Political Discussion
There are many very good conversations located on this page!!
NOTE: Under the Tab "It's The States!" - The Sentinel", which covers State news, we will post a short excerpt of each topic in the Sentinel and post the link for the state news from this point forward...in the interest of publication space and browsing improvement for you, the reader.
We are delighted to have the Sentinel report on issues other than the States!
Founders Turning in Their Graves
By Ben Lewis on July 25, 2013
Tenth Amendment Center
“A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
So said the ever-quotable Benjamin Franklin upon emerging from the Constitutional Convention debates in 1787. Franklin’s now-famous statement to an inquisitive Philadelphian causes us today to pause and reflect. Have we kept the republic that Franklin and his contemporaries bequeathed us?
A recent poll answers this query with an emphatic “No!”. According to a Gallup survey, 71% of Americans believe that the Founders would be disappointed in the United States today. This comes on the heels of another Gallup survey showing that Congress’s approval rating has hit its lowest mark ever at 10%. President Obama doesn’t fare much better, garnering only 36% approval.
Are Americans beginning to realize that the government they have bears no resemblance to the one designed by the framers of the Constitution? If the 71% are correct in saying that the Founders would be embarrassed by America today, the next logical question we should ask is “Why?”.
Could it be because we’ve completely abandoned the structure of government that they fought the British for and then jealously guarded while debating the Constitution? Maybe we can find the answer in what some founders said about how American liberty would be preserved.
Gilbert Livingston: “I conceive the state governments are necessary as the barrier between the people’s liberties and any invasion which may be attempted on them by the general government.”
Edmund Pendleton: “(The power of the federal government) only extends to the general purposes of the Union. It does not intermeddle with the local, particular affairs of the states.”
Oliver Ellsworth: “I turn my eyes, therefore, for the preservation of (my son’s) rights to the state governments. From these alone he could derive the greatest happiness he expects in this life.”
Henry Lee: “When a question arises with respect to the legality of any power, exercised or assumed by Congress, it is plain on the side of the governed: Is it enumerated in the Constitution? If it be, it is legal and just. It is otherwise arbitrary and unconstitutional.”
Perhaps the best illustration of how our government was supposed to function comes, somewhat ironically, from Alexander Hamilton:
“We love our families more than our neighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the centre….On these principles, the attachment of the individual will be first and forever secured by the state governments. The states can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. They must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate.”
The Founders would undeniably be disappointed in the course that the federal government has taken, but they would also be disappointed in us. The federal government has done what governments tend to do: grow. Meanwhile, the people, while possessing the authority to limit it, have become entirely enamored of centralized power, even as the government has eroded their liberties.
If we want to live up to the legacy of our forefathers, maybe instead of disapproving of Congress and the president we should just ignore them and focus our efforts closer to home. That would make the Founders proud.
Tenth Amendment Center http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/07/founders-turning-in-th...
Tenth Amendment Center
“A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
So said the ever-quotable Benjamin Franklin upon emerging from the Constitutional Convention debates in 1787. Franklin’s now-famous statement to an inquisitive Philadelphian causes us today to pause and reflect. Have we kept the republic that Franklin and his contemporaries bequeathed us?
A recent poll answers this query with an emphatic “No!”. According to a Gallup survey, 71% of Americans believe that the Founders would be disappointed in the United States today. This comes on the heels of another Gallup survey showing that Congress’s approval rating has hit its lowest mark ever at 10%. President Obama doesn’t fare much better, garnering only 36% approval.
Are Americans beginning to realize that the government they have bears no resemblance to the one designed by the framers of the Constitution? If the 71% are correct in saying that the Founders would be embarrassed by America today, the next logical question we should ask is “Why?”.
Could it be because we’ve completely abandoned the structure of government that they fought the British for and then jealously guarded while debating the Constitution? Maybe we can find the answer in what some founders said about how American liberty would be preserved.
Gilbert Livingston: “I conceive the state governments are necessary as the barrier between the people’s liberties and any invasion which may be attempted on them by the general government.”
Edmund Pendleton: “(The power of the federal government) only extends to the general purposes of the Union. It does not intermeddle with the local, particular affairs of the states.”
Oliver Ellsworth: “I turn my eyes, therefore, for the preservation of (my son’s) rights to the state governments. From these alone he could derive the greatest happiness he expects in this life.”
Henry Lee: “When a question arises with respect to the legality of any power, exercised or assumed by Congress, it is plain on the side of the governed: Is it enumerated in the Constitution? If it be, it is legal and just. It is otherwise arbitrary and unconstitutional.”
Perhaps the best illustration of how our government was supposed to function comes, somewhat ironically, from Alexander Hamilton:
“We love our families more than our neighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the centre….On these principles, the attachment of the individual will be first and forever secured by the state governments. The states can never lose their powers till the whole people of America are robbed of their liberties. They must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate.”
The Founders would undeniably be disappointed in the course that the federal government has taken, but they would also be disappointed in us. The federal government has done what governments tend to do: grow. Meanwhile, the people, while possessing the authority to limit it, have become entirely enamored of centralized power, even as the government has eroded their liberties.
If we want to live up to the legacy of our forefathers, maybe instead of disapproving of Congress and the president we should just ignore them and focus our efforts closer to home. That would make the Founders proud.
Tenth Amendment Center http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/07/founders-turning-in-th...
A Fed’s Eye View of the States
In 1993, when Hillary Clinton was working behind closed doors with the Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group, Walter Zellman had, apparently at the behest of H. Clinton, posed a questions to the Department of Justice as to whether the Federal Government could force the States to adopt a National Health Care Plan.
The DOJ sent a thirteen-page response in memorandum form. From that, a lawyer on the Health Care Task Force drafted a summery of the DOJ memorandum. When a physicians’ group sued on grounds that the task force violated the constitution by operating in secrecy, the documents were ordered to be made public. The memorandum was found in the National Archives, along with the ‘summary’. Following is an exact transcript of page 4 of the summary, which gives us a fed’s eye view of the States, and how they have fallen into a reverse roll of agent-principal by the federal government.
The DOJ memorandum is stamp dated, March 5, 1993. There is no date shown on the summary draft. You’ll notice the page begins in the middle of a sentence, following from page 3 of the draft. We’ve typed in bold print the paragraph relating to the States, and for the purpose of authenticity, transcribed the entire page.
The oxymoron used to define the States as "subordinated sovereignties", should be sending up red flags and setting off warning sirens. The definition of sovereign is: preeminent; having no higher power. Today, the fed wields power over the States as a CEO wields power over a janitor. Lest we forget: The federal government is a creation of the States. T. David Horton, Constitutional Attorney, remarked that:
"The sooner we get over our inferiority complex in relation to the federal government the sooner this system could be turned right-side-up."
Read More at http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/fedseye.htm
The DOJ sent a thirteen-page response in memorandum form. From that, a lawyer on the Health Care Task Force drafted a summery of the DOJ memorandum. When a physicians’ group sued on grounds that the task force violated the constitution by operating in secrecy, the documents were ordered to be made public. The memorandum was found in the National Archives, along with the ‘summary’. Following is an exact transcript of page 4 of the summary, which gives us a fed’s eye view of the States, and how they have fallen into a reverse roll of agent-principal by the federal government.
The DOJ memorandum is stamp dated, March 5, 1993. There is no date shown on the summary draft. You’ll notice the page begins in the middle of a sentence, following from page 3 of the draft. We’ve typed in bold print the paragraph relating to the States, and for the purpose of authenticity, transcribed the entire page.
The oxymoron used to define the States as "subordinated sovereignties", should be sending up red flags and setting off warning sirens. The definition of sovereign is: preeminent; having no higher power. Today, the fed wields power over the States as a CEO wields power over a janitor. Lest we forget: The federal government is a creation of the States. T. David Horton, Constitutional Attorney, remarked that:
"The sooner we get over our inferiority complex in relation to the federal government the sooner this system could be turned right-side-up."
Read More at http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/fedseye.htm
State legislators are waking up
By WALTER WILLIAMS | JULY 3, 2013 AT 11:50 AM
Recent opinion polls demonstrate a deepening distrust of the federal government. That's not an altogether bad thing. Our nation's founders recognized that most human abuses are the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Because of their fear of abuse, the Constitution's framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the governing rules and language used throughout our Constitution. The Bill of Rights is explicit in that distrust, using language such as Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe and shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the framers did not believe that Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections. I've always suggested that if we see anything like the Bill of Rights at our next destination after we die, we'll know that we're in hell. A perceived need for such protection in heaven would be an affront to God. It would be the same as saying we can't trust him.
Other framer protections from government are found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, the two-thirds vote to override a veto and that two-thirds of state legislatures can call for reconvening the constitutional convention, with the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.
The heartening news for us is that state legislatures are beginning to awaken to their duty to protect their citizens from unconstitutional acts by the Congress, the White House and a derelict Supreme Court. According to an Associated Press story, about four-fifths of the states now have local laws that reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback recently signed a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.
Missouri legislators recently enacted the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which in part reads that not only is it the right of the state Legislature to check federal overreaching but that "the Missouri general assembly is duty-bound to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of the Union of the States, because only a faithful observance of those principles can secure the nation's existence and the public happiness." The bill further declares that the Missouri General Assembly is "firmly resolved to support and defend the United States Constitution against every aggression, either foreign or domestic." The legislation awaits Gov. Jay Nixon's signature or veto.
Both lower houses of the South Carolina and Oklahoma legislatures enacted measures nullifying Obamacare on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional intrusion and violation of the 10th Amendment. You might say, "Williams, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled Obamacare constitutional, and that settles it. Federal law is supreme." It's worth heeding this warning from Thomas Jefferson: "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." Jefferson and James Madison, in 1798 and 1799 in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, said, "Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government ... and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." In other words, heed the 10th Amendment to our Constitution, which reads, "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." That's the message state legislatures should send to Washington during this year's celebration of our Declaration of Independence.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-legislators-are-waking-up/artic...
