the groups/organizations that I am a member of and am sending this same message to the group leaders. This can be done, if one is willing to work together with others. Imagine how the attendance at the 912 March on Washington, along with other marches/peaceful protests in D.C. could have been even larger than they already were (and we know how massive they actually were, despite the liberal press coverage).
1. Tea Party Patriots.ning.com: Kimberly A. Stiffler
2. 9.12 Project Network (wesurroundthemusa.ning.com): Jared Law
3. 911neverforget.us: Tim Brown
4. Thenational911coalition.net: K C Freeman
5. 912Communique.ning.com: J. Willoughby
6. AmericanLibertyAlliance.com: Eric Odom
7. AmericanVoice.com: Robert from Houston, TX
8. FairTax.org
9. Americans United For Life (aul.org): Charmaine Yoest
10. ChangetheCongressin2010.com: Catherine Welborn
11. CitizensinAction.ning.com: Elizabeth Cowan
12. Conservatives for Reform (gareform.ning.org): Lou Riccio
13. DescendentsofLiberty.ning.com: Linda Napier
14. Faith and Freedom Coalition (ffcoalition.net): Ralph Reed
15. LibertyCalls.aforumfree.com: Jeff Jones
16. ResistNet.com: Darla Dawald
17. StampPeeve.com (libertyletters.ning.com): Suzie Nielsen
18. NorthGeorgia912.com: Bonnie Watson
19. TheNational912Project.org: Patrick Jenkins
20. UniteInAction.org: Nighta Davis
21. TeaParty.org: Dale Robertson
The two-party system entrenched in our states’ and national politics have shown that they are wary of We, the People. But the arrogance in Washington, D.C. has proven that “politics as usual” is still their game and they are not going to change. “Politics as usual” has been an ongoing game in our federal and state governments for ages. Both major political parties have been and are still guilty of playing this game. Now the American citizens have recognized that this game has been the leading cause for the problems that we have faced in the past and the monstrous problems that we are facing in the future. It is time for the Patriots of this great country to take this political system back, refine and redefine how our governments should operate as designed by the Constitution, and work together to meet this challenge. I look forward to comments and hope that We, the People can come together to achieve our common goal.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
RE-DISCOVERY
(This is a short story that I submitted to a competition; limited to 715 words. Hope you like this)
As I sat down this morning to surf thru the shortwave, I remembered of a time when ‘surfing’ had a similar meaning. Back then, we took our freedoms for granted as we eagerly surfed the Internet or the TV. My grandchildren (eight and ten in age when they died) would look at me with awe as I would tell them stories of listening to XM radio while driving from South Carolina to South Georgia every weekend. I could keep the boys spellbound about classic rock and roll songs from the 1960’s, changing stations to listen to news from various networks, then sliding a CD to help me stay awake on those long trips. We took our God-given rights for granted, but that was another story that I was saving for another time.
They always asked about the music. But I knew they wanted the stories about the musicians that I grew up listening to and the crazy things I did during my younger days. Then I would pick up my Fender six-string acoustic and strum out a few songs, reflecting on my mood at that moment. Not being much of a singer, I discovered that the boys were quick at learning the words to songs like Stairway to Heaven, Clapton’s Change the World, and Pink Floyd’s Comfortably Numb. Man, their mother would be so upset at me. She was afraid that the boys would be overheard singing, as she put it, “those radical songs that you’ve taught them”. I knew she was remembering those times in her youth with fondness; yet there was caution to be taken. But all that was before the SuperFlu epidemic just five months ago.
The flu hit the youngest like a hungry eagle chasing down a small rabbit. We lost both boys in just 48 hours. A couple of months later, my Sweetheart left early one morning while I was still asleep. Her note said that she knew I was the strongest and could continue on without her. She was going to see Mama and I knew what that meant. I ran thru the house, and sure enough, her mother’s .38 caliber S&W revolver along with one of my hidden AK 47s were gone. I knew the automatic was for any trouble on her way down to her Mama’s grave near Eridu, Fl. The .38 would serve a final purpose at the end of her trip. With tears running down my cheeks, I read the words:
I’ve always loved you, Daddy. You were the rock for everyone to lean on when Mama died, then later when both Louis and Rick died during the Nashville rebellion. Please don’t try to follow me, as I’ve got the only car left and you wouldn’t be able to find another working car within 50 miles. You know what I’m going to do and I hope that God forgives me. Remember the truths that you warned me about not so long ago and I wouldn’t listen to?! Know that I came to understand what you were saying when martial law was declared, but I was a little too late. You were my hero when you drove up from home to rescue me and the boys. Louis would have been proud of you and James would have been grateful. You have always been my hero; now our country needs heroes. I love you forever, your Sweetheart.
Now, as I surf thru the shortwave, I reflect on the loss of my loved ones in such a short time. My beautiful wife, with that gleam of wisdom and beauty in her eyes, as she fussed about her hair; stroke. My son as he grew up and went to fight for the republic that I taught him about; died for freedom. My daughter whose final words about heroes still ring in my ears. Near tears, I find what I’ve been waiting for: “Blackwell Liberty nine”; A call to arms in Blackwell, S.C. in five days at nine o’clock pm.
With the horse saddled, the weapons and gear packed, and my dog Scruffy following along, we made our way out of town. A new revolution was beginning and our forsaken republic needed heroes.
As I sat down this morning to surf thru the shortwave, I remembered of a time when ‘surfing’ had a similar meaning. Back then, we took our freedoms for granted as we eagerly surfed the Internet or the TV. My grandchildren (eight and ten in age when they died) would look at me with awe as I would tell them stories of listening to XM radio while driving from South Carolina to South Georgia every weekend. I could keep the boys spellbound about classic rock and roll songs from the 1960’s, changing stations to listen to news from various networks, then sliding a CD to help me stay awake on those long trips. We took our God-given rights for granted, but that was another story that I was saving for another time.
They always asked about the music. But I knew they wanted the stories about the musicians that I grew up listening to and the crazy things I did during my younger days. Then I would pick up my Fender six-string acoustic and strum out a few songs, reflecting on my mood at that moment. Not being much of a singer, I discovered that the boys were quick at learning the words to songs like Stairway to Heaven, Clapton’s Change the World, and Pink Floyd’s Comfortably Numb. Man, their mother would be so upset at me. She was afraid that the boys would be overheard singing, as she put it, “those radical songs that you’ve taught them”. I knew she was remembering those times in her youth with fondness; yet there was caution to be taken. But all that was before the SuperFlu epidemic just five months ago.
The flu hit the youngest like a hungry eagle chasing down a small rabbit. We lost both boys in just 48 hours. A couple of months later, my Sweetheart left early one morning while I was still asleep. Her note said that she knew I was the strongest and could continue on without her. She was going to see Mama and I knew what that meant. I ran thru the house, and sure enough, her mother’s .38 caliber S&W revolver along with one of my hidden AK 47s were gone. I knew the automatic was for any trouble on her way down to her Mama’s grave near Eridu, Fl. The .38 would serve a final purpose at the end of her trip. With tears running down my cheeks, I read the words:
I’ve always loved you, Daddy. You were the rock for everyone to lean on when Mama died, then later when both Louis and Rick died during the Nashville rebellion. Please don’t try to follow me, as I’ve got the only car left and you wouldn’t be able to find another working car within 50 miles. You know what I’m going to do and I hope that God forgives me. Remember the truths that you warned me about not so long ago and I wouldn’t listen to?! Know that I came to understand what you were saying when martial law was declared, but I was a little too late. You were my hero when you drove up from home to rescue me and the boys. Louis would have been proud of you and James would have been grateful. You have always been my hero; now our country needs heroes. I love you forever, your Sweetheart.
Now, as I surf thru the shortwave, I reflect on the loss of my loved ones in such a short time. My beautiful wife, with that gleam of wisdom and beauty in her eyes, as she fussed about her hair; stroke. My son as he grew up and went to fight for the republic that I taught him about; died for freedom. My daughter whose final words about heroes still ring in my ears. Near tears, I find what I’ve been waiting for: “Blackwell Liberty nine”; A call to arms in Blackwell, S.C. in five days at nine o’clock pm.
With the horse saddled, the weapons and gear packed, and my dog Scruffy following along, we made our way out of town. A new revolution was beginning and our forsaken republic needed heroes.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
IS THIS THE LAST STRAW?
Just a quick "running off of the mouth" by your's truly due to frustration at the long list of criminal actions that have been perpretrated in Washington, D.C. I'll be back soon with a new post with constructive structure that will close by pointing the finger of "GUILTY" at the responsible individuals. Enjoy for now:
From buying off Mary Landrieu's support for HC reform (let's see how LA's voters react in her next election), strongarming Joe Liebermann's support for HC reform by sending his leftist goons out to attack Joe's wife (who is supporting research for a cure to breast cancer), bringing the 5 terrorists guilty of planning and organizing the 9/11 attacks to a criminal trial in New York City (as opposed to a military tribunal where this belongs), delaying for 3 months a decision on Gen. McChrystle's request for 40,000+ troops, BHO's lack luster initial response to the Fort Hood massacre (remember how important it was to BHO to give a "shout out" after 2 minutes of "blah-blah-blah" before finally commenting on the massacre), BHO's lack of support for the CIA's operations as intended by their structure in their fight against terrorists, BHO's non-support of the three Navy Seals up for court martial for one punch to a dangerous terrorist leader whom they had captured, BHO's lackluster "diplomacy" as regarding Iran's defiance (along with North Korea) [I can go on and on but you get the message that BHO and his Socialist Circle of Friends in the White House and on Capitol Hill have no intention in working for the sake of our republic's economic future or our national security], now we have confirmed reports from three sources from Capitol Hill that Sen. Ben Nelson has been blackmailed to gain his support for the latest Senate version of "health care reform" or have Offutt Air Force Base placed on the next BRAC list; the very AFB that is the Strategic Command HQ for the Air Force's Strategic Air Command. If this action is confirmed, this is an act of treason in my book and must be handled by military justice accordingly. In other words, BHO, if your administration is guilty of this, well, "Remember Richard Nixon?"
From buying off Mary Landrieu's support for HC reform (let's see how LA's voters react in her next election), strongarming Joe Liebermann's support for HC reform by sending his leftist goons out to attack Joe's wife (who is supporting research for a cure to breast cancer), bringing the 5 terrorists guilty of planning and organizing the 9/11 attacks to a criminal trial in New York City (as opposed to a military tribunal where this belongs), delaying for 3 months a decision on Gen. McChrystle's request for 40,000+ troops, BHO's lack luster initial response to the Fort Hood massacre (remember how important it was to BHO to give a "shout out" after 2 minutes of "blah-blah-blah" before finally commenting on the massacre), BHO's lack of support for the CIA's operations as intended by their structure in their fight against terrorists, BHO's non-support of the three Navy Seals up for court martial for one punch to a dangerous terrorist leader whom they had captured, BHO's lackluster "diplomacy" as regarding Iran's defiance (along with North Korea) [I can go on and on but you get the message that BHO and his Socialist Circle of Friends in the White House and on Capitol Hill have no intention in working for the sake of our republic's economic future or our national security], now we have confirmed reports from three sources from Capitol Hill that Sen. Ben Nelson has been blackmailed to gain his support for the latest Senate version of "health care reform" or have Offutt Air Force Base placed on the next BRAC list; the very AFB that is the Strategic Command HQ for the Air Force's Strategic Air Command. If this action is confirmed, this is an act of treason in my book and must be handled by military justice accordingly. In other words, BHO, if your administration is guilty of this, well, "Remember Richard Nixon?"
Sunday, December 13, 2009
THE GAMES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. MUST END
It is not that I believe, but that I know in my heart that our government has been perverted by the most vile of corruption: greed. We watch the games that are played on Capitol Hill, including negotiating/writing a bill of unconstitutional boundaries behind the symbolic "closed doors" where one party is the only one represented while the minority party stands outside and cries to We, the People of the injustice of it all. Yet, when you truly investigate the "leadership" of the minority party, you discover that they have played the same game before. You also discover that many within the minority party have voted on legislation based on what they can "barter" for, as opposed to the principles and values they should uphold. You also discover, upon a broader review, that the vast majority of members in both houses of Congress have voted based on influences by lobbyists and "outside" concerns, as opposed to voting based on what We, the People are calling for. You notice, as well, that while the minority party votes against major pieces of legislation that We, the People have voiced our concerns about, they have also voted in favor of other bills that have increased our federal spending levels, increased our national debt and continue to devalue our national currency. The gravest thought to all of this is that the members of the minority party have been doing this with full knowledge of the repercussions of their actions on our country. We see an occasional "light" when legislation is introduced that bears teeth in reigning in our federal government (ex: Ron Paul's HR 1207, Federal Reserve Transparency Act) yet the legislation, after being initially assigned to a committee, gathers dust because the leadership within the committee and the specific house of Congress are not in favor of considering such legislation. And this is regardless as to whether the proposed legislation carries over 1/2 of the membership within the particular house of Congress as cosponsors.
Where is the true concern/outrage and appropriate action from our elected representatives (from both houses) as regarding the actions taken by BHO and his "administration"? We hear of speeches on both floors and interviews on radio and TV regarding constitutional questions about the executive branch but we only see very limited action on the floor of both houses. It is truly just a political game engineered to allow certain members on Capitol Hill to "remind the sheeples of their grave concerns" so that they can appear as supportive of the outrage from We, the People. In the meantime, we see executive policies being made by BHO's Circle of Friends (ex: the "pay czar's" declared decision as to how to limit the pay of certain executives). These "czars/advisors" are making policies, with other outside influences as their supporting guidance, and then passing these policies onto their puppet/mouthpiece whom We, the People know as POTUS. BHO is the sophisticated, eloquent spokesperson for the advanced movements by the Socialists to degrade our nation and eventually turn our country into a pauper state. All of this so that our country can be at the whim of intenational interests (research the Bildenberg Group and George Soros, for starters). Yet, while We, the People declare our outrage towards the policies and the unconstitutional group of "policy-makers", our representation on Capitol Hill play their game of sending out their "talking heads" in an effort to convince us that they hear and support our grievances, while doing nothing of substantial quality to stop the madness within our executive branch. And all the while, our Senate Judiciary Committee continues to approve of nominees for federal judge positions (as offered by BHO) who have no intention of judging based on constitutional law but instead will continue to judge based on outside interests and "personal feelings".