Washington Examiner Columnist Walter E. Williams is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate
Recent opinion polls demonstrate a deepening distrust of the federal government. That's not an altogether bad thing. Our nation's founders recognized that most human abuses are the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Because of their fear of abuse, the Constitution's framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the governing rules and language used throughout our Constitution. The Bill of Rights is explicit in that distrust, using language such as Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe and shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the framers did not believe that Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections. I've always suggested that if we see anything like the Bill of Rights at our next destination after we die, we'll know that we're in hell. A perceived need for such protection in heaven would be an affront to God. It would be the same as saying we can't trust him.
Other framer protections from government are found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, the two-thirds vote to override a veto and that two-thirds of state legislatures can call for reconvening the constitutional convention, with the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.
The heartening news for us is that state legislatures are beginning to awaken to their duty to protect their citizens from unconstitutional acts by the Congress, the White House and a derelict Supreme Court. According to an Associated Press story, about four-fifths of the states now have local laws that reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver's licenses. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback recently signed a measure threatening felony charges against federal agents who enforce certain firearms laws in his state.
Missouri legislators recently enacted the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which in part reads that not only is it the right of the state Legislature to check federal overreaching but that "the Missouri general assembly is duty-bound to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of the Union of the States, because only a faithful observance of those principles can secure the nation's existence and the public happiness." The bill further declares that the Missouri General Assembly is "firmly resolved to support and defend the United States Constitution against every aggression, either foreign or domestic." The legislation awaits Gov. Jay Nixon's signature or veto.
Both lower houses of the South Carolina and Oklahoma legislatures enacted measures nullifying Obamacare on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional intrusion and violation of the 10th Amendment. You might say, "Williams, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled Obamacare constitutional, and that settles it. Federal law is supreme." It's worth heeding this warning from Thomas Jefferson: "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." Jefferson and James Madison, in 1798 and 1799 in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, said, "Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government ... and whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." In other words, heed the 10th Amendment to our Constitution, which reads, "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." That's the message state legislatures should send to Washington during this year's celebration of our Declaration of Independence.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/state-legislators-are-waking-up/artic...
Washington Examiner Columnist Walter E. Williams is nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate
The Emperor Has No Clothes!
The President is to busy with travel and golf - and oh yes, he is still kicking that red sand line into the eyes of Syria. He knows nothing about any subject until the Media writes about it in the NYT or Wash Post - however they excuse him. He will follow like a puppy to the food bowl. He has lost the respect of all foreign leaders - all that bluster and no production or even a logical plan . . . Now he is going to SA to see The Mandela family . . he now seeks any comfort spot where he can avoid the IRS, NSA, Benghazi, EPA issues filled with lies, half truths, and now even two IRS agents taking the 5th.
The Administration is in shambles and Obama runs off to Africa proving he is not a leader. A real leader would set up a REAL WAR ROOM to get to the bottom of all these Unconstitutional actions by his highest staff and agency heads.
His AG Holder is in contempt of Congress, his IRS and Treasury people are in hiding, his NSA Staff has lied to the American people and violated the limits on government in the 4th amendment.
The State department has blocked all access to the real information of what happened in Benghazi - they keep using SECRET and National security to hide who gave orders when Obama was missing in action for over 8 hours when his people were fighting to the death - asking for assistance and even some were ready to be there in two hours - some UNNAMED person ordered them to STAND DOWN . . . And to can add another: Libya let the "terrorist" go that the US knew was part of the Benghazi attack. Why? Because US did NOT share that info with them. What purposeful incompetence!
Now it is the EPA taking peoples' property with their rules and corruption without just compensation and violating the 5th amendment "TAKING CLAUSE." The President has a total out of control Administrative agency problem that goes to every agency that is investigated . . what or whom is next??
M.W.
The Administration is in shambles and Obama runs off to Africa proving he is not a leader. A real leader would set up a REAL WAR ROOM to get to the bottom of all these Unconstitutional actions by his highest staff and agency heads.
His AG Holder is in contempt of Congress, his IRS and Treasury people are in hiding, his NSA Staff has lied to the American people and violated the limits on government in the 4th amendment.
The State department has blocked all access to the real information of what happened in Benghazi - they keep using SECRET and National security to hide who gave orders when Obama was missing in action for over 8 hours when his people were fighting to the death - asking for assistance and even some were ready to be there in two hours - some UNNAMED person ordered them to STAND DOWN . . . And to can add another: Libya let the "terrorist" go that the US knew was part of the Benghazi attack. Why? Because US did NOT share that info with them. What purposeful incompetence!
Now it is the EPA taking peoples' property with their rules and corruption without just compensation and violating the 5th amendment "TAKING CLAUSE." The President has a total out of control Administrative agency problem that goes to every agency that is investigated . . what or whom is next??
M.W.
What Happens When Benevolent Totalitarianism Ceases To Be Benevolent?
As I explained last month, benevolent totalitarianism is the concept of government control by and through deception. For more than 100 years, America has operated as a benevolent totalitarianism. But what happens when totalitarianism ceases to be benevolent?
If benevolent totalitarianism is subtle, outright totalitarianism is open warfare on the people. That is what is beginning in America. We now find ourselves in the opening phase of outright attacks on the people as government exerts greater control in order to suppress dissent over the natural transition from benevolent to non-benevolent totalitarianism.
That America is a fascist Nation is no longer deniable. Fascism, as described by Benito Mussolini, is the merger of state and corporate power. All significant legislation passed in recent years has been designed to either increase the power of the state to control the people, to increase the power and wealth of corporations or to strengthen their symbiotic relationship. As legislation that accomplishes these things is detrimental to the best interests of the people, it can be described only as salvos being fired against the people and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
America was designed as a representative republic, with Representatives elected by the people to represent their interests when laws are passed. Senators were to be selected by the States to represent the interests of their States. Neither the Congress nor the President is answerable to the people or the States today. They answer only to their corporate sugar daddies and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that operate behind the scenes. These NGOs, dominated by monied interests, include, but are not limited to, the Federal Reserve, The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and various and sundry “think tanks” propped up by the same corporate sugar daddies lining the pockets of Congress.
The names of the people running and funding these NGOs are mostly familiar and pop up from time to time in various ways in government and out: appearing in Presidential cabinets, heading alphabet soup government agencies, sitting on the boards of corporations, running the World Bank, etc. Theirs are the corporations that receive the contracts for government business as it makes war on other countries, move in to rape and pillage the natural resources of Third World countries (see The Secret History of American Empire and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, both by John Perkins) or fulfill the mandates of legislation (insurance, Big Pharma, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, etc.).
In 2008, against the wishes of the majority of America, George W. Bush pushed through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion boondoggle of largess to bail out the banksters and their criminal co-conspirators on Wall Street. To sell it, Bush employed classic Orwellian doublethink saying, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”
Opposition to this criminal transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy bankster criminals — whose illegal activity combined with Federal Reserve money printing caused the collapse — spawned the Tea Party movement. And Bush’s legacy, such as it was, was swept into the dustbin filled with 20th century progressive/socialist Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
The tragically misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was likewise passed against the wishes of the American people. Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi mockingly told us we would have to wait until it was passed to find out what’s in it. As bad as the Obamacare deathcare system looked then, it looks even worse now that we’re on the cusp of its implementation.
Obamacare is more doublethink. Passed under the guise of providing healthcare insurance for everyone, it served only to benefit and profit Big Insurance and Big Pharma to the detriment of small business and the American worker. A majority of Americans remain opposed to it, and opposition continues to grow; yet there is no move by unaccountable Congress to remove the blight of Obamacare. Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebilius is strong-arming companies that will benefit from the Obamacare deathcare trap into contributing to the marketing of the byzantine boondoggle.
Now we know that the Internal Revenue Service, which is nothing more than a blunt instrument used to cudgel American workers and small businesses as it transfers wealth and creates dossiers on all “taxpayers,” is targeting Americans based on their opposition to big government. And this monstrosity will have full access to the supposedly private medical records of all Americans.
http://personalliberty.com/2013/05/06/benevolent-totalitarianism/
If benevolent totalitarianism is subtle, outright totalitarianism is open warfare on the people. That is what is beginning in America. We now find ourselves in the opening phase of outright attacks on the people as government exerts greater control in order to suppress dissent over the natural transition from benevolent to non-benevolent totalitarianism.
That America is a fascist Nation is no longer deniable. Fascism, as described by Benito Mussolini, is the merger of state and corporate power. All significant legislation passed in recent years has been designed to either increase the power of the state to control the people, to increase the power and wealth of corporations or to strengthen their symbiotic relationship. As legislation that accomplishes these things is detrimental to the best interests of the people, it can be described only as salvos being fired against the people and in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
America was designed as a representative republic, with Representatives elected by the people to represent their interests when laws are passed. Senators were to be selected by the States to represent the interests of their States. Neither the Congress nor the President is answerable to the people or the States today. They answer only to their corporate sugar daddies and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that operate behind the scenes. These NGOs, dominated by monied interests, include, but are not limited to, the Federal Reserve, The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and various and sundry “think tanks” propped up by the same corporate sugar daddies lining the pockets of Congress.
The names of the people running and funding these NGOs are mostly familiar and pop up from time to time in various ways in government and out: appearing in Presidential cabinets, heading alphabet soup government agencies, sitting on the boards of corporations, running the World Bank, etc. Theirs are the corporations that receive the contracts for government business as it makes war on other countries, move in to rape and pillage the natural resources of Third World countries (see The Secret History of American Empire and Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, both by John Perkins) or fulfill the mandates of legislation (insurance, Big Pharma, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, etc.).