Our Republic has become a shambles from what it was intended to be. The Socialist movement has taken a stranglehold on our country within the past 50 years and are aggressively pushing their agenda which they have slowly been preaching into our society and our government for appx. 100 years. The past four generations of American citizens have allowed this to happen due to our complacency to exercise our God-given right to vote and by voting (when we did) based on which "mouthpiece" was saying the right thing, as opposed to looking at where they had stood on important issues of the times prior to running for the particular seat of government.
So where does this leave us? We can find honest, principled, moral citizens (they are out there) and encourage them to be our representation in Wasington (and in our state capitols and local governments). This as the goal to restore our Republic and put government back within the constitutional boundaries that they should have always been abiding by. Otherwise, we have another choice, which I would regret seeing our country turn to. The choice is up to We, the People as individual citizens of our country. The choice is up to You, the concerned citizen to make. I've made mine and have been exercising it for what seems like an eternity. When are You going to make yours and declare it loudly for all to hear?
Where is the true concern/outrage and appropriate action from our elected representatives (from both houses) as regarding the actions taken by BHO and his "administration"? We hear of speeches on both floors and interviews on radio and TV regarding constitutional questions about the executive branch but we only see very limited action on the floor of both houses. It is truly just a political game engineered to allow certain members on Capitol Hill to "remind the sheeples of their grave concerns" so that they can appear as supportive of the outrage from We, the People. In the meantime, we see executive policies being made by BHO's Circle of Friends (ex: the "pay czar's" declared decision as to how to limit the pay of certain executives). These "czars/advisors" are making policies, with other outside influences as their supporting guidance, and then passing these policies onto their puppet/mouthpiece whom We, the People know as POTUS. BHO is the sophisticated, eloquent spokesperson for the advanced movements by the Socialists to degrade our nation and eventually turn our country into a pauper state. All of this so that our country can be at the whim of intenational interests (research the Bildenberg Group and George Soros, for starters). Yet, while We, the People declare our outrage towards the policies and the unconstitutional group of "policy-makers", our representation on Capitol Hill play their game of sending out their "talking heads" in an effort to convince us that they hear and support our grievances, while doing nothing of substantial quality to stop the madness within our executive branch. And all the while, our Senate Judiciary Committee continues to approve of nominees for federal judge positions (as offered by BHO) who have no intention of judging based on constitutional law but instead will continue to judge based on outside interests and "personal feelings".
Our Republic has become a shambles from what it was intended to be. The Socialist movement has taken a stranglehold on our country within the past 50 years and are aggressively pushing their agenda which they have slowly been preaching into our society and our government for appx. 100 years. The past four generations of American citizens have allowed this to happen due to our complacency to exercise our God-given right to vote and by voting (when we did) based on which "mouthpiece" was saying the right thing, as opposed to looking at where they had stood on important issues of the times prior to running for the particular seat of government.
So where does this leave us? We can find honest, principled, moral citizens (they are out there) and encourage them to be our representation in Wasington (and in our state capitols and local governments). This as the goal to restore our Republic and put government back within the constitutional boundaries that they should have always been abiding by. Otherwise, we have another choice, which I would regret seeing our country turn to. The choice is up to We, the People as individual citizens of our country. The choice is up to You, the concerned citizen to make. I've made mine and have been exercising it for what seems like an eternity. When are You going to make yours and declare it loudly for all to hear?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
LEAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AS IS (AND HERE'S WHY)
“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”
ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING “UNDER GOD” IN THE PLEDGE:
Some opponents argue that church and state should be kept separate as the Founding Fathers intended AND I concur. Others say the phrase "under God" in the Pledge places "undue coercion" on young children, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Many advocates of removing "under God" point out that the phrase was not written into the original pledge and that the opposition to returning to the original pledge is proof that "under God" is a religious symbol and not merely a secular practice. Allow me to poke some holes into these "arguments":
1.ARGUMENT: I’m pledging allegiance to a “flag”, a symbol or image that is not of God; God said that You shall have no other gods before Me and that You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
REBUTTAL: Definition of allegiance: adherence to something to which one is bound by a pledge or duty; devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause.
You are pledging allegiance to a cause (the republic of the USA) which is represented by a flag, NOT to the flag itself. The flag is a symbol of a country that was developed under the Laws of Nature (God’s Law) (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen) and is therefore not a “carved image” of any other likeness than God (in other words, not in violation of the Second Commandment) nor expressing any allegiance to any other gods before God (Me, as expressed in the First Commandment).
The words “for which it stands” indicates that the flag is standing for (representative) of the republic (the United States of America) of which one is pledging allegiance to and the following phrase (One nation under God) recognizes that the USA is a nation under God’s law (rule).
Realizing that the country was developed under the Laws of Nature thru our Constitution and the First Amendment forbids Congress from making a law which establishes any religion:
If reciting the Pledge is truly a “religious act” in violation of the Establishment Clause, then so is recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National Anthem (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Newdon II).
2. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:
In the Federalist No. 69: Hamilton, there is a comparison of the duties of the President of the USA and the King of Britain. Part of this comparison included the following phrase: “The one [the President] has no spiritual jurisdiction; The other (King of Britain) is the supreme head and Governor of the national church.” The reflection intended here was that the leader of the USA has no legitimate powers to hold any control over spiritual matters, as opposed to the powers which the King of Britain held over spiritual concerns. Here is the intention regarding “separation of church and state” as intended by the Founding Fathers. The initial immigration to the American soil was for religious freedom. People in European countries and in other areas were tired of excessive taxation (which was driving them out of their homes and property) and oppressive religious servitude as controlled by the leader of their countries. Understanding this, the founding fathers called for “separation of church and state” solely for the purpose of not allowing the “state” (our different levels of government; local, state and federal) to direct what religious belief their patronage/citizens must abide by. Hence, the statement in the First Amendment called for freedom of religion via prohibition of any laws by Congress establishing a religion or of any laws prohibiting any exercise of religion.
3. LAWS OF NATURE (GOD’S LAW) ARE ENDOWED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION
As recognized by constitutional scholars, such as W. Cleon Skousen (author of the 5000 YEAR LEAP), the principles and values of our nation's Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by the morals and ethics of many contemporaries who believed that man's actions would be judged by God. As argued previously, our Founding Fathers recognized that any government on earth could not be a direct reflection of the highest "government". Thus, man could not create a government that directly imposed religious beliefs (of any interpretation) upon it's constituents because we would then be declaring our government on the same level of judgement as God; hence the separation of church and state. Some of the contemporaries who reflected these ideals upon our Founding Fathers included:
A. John Locke: Natural Law is an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that legislators make must be comfortable to the will of God (the laws of Nature) "Second Essay Concerning Civil Government"
B. Sir William Blackstone: The will of man’s Creator is the laws of Nature. Hence, this law is superior to any other manmade law of this world. The Laws of Nature is binding over all laws of any country and that any laws of man contrary to God’s Law bears no validity. "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
C. Algernon Sidney: Insisted that there was no divine right for kings to rule over the people. Insisted that the right to rule was within the people and no one could rule over the people without their consent. "Discourses Concerning Government"
Another argument pursued has regarded the so-called "COMPELLED SPEECH ISSUE". Following is how the Supreme Court has dealt with this approach and maintained Constitutional rights.
WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. BARNETTE (1943): Dealt with the required salute (extended upturned palm while reciting), which members of Jehovah’s Witness said was sacrilegious as applied to the First and Second Commandments; hence this requirement was against the inherited meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Barnette underscored student rights and held that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Future cases, such as Holloman vs. the Walker Board of Education of 2004 and Lane vs. Owens (Colorado, 2003) further reinforced that no student would be forced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
My evaluation as to how these cases, and the precedent set by the Barnette ruling, affect our country's principles is two-fold. I, using my rational side of my brain, must agree with the Constitutional argument used by SCOTUS in these and other previous cases, because I am a Constitutionalist. However, my emotional side recognizes that this "issue" would not even be an item for discussion if not for the Socialist/Progressive movement that has slowly plagued our country for over 100 years. On reflection, our Founding Fathers recognized that this "issue" would surface and our approach would be one example of how our country would forever interpret and use Constitutional principles. And so far, our republic has not stood up to the tests of time.
To wrap up the issue regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, it should simply stand as is. As explained, the flag represents a cause reflecting and following the will of God. Hence, one is still honoring God, placing no other Gods before him and creating no graven images of God. Thru Constitutional principles, no one (including children) can be coerced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or any particular part of it, as granted by the freedom of speech, which in turns does not violate the Establishment Clause. By defining what the flag represents, the argument re: the separation of church and state and the First Amendment is still valid as applied to the Pledge of Allegiance.
I welcome any dissenting arguments.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING “UNDER GOD” IN THE PLEDGE:
Some opponents argue that church and state should be kept separate as the Founding Fathers intended AND I concur. Others say the phrase "under God" in the Pledge places "undue coercion" on young children, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Many advocates of removing "under God" point out that the phrase was not written into the original pledge and that the opposition to returning to the original pledge is proof that "under God" is a religious symbol and not merely a secular practice. Allow me to poke some holes into these "arguments":
1.ARGUMENT: I’m pledging allegiance to a “flag”, a symbol or image that is not of God; God said that You shall have no other gods before Me and that You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
REBUTTAL: Definition of allegiance: adherence to something to which one is bound by a pledge or duty; devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause.
You are pledging allegiance to a cause (the republic of the USA) which is represented by a flag, NOT to the flag itself. The flag is a symbol of a country that was developed under the Laws of Nature (God’s Law) (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen) and is therefore not a “carved image” of any other likeness than God (in other words, not in violation of the Second Commandment) nor expressing any allegiance to any other gods before God (Me, as expressed in the First Commandment).
The words “for which it stands” indicates that the flag is standing for (representative) of the republic (the United States of America) of which one is pledging allegiance to and the following phrase (One nation under God) recognizes that the USA is a nation under God’s law (rule).
Realizing that the country was developed under the Laws of Nature thru our Constitution and the First Amendment forbids Congress from making a law which establishes any religion:
If reciting the Pledge is truly a “religious act” in violation of the Establishment Clause, then so is recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National Anthem (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Newdon II).
2. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:
In the Federalist No. 69: Hamilton, there is a comparison of the duties of the President of the USA and the King of Britain. Part of this comparison included the following phrase: “The one [the President] has no spiritual jurisdiction; The other (King of Britain) is the supreme head and Governor of the national church.” The reflection intended here was that the leader of the USA has no legitimate powers to hold any control over spiritual matters, as opposed to the powers which the King of Britain held over spiritual concerns. Here is the intention regarding “separation of church and state” as intended by the Founding Fathers. The initial immigration to the American soil was for religious freedom. People in European countries and in other areas were tired of excessive taxation (which was driving them out of their homes and property) and oppressive religious servitude as controlled by the leader of their countries. Understanding this, the founding fathers called for “separation of church and state” solely for the purpose of not allowing the “state” (our different levels of government; local, state and federal) to direct what religious belief their patronage/citizens must abide by. Hence, the statement in the First Amendment called for freedom of religion via prohibition of any laws by Congress establishing a religion or of any laws prohibiting any exercise of religion.
3. LAWS OF NATURE (GOD’S LAW) ARE ENDOWED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION
As recognized by constitutional scholars, such as W. Cleon Skousen (author of the 5000 YEAR LEAP), the principles and values of our nation's Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by the morals and ethics of many contemporaries who believed that man's actions would be judged by God. As argued previously, our Founding Fathers recognized that any government on earth could not be a direct reflection of the highest "government". Thus, man could not create a government that directly imposed religious beliefs (of any interpretation) upon it's constituents because we would then be declaring our government on the same level of judgement as God; hence the separation of church and state. Some of the contemporaries who reflected these ideals upon our Founding Fathers included:
A. John Locke: Natural Law is an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that legislators make must be comfortable to the will of God (the laws of Nature) "Second Essay Concerning Civil Government"
B. Sir William Blackstone: The will of man’s Creator is the laws of Nature. Hence, this law is superior to any other manmade law of this world. The Laws of Nature is binding over all laws of any country and that any laws of man contrary to God’s Law bears no validity. "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
C. Algernon Sidney: Insisted that there was no divine right for kings to rule over the people. Insisted that the right to rule was within the people and no one could rule over the people without their consent. "Discourses Concerning Government"
Another argument pursued has regarded the so-called "COMPELLED SPEECH ISSUE". Following is how the Supreme Court has dealt with this approach and maintained Constitutional rights.
WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. BARNETTE (1943): Dealt with the required salute (extended upturned palm while reciting), which members of Jehovah’s Witness said was sacrilegious as applied to the First and Second Commandments; hence this requirement was against the inherited meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Barnette underscored student rights and held that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Future cases, such as Holloman vs. the Walker Board of Education of 2004 and Lane vs. Owens (Colorado, 2003) further reinforced that no student would be forced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
My evaluation as to how these cases, and the precedent set by the Barnette ruling, affect our country's principles is two-fold. I, using my rational side of my brain, must agree with the Constitutional argument used by SCOTUS in these and other previous cases, because I am a Constitutionalist. However, my emotional side recognizes that this "issue" would not even be an item for discussion if not for the Socialist/Progressive movement that has slowly plagued our country for over 100 years. On reflection, our Founding Fathers recognized that this "issue" would surface and our approach would be one example of how our country would forever interpret and use Constitutional principles. And so far, our republic has not stood up to the tests of time.
To wrap up the issue regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, it should simply stand as is. As explained, the flag represents a cause reflecting and following the will of God. Hence, one is still honoring God, placing no other Gods before him and creating no graven images of God. Thru Constitutional principles, no one (including children) can be coerced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or any particular part of it, as granted by the freedom of speech, which in turns does not violate the Establishment Clause. By defining what the flag represents, the argument re: the separation of church and state and the First Amendment is still valid as applied to the Pledge of Allegiance.
I welcome any dissenting arguments.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL (PART TWO)
In PART ONE, we discussed how the current UN treaty markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) was based on assumptions without any valid scientific data for support and how actual scientific studies since the 1970s have debunked these assumptions. However, the efforts are still underway for world leaders to meet in Copenhagen in December, 2009 to reach agreement on the current details and approve this treaty. This left us with the following question:
“If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?” Let’s address these questions with the significant details of this treaty, including the “organization” that will be developed and how this “organization” will affect our country.