In 2008, against the wishes of the majority of America, George W. Bush pushed through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a $700 billion boondoggle of largess to bail out the banksters and their criminal co-conspirators on Wall Street. To sell it, Bush employed classic Orwellian doublethink saying, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”
Opposition to this criminal transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy bankster criminals — whose illegal activity combined with Federal Reserve money printing caused the collapse — spawned the Tea Party movement. And Bush’s legacy, such as it was, was swept into the dustbin filled with 20th century progressive/socialist Presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
The tragically misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was likewise passed against the wishes of the American people. Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi mockingly told us we would have to wait until it was passed to find out what’s in it. As bad as the Obamacare deathcare system looked then, it looks even worse now that we’re on the cusp of its implementation.
Obamacare is more doublethink. Passed under the guise of providing healthcare insurance for everyone, it served only to benefit and profit Big Insurance and Big Pharma to the detriment of small business and the American worker. A majority of Americans remain opposed to it, and opposition continues to grow; yet there is no move by unaccountable Congress to remove the blight of Obamacare. Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebilius is strong-arming companies that will benefit from the Obamacare deathcare trap into contributing to the marketing of the byzantine boondoggle.
Now we know that the Internal Revenue Service, which is nothing more than a blunt instrument used to cudgel American workers and small businesses as it transfers wealth and creates dossiers on all “taxpayers,” is targeting Americans based on their opposition to big government. And this monstrosity will have full access to the supposedly private medical records of all Americans.
http://personalliberty.com/2013/05/06/benevolent-totalitarianism/
Washington Reflects Victim, Entitlement Culture
Ron Razete knows a little bit about sibling rivalry.
The father of five children, ranging in age from 15 to 26, has them all working behind the counter of a shop no bigger than a walk-in closet — alongside a large KitchenAid mixer, a sizzling hot fryer, racks filled with little doughnuts, a cash register and barely enough room for four svelte customers.
They all work together in some combination at the family sweetery, Peace, Love and Little Donuts, where customers usually wait in line outside for a fresh, piping-hot treat.
Never once did Razete consider the jockeying for attention and seniority between his children as bullying, or as troubling enough to cause “mental anguish.” Yet a study released last week by the University of New Hampshire sounded an alarm indicating just that.
The study looked at roughhousing, destruction or stealing of property and name-calling. It showed one-third of 3,000 children surveyed claimed to have been victimized by a brother or sister the previous year.
Brothers and sisters have been snatching each other's toys and clothes, name-calling and squabbling since the dawn of time, said Razete.
“It's sort of the baseline for how you interact with people outside of your family and how you choose your friends in different stages of your life,” he said. “But this study makes it appear as though we have yet another layer of society to blame for our ability to manage and resolve conflict.”
And it adds to our victim/entitlement culture that rewards everyone for just showing up and allows folks to blame everyone but themselves when things go south.
In today's society, especially in large inner cities and affluent suburbs, we have been enabling at least two generations of Americans who do not know how to win in sports or in academics, by handing out rewards for everyone so no one's feelings are hurt.
Parents and teachers alike obsess over the negative effects of a child losing any sort of competition, ignoring the critically valuable skills of teamwork, healthy sportsmanship and, most important, learning how to lose.
“It's as if, as a society, we are embarrassed to award excellence for fear it will offend someone who is less than excellent,” said Bruce Haynes, a media partner at the bipartisan Purple Strategies consulting firm in Washington. “Rather than a drive to the top, it creates a drive to the bottom.”
In other words, if you build a better mousetrap, you might have to apologize to other mousetrap manufacturers, then to the Humane Society, for your accomplishment.
We've told our extraordinary people it's OK to be ordinary — and they've obliged us.
It would be easy to say Washington encourages this behavior. But politics usually is a mirror of the culture that exists; D.C. more often reflects reality than shapes it.
So a lot of these characteristics more reflect the culture in which politicians came up, not them driving culture in that direction.
To be fair, philosophers have declared the decline of civilization since 700 B.C., when Herodotus wrote his didactic poem, “Work and Days,” centuries before the Greeks' victory over the Persians and the Golden Age of Athens.
Every generation is inclined to view the latest generation as sissies (at least until it proves itself otherwise) but that doesn't mean, sooner or later, some generation won't actually earn the title.
We've had three generations in a row that have accepted — and, in large measure, been corrupted by — an enervating dependency that promotes a welfare state; they are the grandchildren of an industrial society that had no way of improving a Great Depression without creating a dead-end welfare state — or was the New Deal the failure?
So, the next time you feel the need to slather a child with anti-bacterial gel before “co-playing” with a friend on a scheduled “play date” at a rubber-cushioned playground, consider letting them play without you — and, if they skin their knees or get into a fight, let them figure things out for themselves.
The way we teach our kids to handle problems at home, or on the playground, directly impacts the leadership we get in Washington. And, based on opinion polls, we haven't been happy since the Eisenhower era.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/23/washington_reflects_victim_entitlement_culture_118923.html
The father of five children, ranging in age from 15 to 26, has them all working behind the counter of a shop no bigger than a walk-in closet — alongside a large KitchenAid mixer, a sizzling hot fryer, racks filled with little doughnuts, a cash register and barely enough room for four svelte customers.
They all work together in some combination at the family sweetery, Peace, Love and Little Donuts, where customers usually wait in line outside for a fresh, piping-hot treat.
Never once did Razete consider the jockeying for attention and seniority between his children as bullying, or as troubling enough to cause “mental anguish.” Yet a study released last week by the University of New Hampshire sounded an alarm indicating just that.
The study looked at roughhousing, destruction or stealing of property and name-calling. It showed one-third of 3,000 children surveyed claimed to have been victimized by a brother or sister the previous year.
Brothers and sisters have been snatching each other's toys and clothes, name-calling and squabbling since the dawn of time, said Razete.
“It's sort of the baseline for how you interact with people outside of your family and how you choose your friends in different stages of your life,” he said. “But this study makes it appear as though we have yet another layer of society to blame for our ability to manage and resolve conflict.”
And it adds to our victim/entitlement culture that rewards everyone for just showing up and allows folks to blame everyone but themselves when things go south.
In today's society, especially in large inner cities and affluent suburbs, we have been enabling at least two generations of Americans who do not know how to win in sports or in academics, by handing out rewards for everyone so no one's feelings are hurt.
Parents and teachers alike obsess over the negative effects of a child losing any sort of competition, ignoring the critically valuable skills of teamwork, healthy sportsmanship and, most important, learning how to lose.
“It's as if, as a society, we are embarrassed to award excellence for fear it will offend someone who is less than excellent,” said Bruce Haynes, a media partner at the bipartisan Purple Strategies consulting firm in Washington. “Rather than a drive to the top, it creates a drive to the bottom.”
In other words, if you build a better mousetrap, you might have to apologize to other mousetrap manufacturers, then to the Humane Society, for your accomplishment.
We've told our extraordinary people it's OK to be ordinary — and they've obliged us.
It would be easy to say Washington encourages this behavior. But politics usually is a mirror of the culture that exists; D.C. more often reflects reality than shapes it.
So a lot of these characteristics more reflect the culture in which politicians came up, not them driving culture in that direction.
To be fair, philosophers have declared the decline of civilization since 700 B.C., when Herodotus wrote his didactic poem, “Work and Days,” centuries before the Greeks' victory over the Persians and the Golden Age of Athens.
Every generation is inclined to view the latest generation as sissies (at least until it proves itself otherwise) but that doesn't mean, sooner or later, some generation won't actually earn the title.
We've had three generations in a row that have accepted — and, in large measure, been corrupted by — an enervating dependency that promotes a welfare state; they are the grandchildren of an industrial society that had no way of improving a Great Depression without creating a dead-end welfare state — or was the New Deal the failure?
So, the next time you feel the need to slather a child with anti-bacterial gel before “co-playing” with a friend on a scheduled “play date” at a rubber-cushioned playground, consider letting them play without you — and, if they skin their knees or get into a fight, let them figure things out for themselves.
The way we teach our kids to handle problems at home, or on the playground, directly impacts the leadership we get in Washington. And, based on opinion polls, we haven't been happy since the Eisenhower era.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/23/washington_reflects_victim_entitlement_culture_118923.html
Want to really "do something"? Take back the Republican Party precinct by precinct from the ground up.
Precinct Committeeman: Most Powerful Office in the World!
Want to motivate the wimpy Republicans-In-Name-Only to start following the Constitution? Want better conservative Republican Party candidates with a chance to win the primary and general elections? Then volunteer IMMEDIATELY to become a Republican Party precinct committeeman. Precinct committeemen elect the leadership within the Party and vote to endorse the Republicans in the primaries. The more conservatives in the precinct committeemen ranks, the more conservative the leadership and the primary winners will be.
Here’s a typical example of the situation: Maricopa County, Arizona. Includes Phoenix. About 6,000 precinct committeeman slots exist in Maricopa County for the almost 700,000 registered Republican voters. Only 2,000 of the slots are filled, and there’s about a 50-50 split in the ranks between conservatives and moderates. Of the 2,000 elected precinct committeemen, only about 800 showed up at the Maricopa County Republican Party Convention this spring to elect the leadership and vote on party resolutions. ONLY 800 Republicans OUT OF 700,000 registered Republicans were, on that day, “the Republican Party.” Want to be one of them? Knowing what you know now, why wouldn’t you want to be one? If we conservatives could fill just 1,000 of the 4,000 vacancies, we’d have a solid 2 to 1 ratio of conservatives to moderates.
Nationwide, about half of the precinct committeemen slots in the Party are open. We could cause a conservative revolution if we could get conservatives to fill those open slots. The current Party leadership would be afraid the “new conservative blood” would throw them out in the next election. The incumbents would fear that the “new conservative blood” would endorse the best conservative challenger in the primary instead of endorsing them. The only fear that will motivate them is the fear of losing their jobs. Precinct committeemen are in the BEST position to make that happen. So, please, if you care about the future of your country, become a precinct committeeman. Now! Go here for some detailed information:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/07/02/the-power-of-small-numbers-a-butterfly-effect/
http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2009/06/30/lets-change-the-world-now-like-the-obamabots-did-or-not/
The Maricopa County GOP web site has a good explanation of the precinct committeeman position here.
Thank you,
Cold Warrior
To Find the "How Tos" STATE BY STATE - Click the link and look for the slender box on the far right next to the bottom of the first video:
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/ Each state is listed by its link in the list.
Want to motivate the wimpy Republicans-In-Name-Only to start following the Constitution? Want better conservative Republican Party candidates with a chance to win the primary and general elections? Then volunteer IMMEDIATELY to become a Republican Party precinct committeeman. Precinct committeemen elect the leadership within the Party and vote to endorse the Republicans in the primaries. The more conservatives in the precinct committeemen ranks, the more conservative the leadership and the primary winners will be.
Here’s a typical example of the situation: Maricopa County, Arizona. Includes Phoenix. About 6,000 precinct committeeman slots exist in Maricopa County for the almost 700,000 registered Republican voters. Only 2,000 of the slots are filled, and there’s about a 50-50 split in the ranks between conservatives and moderates. Of the 2,000 elected precinct committeemen, only about 800 showed up at the Maricopa County Republican Party Convention this spring to elect the leadership and vote on party resolutions. ONLY 800 Republicans OUT OF 700,000 registered Republicans were, on that day, “the Republican Party.” Want to be one of them? Knowing what you know now, why wouldn’t you want to be one? If we conservatives could fill just 1,000 of the 4,000 vacancies, we’d have a solid 2 to 1 ratio of conservatives to moderates.
Nationwide, about half of the precinct committeemen slots in the Party are open. We could cause a conservative revolution if we could get conservatives to fill those open slots. The current Party leadership would be afraid the “new conservative blood” would throw them out in the next election. The incumbents would fear that the “new conservative blood” would endorse the best conservative challenger in the primary instead of endorsing them. The only fear that will motivate them is the fear of losing their jobs. Precinct committeemen are in the BEST position to make that happen. So, please, if you care about the future of your country, become a precinct committeeman. Now! Go here for some detailed information:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/07/02/the-power-of-small-numbers-a-butterfly-effect/
http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2009/06/30/lets-change-the-world-now-like-the-obamabots-did-or-not/
The Maricopa County GOP web site has a good explanation of the precinct committeeman position here.
Thank you,
Cold Warrior
To Find the "How Tos" STATE BY STATE - Click the link and look for the slender box on the far right next to the bottom of the first video:
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/ Each state is listed by its link in the list.
Whose Rights are They Anyway?
By William Kennedy on June 18, 2013 (Compliments of the Sentinel)
At a gathering of TEA Party and Liberty groups leaders this past weekend I repeatedly heard them refer to our constitutional rights in questions put forth to a candidate running for political office. At any other setting, I would have corrected them, but I felt it was not my place to correct them since it wasn’t my event and I was a guest.
I was wrong; I should have.
We DO NOT have constitutional rights; we don’t even have constitutionally protected rights.
We have inalienable rights, or if you prefer – unchallengeable, absolute, immutable, unassailable, incontrovertible, undisputable, indisputable, undeniable, natural or as prefer to call them God given rights.
These rights existed before the Constitution and they existed even before government.
Man did not sit around waiting for a government to appear to grant him rights he had rights from the day he was born. Just imagine yourself dumped on a deserted island – you are in charge of your life and no one can tell you what to do.
So where did “government” come from or why was it created? The only reason for government is combine the power of multiple people to protect themselves from other groups of people who wish to take their stuff or for this group to take that groups stuff. That is all government boils down too, a way to protect your stuff or to take someone else’s stuff.
Man, created government not the other way around therefore man had rights before government even existed. We the People have only lent the government certain powers and rights retaining all the others, but government is insatiable or more rightly men with limited powers want to increase their power. Therefore, We the People need to be ever vigilant when it comes to government because they will always ALWAYS want more. They will ask nicely for more power to “protect you” from those that would hurt you, but in the end they will take the power and with it your rights.
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” — Daniel Webster
Rights that are given by government will be just as easily taken away. Therefore, never fall into the trap of believing that the government or a constitution gives you rights; they are not theirs to give they are yours to defend.
Tenth Amendment Center http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/06/whose-rights-are-they-anyway/#.UcJl-l8o7LR
At a gathering of TEA Party and Liberty groups leaders this past weekend I repeatedly heard them refer to our constitutional rights in questions put forth to a candidate running for political office. At any other setting, I would have corrected them, but I felt it was not my place to correct them since it wasn’t my event and I was a guest.
I was wrong; I should have.
We DO NOT have constitutional rights; we don’t even have constitutionally protected rights.
We have inalienable rights, or if you prefer – unchallengeable, absolute, immutable, unassailable, incontrovertible, undisputable, indisputable, undeniable, natural or as prefer to call them God given rights.
These rights existed before the Constitution and they existed even before government.
Man did not sit around waiting for a government to appear to grant him rights he had rights from the day he was born. Just imagine yourself dumped on a deserted island – you are in charge of your life and no one can tell you what to do.
So where did “government” come from or why was it created? The only reason for government is combine the power of multiple people to protect themselves from other groups of people who wish to take their stuff or for this group to take that groups stuff. That is all government boils down too, a way to protect your stuff or to take someone else’s stuff.
Man, created government not the other way around therefore man had rights before government even existed. We the People have only lent the government certain powers and rights retaining all the others, but government is insatiable or more rightly men with limited powers want to increase their power. Therefore, We the People need to be ever vigilant when it comes to government because they will always ALWAYS want more. They will ask nicely for more power to “protect you” from those that would hurt you, but in the end they will take the power and with it your rights.
“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” — Daniel Webster
Rights that are given by government will be just as easily taken away. Therefore, never fall into the trap of believing that the government or a constitution gives you rights; they are not theirs to give they are yours to defend.
Tenth Amendment Center http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/06/whose-rights-are-they-anyway/#.UcJl-l8o7LR
It's Time for Plan C
By Gary Henderson · May 17, 2013
When Mrs. Powel asked Benjamin Franklin after the Constitution was drafted, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" he famously replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
We will now find out.
The Declaration and the Constitution offer three firewalls, three levels of protection, to keep the republic from collapsing into some form of tyranny. Plan A is not working. Plan B is viable, but is being adopted slowly and perhaps too late. Plan C has not been tried.
The problem has become urgent now that the federal government, created to be subservient to the states, has completely overwhelmed them and routinely dictates how things must be done in every aspect of American life. Most of this smothering control is in clear violation of Constitutional limits. The bully now runs the playground. We no longer have fifty laboratories of freedom, and soon may have no freedom at all.
In the words of Charles Evans Hughes on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, "When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free."
Plan A
The founders worked hard to protect us from the possibility that the new government might soon overreach its carefully-drawn boundaries. The first firewall was to assign each part of the federal government its own specific authorities, expecting each branch to defend those prerogatives and responsibilities from encroachment by the others. But the executive and legislative branches have completely surrendered their right to decide whether actions of the other branches are Constitutional or not; today we assume the judicial branch has complete say in the matter. Congress and the President freely create unconstitutional law and count on the Supreme Court to either stop it or let it pass, depending on their goals.
If one branch has complete discretion over what the Constitution means, it has far more power than was intended; Jefferson warned us that allowing this situation to develop with the judicial branch in particular would lead to the Court becoming despotic. Today we see it in action.
So Plan A, the separation of powers, has failed. Our lives are often dominated by a single swing vote at the Supreme Court. When those favoring the heavy hand of government obtain a bare majority over those who favor Constitutional freedom, tyranny reigns. The current cost of just one of those decisions now numbers over fifty-four million lives, with perhaps a million more being lost each year.
Plan B
The second firewall was the strict reservation to the states of all rights and authorities not specifically assigned to the new government. But Plan B has also failed: just like the various branches of the central government, the states have abandoned their rightful place in protecting the rights and freedoms of the people. They have capitulated to the idea that the federal government is supreme; if an appeal to the Supreme Court does not right the wrong, then that wrong stands unchallenged.
The federal government encourages that belief. When Governor Sam Brownback signed legislation declaring that federal actions violating the Second Amendment would not be honored in Kansas, Attorney General Eric Holder declared, "... [the Kansas law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.... Under the Supremacy Clause... Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities."
A minor point has escaped Mr. Holder: the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution cannot authorize 'official responsibilities' which are specifically forbidden by other clauses of the same document.
In Federalist 46, James Madison assured the voters that today's situation would never arise:
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every [State] government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted…. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both … that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
However, here we are. As we watched routine TSA violations of the Fourth Amendment at the Houston airport, a police officer shrugged and said to me, "That whole area is federal. They do whatever they want." Indeed they do, and apparently they think we must do whatever they want as well.
The Texas Attorney General is reported to have said his entire job now consists of going to work, suing the federal government, and going home. This is unacceptable. We have better things to do with our lives and our money than to have both of them squandered by the tyrant class. That's what 1776 was all about, after all.
Plan C
What is our alternative, when Plan A and Plan B have both failed us? Plan C is waiting in the final phrase of the Tenth Amendment, which says the powers not delegated to Washington are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's us. The people.
The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution implementing its principles, are based on the belief that "we the people" are sovereign. The city, county, state, and federal governments work for us. We delegate some of our authority to them in order to protect our lives, our families, our property, and our freedom to live our lives in peace; but we never give up that authority, and we can take it back if needed.
We have as much authority as anyone else to decide whether federal actions are Constitutional; in fact, we have more authority than Washington, because the federal government was established and limited by us, not vice-versa. When a State declares that a particular federal action violates Constitutional authority, and therefore will not be honored in that State, it is acting on behalf of the people, and it is speaking with the authority delegated to the State by the people who live there.