Basically, this treaty recognizes two categories of international countries: “developed and underdeveloped countries”. This treaty is founded on the principle (see page 8, pp. a) that developed countries have a debt to underdeveloped countries thru financial support and helping to provide adaptations to new systems with low greenhouse (GHG) emissions. All countries (per page 8, pp 12) are required to develop climate response strategies, in line with their individual responsibilities and capabilities (as established under this treaty) to reach a low carbon and GHG emission economy. Developed countries will comply with all provisions within this treaty and will pledge (per page 9) to meet their targets regarding lower carbon and GHG emissions fully, effectively and in a reportable, verifiable manner. All developed countries must present Carbon Neutral Strategies (per page 15) to meet their quantified targets by 2020. Short-term carbon and GHG emission standards shall be met by 2020 with Long Term carbon and GHG emission standards to be met by 2050. These standards include reducing carbon dioxide concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, limit global average temperature rises to 2 degrees Centigrade, all of which would require lowering current 2020 GHG emissions (again, based on faulty unscientific assumptions) by 50% from 1990 levels to 2050.
Developed countries will be required to develop funds to finance full costs for preparation of national communications for developing countries. This funding includes transfer of technology for (to name just a few):
A. mitigation of emissions
B. Development and deployment of low carbon and “environmentally sound” technologies
C. Research and development of such technologies
D. Preparation of national action plans and implementation
E. Taxes on carbon emissions and “carbon-intensive” products and services
F. Share of proceeds from measures to limit emission from international aviation and maritime travel
G. A levy of 2% on international financial/monetary transactions on developed countries.
In essence, all funding collected would be used by “developing [aka: underdeveloped]” countries. Page 136 lists eleven different funds to be raised by developed countries, such as Adaptation, Global support for tariffs, mitigation of “Venture Capital” (start-up funds), and climate insurance, to name some of the funds listed. A Multilateral Climate Technology Fund will be established to:
A. Provide technology-related financial resources for R&D, manufacturing and implementation.
B. Developed countries will also assess contributions from:
1. Parts of their regular fiscal budgets
2. Taxation on carbon transactions and/or auction of emission permits
3. Fiscal revenue from energy and environmental taxation.
(Does subsection B remind you of our nation’s ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation; it should)
The question arises: Who will govern this government-styled structure to ensure that all developed countries meet their financial obligations? A Convention of the Parties, as created by member nations of the UN and under the guidance of the UN Governing Body will be established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and verifying global cooperative actions, with the support of an Executive Board which will manage and disperse the funds collected. Will We, the People, allow for the additional taxes that will be needed to raise the revenue for the various funds required within this “treaty”? Will We, the People allow for this loss of national sovereignty that will be created via the terms of this Co-op style of world government as controlled and monitored by the UN’s Convention of the Parties? Both HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President BHO have publicly stated recently that the President will not sign onto this “treaty” if the ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation is not law by the time that the Copenhagen meeting takes place. I ask you: do you believe, given the Marxist/Socialist “tax the wealthy, spread the wealth” philosophies of the current administration, that the status of the “Cap and Trade” legislation will affect President BHO’s decision to sign onto this treaty which emulates his administration’s philosophies and actions? It will probably come down to the We, the People working on our Senators to ensure that 2/3 of the Senate does not vote for approval of this “treaty” (world government).
William (Wild Bill) Conant
“If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?” Let’s address these questions with the significant details of this treaty, including the “organization” that will be developed and how this “organization” will affect our country.
Basically, this treaty recognizes two categories of international countries: “developed and underdeveloped countries”. This treaty is founded on the principle (see page 8, pp. a) that developed countries have a debt to underdeveloped countries thru financial support and helping to provide adaptations to new systems with low greenhouse (GHG) emissions. All countries (per page 8, pp 12) are required to develop climate response strategies, in line with their individual responsibilities and capabilities (as established under this treaty) to reach a low carbon and GHG emission economy. Developed countries will comply with all provisions within this treaty and will pledge (per page 9) to meet their targets regarding lower carbon and GHG emissions fully, effectively and in a reportable, verifiable manner. All developed countries must present Carbon Neutral Strategies (per page 15) to meet their quantified targets by 2020. Short-term carbon and GHG emission standards shall be met by 2020 with Long Term carbon and GHG emission standards to be met by 2050. These standards include reducing carbon dioxide concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, limit global average temperature rises to 2 degrees Centigrade, all of which would require lowering current 2020 GHG emissions (again, based on faulty unscientific assumptions) by 50% from 1990 levels to 2050.
Developed countries will be required to develop funds to finance full costs for preparation of national communications for developing countries. This funding includes transfer of technology for (to name just a few):
A. mitigation of emissions
B. Development and deployment of low carbon and “environmentally sound” technologies
C. Research and development of such technologies
D. Preparation of national action plans and implementation
E. Taxes on carbon emissions and “carbon-intensive” products and services
F. Share of proceeds from measures to limit emission from international aviation and maritime travel
G. A levy of 2% on international financial/monetary transactions on developed countries.
In essence, all funding collected would be used by “developing [aka: underdeveloped]” countries. Page 136 lists eleven different funds to be raised by developed countries, such as Adaptation, Global support for tariffs, mitigation of “Venture Capital” (start-up funds), and climate insurance, to name some of the funds listed. A Multilateral Climate Technology Fund will be established to:
A. Provide technology-related financial resources for R&D, manufacturing and implementation.
B. Developed countries will also assess contributions from:
1. Parts of their regular fiscal budgets
2. Taxation on carbon transactions and/or auction of emission permits
3. Fiscal revenue from energy and environmental taxation.
(Does subsection B remind you of our nation’s ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation; it should)
The question arises: Who will govern this government-styled structure to ensure that all developed countries meet their financial obligations? A Convention of the Parties, as created by member nations of the UN and under the guidance of the UN Governing Body will be established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and verifying global cooperative actions, with the support of an Executive Board which will manage and disperse the funds collected. Will We, the People, allow for the additional taxes that will be needed to raise the revenue for the various funds required within this “treaty”? Will We, the People allow for this loss of national sovereignty that will be created via the terms of this Co-op style of world government as controlled and monitored by the UN’s Convention of the Parties? Both HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President BHO have publicly stated recently that the President will not sign onto this “treaty” if the ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation is not law by the time that the Copenhagen meeting takes place. I ask you: do you believe, given the Marxist/Socialist “tax the wealthy, spread the wealth” philosophies of the current administration, that the status of the “Cap and Trade” legislation will affect President BHO’s decision to sign onto this treaty which emulates his administration’s philosophies and actions? It will probably come down to the We, the People working on our Senators to ensure that 2/3 of the Senate does not vote for approval of this “treaty” (world government).
William (Wild Bill) Conant
Friday, October 30, 2009
WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL? PART ONE
In December, 2009, at Copenhagen, Denmark, the latest markup of the United Nations Climate Control Treaty will be deliberated by world leaders, with a potential for resolution of any conflicting ideals and approval by the leaders of the various nations of the world (developed and underdeveloped), including President Obama. China and India will probably not be present and/or not sign into the Treaty; their positions in this matter will be discussed in PART TWO. Recall that any treaty signed by the President MUST be approved by 2/3 of the Senate present (Article II, Section2 of the Constitution of the United States). There has been great concern that this UN “treaty” has the aspirations of forming a one-world government. In order to understand this concern, one must first understand why this “Climate Control Treaty” is of such importance to the UN, along with other influential people, and why the UN has felt that this “Treaty” is justifiable.
This current markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) is a result of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on May 09. 1992. This Convention was followed up by “scientific” studies by the UN’s AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action) earlier in Bonn, Germany, Copenhagen, Denmark and has its roots in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which occurred on Sept. 16, 1987.
Many claims by this current markup are centered around the assertion by the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 4th Assessment Report of 2007 that warming of the environment is a consequence of human activities (with no consideration of nature’s processes which release carbon dioxide and other gases naturally). These “human activities” resulted in an increase of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. These “increases” are therefore inhibiting the natural release of natural radiation from the earth’s surface thru our atmosphere and into space. Hence, per these claims, a significant amount of natural radiation released is diverted back to the earth’s surface resulting in increases of temperature of the earth’s surface which raises the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. From a physicist’s point of view, if the amount of natural radioactivity from the earth’s surface was 100% reflected back (as opposed to releasing into space), the amount required to increase the temperature of the earth’ entire atmosphere one degree Farenheit in one year(by this additional heat energy emitted by the earth’s surface due to the 100% reflection) would equate to the amount of heat energy created by the equivalent of over 100 “Hiroshima” atomic bombs, strategically placed around the world, ignited at one time, and repetitively ignited once a week for four weeks.
Throughout all of these previously mentioned studies, all conclusions have been derived based on postulated evidence as opposed to actual scientific data. Some of the “conclusions” include:
1. Claims that our environment has warmed up “significantly” because of human activities since 1750, without any reference to actual scientific (data-based) studies. Besides, does anybody believe that accurate environmental studies were performed on temperature change trends in the 18th and 19th centuries?
2. Claims that the temperature of the world environment has increased by a rate of almost 0.5*F per year since 1990; however, no scientific studies with legitimate measuring models are provided as proof.
3. Claims that this “increase” in temperature to our environment is due to naturally emitting radiation from the earth’s surface which is reflected back by a buildup of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, thus warming up the earth’s surface, which results in a trending increase of temperature in our atmosphere. Again, no legitimate studies using real-time scientific data to substantiate this claim are directly referenced.
However, scientific studies based on years of actual data collection and use of modern measuring tools (e.g., weather satellite data for atmospheric testing of temperature changes at different elevations) have debunked all of these assumptions. These scientific studies have been performed since the 1970’s by the Hanley Center of Forecasting (in England) and the National Climate Data Center’s studies in the U.S. (as examples). Scientific models, such as the Clausius-Calpeyron relation (which is basically the relation of change of heat and it’s effects to the change of volume (rise in temperature results in rise in water vapor volume, which would cause an increase in atmospheric pressure, resulting in increases of atmospheric temperature; based on the laws of entropy).
So the question becomes :
If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?
THE ANSWER: WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL? PART TWO.
(The real politics behind the UN Treaty and why WE, the PEOPLE MUST be Concerned)
This current markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) is a result of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on May 09. 1992. This Convention was followed up by “scientific” studies by the UN’s AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action) earlier in Bonn, Germany, Copenhagen, Denmark and has its roots in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which occurred on Sept. 16, 1987.
Many claims by this current markup are centered around the assertion by the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 4th Assessment Report of 2007 that warming of the environment is a consequence of human activities (with no consideration of nature’s processes which release carbon dioxide and other gases naturally). These “human activities” resulted in an increase of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. These “increases” are therefore inhibiting the natural release of natural radiation from the earth’s surface thru our atmosphere and into space. Hence, per these claims, a significant amount of natural radiation released is diverted back to the earth’s surface resulting in increases of temperature of the earth’s surface which raises the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. From a physicist’s point of view, if the amount of natural radioactivity from the earth’s surface was 100% reflected back (as opposed to releasing into space), the amount required to increase the temperature of the earth’ entire atmosphere one degree Farenheit in one year(by this additional heat energy emitted by the earth’s surface due to the 100% reflection) would equate to the amount of heat energy created by the equivalent of over 100 “Hiroshima” atomic bombs, strategically placed around the world, ignited at one time, and repetitively ignited once a week for four weeks.
Throughout all of these previously mentioned studies, all conclusions have been derived based on postulated evidence as opposed to actual scientific data. Some of the “conclusions” include:
1. Claims that our environment has warmed up “significantly” because of human activities since 1750, without any reference to actual scientific (data-based) studies. Besides, does anybody believe that accurate environmental studies were performed on temperature change trends in the 18th and 19th centuries?
2. Claims that the temperature of the world environment has increased by a rate of almost 0.5*F per year since 1990; however, no scientific studies with legitimate measuring models are provided as proof.
3. Claims that this “increase” in temperature to our environment is due to naturally emitting radiation from the earth’s surface which is reflected back by a buildup of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, thus warming up the earth’s surface, which results in a trending increase of temperature in our atmosphere. Again, no legitimate studies using real-time scientific data to substantiate this claim are directly referenced.
However, scientific studies based on years of actual data collection and use of modern measuring tools (e.g., weather satellite data for atmospheric testing of temperature changes at different elevations) have debunked all of these assumptions. These scientific studies have been performed since the 1970’s by the Hanley Center of Forecasting (in England) and the National Climate Data Center’s studies in the U.S. (as examples). Scientific models, such as the Clausius-Calpeyron relation (which is basically the relation of change of heat and it’s effects to the change of volume (rise in temperature results in rise in water vapor volume, which would cause an increase in atmospheric pressure, resulting in increases of atmospheric temperature; based on the laws of entropy).
So the question becomes :
If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?
THE ANSWER: WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL? PART TWO.
(The real politics behind the UN Treaty and why WE, the PEOPLE MUST be Concerned)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
MEDIA OPINION OF OUR MILITARY'S PAY?
(The following article was provided by a fellow veteran and has been thoroughly vetted by myself and is factual)
OBJECTIONS FOR MILITARY PAY INCREASE
This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY. It should be printed in all newspapers across America.
Ms. Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.
A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article. He ought to get a bonus for this:
"Ms Williams:
I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.
I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum............ I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.
Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.
Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."
As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.
Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's
(meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.
Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.
But, tomorrow from KABUL,I will defend to the death your right to say it.
You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.
And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?
A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC
AS A VETERAN (AND ALSO SERVED IN THE USAF), I AM EXTREMELY PROUD OF AIRMAN FIRST CLASS MICHAEL BRAGG. WHEN SOMEONE HAS THE GALL TO PUBLISH AN ARTICLE IN THE MEDIA THAT ATTEMPTS TO BERATE AND DOWNGRADE OUR ARMED FORCES, THEY DESERVE TO BE CORRECTED.
(It has been reported that Cindy Williams is the same person who acted on "Laverne and Shirley" and has been appointed by President BHO as Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office. I've yet to confirm this).
OBJECTIONS FOR MILITARY PAY INCREASE
This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY. It should be printed in all newspapers across America.
Ms. Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.
A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article. He ought to get a bonus for this:
"Ms Williams:
I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.
I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum............ I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.
Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.
Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."
As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.
Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's
(meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.
Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.
But, tomorrow from KABUL,I will defend to the death your right to say it.
You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.
And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?
A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC
AS A VETERAN (AND ALSO SERVED IN THE USAF), I AM EXTREMELY PROUD OF AIRMAN FIRST CLASS MICHAEL BRAGG. WHEN SOMEONE HAS THE GALL TO PUBLISH AN ARTICLE IN THE MEDIA THAT ATTEMPTS TO BERATE AND DOWNGRADE OUR ARMED FORCES, THEY DESERVE TO BE CORRECTED.
(It has been reported that Cindy Williams is the same person who acted on "Laverne and Shirley" and has been appointed by President BHO as Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office. I've yet to confirm this).