What if the State you live in fails to act?
The next line of defense must be "we the people." But how? Acting within what organization, what process, what leadership, if both the federal and state authorities have abdicated their responsibility? When the first two firewalls have failed, when both the federal and state representatives have acceded to tyranny, what can we do?
Perhaps the next place we can make a stand is at the county level, or in groups of counties.
At this level there are elected governments and independent law enforcement entities, both of which are accountable to the people within those jurisdictions and act within their sovereign, delegated authority. The County Sheriff in particular works for the people, not for the state or the federal government, and has taken an oath to support the Constitution and defend the citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But counties do not typically have the authority to make law, in the same sense that states and the federal government do. How do we declare things to be unconstitutional, acting as "we the people" in a specific county, and enable the County Sheriff -- who has the authority, the organization, and the processes to enforce it -- to do so?
If this were done, each such county could become home to people and companies that welcome the freedom from the costs and burdens being imposed by an abusive federal government, and reap the economic benefits of that freedom. The more counties that take that stand, the more pressure on their State to do likewise.
Part 2 of this series, "Plan C: County Freedom," will explore how this approach can be implemented and the barriers to be overcome.
https://patriotpost.us/commentary/18240
PART 2 HAS NOT BEEN POSTED YET.
When Mrs. Powel asked Benjamin Franklin after the Constitution was drafted, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" he famously replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
We will now find out.
The Declaration and the Constitution offer three firewalls, three levels of protection, to keep the republic from collapsing into some form of tyranny. Plan A is not working. Plan B is viable, but is being adopted slowly and perhaps too late. Plan C has not been tried.
The problem has become urgent now that the federal government, created to be subservient to the states, has completely overwhelmed them and routinely dictates how things must be done in every aspect of American life. Most of this smothering control is in clear violation of Constitutional limits. The bully now runs the playground. We no longer have fifty laboratories of freedom, and soon may have no freedom at all.
In the words of Charles Evans Hughes on the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Bunker Hill, "When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free."
Plan A
The founders worked hard to protect us from the possibility that the new government might soon overreach its carefully-drawn boundaries. The first firewall was to assign each part of the federal government its own specific authorities, expecting each branch to defend those prerogatives and responsibilities from encroachment by the others. But the executive and legislative branches have completely surrendered their right to decide whether actions of the other branches are Constitutional or not; today we assume the judicial branch has complete say in the matter. Congress and the President freely create unconstitutional law and count on the Supreme Court to either stop it or let it pass, depending on their goals.
If one branch has complete discretion over what the Constitution means, it has far more power than was intended; Jefferson warned us that allowing this situation to develop with the judicial branch in particular would lead to the Court becoming despotic. Today we see it in action.
So Plan A, the separation of powers, has failed. Our lives are often dominated by a single swing vote at the Supreme Court. When those favoring the heavy hand of government obtain a bare majority over those who favor Constitutional freedom, tyranny reigns. The current cost of just one of those decisions now numbers over fifty-four million lives, with perhaps a million more being lost each year.
Plan B
The second firewall was the strict reservation to the states of all rights and authorities not specifically assigned to the new government. But Plan B has also failed: just like the various branches of the central government, the states have abandoned their rightful place in protecting the rights and freedoms of the people. They have capitulated to the idea that the federal government is supreme; if an appeal to the Supreme Court does not right the wrong, then that wrong stands unchallenged.
The federal government encourages that belief. When Governor Sam Brownback signed legislation declaring that federal actions violating the Second Amendment would not be honored in Kansas, Attorney General Eric Holder declared, "... [the Kansas law] directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional.... Under the Supremacy Clause... Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities."
A minor point has escaped Mr. Holder: the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution cannot authorize 'official responsibilities' which are specifically forbidden by other clauses of the same document.
In Federalist 46, James Madison assured the voters that today's situation would never arise:
But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every [State] government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted…. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both … that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.
However, here we are. As we watched routine TSA violations of the Fourth Amendment at the Houston airport, a police officer shrugged and said to me, "That whole area is federal. They do whatever they want." Indeed they do, and apparently they think we must do whatever they want as well.
The Texas Attorney General is reported to have said his entire job now consists of going to work, suing the federal government, and going home. This is unacceptable. We have better things to do with our lives and our money than to have both of them squandered by the tyrant class. That's what 1776 was all about, after all.
Plan C
What is our alternative, when Plan A and Plan B have both failed us? Plan C is waiting in the final phrase of the Tenth Amendment, which says the powers not delegated to Washington are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's us. The people.
The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution implementing its principles, are based on the belief that "we the people" are sovereign. The city, county, state, and federal governments work for us. We delegate some of our authority to them in order to protect our lives, our families, our property, and our freedom to live our lives in peace; but we never give up that authority, and we can take it back if needed.
We have as much authority as anyone else to decide whether federal actions are Constitutional; in fact, we have more authority than Washington, because the federal government was established and limited by us, not vice-versa. When a State declares that a particular federal action violates Constitutional authority, and therefore will not be honored in that State, it is acting on behalf of the people, and it is speaking with the authority delegated to the State by the people who live there.
What if the State you live in fails to act?
The next line of defense must be "we the people." But how? Acting within what organization, what process, what leadership, if both the federal and state authorities have abdicated their responsibility? When the first two firewalls have failed, when both the federal and state representatives have acceded to tyranny, what can we do?
Perhaps the next place we can make a stand is at the county level, or in groups of counties.
At this level there are elected governments and independent law enforcement entities, both of which are accountable to the people within those jurisdictions and act within their sovereign, delegated authority. The County Sheriff in particular works for the people, not for the state or the federal government, and has taken an oath to support the Constitution and defend the citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But counties do not typically have the authority to make law, in the same sense that states and the federal government do. How do we declare things to be unconstitutional, acting as "we the people" in a specific county, and enable the County Sheriff -- who has the authority, the organization, and the processes to enforce it -- to do so?
If this were done, each such county could become home to people and companies that welcome the freedom from the costs and burdens being imposed by an abusive federal government, and reap the economic benefits of that freedom. The more counties that take that stand, the more pressure on their State to do likewise.
Part 2 of this series, "Plan C: County Freedom," will explore how this approach can be implemented and the barriers to be overcome.
https://patriotpost.us/commentary/18240
PART 2 HAS NOT BEEN POSTED YET.
The Right of Self-Determination From "The Sentinel"
The proper question in any political system is who are the sovereigns? Is the President the Sovereign? Is Congress the Sovereign? Is a King the sovereign? Are the people the Sovereigns? Why is there so much confusion over the question of whether the Union is a democracy or a republic? These questions purposely ignore military dictatorships and totalitarian regimes legitimized by state sponsored violence or military power as sovereigns is a foreign concept under those political systems.
The answers to those questions seem to puzzle many commentators. Though the Union is a constitutional republic, for arguments sake, let us assume the Union was a democracy. It doesn’t alter the fundamental truth regarding sovereignty. The people are the sovereigns and the people are the source of all power in our political system. However, the system is not majority rule, nor it is a system of absolute power where might makes right. Our entire political system rests on a single fundamental principle — the consent of the governed; the right to self-governance and self-determination.
Self-determination means the right of the people to decide upon their own political status or form of government without outside influence. Consent of the governed is a phrase based upon the principle of self-determination. Any political society – government—that prohibits self-determination explicitly rejects popular sovereignty, and whether the form and style of government is a republic or a democracy is, therefore, completely irrelevant and inconsequential.
States were our initial political societies. The people of each state, through independent acts and without any outside influence, created a State. The people delegated certain powers to their State. Thirteen of these states were formally recognized as of July 4, 1776. In modern contemporaneous definitions states are countries or nations. The term, State, may have several definitions but for purposes of our governing documents and historical understanding it means “the people composing those political societies in their highest sovereign capacity”.
The people of each free, independent, and sovereign state organized their political society according to a written constitution. The people of each state decided which powers to delegate and which to retain. Thus, the principle of self-determination was firmly established in each and every state.
Likewise, both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were compacts amongst the States. Both formed a federative union with the goal of the latter to “form a more perfect union”. The differences between the two Constitutions are the powers delegated and the structure of the government itself. Neither was a consolidation of the states into a single unitary national state.
The Constitution was not ratified by the people of all the states as one body politic. Nor was a majority or super-majority vote of the people stipulated as the process for ratification. The Constitution was acceded to by the free, independent, and sovereign states (the people of those specific political societies acting in their highest sovereign capacity). Neither a majority of people as one body politic nor a majority of states could bind another state whether they acceded to or rejected the Constitution. It was the voluntary act of the people of each State to determine whether to join together in a federative union with the people of other States so disposed to do so. The Constitution was clearly a federal compact amongst the states that so ratified the document.
In practice, the new government under the Constitution was established and put into effect by only eleven states. The States of North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified the Constitution and were excluded from the operations of the new government under the Constitution. The other eleven states could not compel those states to accede to the Constitution, nor could the newly formed federal government coerce those states through the use of force. The process was voluntary not coercive. It was the sovereigns exercising their right of self-determination.
Demonstrably, the accession to join the Union through ratification was never done by one body politic but by thirteen free, independent, and sovereign bodies politic known as States. Article VII of the Constitution is clear; the votes of nine states (the people or their delegates) would serve to put the Constitution into effect. The historical record has no reference to a majority of states obligating other states to join the Union. That point was proven beyond any doubt when the new government went into operation. Neither Rhode Island nor North Carolina had any Electoral College votes when it came to electing George Washington as the first president. Likewise, neither state appointed Senators and neither state held elections for the House of Representatives. Congressional laws had no authority over these two states.
Established in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in both federal constitutions political power is based upon the consent of the sovereign people; initially through forming political societies known as states, and the people of each State – independent from every other state – forming a federative Union with the people of other States under a written Constitution. The federal government was the creature created by the act of the States. The federal government was not a party to the Constitution as it was the result of the Constitution. Thus, the Union, under the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution was birthed from an act of the States (the people of those specific political societies acting in their highest sovereign capacity).
Remarkably, the historical record is abundantly clear on this issue, yet some believe the Union pre-dated the States, the States are administrative units (like counties to a State) to the federal government, and the Constitution established a consolidated national government. This assertion is nothing more than what the Tenth Amendment Center calls it; a crackpot post-antebellum theory. The theory was espoused by those like Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Senator Daniel Webster, and President Abraham Lincoln. Generations of people now view this crackpot theory as historical fact. In reality, it is a historical lie.
Does it matter if the prevailing orthodoxy is considered the truth? Indeed it does.
If viewed hierarchically, the people formed the States, than the people of the States formed the Constitution which formed the federal government consisting of three branches which are governed by the rules set forth in the Constitution. The elected and appointed officials are beneath each of the three branches.
The crackpot post-antebellum theory posits that the federal government created the States and that the federal government is supreme in everything it does. Implicit in this theory is that the government itself is the sovereign, not the people. If this were true the entire political society is not based upon self-determination (consent of the governed). Paradoxically, it turns self-determination on its head and supplants it with absolute rule and power by government as the source of all political power and rights. This was Lincoln’s belief and his justification for war to preserve the Union.
Ironically, the federal supremacists purposely refer to the union as a nation, and the republic as a democracy, and often refer to the government as one that is by the people, of the people, and for the people. The federal supremacists even reference the Constitution’s preamble “We the people of the United States” to reinforce the idea of national democracy. Furthermore, the federal supremacists reference the Supremacy Clause to support the assertion that the federal government is supreme in everything it does. These are the arguments of tyrants and despots.
First, the original Constitution says “We, the people of the United States,”. The commas are generally not included any longer in the text of the Constitution. Secondly, the term United States is used to refer to each of the several states without explicitly naming them. The first two drafts of the Constitution said “We, the people of Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, etc.” The states were enumerated. However, the Committee on Style modified this to the United States primarily to avoid embarrassment. The drafters did not know which states would ratify the Constitution and which states would not. If all thirteen states were enumerated and only nine states were required to put the Constitution into effect what would they have done to eliminate the names of the States that did not ratify the Constitution. The term “United States” is shorthand for all the several States ratifying and acceding to the Constitution. Lastly, the term does not refer to any one body politic nor does it mean the consolidation of the States. If the states were intended to be consolidated the preamble would say “We, the people of a United State,” and the ratification process would have been by all the people as one body politic where the minority could be bound by the majority.
The Supremacy Clause does not establish the federal government as supreme. In fact, the Supremacy Clause establishes Supremacy of Law. The federal government is one of few and defined powers. All powers under the Constitution fall under one of three categories; those exclusive to the federal government (or prohibited to the States), concurrent powers (both federal and state can exercise the power), or everything else. We know through the historical record the federal government is one of limited powers. The proponents for ratification (the Federalists) gave explicit guarantees at the state ratifying conventions that the powers delegated are limited to those enumerated. In fact, in many cases, the Federalists said any law made that was not in pursuance of the Constitution was null and states were not obligated to abide by any law afoul of the Constitution.
A few powers fall into the first category – those exclusive to the federal government or prohibited to the States. Even less powers fall into the second category of concurrent powers. Typically, taxation and commerce are the two powers referenced in this category. Finally, the third category encompasses all other powers. All other powers are too numerous to document or enumerate. Those powers are reserved to the states or the people. Supremacy of Law dictates that if a power is a state power then the State power is supreme. Likewise, if a power is exclusively a federal power then the federal power is supreme. Only those laws made by Congress that are in pursuance of the Constitution (meaning within the powers in the first two categories) are supreme.
Any law passed by Congress is not in and of itself supreme. Even a law that is upheld by the Supreme Court doesn’t make the law supreme. The Supreme Court is not the sole and final arbiter of the Constitution. If that were true it would make the judicial branch supreme over the other two branches and violate the principle of co-equal branches, and it would place the Supreme Court above the Constitution itself. Since the Constitution and the three branches are creatures of the states (the people of each state) it is the people of the States in their political sovereign capacity that are above the Constitution not the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were the sole and final arbiter then any law could be, in theory, constitutional including the most absurd laws one could dream up. The people of the States did not create a federal government to then empower it to judge its own powers. The people of the States did not agree to unlimited submission to a central power. The States, as parties to the compact that created the Constitution and the federal government, have the power to judge for themselves whether a law is constitutional or not.
Some people argue the States adjudicating a law as constitutional or not would result in chaos and anarchy. Undoubtedly, there could be differences amongst the states. However, under federalism, the character of each state was never intended to be uniform or held to a national standard. Conversely, to believe in the Supreme Court as the sole and final arbiter places power in the hands of the creation not the creator. And, under this situation any law upheld by the Supreme Court would be constitutional.
Historically, there have been terrible rulings from the Supreme Court. The Dred Scott case, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, the Legal Tender Cases of the 1860s and 70s, the Wickard Case and the separation of church and state case in the 1940s are examples of cases where the Supreme Court declared something that was unconstitutional, constitutional. In theory, the most heinous laws could be enacted such as forced sterilizations, a one child per couple law, a tax on 100% of your income, a law declaring a single national religion, a law putting disabled or handicapped children to death, etc. Any law could be constitutional under this system.
The federal supremacists are the ones promulgating the idea we are a democracy and it is a country by the people. The very same people deny the right of self-determination through coercion and violence. The very same people then point to the Supreme Court as the politically appointed guardians of the prevailing orthodoxy to subvert the right of self-determination. The contradiction is astounding. If the people are the sovereigns why do so many support the federal supremacists who assert one person can decide anything and everything that is lawful. If the Supreme Court rules 5-4 on any case, no matter how heinous or repulsive, then one person rules over 310 million people. If the people are sovereigns, how can the will of the people be supplanted by the will of one person? If government is based upon self-determination (consent of the governed) how can one person’s (a judge) decision be authoritative and binding over the sovereigns? If mankind is incapable of governing himself then why would anyone believe man is capable of governing other men?
Lastly, as our political societies are based upon self-determination violence cannot be used to force compliance against the will of the people. Might makes right annihilates consent of the governed. As the people of the States each acceded to the Constitution, the people of the States can secede from the Constitution. If you reject this idea then you reject self-determination and your embrace the federal supremacist’s position that might makes right and absolute power is the basis for all political societies. That means you believe this question is only answered on a battlefield rather than a peaceful resolution based upon the self-determination of the people. If you believe your view and your opinion is right then you’ll use violence to validate it. And that very belief and the subsequent use of violence to enforce it is the antithesis of self-determination.
When push comes to shove and the people of one or more states exercise their right of self-determination, will you use violence against them and force them to remain in a political society against their wishes? Will you ask the government to call out the military to kill your fellow citizen because they simply want to exercise their most basic fundamental right of self-determination? If so, then you support the totalitarian regimes under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler as their entire political system was diametrically opposed to self-determination. Those political systems were based upon state sponsored violence and military domination over the people.
http://www.redefinegov.com/the-right-of-self-determination/
Scott Strzelczyk is the Executive Producer and fill-in co-host of the popular Forgotten Men Show broadcast weekly on 930 WFMD. He is also a leader in the Liberty Movement and owner of a provocative blog A Citizen’s View.
The answers to those questions seem to puzzle many commentators. Though the Union is a constitutional republic, for arguments sake, let us assume the Union was a democracy. It doesn’t alter the fundamental truth regarding sovereignty. The people are the sovereigns and the people are the source of all power in our political system. However, the system is not majority rule, nor it is a system of absolute power where might makes right. Our entire political system rests on a single fundamental principle — the consent of the governed; the right to self-governance and self-determination.
Self-determination means the right of the people to decide upon their own political status or form of government without outside influence. Consent of the governed is a phrase based upon the principle of self-determination. Any political society – government—that prohibits self-determination explicitly rejects popular sovereignty, and whether the form and style of government is a republic or a democracy is, therefore, completely irrelevant and inconsequential.
States were our initial political societies. The people of each state, through independent acts and without any outside influence, created a State. The people delegated certain powers to their State. Thirteen of these states were formally recognized as of July 4, 1776. In modern contemporaneous definitions states are countries or nations. The term, State, may have several definitions but for purposes of our governing documents and historical understanding it means “the people composing those political societies in their highest sovereign capacity”.
The people of each free, independent, and sovereign state organized their political society according to a written constitution. The people of each state decided which powers to delegate and which to retain. Thus, the principle of self-determination was firmly established in each and every state.
Likewise, both the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution were compacts amongst the States. Both formed a federative union with the goal of the latter to “form a more perfect union”. The differences between the two Constitutions are the powers delegated and the structure of the government itself. Neither was a consolidation of the states into a single unitary national state.
The Constitution was not ratified by the people of all the states as one body politic. Nor was a majority or super-majority vote of the people stipulated as the process for ratification. The Constitution was acceded to by the free, independent, and sovereign states (the people of those specific political societies acting in their highest sovereign capacity). Neither a majority of people as one body politic nor a majority of states could bind another state whether they acceded to or rejected the Constitution. It was the voluntary act of the people of each State to determine whether to join together in a federative union with the people of other States so disposed to do so. The Constitution was clearly a federal compact amongst the states that so ratified the document.
In practice, the new government under the Constitution was established and put into effect by only eleven states. The States of North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified the Constitution and were excluded from the operations of the new government under the Constitution. The other eleven states could not compel those states to accede to the Constitution, nor could the newly formed federal government coerce those states through the use of force. The process was voluntary not coercive. It was the sovereigns exercising their right of self-determination.