Monday, October 12, 2009
REFLECTIONS ON WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU
(Inspired by feelings of various friends in the past year)
If you feel like you do not have many friends,
If you think that your salary is not worthy of your efforts,
If you feel the society around you is unfair,
If you feel like the most depressed person in your world,
If you believe that you do not have many friends,
When you feel like giving up,
If you think that you are suffering thru life, do you suffer as much as HE did?
Enjoy life, no matter how it seems and as it comes.
For no matter how bad off you believe you are, there are many others worse off than you.
There are many experiences in life that will catch your eye. But only a few will catch your heart. PURSUE THESE EXPERIENCES AND ENJOY A BLESSED LIFE.
If you feel like you do not have many friends,
If you think that your salary is not worthy of your efforts,
If you feel the society around you is unfair,
If you feel like the most depressed person in your world,
If you believe that you do not have many friends,
When you feel like giving up,
If you think that you are suffering thru life, do you suffer as much as HE did?
Enjoy life, no matter how it seems and as it comes.
For no matter how bad off you believe you are, there are many others worse off than you.
There are many experiences in life that will catch your eye. But only a few will catch your heart. PURSUE THESE EXPERIENCES AND ENJOY A BLESSED LIFE.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Commander In Chief??
Per Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President is granted the position of commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States, and the powers inherited by this position. The President commands and directs the military and is responsible for planning military strategy. The President, as the Commander in Chief, heads the military chain of command within the Department of Defense. The Commander in Chief is kept abreast of all matters affecting the ability of the Department of Defense to defend the United States and its allies.
So, with these responsibilities in mind, when is President Obama going to exercise his duties regarding the war against terrorism in Afghanistan? General Stanley A. McChrystal stated in his 66 page document assessing the situation in Afghanistan that ""Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible." (Washington Post, 9/21/09). Per the same source after reviewing the assessment, General McChrystal warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians. The counterinsurgency strategy was clearly outlined in his assessment and has been endorsed by General David Petraeus (UPI, 9/24/09), Commander of U.S. Central Command. General McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan sent his assessment to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on August 30, 2009 and it is still being reviewed by the Obama administration in conferences with President Obama's national security advisors. This staff consists of Vice-President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor General Jim Jones (USMC, Ret.), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ( a strong supporter of Petraeus' troop surge in Iraq but now hesitant to support General McChrystal), Secretary of Treasury Tim Geither, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen (who stated in a Senate hearing that more US troops as well as a rapid increase in the size and capability of the Afghan army were needed to carry out the President’s own strategy for prevailing in Afghanistan [Times Online, 9/16/09]. This council in turn is supported by civilian advisors, many of whom have no or little experience in foreigh policy (check out his support staff from the whitehouse.gov website; not too impressive). Now it has been revealed in an interview on CBS this weekend, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan has only been in conversation with the President once, via video conference.
So, what's my point? The President has not maintained a one-on-one relationship with his commander in Afghanistan to stay abreast of the conditions on the scene. Instead, he is basing his foreign policy in Afghanistan on the advice of civilian advisors, a DOD Secretary who is now hesitant to support his commander in the field despite his previous history as an individual with a pragmatic and consistent point of view, the Vice-President and the "Secretary of Treasury?". We have gone full circle: our federal administration is trying to run a war overseas on their own judgements as opposed to listening to the military leaders on the ground who have the needed experience to make sound judgements. This is the same mistake we, as a country, made during the Vietnam conflict and we know how that turned out. At least in this case, we have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is supporting his commander(s) on the ground, as opposed to the problems we encountered during the Vietnam debacle (Army Generals Maxwell Taylor and Earle G. Wheeler).
The President has a moral obligation to address General's McChrystal's assessment in a timely manner (he's had it since late August) and make a decision, for the sake of our troops (U.S. and NATO) in Afghanistan. Otherwise, he is not properly exercising his duties as Commander-in-Chief, as granted to him by the Constitution of the United States.
Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of a common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength forms an usual and essential part in the definition of executive authority Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 47
Does it sound like BHO can fit that criteria?
So, with these responsibilities in mind, when is President Obama going to exercise his duties regarding the war against terrorism in Afghanistan? General Stanley A. McChrystal stated in his 66 page document assessing the situation in Afghanistan that ""Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible." (Washington Post, 9/21/09). Per the same source after reviewing the assessment, General McChrystal warns that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians. The counterinsurgency strategy was clearly outlined in his assessment and has been endorsed by General David Petraeus (UPI, 9/24/09), Commander of U.S. Central Command. General McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan sent his assessment to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on August 30, 2009 and it is still being reviewed by the Obama administration in conferences with President Obama's national security advisors. This staff consists of Vice-President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor General Jim Jones (USMC, Ret.), Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ( a strong supporter of Petraeus' troop surge in Iraq but now hesitant to support General McChrystal), Secretary of Treasury Tim Geither, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen (who stated in a Senate hearing that more US troops as well as a rapid increase in the size and capability of the Afghan army were needed to carry out the President’s own strategy for prevailing in Afghanistan [Times Online, 9/16/09]. This council in turn is supported by civilian advisors, many of whom have no or little experience in foreigh policy (check out his support staff from the whitehouse.gov website; not too impressive). Now it has been revealed in an interview on CBS this weekend, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan has only been in conversation with the President once, via video conference.
So, what's my point? The President has not maintained a one-on-one relationship with his commander in Afghanistan to stay abreast of the conditions on the scene. Instead, he is basing his foreign policy in Afghanistan on the advice of civilian advisors, a DOD Secretary who is now hesitant to support his commander in the field despite his previous history as an individual with a pragmatic and consistent point of view, the Vice-President and the "Secretary of Treasury?". We have gone full circle: our federal administration is trying to run a war overseas on their own judgements as opposed to listening to the military leaders on the ground who have the needed experience to make sound judgements. This is the same mistake we, as a country, made during the Vietnam conflict and we know how that turned out. At least in this case, we have a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who is supporting his commander(s) on the ground, as opposed to the problems we encountered during the Vietnam debacle (Army Generals Maxwell Taylor and Earle G. Wheeler).
The President has a moral obligation to address General's McChrystal's assessment in a timely manner (he's had it since late August) and make a decision, for the sake of our troops (U.S. and NATO) in Afghanistan. Otherwise, he is not properly exercising his duties as Commander-in-Chief, as granted to him by the Constitution of the United States.
Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of a common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength forms an usual and essential part in the definition of executive authority Alexander Hamilton: Federalist No. 47
Does it sound like BHO can fit that criteria?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
14% UNEMPLOYMENT: SOON UNLESS...
NOTE: THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY LOUIS WOODHILL,(louis@woodhill.com), AN ENGINEER AND SOFTWARE ENTREPENEUR, AND MEMBER OF THE LEADERSHIP COUNCIL OF THE CLUB FOR GROWTH.
Released July 6, 2009:
The June "Jobs" report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on July 2 caused shock and dismay. Payrolls declined by 467,000 jobs, more than the 345,000 lost in May, and much more than the 363,000 that economists had predicted. The only reason that the reported unemployment rate rose by only 0.1 percentage points (to 9.5%) in June was that many jobless people became discouraged and stopped looking for work.
As bad as the BLS report was, it should not have come as a surprise. The deteriorating employment situation could have been predicted as early as April 29, when the "Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2009 (Advance)" report was issued by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
The BEA numbers (which were revised slightly on June 25) show an accelerating decline in "real nonresidential fixed investment". This measure decreased 37.3 percent in the first quarter of 2009, compared with a fall of 21.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. Given that employment is a direct, linear function of private business investment (PBI), unemployment can be expected to rise much farther in the months ahead.
Here's why. Because a lot of PBI goes toward offsetting depreciation and increasing productivity, it takes a 5% year-over-year increase in PBI to produce a 1% increase in the number of jobs. Correspondingly, a 5% decrease in PBI will yield a 1% reduction in total employment.
The unemployment rate a year ago was 5.5%. Because the potential labor force is growing, we need employment to increase by 1% annually to keep the unemployment rate from going up. The 37.9% investment decline reported by the BEA can be expected to eventually produce a reduction in total employment of about 8.5%. Accordingly, we can expect unemployment to rise to about 14% within a year unless the downward slide of PBI is reversed.
The current 9.5% unemployment rate is causing great economic pain, and life with a 14% jobless rate would be much, much worse. Unfortunately, almost everything that the government has done or is proposing to do to right the economy is actually counterproductive.
Like the Bush administration before it, the Obama team is pinning its hope for economic recovery on "stimulus". Despite the fact that Bush's $168 billion stimulus package in early 2008 had no impact at all, Obama rammed a $787 billion stimulus bill through Congress in January. Now the administration is waiting anxiously for the "stimulus" to take effect. It should not hold its (collective) breath.
"Stimulus" is based upon the superstition that government borrowing and spending creates "demand". In reality, it does no such thing. "Stimulus" is like trying to raise the level of the Hudson River by dipping out a bucket of water, walking five feet downstream, and pouring it back in. The only difference between the Bush and Obama plans is that Obama's bucket is bigger (and will create more debt). Ironically, the July 2 jobs report prompted calls from leftist economists for Obama to go back to the river with an even bigger bucket.
While doing nothing to boost demand, Obama's "stimulus" will depress PBI, and therefore employment. This is because the "stimulus" plan requires selling an additional $787 billion in government bonds. The money to buy these bonds will have to come from somewhere, and much of it will come from people who would otherwise invest in starting or expanding businesses. Indeed, the bonds will have to be priced so that this risk-free investment is more attractive to investors than their other alternatives.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, the Federal government ran a deficit of $303 billion (and therefore had to sell $303 billion of new bonds) and business investment fell by 21.7%. In the first quarter of 2009, the Federal deficit was $650 billion and business investment fell by 37.3%. The economy is being forced to invest in Barack's Bailout Bonds rather than in businesses that create jobs.
Virtually everything the Obama administration wants to do will have the effect of increasing unemployment. As bad as joblessness is now, be prepared for it to get much, much worse.
Released July 6, 2009:
The June "Jobs" report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on July 2 caused shock and dismay. Payrolls declined by 467,000 jobs, more than the 345,000 lost in May, and much more than the 363,000 that economists had predicted. The only reason that the reported unemployment rate rose by only 0.1 percentage points (to 9.5%) in June was that many jobless people became discouraged and stopped looking for work.
As bad as the BLS report was, it should not have come as a surprise. The deteriorating employment situation could have been predicted as early as April 29, when the "Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2009 (Advance)" report was issued by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
The BEA numbers (which were revised slightly on June 25) show an accelerating decline in "real nonresidential fixed investment". This measure decreased 37.3 percent in the first quarter of 2009, compared with a fall of 21.7 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. Given that employment is a direct, linear function of private business investment (PBI), unemployment can be expected to rise much farther in the months ahead.
Here's why. Because a lot of PBI goes toward offsetting depreciation and increasing productivity, it takes a 5% year-over-year increase in PBI to produce a 1% increase in the number of jobs. Correspondingly, a 5% decrease in PBI will yield a 1% reduction in total employment.
The unemployment rate a year ago was 5.5%. Because the potential labor force is growing, we need employment to increase by 1% annually to keep the unemployment rate from going up. The 37.9% investment decline reported by the BEA can be expected to eventually produce a reduction in total employment of about 8.5%. Accordingly, we can expect unemployment to rise to about 14% within a year unless the downward slide of PBI is reversed.
The current 9.5% unemployment rate is causing great economic pain, and life with a 14% jobless rate would be much, much worse. Unfortunately, almost everything that the government has done or is proposing to do to right the economy is actually counterproductive.
Like the Bush administration before it, the Obama team is pinning its hope for economic recovery on "stimulus". Despite the fact that Bush's $168 billion stimulus package in early 2008 had no impact at all, Obama rammed a $787 billion stimulus bill through Congress in January. Now the administration is waiting anxiously for the "stimulus" to take effect. It should not hold its (collective) breath.
"Stimulus" is based upon the superstition that government borrowing and spending creates "demand". In reality, it does no such thing. "Stimulus" is like trying to raise the level of the Hudson River by dipping out a bucket of water, walking five feet downstream, and pouring it back in. The only difference between the Bush and Obama plans is that Obama's bucket is bigger (and will create more debt). Ironically, the July 2 jobs report prompted calls from leftist economists for Obama to go back to the river with an even bigger bucket.
While doing nothing to boost demand, Obama's "stimulus" will depress PBI, and therefore employment. This is because the "stimulus" plan requires selling an additional $787 billion in government bonds. The money to buy these bonds will have to come from somewhere, and much of it will come from people who would otherwise invest in starting or expanding businesses. Indeed, the bonds will have to be priced so that this risk-free investment is more attractive to investors than their other alternatives.
In the fourth quarter of 2008, the Federal government ran a deficit of $303 billion (and therefore had to sell $303 billion of new bonds) and business investment fell by 21.7%. In the first quarter of 2009, the Federal deficit was $650 billion and business investment fell by 37.3%. The economy is being forced to invest in Barack's Bailout Bonds rather than in businesses that create jobs.
Virtually everything the Obama administration wants to do will have the effect of increasing unemployment. As bad as joblessness is now, be prepared for it to get much, much worse.
Monday, September 7, 2009
TIME TO GET UP AND MAKE SOME REAL CHANGES
It was the end of American standard year 2008, and the war had paused, suddenly and unexpectedly. All around us it was as if the universe was holding its breath....Waiting. All of life can be broken down into moments of transition or moments of revelation......This had a feeling of both!
God writes "There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of Flesh is the death of Hope, the death of Dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us....waiting in moment of transition...to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us...only that it is always paved in pain.
Regrets a few and you?
Oh enough to fill a life time, So much has been lost, so much forgotten. so much pain, so much blood,
And for what I wonder? The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us, and our lives slip away moment by moment, lost in that vast terrible in between. But there is still time to seize that one last fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference to save what is worth saving.
No Dictator, no invader,can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for Freedom. Against that power governments, and Tyrants and Armies cannot stand. Americans knew this lesson once, We will teach it to them again, though it take a thousand years we will be Free!
America speaks in many languages, But only one Voice! The language is not Spanish, Mexican, Polish, German or English it is the language of HOPE.
It speaks the language of trust, of strength, of compassion. It is the language of the heart, of the soul. But always it is the same voice. It is the voice of our ancestors speaking through us and the voice of our inheritors waiting to be born. The small still voice that says "We are One" No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the religion. "We are one" No matter the pain, no matter the cost, no matter the darkness, no matter the fear, We are one" HERE gathered together in common cause we begin to realize this singular rule....That we must be kind to one another. Because each voice enriches and ennobles us and each voice lost diminishes us. We are the voice of America the soul of it's creation, the fire that will light our way to a better future. We are one!