Demonstrably, the accession to join the Union through ratification was never done by one body politic but by thirteen free, independent, and sovereign bodies politic known as States. Article VII of the Constitution is clear; the votes of nine states (the people or their delegates) would serve to put the Constitution into effect. The historical record has no reference to a majority of states obligating other states to join the Union. That point was proven beyond any doubt when the new government went into operation. Neither Rhode Island nor North Carolina had any Electoral College votes when it came to electing George Washington as the first president. Likewise, neither state appointed Senators and neither state held elections for the House of Representatives. Congressional laws had no authority over these two states.
Established in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in both federal constitutions political power is based upon the consent of the sovereign people; initially through forming political societies known as states, and the people of each State – independent from every other state – forming a federative Union with the people of other States under a written Constitution. The federal government was the creature created by the act of the States. The federal government was not a party to the Constitution as it was the result of the Constitution. Thus, the Union, under the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution was birthed from an act of the States (the people of those specific political societies acting in their highest sovereign capacity).
Remarkably, the historical record is abundantly clear on this issue, yet some believe the Union pre-dated the States, the States are administrative units (like counties to a State) to the federal government, and the Constitution established a consolidated national government. This assertion is nothing more than what the Tenth Amendment Center calls it; a crackpot post-antebellum theory. The theory was espoused by those like Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Senator Daniel Webster, and President Abraham Lincoln. Generations of people now view this crackpot theory as historical fact. In reality, it is a historical lie.
Does it matter if the prevailing orthodoxy is considered the truth? Indeed it does.
If viewed hierarchically, the people formed the States, than the people of the States formed the Constitution which formed the federal government consisting of three branches which are governed by the rules set forth in the Constitution. The elected and appointed officials are beneath each of the three branches.
The crackpot post-antebellum theory posits that the federal government created the States and that the federal government is supreme in everything it does. Implicit in this theory is that the government itself is the sovereign, not the people. If this were true the entire political society is not based upon self-determination (consent of the governed). Paradoxically, it turns self-determination on its head and supplants it with absolute rule and power by government as the source of all political power and rights. This was Lincoln’s belief and his justification for war to preserve the Union.
Ironically, the federal supremacists purposely refer to the union as a nation, and the republic as a democracy, and often refer to the government as one that is by the people, of the people, and for the people. The federal supremacists even reference the Constitution’s preamble “We the people of the United States” to reinforce the idea of national democracy. Furthermore, the federal supremacists reference the Supremacy Clause to support the assertion that the federal government is supreme in everything it does. These are the arguments of tyrants and despots.
First, the original Constitution says “We, the people of the United States,”. The commas are generally not included any longer in the text of the Constitution. Secondly, the term United States is used to refer to each of the several states without explicitly naming them. The first two drafts of the Constitution said “We, the people of Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, etc.” The states were enumerated. However, the Committee on Style modified this to the United States primarily to avoid embarrassment. The drafters did not know which states would ratify the Constitution and which states would not. If all thirteen states were enumerated and only nine states were required to put the Constitution into effect what would they have done to eliminate the names of the States that did not ratify the Constitution. The term “United States” is shorthand for all the several States ratifying and acceding to the Constitution. Lastly, the term does not refer to any one body politic nor does it mean the consolidation of the States. If the states were intended to be consolidated the preamble would say “We, the people of a United State,” and the ratification process would have been by all the people as one body politic where the minority could be bound by the majority.
The Supremacy Clause does not establish the federal government as supreme. In fact, the Supremacy Clause establishes Supremacy of Law. The federal government is one of few and defined powers. All powers under the Constitution fall under one of three categories; those exclusive to the federal government (or prohibited to the States), concurrent powers (both federal and state can exercise the power), or everything else. We know through the historical record the federal government is one of limited powers. The proponents for ratification (the Federalists) gave explicit guarantees at the state ratifying conventions that the powers delegated are limited to those enumerated. In fact, in many cases, the Federalists said any law made that was not in pursuance of the Constitution was null and states were not obligated to abide by any law afoul of the Constitution.
A few powers fall into the first category – those exclusive to the federal government or prohibited to the States. Even less powers fall into the second category of concurrent powers. Typically, taxation and commerce are the two powers referenced in this category. Finally, the third category encompasses all other powers. All other powers are too numerous to document or enumerate. Those powers are reserved to the states or the people. Supremacy of Law dictates that if a power is a state power then the State power is supreme. Likewise, if a power is exclusively a federal power then the federal power is supreme. Only those laws made by Congress that are in pursuance of the Constitution (meaning within the powers in the first two categories) are supreme.
Any law passed by Congress is not in and of itself supreme. Even a law that is upheld by the Supreme Court doesn’t make the law supreme. The Supreme Court is not the sole and final arbiter of the Constitution. If that were true it would make the judicial branch supreme over the other two branches and violate the principle of co-equal branches, and it would place the Supreme Court above the Constitution itself. Since the Constitution and the three branches are creatures of the states (the people of each state) it is the people of the States in their political sovereign capacity that are above the Constitution not the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were the sole and final arbiter then any law could be, in theory, constitutional including the most absurd laws one could dream up. The people of the States did not create a federal government to then empower it to judge its own powers. The people of the States did not agree to unlimited submission to a central power. The States, as parties to the compact that created the Constitution and the federal government, have the power to judge for themselves whether a law is constitutional or not.
Some people argue the States adjudicating a law as constitutional or not would result in chaos and anarchy. Undoubtedly, there could be differences amongst the states. However, under federalism, the character of each state was never intended to be uniform or held to a national standard. Conversely, to believe in the Supreme Court as the sole and final arbiter places power in the hands of the creation not the creator. And, under this situation any law upheld by the Supreme Court would be constitutional.
Historically, there have been terrible rulings from the Supreme Court. The Dred Scott case, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, the Legal Tender Cases of the 1860s and 70s, the Wickard Case and the separation of church and state case in the 1940s are examples of cases where the Supreme Court declared something that was unconstitutional, constitutional. In theory, the most heinous laws could be enacted such as forced sterilizations, a one child per couple law, a tax on 100% of your income, a law declaring a single national religion, a law putting disabled or handicapped children to death, etc. Any law could be constitutional under this system.
The federal supremacists are the ones promulgating the idea we are a democracy and it is a country by the people. The very same people deny the right of self-determination through coercion and violence. The very same people then point to the Supreme Court as the politically appointed guardians of the prevailing orthodoxy to subvert the right of self-determination. The contradiction is astounding. If the people are the sovereigns why do so many support the federal supremacists who assert one person can decide anything and everything that is lawful. If the Supreme Court rules 5-4 on any case, no matter how heinous or repulsive, then one person rules over 310 million people. If the people are sovereigns, how can the will of the people be supplanted by the will of one person? If government is based upon self-determination (consent of the governed) how can one person’s (a judge) decision be authoritative and binding over the sovereigns? If mankind is incapable of governing himself then why would anyone believe man is capable of governing other men?
Lastly, as our political societies are based upon self-determination violence cannot be used to force compliance against the will of the people. Might makes right annihilates consent of the governed. As the people of the States each acceded to the Constitution, the people of the States can secede from the Constitution. If you reject this idea then you reject self-determination and your embrace the federal supremacist’s position that might makes right and absolute power is the basis for all political societies. That means you believe this question is only answered on a battlefield rather than a peaceful resolution based upon the self-determination of the people. If you believe your view and your opinion is right then you’ll use violence to validate it. And that very belief and the subsequent use of violence to enforce it is the antithesis of self-determination.
When push comes to shove and the people of one or more states exercise their right of self-determination, will you use violence against them and force them to remain in a political society against their wishes? Will you ask the government to call out the military to kill your fellow citizen because they simply want to exercise their most basic fundamental right of self-determination? If so, then you support the totalitarian regimes under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler as their entire political system was diametrically opposed to self-determination. Those political systems were based upon state sponsored violence and military domination over the people.
http://www.redefinegov.com/the-right-of-self-determination/
Scott Strzelczyk is the Executive Producer and fill-in co-host of the popular Forgotten Men Show broadcast weekly on 930 WFMD. He is also a leader in the Liberty Movement and owner of a provocative blog A Citizen’s View.
This David Low cartoon from 3 July 1934 shows Hitler (with a smoking gun) and Goering (shown as Thor, the God of War) glowering at - not the traditional Nazi salute - but terrified SA men with their hands up. Some SA men already lie dead on the ground. The caption reads: 'They salute with both hands now'. Low was fiercely anti-Nazi, and portrays Hitler as a brazen murderer keeping his men in check by naked fear. Goebbels is shown as Hitler's poodle.
|
History As Our Teacher – How long did it take Hitler? – 8 months1 Reichstag Fire - 27 Feb 1933
The Reichstag (the German Parliament) burned down. A Dutch Communist named van der Lubbe was caught red-handed with matches and fire-lighting materials. Hitler used it as an excuse to arrest many of his Communist opponents, and as a major platform in his election campaign of March 1933. The fire was so convenient that many people at the time claimed that the Nazis had burned it down, and then just blamed the Communists. Modern historians, however, tend to believe that van der Lubbe did cause the fire, and that Hitler just took advantage of it. 2 General Election - 5 March 1933 Hitler held a general election, appealing to the German people to give him a clear mandate. Only 44% of the people voted Nazi, which did not give him a majority in the Reichstag, so Hitler arrested the 81 Communist deputies (which did give him a majority). Goering become Speaker of the Reichstag. |
3 Enabling Act - 23 March 1933
The Reichstag voted to give Hitler the power to make his own laws. Nazi stormtroopers stopped opposition deputies going in, and beat up anyone who dared to speak against it. The Enabling Act made Hitler the dictator of Germany, with power to do anything he liked - legally.
4 Local government - 26 April 1933
The Nazis took over local government and the police. The Nazis started to replace anti-Nazi teachers and University professors. Hitler set up the Gestapo (the secret police) and encouraged Germans to report opponents and 'grumblers'. Tens of thousands of Jews, Communists, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies, homosexuals, alcoholics and prostitutes were arrested and sent to concentration camps for 'crimes' as small as writing anti-Nazi graffiti, possessing a banned book, or saying that business was bad.