Send this on for it is time for "ALL AMERICANS" to quit worrying about themselves and start retaking our country back. We need to stop them before they set they're plans in motion it is time to call for a vote of "NO CONFIDENCE" against this current administration.
God writes "There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of Flesh is the death of Hope, the death of Dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us....waiting in moment of transition...to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us...only that it is always paved in pain.
Regrets a few and you?
Oh enough to fill a life time, So much has been lost, so much forgotten. so much pain, so much blood,
And for what I wonder? The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us, and our lives slip away moment by moment, lost in that vast terrible in between. But there is still time to seize that one last fragile moment. To choose something better, to make a difference to save what is worth saving.
No Dictator, no invader,can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for Freedom. Against that power governments, and Tyrants and Armies cannot stand. Americans knew this lesson once, We will teach it to them again, though it take a thousand years we will be Free!
America speaks in many languages, But only one Voice! The language is not Spanish, Mexican, Polish, German or English it is the language of HOPE.
It speaks the language of trust, of strength, of compassion. It is the language of the heart, of the soul. But always it is the same voice. It is the voice of our ancestors speaking through us and the voice of our inheritors waiting to be born. The small still voice that says "We are One" No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the religion. "We are one" No matter the pain, no matter the cost, no matter the darkness, no matter the fear, We are one" HERE gathered together in common cause we begin to realize this singular rule....That we must be kind to one another. Because each voice enriches and ennobles us and each voice lost diminishes us. We are the voice of America the soul of it's creation, the fire that will light our way to a better future. We are one!
Send this on for it is time for "ALL AMERICANS" to quit worrying about themselves and start retaking our country back. We need to stop them before they set they're plans in motion it is time to call for a vote of "NO CONFIDENCE" against this current administration.
Followup to Hanoi Jane
Looks like I overreated. Jane Fonda received this reward in 2006. Just goes to show how worthless our liberal media (including Snopes.com and Ms. Walters)truly are to honor and defend a traitor like Jane Fonda. As a veteran, I overreacted without performing any followup to this story when it came to my attention.
HANOI JANE AS WOMAN OF THE CENTURY??!!
Please feel free to copy this and send to all of your friends. Barbra Walters has finally gone senile in including Jane Fonda as one of the 100 Women of the Century:
IF YOU NEVER COPIED ANYTHING IN
YOUR LIFE, COPY THIS AND SEND TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY SO THAT EVERYONE WILL KNOW!!!!!!
She really is a traitor
A TRAITOR IS ABOUT TO BE HONORED!!
KEEP THIS MOVING ACROSS AMERICA
This is for all the kids born in the 70's who do
not remember, and didn't have to bear the
burden that our fathers, mothers and older
brothers and sisters had to bear.
Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the
'100 Women of the Century.'
BY BARBRA WALTERS
Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still
countless others have never known how Ms.
Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country,
but specific men who served and sacrificed
during Vietnam
The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot.
The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll.
In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF
Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison
the 'Hanoi Hilton.'
Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell,
cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was
ordered to describe for a visiting American
'Peace Activist' the 'lenient and humane
treatment' he'd received.
He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was
dragged away.
During the subsequent beating, he fell forward
on to the camp Commandant's feet, which
sent that officer berserk.
In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from
double vision (which permanently ended his
flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied
application of a wooden baton.
From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the
47FW/DO (F-4E's) He spent 6 years in the
' Hanoi Hilton' ... the first three of which his
family only knew he was 'missing in action'.
His wife lived on faith that he was still alive.
His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and
clothed routine in preparation for a
'peace delegation' visit.
They, however, had time and devised a plan to
get word to the world that they were alive
and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny
piece of paper, with his Social Security Number
on it, in the palm of his hand.
When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a
cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each
man's hand and asking little encouraging
snippets like: 'Aren't you sorry you bombed
babies?' and 'Are you grateful for the humane
treatment from your benevolent captors?'
Believing this HAD to be an act, they each
palmed her their sliver of paper.
She took them all without missing a beat. At the
end of the line and once the camera stopped
rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs,
she turned to the officer in charge and handed
him all the little pieces of paper.
Three men died from the subsequent beatings.
Colonel Carrigan was almost number four
but he survived, which is the only reason we
know of her actions that day.
I was a civilian economic development advisor
in Vietnam, and was captured by the North
Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in
1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.
I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one
year in a cage in Cambodia; and one year
in a 'black box' in Hanoi .
My North Vietnamese captors deliberately
poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a
nurse in a leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot, South
Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the
Cambodian border.
At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs.
(My normal weight is 170 lbs.)
We were Jane Fonda's 'war criminals.'
When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by
the camp communist political officer if I would
be willing to meet with her
I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real
treatment we POWs received ... and how
different it was from the treatment purported by
the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as
'humane and lenient.'
Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky
floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched
with a large steel weights placed on my hands,
and beaten with a bamboo cane.
I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda
soon after I was released. I asked her
if she would be willing to debate me on TV.
She never did answer me.
These first-hand experiences do not exemplify
someone who should be honored as part
of '100 Years of Great Women.'
Lest we forget ... '100 Years of Great Women'
should never include a traitor whose hands are
covered with the blood of so many patriots.
There are few things I have strong visceral
reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in
blatant treason, is one of them.
Please take the time to forward to as many
people as you possibly can.
It will eventually end up on her computer and
she needs to know that we will never forget.
RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF
716 Maintenance Squadron,
Chief of Maintenance
DSN: 875-6431
COMM: 883-6343
PLEASE HELP BY SENDING THIS TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
IF ENOUGH PEOPLE SEE THIS MAYBE HER STATUS WILL CHANGE
IF YOU NEVER COPIED ANYTHING IN
YOUR LIFE, COPY THIS AND SEND TO YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY SO THAT EVERYONE WILL KNOW!!!!!!
She really is a traitor
A TRAITOR IS ABOUT TO BE HONORED!!
KEEP THIS MOVING ACROSS AMERICA
This is for all the kids born in the 70's who do
not remember, and didn't have to bear the
burden that our fathers, mothers and older
brothers and sisters had to bear.
Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the
'100 Women of the Century.'
BY BARBRA WALTERS
Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still
countless others have never known how Ms.
Fonda betrayed not only the idea of our country,
but specific men who served and sacrificed
during Vietnam
The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot.
The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll.
In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF
Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison
the 'Hanoi Hilton.'
Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell,
cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was
ordered to describe for a visiting American
'Peace Activist' the 'lenient and humane
treatment' he'd received.
He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was
dragged away.
During the subsequent beating, he fell forward
on to the camp Commandant's feet, which
sent that officer berserk.
In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from
double vision (which permanently ended his
flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied
application of a wooden baton.
From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the
47FW/DO (F-4E's) He spent 6 years in the
' Hanoi Hilton' ... the first three of which his
family only knew he was 'missing in action'.
His wife lived on faith that he was still alive.
His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and
clothed routine in preparation for a
'peace delegation' visit.
They, however, had time and devised a plan to
get word to the world that they were alive
and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny
piece of paper, with his Social Security Number
on it, in the palm of his hand.
When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a
cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each
man's hand and asking little encouraging
snippets like: 'Aren't you sorry you bombed
babies?' and 'Are you grateful for the humane
treatment from your benevolent captors?'
Believing this HAD to be an act, they each
palmed her their sliver of paper.
She took them all without missing a beat. At the
end of the line and once the camera stopped
rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs,
she turned to the officer in charge and handed
him all the little pieces of paper.
Three men died from the subsequent beatings.
Colonel Carrigan was almost number four
but he survived, which is the only reason we
know of her actions that day.
I was a civilian economic development advisor
in Vietnam, and was captured by the North
Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in
1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.
I spent 27 months in solitary confinement; one
year in a cage in Cambodia; and one year
in a 'black box' in Hanoi .
My North Vietnamese captors deliberately
poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a
nurse in a leprosarium in Ban Me Thuot, South
Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the
Cambodian border.
At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs.
(My normal weight is 170 lbs.)
We were Jane Fonda's 'war criminals.'
When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by
the camp communist political officer if I would
be willing to meet with her
I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real
treatment we POWs received ... and how
different it was from the treatment purported by
the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as
'humane and lenient.'
Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky
floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched
with a large steel weights placed on my hands,
and beaten with a bamboo cane.
I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda
soon after I was released. I asked her
if she would be willing to debate me on TV.
She never did answer me.
These first-hand experiences do not exemplify
someone who should be honored as part
of '100 Years of Great Women.'
Lest we forget ... '100 Years of Great Women'
should never include a traitor whose hands are
covered with the blood of so many patriots.
There are few things I have strong visceral
reactions to, but Hanoi Jane's participation in
blatant treason, is one of them.
Please take the time to forward to as many
people as you possibly can.
It will eventually end up on her computer and
she needs to know that we will never forget.
RONALD D. SAMPSON, CMSgt, USAF
716 Maintenance Squadron,
Chief of Maintenance
DSN: 875-6431
COMM: 883-6343
PLEASE HELP BY SENDING THIS TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
IF ENOUGH PEOPLE SEE THIS MAYBE HER STATUS WILL CHANGE
Friday, September 4, 2009
WE'RE MOVING TO MEXICO
I received this from a friend and this has probably been seen by many others. But if not, here is a sarcastic (say it ain't so, Bill) but honest opinion regarding illegal immigrants written with tongue in cheek. I'm rather fond of it:
Subject: We're Moving to Mexico........
>
> If this isn't the Damn truth I never heard it before!!!
>
>
> I can't stand it anymore, so I'm moving on if Obama can pull some strings
> for me. Hope they have some nice golf courses in Mexico (even though I don
> t golf now, I can take it up in my spare time there).
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. President:
>
>
> I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health
> and I would like to ask you to assist me.
>
> We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico,
> and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
>
> We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration
> quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
> So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my
> way over?
>
> Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
>
> 1. Free medical care for my entire family.
>
> 2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need,
> whether I use them or not.
>
> 3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
>
> 4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual)
> teachers.
>
> 5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and
> history.
>
> 6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at
> their school.
>
> 7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
>
> 8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to
> government services.
>
> 9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don't plan to purchase
> car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local
> traffic laws.
>
> 10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from
> their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has
> at least one English-speaking officer.
>
> 11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U S. flag decals on
> my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any
> complaints or negative comments from the locals.
>
> 12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have
> any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
>
> 13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely
> nice and never say a critical things about me or my family, or about the
> strain we might place on their economy.
>
> 14. I want to receive free food stamps.
>
> 15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
>
> 16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll
> receive money from the government.
>
> 17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a
> new car.
>
> 18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social
> Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
>
> I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for
> all his people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that President
> Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
>
> Thank you so much for your kind help. You're the man!!!
Subject: We're Moving to Mexico........
>
> If this isn't the Damn truth I never heard it before!!!
>
>
> I can't stand it anymore, so I'm moving on if Obama can pull some strings
> for me. Hope they have some nice golf courses in Mexico (even though I don
> t golf now, I can take it up in my spare time there).
>
>
>
> Dear Mr. President:
>
>
> I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health
> and I would like to ask you to assist me.
>
> We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico,
> and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
>
> We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration
> quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
> So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my
> way over?
>
> Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
>
> 1. Free medical care for my entire family.
>
> 2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need,
> whether I use them or not.
>
> 3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
>
> 4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual)
> teachers.
>
> 5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and
> history.
>
> 6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at
> their school.
>
> 7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
>
> 8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to
> government services.
>
> 9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but, I don't plan to purchase
> car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local
> traffic laws.
>
> 10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from
> their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has
> at least one English-speaking officer.
>
> 11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U S. flag decals on
> my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any
> complaints or negative comments from the locals.
>
> 12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have
> any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
>
> 13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely
> nice and never say a critical things about me or my family, or about the
> strain we might place on their economy.
>
> 14. I want to receive free food stamps.
>
> 15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
>
> 16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll
> receive money from the government.
>
> 17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a
> new car.
>
> 18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social
> Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
>
> I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for
> all his people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that President
> Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.
>
> Thank you so much for your kind help. You're the man!!!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
THE STATE SOVEREIGNTY MOVEMENT
The following was excerpted from the Georgia First.org website and reflects Ray McBerry's movement for state sovereignty rights for the citizens of Georgia (Ray is the candidate for Governor of Georgia). This article was written by Dr. Donald W. Livingston, Professor at Emory University:
The State Sovereignty Movement by Dr. Donald W. Livingston
For the first time in 144 years State interposition (Madison) and State nullification and secession (Jefferson) have entered public discourse as remedies to usurpations by the central government of rights reserved to the people of the sovereign States by the Constitution. Since Americans are not in the habit of exercising these policy options, it is worthwhile to ask just what State legislators and governors can do to protect their citizens from usurpations by the central government. First, they can begin by passing resolutions (as a number have done), declaring in no uncertain terms that all powers not delegated to the central government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved by them; and that the States themselves have the authority to judge what is reserved and what is delegated--Supreme Court case law notwithstanding. To deny this is to say that the central government can define the limits of its own power which flatly contradicts the Constitution’s language of State delegated and reserved powers.
Second, the States can insist that an office be set up in Congress to receive and respond to these resolutions. Resolutions are words. They cost little to produce, but words have power. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume observed, political authority is based primarily on opinion not force. It is not merely iron bars that confine you to prison, it is also the guard’s opinion not to let you out. If you could change his mind, the bars could not restrain you. A continuous flood of resolutions from the States about the constitutionality of this or that issue (and widely publicized), would serve to educate the public (and their rulers) about constitutional limits and alter the mind-set of politics in a decentralist direction. Further, State legislators and governors should revive, where appropriate, the Jeffersonian discourse of State interposition, nullification, and secession as policy options. To deny this is to say that an American State is not a genuine political society at all, but a mere aggregate of individuals under control of a central government that alone can define the limits of its powers. To hear such discourse in public speech can strengthen civic virtue and revive the long slumbering disposition of self-government that has been suppressed by a century of runaway centralization. Lincoln understood the power of words, and advanced the cause of centralization by refusing to describe the States as sovereign political societies. He described them as mere counties authorized by central authority. He asked incredulously: “What is this particular sacredness of a State? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in number of people, wherein is that State any better than a county?” Lincoln was not describing the federative America that Jefferson and Madison founded, but an imagined and wished for centralized, unitary American state. It is time that the Lincolnian inversion of political discourse be inverted.
Third, In addition to changing the terms of discourse, State legislators and governors should engage in 10th amendment acts of recovering usurped authority. The least controversial of these acts would be simply to not accept federal money for projects that are judged unconstitutional, such as federal involvement in education. Refuse the money, and begin restoring state and local control over education or whatever the issue might be.
Fourth, in order to restore usurped constitutional authority, a State must be prepared, at some point, to resist federal intrusion. There is a long history of States doing just that. Georgia nullified the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chisholm vs. Georgia (1793); New England States nullified fugitive slave laws; and earlier New England townships nullified Jefferson’s embargo and the war of 1812 declared under Madison’s administration. Jefferson said “he felt the foundations of the government shaken under my feet by the New England townships.” Wisconsin was nullifying what it declared to be usurpations by the Supreme Court into the 1850s. There was a time when the States kept the central government under control.
Can this be done today? Before it is attempted a clarification is necessary. We must understand that any such constitutional challenge is a political one based on the States’ sovereign authority and not a matter justiciable by the courts. Genuine federalism in America can be recovered only by political action in the name of the State’s own authority and not by Supreme Court legalism. Indeed, legalism only affirms that the Court has the final say over what powers the States have. When States interposed to block the Supreme Court’s orders to desegregate public schools in the South on the ground that such orders were unconstitutional, the move failed but only because racial segregation was not a popular issue. Many scholars then and now thought that Brown v. Board of Education was bad constitutional law, i.e., that the court had abandoned its proper role of policing the Constitution in favor of social engineering. Most, however, approved of the engineering, and paid little regard to the constitutional cost.
But the process can be reversed. States can recover usurped authority by carefully choosing the right issue, at the right time, in the right circumstances, and for the right reasons. Such an act, of course, would require considerable political prudence and skill, and should not be attempted without a reasonable chance of support from public opinion. In such an act of lawful and constitutional resistance, the State would be answerable only to her other sister states. The action might spark a constitutional amendment as happened when Georgia nullified the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) that an individual could sue a state in federal court without the State’s permission. The States agreed with Georgia’s nullification and promptly passed the 11th amendment that prohibited such suits. That is how American federalism was supposed to work. The three branches of the central government would check each other, but it would be up to the sovereign States to keep the central government itself in check. The Constitution was to be enforced through political action of the States not by the legalism of nine unelected Supreme Court justices.
Another outcome might be a political settlement that would allow a State, or a number of States, to opt out of a class of federal acts judged to be unconstitutional or fundamentally repugnant. Other federal systems allow this possibility. For instance, the Canadian Constitution has institutionalized federal nullification. Any Province can nullify acts of the central government in the area of civil rights within its own borders, even though other Provinces may enforce the act in theirs.
The States can also try to restrict unconstitutional acts of the central government through amending the Constitution, but that is virtually impossible. Two thirds of both Houses of Congress are required to pass an amendment which must then be ratified by three quarters of the States. Since 1790, over 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress. Only 30 have passed the Congressional gate-keepers, and 27 have been ratified. The other path is that two thirds of the States can compel Congress to call a constitutional convention–a very high bar to meet. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to limit the central government’s power by constitutional amendment. It is worth noting that the framers of the Confederate Constitution sought to overcome this barrier to self-government in Article 1, Section 1 which enacted that if only three States concurred on a constitutional amendment, Congress would have to call a constitutional convention. And only two thirds of the States would be needed to ratify the amendment.
To all of this it is often said that State interposition, nullification, and secession were eliminated as policy options by the Civil War. Brute force, however, cannot settle moral and constitutional questions. Lincoln’s claim that the Union is older than the States; that it created the States; that a State is merely an administrative unit (like a county in a unitary state), are historical and moral claims that must stand on their own. They cannot be settled by superior firepower but only by reasons that persuade. The problems of limiting central power in a federal system of State delegated and reserved powers, which brought forth the doctrines of State interposition, nullification, and secession as remedies, are as topical today as they were when first broached in the 1790s.
Or it will be said that, even so, too much water has gone over the dam. Institutions of the central government are so entrenched, so entangled with powerful interests, and this system has gone on for so long that people have lost any sense of civic virtue on the State and local level. It is certainly true that the central government has intruded into nearly every aspect of life, and disentanglement will not occur overnight. But centralization in America is not as intense and debilitating as it was in the former Soviet Union, from which, nevertheless, 15 States recovered civic virtue and seceded. Moreover, the current State sovereignty movement suggests that State and local civic virtue are not dead in America. But as mentioned above, a shift in the decentralist direction will require a long course of political re-education. And the sort of education required is not academic but practical–one exemplified in the conduct and civic virtue of State legislators and governors who take to heart Madison’s admonition in the Virginia Resolutions (1798) that State governments not only have the constitutional right of “interposition” to protect their citizens against usurpations by the central government but the “duty” to do so.
Finally, there is the objection that the primacy of State political action over Supreme Court legalism could work when there were fewer States, but now that there are 50 States interposition and nullification have become impractical. But If true that means the Union has simply grown too large for the purposes of self-government; in which case the obvious response is that it should be divided through secession into smaller political units that make self-government viable. Consider how dull our notion of self-government has become. Congress has capped the number of representatives in the House at 435, a majority of which is only 218 representatives. A majority in the Senate is 51. A majority of both Houses is a mere 269 people. This small number, with concurrence of the President, rules over 300 million people. But worse. Congress has long ago alienated much of its legislative responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branch. Its main interest is in distributing its vast revenue (which now is nearly 3 trillion dollars) to its clients. The President and the Supreme Court are the dominant rulers. The Executive office makes war, and its bureaucracy makes laws. The Supreme Court, with only 9 unelected judges, has become the most important social policy making body in the Union, and makes claim to be the final authority on interpreting the Constitution. Never in history have so many been ruled by so few.
As the American empire grows in population and as the ratchet of centralization tightens with each turn, talk of self-government becomes increasingly meaningless. The ratio of representatives to population in the House of Representatives today is one representative for every 690,000 people–a vacuous ratio for representation. When the population reaches 435 million, there will be one “representative” for every million persons. What to do? Expand the size of the House? No; it is about the right size for a legislative body. The only remedy is territorial division of the Union through secession into a number of different and independent political units. Such a division can spring only from political action by the States, each acting in its sovereign capacity. And what form the new order might take (whether a number of federal unions, a number of independent states, whether these will be large or small states like Singapore, etc.) can only be determined by political action of the States themselves.
The central government of the United States (that is, 9 unelected judges, a congressional majority of only 269, and 1 CEO) cannot manage the bloated and unwieldy empire that a century of ritualistic centralization has produced; nor will it ever relinquish power. George Kennan thought that a discourse on how to divide the Union was bound to develop out of pressure generated by the sheer oversized character of the regime. It is too early to say that the current State sovereignty movement is the beginning of that discourse, but it might well be the beginning of the beginning.
________________
Dr. Donald Livingston, professor at Emory University in Atlanta, has been called the preeminent political philosopher of our day in Georgia.
The State Sovereignty Movement by Dr. Donald W. Livingston
For the first time in 144 years State interposition (Madison) and State nullification and secession (Jefferson) have entered public discourse as remedies to usurpations by the central government of rights reserved to the people of the sovereign States by the Constitution. Since Americans are not in the habit of exercising these policy options, it is worthwhile to ask just what State legislators and governors can do to protect their citizens from usurpations by the central government. First, they can begin by passing resolutions (as a number have done), declaring in no uncertain terms that all powers not delegated to the central government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved by them; and that the States themselves have the authority to judge what is reserved and what is delegated--Supreme Court case law notwithstanding. To deny this is to say that the central government can define the limits of its own power which flatly contradicts the Constitution’s language of State delegated and reserved powers.
Second, the States can insist that an office be set up in Congress to receive and respond to these resolutions. Resolutions are words. They cost little to produce, but words have power. As the Scottish philosopher David Hume observed, political authority is based primarily on opinion not force. It is not merely iron bars that confine you to prison, it is also the guard’s opinion not to let you out. If you could change his mind, the bars could not restrain you. A continuous flood of resolutions from the States about the constitutionality of this or that issue (and widely publicized), would serve to educate the public (and their rulers) about constitutional limits and alter the mind-set of politics in a decentralist direction. Further, State legislators and governors should revive, where appropriate, the Jeffersonian discourse of State interposition, nullification, and secession as policy options. To deny this is to say that an American State is not a genuine political society at all, but a mere aggregate of individuals under control of a central government that alone can define the limits of its powers. To hear such discourse in public speech can strengthen civic virtue and revive the long slumbering disposition of self-government that has been suppressed by a century of runaway centralization. Lincoln understood the power of words, and advanced the cause of centralization by refusing to describe the States as sovereign political societies. He described them as mere counties authorized by central authority. He asked incredulously: “What is this particular sacredness of a State? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in number of people, wherein is that State any better than a county?” Lincoln was not describing the federative America that Jefferson and Madison founded, but an imagined and wished for centralized, unitary American state. It is time that the Lincolnian inversion of political discourse be inverted.
Third, In addition to changing the terms of discourse, State legislators and governors should engage in 10th amendment acts of recovering usurped authority. The least controversial of these acts would be simply to not accept federal money for projects that are judged unconstitutional, such as federal involvement in education. Refuse the money, and begin restoring state and local control over education or whatever the issue might be.
Fourth, in order to restore usurped constitutional authority, a State must be prepared, at some point, to resist federal intrusion. There is a long history of States doing just that. Georgia nullified the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chisholm vs. Georgia (1793); New England States nullified fugitive slave laws; and earlier New England townships nullified Jefferson’s embargo and the war of 1812 declared under Madison’s administration. Jefferson said “he felt the foundations of the government shaken under my feet by the New England townships.” Wisconsin was nullifying what it declared to be usurpations by the Supreme Court into the 1850s. There was a time when the States kept the central government under control.
Can this be done today? Before it is attempted a clarification is necessary. We must understand that any such constitutional challenge is a political one based on the States’ sovereign authority and not a matter justiciable by the courts. Genuine federalism in America can be recovered only by political action in the name of the State’s own authority and not by Supreme Court legalism. Indeed, legalism only affirms that the Court has the final say over what powers the States have. When States interposed to block the Supreme Court’s orders to desegregate public schools in the South on the ground that such orders were unconstitutional, the move failed but only because racial segregation was not a popular issue. Many scholars then and now thought that Brown v. Board of Education was bad constitutional law, i.e., that the court had abandoned its proper role of policing the Constitution in favor of social engineering. Most, however, approved of the engineering, and paid little regard to the constitutional cost.
But the process can be reversed. States can recover usurped authority by carefully choosing the right issue, at the right time, in the right circumstances, and for the right reasons. Such an act, of course, would require considerable political prudence and skill, and should not be attempted without a reasonable chance of support from public opinion. In such an act of lawful and constitutional resistance, the State would be answerable only to her other sister states. The action might spark a constitutional amendment as happened when Georgia nullified the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) that an individual could sue a state in federal court without the State’s permission. The States agreed with Georgia’s nullification and promptly passed the 11th amendment that prohibited such suits. That is how American federalism was supposed to work. The three branches of the central government would check each other, but it would be up to the sovereign States to keep the central government itself in check. The Constitution was to be enforced through political action of the States not by the legalism of nine unelected Supreme Court justices.
Another outcome might be a political settlement that would allow a State, or a number of States, to opt out of a class of federal acts judged to be unconstitutional or fundamentally repugnant. Other federal systems allow this possibility. For instance, the Canadian Constitution has institutionalized federal nullification. Any Province can nullify acts of the central government in the area of civil rights within its own borders, even though other Provinces may enforce the act in theirs.
The States can also try to restrict unconstitutional acts of the central government through amending the Constitution, but that is virtually impossible. Two thirds of both Houses of Congress are required to pass an amendment which must then be ratified by three quarters of the States. Since 1790, over 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress. Only 30 have passed the Congressional gate-keepers, and 27 have been ratified. The other path is that two thirds of the States can compel Congress to call a constitutional convention–a very high bar to meet. It is, therefore, virtually impossible to limit the central government’s power by constitutional amendment. It is worth noting that the framers of the Confederate Constitution sought to overcome this barrier to self-government in Article 1, Section 1 which enacted that if only three States concurred on a constitutional amendment, Congress would have to call a constitutional convention. And only two thirds of the States would be needed to ratify the amendment.
To all of this it is often said that State interposition, nullification, and secession were eliminated as policy options by the Civil War. Brute force, however, cannot settle moral and constitutional questions. Lincoln’s claim that the Union is older than the States; that it created the States; that a State is merely an administrative unit (like a county in a unitary state), are historical and moral claims that must stand on their own. They cannot be settled by superior firepower but only by reasons that persuade. The problems of limiting central power in a federal system of State delegated and reserved powers, which brought forth the doctrines of State interposition, nullification, and secession as remedies, are as topical today as they were when first broached in the 1790s.
Or it will be said that, even so, too much water has gone over the dam. Institutions of the central government are so entrenched, so entangled with powerful interests, and this system has gone on for so long that people have lost any sense of civic virtue on the State and local level. It is certainly true that the central government has intruded into nearly every aspect of life, and disentanglement will not occur overnight. But centralization in America is not as intense and debilitating as it was in the former Soviet Union, from which, nevertheless, 15 States recovered civic virtue and seceded. Moreover, the current State sovereignty movement suggests that State and local civic virtue are not dead in America. But as mentioned above, a shift in the decentralist direction will require a long course of political re-education. And the sort of education required is not academic but practical–one exemplified in the conduct and civic virtue of State legislators and governors who take to heart Madison’s admonition in the Virginia Resolutions (1798) that State governments not only have the constitutional right of “interposition” to protect their citizens against usurpations by the central government but the “duty” to do so.
Finally, there is the objection that the primacy of State political action over Supreme Court legalism could work when there were fewer States, but now that there are 50 States interposition and nullification have become impractical. But If true that means the Union has simply grown too large for the purposes of self-government; in which case the obvious response is that it should be divided through secession into smaller political units that make self-government viable. Consider how dull our notion of self-government has become. Congress has capped the number of representatives in the House at 435, a majority of which is only 218 representatives. A majority in the Senate is 51. A majority of both Houses is a mere 269 people. This small number, with concurrence of the President, rules over 300 million people. But worse. Congress has long ago alienated much of its legislative responsibility to the Executive and Judicial branch. Its main interest is in distributing its vast revenue (which now is nearly 3 trillion dollars) to its clients. The President and the Supreme Court are the dominant rulers. The Executive office makes war, and its bureaucracy makes laws. The Supreme Court, with only 9 unelected judges, has become the most important social policy making body in the Union, and makes claim to be the final authority on interpreting the Constitution. Never in history have so many been ruled by so few.
As the American empire grows in population and as the ratchet of centralization tightens with each turn, talk of self-government becomes increasingly meaningless. The ratio of representatives to population in the House of Representatives today is one representative for every 690,000 people–a vacuous ratio for representation. When the population reaches 435 million, there will be one “representative” for every million persons. What to do? Expand the size of the House? No; it is about the right size for a legislative body. The only remedy is territorial division of the Union through secession into a number of different and independent political units. Such a division can spring only from political action by the States, each acting in its sovereign capacity. And what form the new order might take (whether a number of federal unions, a number of independent states, whether these will be large or small states like Singapore, etc.) can only be determined by political action of the States themselves.
The central government of the United States (that is, 9 unelected judges, a congressional majority of only 269, and 1 CEO) cannot manage the bloated and unwieldy empire that a century of ritualistic centralization has produced; nor will it ever relinquish power. George Kennan thought that a discourse on how to divide the Union was bound to develop out of pressure generated by the sheer oversized character of the regime. It is too early to say that the current State sovereignty movement is the beginning of that discourse, but it might well be the beginning of the beginning.
________________
Dr. Donald Livingston, professor at Emory University in Atlanta, has been called the preeminent political philosopher of our day in Georgia.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
SUBTERFUGE OF TOWN HALL MEETINGS BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AN IMPORTANT EXAMPLE OF EXECUTIVE POWER ABUSE THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE AWARE OF
I received this thru Facebook yesterday. The names and email addresses have been removed to protect the senders’ privacy. This email originated with a woman who was at the “townhall” meeting with Obama in Montana. Another example of the non-reporting by the media. This was sent to Glenn Beck’s Constitutional Watchdogs by another individual from Montana. This is an issue that everyone needs to be aware of. Though this discussion may not directly reflect the Education, Unification and Election philosophy (of which I am a strong believer in), it is something that has been confirmed and can be used in the Education process to show how the First Amendment right to peacful assembly was subterfuged by the current president's team. This is an excellent example of how peaceful assembly to redress ones' grievances can be subterfuged when desired by someone of higher authority. This can then be used to educate the people on keeping them aware of such subterfuge and discuss how to peacefully work around it in preparation.
NEWS FROM MONTANA
“Things are not always what they seem”
Hello All. By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I feel that since Joe and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you. Whatever you decide to do with the information is up to you. If you chose to share this email with others I do ask that you DELETE my email address before you forward this on.On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here. There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do.. The White House would not release ANY details other than the date.On about Tuesday Joe found out that they would be holding the “Town Hall” at the airport. (This is only because Joe knows EVERYONE at the airport) Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you cannot get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public. FYI: We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held a large amount of folks with sufficient parking. (gymnasiums/auditoriums).. All of which have chairs and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN!! $$$$$During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it just kept coming. Though it was our President coming several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession.
Late Tuesday/early Wednesday the 12th, they said that tickets would be handed out on Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving around 12:30 Friday. Thursday morning about 600 tickets were passed out. However, 1500 were printed at a Local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm……900 tickets just DISAPPEARED.
This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama. Montana has some of the best beef in the nation!!! And it would have been really wonderful to help out the local economy. Anyone heard of the Recession?? Just think…with all of the traveling the White House is doing. $$$$$ One can only imagine what else we are paying for.On Friday Joe and I got out to the airport about 10:45am. The groups that wanted to protest Obama’s spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members drove up onto the area (illegal)and unloaded right there. It was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd.The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About 99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them…..professing abortion rights with their T-shirts and preprinted signs. (BTW, all these folks did have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area)Those against healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man.So we had Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses, doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the store, made a sign, and came to protest.If you are wondering about the press…..Well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything about the crowds. We did have some local news media around us from this state and Idaho.Speaking of the local media…they were invited. However, all questions were to be turned into the White House in advance of the event. Wouldn’t want anyone to have to think off the top of their head.It was very obvious that it was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even those people that talked about their insurance woes……..the White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked those folks to come.
Smoke and mirrors…EVERYTHING was staged!!!!!!!!!!! I am very dismayed about what I learned about our current White House. The amount of control and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the United States of America, more like the USSR!! I was physically nauseous. Joe and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers and your voices. If you care about our country please get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your voices again and again!! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what is going on in Washington DC. Scary!!
I received this thru Facebook yesterday. The names and email addresses have been removed to protect the senders’ privacy. This email originated with a woman who was at the “townhall” meeting with Obama in Montana. Another example of the non-reporting by the media. This was sent to Glenn Beck’s Constitutional Watchdogs by another individual from Montana. This is an issue that everyone needs to be aware of. Though this discussion may not directly reflect the Education, Unification and Election philosophy (of which I am a strong believer in), it is something that has been confirmed and can be used in the Education process to show how the First Amendment right to peacful assembly was subterfuged by the current president's team. This is an excellent example of how peaceful assembly to redress ones' grievances can be subterfuged when desired by someone of higher authority. This can then be used to educate the people on keeping them aware of such subterfuge and discuss how to peacefully work around it in preparation.
NEWS FROM MONTANA
“Things are not always what they seem”
Hello All. By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I feel that since Joe and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you. Whatever you decide to do with the information is up to you. If you chose to share this email with others I do ask that you DELETE my email address before you forward this on.On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here. There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do.. The White House would not release ANY details other than the date.On about Tuesday Joe found out that they would be holding the “Town Hall” at the airport. (This is only because Joe knows EVERYONE at the airport) Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you cannot get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public. FYI: We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held a large amount of folks with sufficient parking. (gymnasiums/auditoriums).. All of which have chairs and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN!! $$$$$During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it just kept coming. Though it was our President coming several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession.
Late Tuesday/early Wednesday the 12th, they said that tickets would be handed out on Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving around 12:30 Friday. Thursday morning about 600 tickets were passed out. However, 1500 were printed at a Local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm……900 tickets just DISAPPEARED.
This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama. Montana has some of the best beef in the nation!!! And it would have been really wonderful to help out the local economy. Anyone heard of the Recession?? Just think…with all of the traveling the White House is doing. $$$$$ One can only imagine what else we are paying for.On Friday Joe and I got out to the airport about 10:45am. The groups that wanted to protest Obama’s spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members drove up onto the area (illegal)and unloaded right there. It was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd.The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About 99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them…..professing abortion rights with their T-shirts and preprinted signs. (BTW, all these folks did have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area)Those against healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man.So we had Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses, doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the store, made a sign, and came to protest.If you are wondering about the press…..Well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything about the crowds. We did have some local news media around us from this state and Idaho.Speaking of the local media…they were invited. However, all questions were to be turned into the White House in advance of the event. Wouldn’t want anyone to have to think off the top of their head.It was very obvious that it was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even those people that talked about their insurance woes……..the White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked those folks to come.
Smoke and mirrors…EVERYTHING was staged!!!!!!!!!!! I am very dismayed about what I learned about our current White House. The amount of control and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the United States of America, more like the USSR!! I was physically nauseous. Joe and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers and your voices. If you care about our country please get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your voices again and again!! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what is going on in Washington DC. Scary!!
Monday, August 17, 2009
CAUSE AND EFFECT IN THE POLITICAL ARENA
In the ever-changing world of politics, We, the People, are constantly finding ourselves standing up for our God-given rights as provided by the U.S. Constitution. We find ourselves fighting issues created by our governments on all levels which infringe on our personal liberties. And we should always stand up for our rights and work together to correct the wrongs bestowed upon us. From fighting our county commissioners on increasing millage rates, standing up for our states’ sovereign rights (as granted by the Constitution) when our state legislatures are negligent in working for those rights, to standing up to our federal government and judicial system usurping their delegated powers to their own advantage, We, the People are fighting to resolve the “EFFECTS” of movements which have been ongoing in our country for over 100 years. In this situation, I am referring to the Progressive/Socialist movement that has grown in strength over this time period. As citizens of this great country, we have the right to petition our different levels of government and redress our grievances. By organizing and speaking out to address any infringements, we can make a significant difference in changing the “EFFECTS” that we face as a local community and as a nation. The latest grievance that has captured the national spotlight is reform of our national health care system. By bringing our elected officials (on all levels of government) to listen and address our grievances, We, the People can make a difference. However, the difference we make in changing ongoing policies (hopefully successful) only deals with the “EFFECTS” that were “CAUSED” by a larger influence; the Progressive/Socialist movement. This “CAUSE”, inspired by Saul Alinsky, Henry Wallace, and Robert LaFollette (to name a few), has steadily grown in strength and influenced such notable American politicians as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama. This CAUSE (the Progressive/Socialist movement) has brought us the 17th Amendment, which contrarily changed the intent of the position of Senator as designed by the Founders, the isolationism movement during the mid 1900’s which kept the USA out of the war activities in Europe until we were attacked in 1941, and Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which started grassroots political organizing designed to promote that the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends. Rules for Radicals promotes that any revolutionary change within society must be preceded by non-challenging attitudes toward change among the mass of our people, resulting in disillusion by the middle class leading to a radical movement that is focused on democracy (not a republic) because of its relative ease to work within to achieve other ends of social justice, as determined by the radicals of the Progressive movement. This “CAUSE” has effectively changed our very society, from our methods of educating our youth, promoting civil liberties to illegal immigrants, and changing the method of how stockholders vote in public corporations in the name of social justice, to name a few.Now we come to a decision as to how to restore our republic from the Progressive/Socialist views back to the intent of the U.S. Constitution. By the very rights granted by the Constitution, We, the People should continue to redress our grievances to our elected officials and peacefully work towards restoring our rights and making our elected officials aware that We, the People are watching them. Again, however, I submit that we are only dealing with the “EFFECTS”, which does not address how to defeat the “CAUSE”. So our decision must be to deal with both “cause and effect”. Education is our first step in understanding the “CAUSE” and how our republic, as designed by the Founding Fathers, can defeat the “CAUSE”. We must continue to organize on the local level, but we must not forget that education of our Constitution, which includes understanding the philosophies and views that influenced our Founding Fathers, is essential in organizing within our local communities and counties so that we can recognize the effects of the cause and work to replace any discrepancies with “common sense” to restore the republic beliefs. We, the People, must understand and work together towards a “common sense cause” on a local, county, state and national platform. Only thru this unification will We, the People establish a coordinated effort to remove the “CAUSE” of our problems, the Progressive/Socialist movement. With this unification on the local and state levels, We, the People will find honest, virtuous citizens who believe in the same “common sense cause” and support them in order to be electable candidates for our local communities and soon within our states. With this principle practiced across our country, We, the People will then find “common sense cause” candidates who will be viable servants to our country on the federal level. With this “common sense cause”, our local, county, state and federal governments will be infused with servants who follow the principles and values of our local and county charters (making changes as necessary to remove the influence the Progressive “CAUSE”), along with identical servants within our states’ and federal governments who will make the same type of changes to bring our republic back to a “common sense” form of government.By following this logic, We, the People will be successful in stopping the “EFFECTS” we are experiencing, while still focusing on the long-term movement to defeat the “CAUSE” of Progressivism. The long term movement, which must be pursued to it’s end in order to eliminate the “EFFECTS” we are constantly fighting, depends on three principles alluded to: Education of our American patriots, unification of the same principles and values across our local, state and national pictures, and elections of honest, virtuous citizens who share the same principles and values reflected by our U.S. Constitution are the keys to defeating the “CAUSE”, the Progressive/Socialist movement.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Layman's interpretation of HR 3200
Along with my blogspot, I'll also posting these interpretations of the first 498 pages of HR 3200 on other websites for discussion. In addition, I also sent these comments to flag@whitehouse.gov about a week and a half ago, in response to the call from the White House to report any "fishy" statements made about the ongoing health care reform movement. Well, he asked for it and he got it. Read at your pleasure and note the final paragraph.
“FISHY” ANALYSES ABOUT HR 3200
The following are "fishy comments" found on the Internet (review of HR 3200 word by word):
1. Page 280, Sec 1151: The Government will determine what are “preventable re-admissions” and penalize the medical facility/doctor as it deems appropriate
2. Page 298, Lines 9-11: Doctors treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission; the Government will reduce payment to the doctor in this situation.
3. Page 317, Lines 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what and how much they can own/invest in medical facilities.
4. Pages 317-318, Lines 21-25,1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Government is mandating that hospitals/medical facilities cannot expand.
5. Pages 321, Lines 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception from the prohibition of expanding their medical facility BUT community input required.
6. Page 335, Lines 16-25, Pg 336-339: Government mandates establishment of outcome based measures, including grading of Healthcare and needs for “rationing”.
7. Pages 341, Lines 3-9: Government will grade Medicare Advantage plans and has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. This would force people into the new Government plan.
8. Page 354, Sec 1177: Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people by analyzing circumstances and the Secretary of CMMS submitting a report detailing analyses and recommending type of treatment as the Secretary deems appropriate.
9. Page 379, Sec 1191: Government creates more bureaucracy - “Telehealth Advisory Committee.”
10. Page 425, Lines 4-12: Government mandates “Advanced Care Planning Consultations.”
11. Page 425, Line 18: Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session.
12. Page 425, Lines 17-19: Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney.
13. Page 425, Lines 22-25, Page 426. Lines 1-3: Government provides approved list of “end of life” resources, guiding you in death.
14. Page 427, Lines 15-24: Government mandates program for orders for “end of life”. The Government has a say in how your life ends.
15. Page 429, Lines 1-9: An “advanced care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
16. PG 429, Lines 10-12: “Advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for “end of life” plans. (AN ORDER from the Government?)
17. Page 429, Lines 13-25: The Government will specify which Doctors can write an “end of life” order.
18. Page 430, Lines 11-15: The Secretary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life?
19. Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. (MAYBE ACORN?). The most disturbing part of this section is where the Secretary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services determines who qualifies as a Community Based Medical Home (as opposed to the state and local levels of government who are currently making those decisions).
20. Pages 494-498: The Secretary for the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing and how much to pay for those services.
And I still have almost 2/3 of HR3200 to review and analyze. So far, this is
government control over health care decisions. Just how stupid does the House
of Representatives and/or President Obama think we are? President Obama, I pray
that you have not read this proposal and are just not aware of the outrageous
controls that would be implemented. Government control of the Health Care
Process is not the answer to health care reform (which is needed, but not this
way). Try tort reform and forcing the respective House and Senate committees to
do their job of oversight and calling forth those health care insurers and
disreputable health care providers to appear in committee hearings and explain
their actions (as examples). This is the lawful way that was approved by Constitutional means
(you do remember what Constitutional means is referring to; you swore to uphold
the Constitution of the United States; now please live up to your promise).
My next set of "fishy statements" will be in regards to DIVISION C—PUBLIC HEALTH AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT of HR 3200 and where the appropriations are to be dedicated to on a year-by-year basis (from fiscal year 2010 @ 4.6 trillion dollars up to fiscal year 2019 @ 12.7 trillion dollars). The Federal Reserve is now printing money that has negligible financial backing; and Congress expects us to be able to have an increasing amount of appropriations (for public health and workforce development) available as each year increases to 2019??!! Please, let’s get serious.
“FISHY” ANALYSES ABOUT HR 3200
The following are "fishy comments" found on the Internet (review of HR 3200 word by word):
1. Page 280, Sec 1151: The Government will determine what are “preventable re-admissions” and penalize the medical facility/doctor as it deems appropriate
2. Page 298, Lines 9-11: Doctors treat a patient during initial admission that results in a readmission; the Government will reduce payment to the doctor in this situation.
3. Page 317, Lines 13-20: PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Government tells Doctors what and how much they can own/invest in medical facilities.
4. Pages 317-318, Lines 21-25,1-3: PROHIBITION on expansion- Government is mandating that hospitals/medical facilities cannot expand.
5. Pages 321, Lines 2-13: Hospitals have opportunity to apply for exception from the prohibition of expanding their medical facility BUT community input required.
6. Page 335, Lines 16-25, Pg 336-339: Government mandates establishment of outcome based measures, including grading of Healthcare and needs for “rationing”.
7. Pages 341, Lines 3-9: Government will grade Medicare Advantage plans and has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. This would force people into the new Government plan.
8. Page 354, Sec 1177: Government will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs people by analyzing circumstances and the Secretary of CMMS submitting a report detailing analyses and recommending type of treatment as the Secretary deems appropriate.
9. Page 379, Sec 1191: Government creates more bureaucracy - “Telehealth Advisory Committee.”
10. Page 425, Lines 4-12: Government mandates “Advanced Care Planning Consultations.”
11. Page 425, Line 18: Government will require EVERYONE who is on Social Security to undergo a counseling session.
12. Page 425, Lines 17-19: Government will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney.
13. Page 425, Lines 22-25, Page 426. Lines 1-3: Government provides approved list of “end of life” resources, guiding you in death.
14. Page 427, Lines 15-24: Government mandates program for orders for “end of life”. The Government has a say in how your life ends.
15. Page 429, Lines 1-9: An “advanced care planning consult” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.
16. PG 429, Lines 10-12: “Advanced care consultation” may include an ORDER for “end of life” plans. (AN ORDER from the Government?)
17. Page 429, Lines 13-25: The Government will specify which Doctors can write an “end of life” order.
18. Page 430, Lines 11-15: The Secretary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life?
19. Page 472 Lines 14-17: PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. (MAYBE ACORN?). The most disturbing part of this section is where the Secretary for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services determines who qualifies as a Community Based Medical Home (as opposed to the state and local levels of government who are currently making those decisions).
20. Pages 494-498: The Secretary for the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services will cover Mental Health Services including defining, creating, rationing and how much to pay for those services.
And I still have almost 2/3 of HR3200 to review and analyze. So far, this is
government control over health care decisions. Just how stupid does the House
of Representatives and/or President Obama think we are? President Obama, I pray
that you have not read this proposal and are just not aware of the outrageous
controls that would be implemented. Government control of the Health Care
Process is not the answer to health care reform (which is needed, but not this
way). Try tort reform and forcing the respective House and Senate committees to
do their job of oversight and calling forth those health care insurers and
disreputable health care providers to appear in committee hearings and explain
their actions (as examples). This is the lawful way that was approved by Constitutional means
(you do remember what Constitutional means is referring to; you swore to uphold
the Constitution of the United States; now please live up to your promise).
My next set of "fishy statements" will be in regards to DIVISION C—PUBLIC HEALTH AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT of HR 3200 and where the appropriations are to be dedicated to on a year-by-year basis (from fiscal year 2010 @ 4.6 trillion dollars up to fiscal year 2019 @ 12.7 trillion dollars). The Federal Reserve is now printing money that has negligible financial backing; and Congress expects us to be able to have an increasing amount of appropriations (for public health and workforce development) available as each year increases to 2019??!! Please, let’s get serious.
Town Hall Meetings with Georgia Representatives
(originally posted on 8/08/09 on another blog site)
(The following information was obtained from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution regarding Georgia Representatives holding meetings with their constituents)District 2: Sanford Bishop (D-Columbus)Aug. 19, 8:30 a.m. at National Infantry Museum in Columbus.Aug. 19, 4 p.m. at Fort Valley State University, Fort Valley.Aug. 20, 10 a.m. at Kirbo Regional Center in Bainbridge.Aug. 20, 4 p.m. at Albany State University, Albany.District 4: Hank Johnson (D-Decatur)Monday, 7 p.m. at Georgia Perimeter College (Cole Auditorium), 555 North Indian Creek Dr., Clarkston.District 7: John Linder (R-Duluth)Thursday, 10 a.m. at Piedmont Regional Library, 189 Bell View St., Winder.Thursday, 5 p.m. at Suwanee Library, 361 Main St., Suwanee.Aug. 19, 10 a.m. at Monroe- Walton Library, 217 West Spring St., Monroe.Aug. 19, 1 p.m. at Covington Library, 7116 Floyd Road, Covington.District 10: Paul Broun (R-Athens)Monday, 6 p.m. at Columbia Co. Board of Education, Evans.Tuesday, 6 p.m. at North Georgia Technical College, Clarksville.District 13: David Scott (D-Atlanta) -- Aug. 15, 10 a.m. at Mundy’s Mill High School, 9652 Fayetteville Road, Jonesboro.Of the next two, hopefully Jack will have at least one more before the end of the month. If not, nobody can argue that he has not been doing his job. Also, don’t be misled by “meetings being planned” for Rep. Barrow. He was serving on the House committee which approved HR 3200, but voted against it and came to Georgia several times while this was being discussed (and afterwards) to get the People’s feedback.District 1: Jack Kingston (R-Savannah) -- Has held nine meetings to date. No more planned.District 12: John Barrow (D-Savannah) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.As for these four, the jury is still out. We will see how dedicated some of these are in talking to their constituents.District 3: Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.District 8: Jim Marshall (D-Macon) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.District 9: Nathan Deal (R-Gainesville) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.District 11: Phil Gingrey (R-Marietta) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.For these two, pure arrogance and they will feel the pain in the next election.District 5: John Lewis (D-Atlanta) -- Has held one meeting. No more planned.District 6: Tom Price (R-Roswell) -- Has held one meeting. No more planned.Oh, one other item:If you can find where our two “illustrious” Georgian Senators, Chambliss and Isakson, are having town-hall type meetings with someone else (like We, the People) as opposed to paid donators to the Republican National Committee, please let me know by my email address wpconan1@windstream.net, or on Facebook (William P. Conant). I’ve made more phone calls, faxes and emails to their different offices and responses have been about their stand on health care reform but nothing addressing meeting with their constituents (their bosses) in Georgia. Again, arrogance and non-accessibility. We, the People in Georgia need a viable candidate to run against J. Isakson as a Republican next year.
(The following information was obtained from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution regarding Georgia Representatives holding meetings with their constituents)District 2: Sanford Bishop (D-Columbus)Aug. 19, 8:30 a.m. at National Infantry Museum in Columbus.Aug. 19, 4 p.m. at Fort Valley State University, Fort Valley.Aug. 20, 10 a.m. at Kirbo Regional Center in Bainbridge.Aug. 20, 4 p.m. at Albany State University, Albany.District 4: Hank Johnson (D-Decatur)Monday, 7 p.m. at Georgia Perimeter College (Cole Auditorium), 555 North Indian Creek Dr., Clarkston.District 7: John Linder (R-Duluth)Thursday, 10 a.m. at Piedmont Regional Library, 189 Bell View St., Winder.Thursday, 5 p.m. at Suwanee Library, 361 Main St., Suwanee.Aug. 19, 10 a.m. at Monroe- Walton Library, 217 West Spring St., Monroe.Aug. 19, 1 p.m. at Covington Library, 7116 Floyd Road, Covington.District 10: Paul Broun (R-Athens)Monday, 6 p.m. at Columbia Co. Board of Education, Evans.Tuesday, 6 p.m. at North Georgia Technical College, Clarksville.District 13: David Scott (D-Atlanta) -- Aug. 15, 10 a.m. at Mundy’s Mill High School, 9652 Fayetteville Road, Jonesboro.Of the next two, hopefully Jack will have at least one more before the end of the month. If not, nobody can argue that he has not been doing his job. Also, don’t be misled by “meetings being planned” for Rep. Barrow. He was serving on the House committee which approved HR 3200, but voted against it and came to Georgia several times while this was being discussed (and afterwards) to get the People’s feedback.District 1: Jack Kingston (R-Savannah) -- Has held nine meetings to date. No more planned.District 12: John Barrow (D-Savannah) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.As for these four, the jury is still out. We will see how dedicated some of these are in talking to their constituents.District 3: Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.District 8: Jim Marshall (D-Macon) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.District 9: Nathan Deal (R-Gainesville) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.District 11: Phil Gingrey (R-Marietta) -- Staff says meetings being planned, but no dates yet.For these two, pure arrogance and they will feel the pain in the next election.District 5: John Lewis (D-Atlanta) -- Has held one meeting. No more planned.District 6: Tom Price (R-Roswell) -- Has held one meeting. No more planned.Oh, one other item:If you can find where our two “illustrious” Georgian Senators, Chambliss and Isakson, are having town-hall type meetings with someone else (like We, the People) as opposed to paid donators to the Republican National Committee, please let me know by my email address wpconan1@windstream.net, or on Facebook (William P. Conant). I’ve made more phone calls, faxes and emails to their different offices and responses have been about their stand on health care reform but nothing addressing meeting with their constituents (their bosses) in Georgia. Again, arrogance and non-accessibility. We, the People in Georgia need a viable candidate to run against J. Isakson as a Republican next year.
Monday, July 27, 2009
VIOLATION OF THE TENTH AMENDMENT
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
No where within the Constitution is the executive branch allowed to grant bailouts to private industries; bailouts which comes with restrictive provisions to restrict pay, raises, etc. to the corporate executives; which controls who runs the corporation/industry. The initial argument to this statement would be that Congress granted the bailouts in the 110th Congress, which is true to the tune of 700 billion dollars. This would arguably be allowed by the 10th Amendment by the people allowing this action via their representation in the legislative branch. However, the Treasury then turned around issuing extra securities to borrow money from the economy, then loaning the money to the Federal Reserve in special deposits so that the Federal Reserve readdresses these funds to make bailout purchases of many types of securities. This changed the total bailout from the $700 billion that Congress appropriated for the auto business in 2008 to $1.2 trillion. This doesn’t even include the Federal Reserve mid-October of 2008 promise of $540 billion to bail out money market funds, which the Federal Reserve could not cover by the sale of other assets. With the current administration’s bailout processes for mortgage, bank/credit and automotive corporations/industries, this has resulted in additional monetary increases and more Treasury borrowing. Now we have a massive bailout financed both by Treasury borrowing (in order to avoid inflation) and a Federal Reserve increase of the monetary base (which promotes future inflation anyway). All of the current administration’s bailout “aid” has resulted in a budget deficit in January, 2009 of 455 billion dollars to 12.104 trillion dollars today and growing thru interest alone. All because the executive branch, beginning in 2008 and ongoing today, has usurped the powers granted to the legislative branch only (to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to coin Money, regulate the value thereof, etc.) in the name of their Progressive/Socialist movement designed for the future of our republic. And all because our legislative branch did not hold the executive branch accountable for their usurpation of the powers granted by our Constitution. There have been too many events in our country’s history since the early 1900’s where our U.S. Constitution has been violated by the executive branch in the name of the slowly evolving Progressive movement where We, the People have not held our government accountable. We, the People MUST take all peaceful actions granted to us by the U.S. Constitution to preserve our republic and hold the three branches of government (on all levels from local to federal) accountable to their actions or inactions. Otherwise, we will have a government structure and function which does not represent the republic granted to us by the U.S. Constitution and by the Laws of Nature (God’s Law).
No where within the Constitution is the executive branch allowed to grant bailouts to private industries; bailouts which comes with restrictive provisions to restrict pay, raises, etc. to the corporate executives; which controls who runs the corporation/industry. The initial argument to this statement would be that Congress granted the bailouts in the 110th Congress, which is true to the tune of 700 billion dollars. This would arguably be allowed by the 10th Amendment by the people allowing this action via their representation in the legislative branch. However, the Treasury then turned around issuing extra securities to borrow money from the economy, then loaning the money to the Federal Reserve in special deposits so that the Federal Reserve readdresses these funds to make bailout purchases of many types of securities. This changed the total bailout from the $700 billion that Congress appropriated for the auto business in 2008 to $1.2 trillion. This doesn’t even include the Federal Reserve mid-October of 2008 promise of $540 billion to bail out money market funds, which the Federal Reserve could not cover by the sale of other assets. With the current administration’s bailout processes for mortgage, bank/credit and automotive corporations/industries, this has resulted in additional monetary increases and more Treasury borrowing. Now we have a massive bailout financed both by Treasury borrowing (in order to avoid inflation) and a Federal Reserve increase of the monetary base (which promotes future inflation anyway). All of the current administration’s bailout “aid” has resulted in a budget deficit in January, 2009 of 455 billion dollars to 12.104 trillion dollars today and growing thru interest alone. All because the executive branch, beginning in 2008 and ongoing today, has usurped the powers granted to the legislative branch only (to borrow money on the credit of the United States, to coin Money, regulate the value thereof, etc.) in the name of their Progressive/Socialist movement designed for the future of our republic. And all because our legislative branch did not hold the executive branch accountable for their usurpation of the powers granted by our Constitution. There have been too many events in our country’s history since the early 1900’s where our U.S. Constitution has been violated by the executive branch in the name of the slowly evolving Progressive movement where We, the People have not held our government accountable. We, the People MUST take all peaceful actions granted to us by the U.S. Constitution to preserve our republic and hold the three branches of government (on all levels from local to federal) accountable to their actions or inactions. Otherwise, we will have a government structure and function which does not represent the republic granted to us by the U.S. Constitution and by the Laws of Nature (God’s Law).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