5 Trade Unions banned - 2 May 1933
The Trade Unions offices were closed, their money confiscated, and their leaders put in prison. In their place, Hitler put the German Labour Front which reduced workers' pay and took away the right to strike.
6 Political Parties banned - 14 July 1933
The Law against the Formation of Parties declared the Nazi Party the only political party in Germany. All other parties were banned, and their leaders were put in prison.
7 Night of the Long Knives - 30 June 1934
The SA were the thugs who Hitler had used to help him come to power. They had defended his meetings, and attacked opponents. By 1934 there were more than a million of them. Historians have often wondered why Hitler turned on the SA. But Hitler was in power in 1934, and there was no opposition left - the SA were an embarrassment, not an advantage. Also, Rohm, the leader of the SA, was talking about a Socialist revolution and about taking over the army. On the night of 30 June 1934 - codeword 'Hummingbird - Hitler ordered the SS to kill more than 400 SA men.
8 Führer - 19 August 1934
When Hindenburg died, Hitler took over the office of President and leader of the army (the soldiers had to swear to die for Adolf Hitler personally). Hitler called himself 'Fuhrer'.
The Reichstag voted to give Hitler the power to make his own laws. Nazi stormtroopers stopped opposition deputies going in, and beat up anyone who dared to speak against it. The Enabling Act made Hitler the dictator of Germany, with power to do anything he liked - legally.
4 Local government - 26 April 1933
The Nazis took over local government and the police. The Nazis started to replace anti-Nazi teachers and University professors. Hitler set up the Gestapo (the secret police) and encouraged Germans to report opponents and 'grumblers'. Tens of thousands of Jews, Communists, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, gypsies, homosexuals, alcoholics and prostitutes were arrested and sent to concentration camps for 'crimes' as small as writing anti-Nazi graffiti, possessing a banned book, or saying that business was bad.
5 Trade Unions banned - 2 May 1933
The Trade Unions offices were closed, their money confiscated, and their leaders put in prison. In their place, Hitler put the German Labour Front which reduced workers' pay and took away the right to strike.
6 Political Parties banned - 14 July 1933
The Law against the Formation of Parties declared the Nazi Party the only political party in Germany. All other parties were banned, and their leaders were put in prison.
7 Night of the Long Knives - 30 June 1934
The SA were the thugs who Hitler had used to help him come to power. They had defended his meetings, and attacked opponents. By 1934 there were more than a million of them. Historians have often wondered why Hitler turned on the SA. But Hitler was in power in 1934, and there was no opposition left - the SA were an embarrassment, not an advantage. Also, Rohm, the leader of the SA, was talking about a Socialist revolution and about taking over the army. On the night of 30 June 1934 - codeword 'Hummingbird - Hitler ordered the SS to kill more than 400 SA men.
8 Führer - 19 August 1934
When Hindenburg died, Hitler took over the office of President and leader of the army (the soldiers had to swear to die for Adolf Hitler personally). Hitler called himself 'Fuhrer'.
IRS Testimonies
ALL IRS TESTIMONY VIDEOS HERE:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/04/irs-hearing-targeted-organizations-begins-capitol-hill
KAREN KENNEY
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/04/karen-kenney-head-san-fernando-valley-patriots-‘we-came-truth
BECKY GERRITSON
Becky Gerritson, Wetumpka Tea Party President, Gives Emotional Testimony in IRS Hearing
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/04/becky-gerritson-wetumpka-tea-party-president-gives-emotional-testimony-irs-hearing
SUE MARTINEK
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/04/head-iowa-pro-life-group-sue-martinek-says-irs-made-them-promise-not-protest
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/04/irs-hearing-targeted-organizations-begins-capitol-hill
KAREN KENNEY
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/04/karen-kenney-head-san-fernando-valley-patriots-‘we-came-truth
BECKY GERRITSON
Becky Gerritson, Wetumpka Tea Party President, Gives Emotional Testimony in IRS Hearing
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/04/becky-gerritson-wetumpka-tea-party-president-gives-emotional-testimony-irs-hearing
SUE MARTINEK
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/04/head-iowa-pro-life-group-sue-martinek-says-irs-made-them-promise-not-protest
A Scandal for the Ages
Obama IRS Scandal Will Go Down in Infamy
Holder Are You Telling More Lies
In my experience, the term “BOLO” is a law enforcement term short for “be on the lookout” for criminals and suspects on the run. But for the Obama IRS, BOLO meant, literally, “be on the lookout” for citizen groups who might be opposed to the Obama agenda.
Here are the facts as we know them today.
First, we know that the “independent” IRS purposely stonewalled the approval of non-profit applications from “Tea Party” and other conservative groups that were seeking tax exempt status. As reported by CNN:
Among the criteria used by IRS officials to flag applications was a “Be On the Look Out” list, or a BOLO, which was discontinued in 2012, according to the report. The criteria on the BOLO included:
Whether “Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12 Project” was referenced in the case file.
Whether the issues outlined in the application included government spending, government debt or taxes.
Whether there was advocating or lobbying to “make America a better place to live.”
Whether a statement in the case file criticized how the country is being run.
Whether it advocated education about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And how bad was the stonewalling? Epic. Over the course of 27 months, not a single Tea Party type organization received tax exempt status. This was no political witch hunt, says the IRS. So why is it that liberal groups had their applications approved in as little as nine months?
And it was not simply a matter of lengthy bureaucratic delays. Conservative groups were subjected to an unprecedented amount of scrutiny, draining both time and resources. Politico explains:
The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls.
It asked for printouts of Facebook posts.
And it asked what books people were reading.
(RSN ADDED CONTENT:Right Side News Report from 14 months ago and the list of IRS docs below)
IRS Letter targeting board members
IRS Letter demanding donor lists
IRS Letter demanding volunteer lists
IRS Letter specifically targeting the Tea Party as an organization of interest
IRS Letter demanding more copies, names and activities-multiple
IRS Letter demanding printed out copies of all Facebook Wall posts
IRS Letter demanding resumes from each member
IRS Letter demanding copies of all printed material, EVERYTHING
A POLITICO review of documents from 11 tea party and conservative groups that the IRS scrutinized in 2012 shows the agency wanted to know everything — in some cases, it even seemed curious what members were thinking. The review included interviews with groups or their representatives from Hawaii, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere.
They were asking for a “U-Haul truck’s worth of information,” one conservative organization the Waco Tea Party told Politico.
We also know that the IRS targeted conservative donors with painful audits. For example, consider the case of Frank VanderSloot, who made a sizable donation to a Romney-connected organization. Shortly thereafter, after an opposition research firm dug through Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records, the IRS subjected the conservative donor to three audits in four months. Mr. VanderSloot had never been audited previously and now faces $80,000 in legal fees.
The IRS also reportedly “leaked” confidential tax information on conservative benefactors, such as Charles and David Koch, of Koch Industries, who are important donors to a number of constitutional government groups. And they did the same to conservative organizations as well. For example, as reported by Breitbart.com, one of Obama’s campaign co-chairmen leaked the tax records of our pro-traditional marriage friends at the National Organization of Marriage to a homosexual activist who also happened to be an Obama campaign supporter. There were also illegal leaks of taxpayer information (of conservatives) to the leftist publication Pro Publica.
And what was the purpose of this all-out assault? Was this simply a case of retribution against enemies? No, this was much bigger than political payback. This was a systemic, and concerted effort to squash the Tea Party movement, the most organic and powerful political movement in recent memory, during election season. This was about campaign politics.
This is a scandal for the ages. Reports are that nearly 500 groups were targeted. The Obama IRS jihad against conservatives had the effect of suppressing the First Amendment-protected activity of virtually the entire Tea Party movement as Obama was seeking reelection. If you want to know how an election is stolen in plain sight, this is how.
Of course, per usual, the finger pointing has begun. But there is no question in my mind that all fingers should be pointing to the top of the White House food chain. As the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel points out: “Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.”
The president took to the airwaves this week to feign angry indignation about the IRS targeting his enemies, while denying any knowledge whatsoever of what his administration had been up to. I am not surprised that Obama is pretending, in careful language, not to know about the worst abuse of power by a presidential administration in a generation. Let’s call it Obama’s Nixonian “I’m not a crook” moment.
Why do I believe that Obama knew exactly what his Internal Revenue Service was up to (besides it being in the news for the last two years)? Because of the record of Steven T. Miller – the man Obama first hired and has now pretended to fire as acting commissioner of the IRS.
Make no mistake about it. When Obama appointed Miller head of the IRS, the president should have known what he was getting. Before becoming acting commissioner, he had been the commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS, where, according to the IRS faux folksy website, “Steve oversaw the administration of tax law relating to employee plans, tax-exempt organizations and various government entities.”
Perhaps the description should more accurately have read “oversaw and undermined the administration of tax law relating to … tax exempt organizations.” At Judicial Watch we know this well because, very early on, we were one of the many conservative organizations and Clinton critics that Miller’s tax exempt branch subjected to politically-inspired audits.
As the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported in his “Washington Secrets” column, “Steven T. Miller, the acting IRS commissioner who managed the division that has admitted targeting anti-Obama Tea Party groups, was one of several agents who investigated anti-Clinton organizations including Judicial Watch during that Democrat’s administration, according to court documents and interviews.”
As I relate in my book, The Corruption Chronicles, when Judicial Watch complained about the audit and its political nature, an IRS official told us, “What do you expect when you sue the President?”
Miller was one of the IRS officials who oversaw the invasive audit of Judicial Watch even while conceding that the audit “had created at least the appearance of a problem.” It seemed every time we complained about the audit, Miller’s bureaucrats expanded its scope until it covered seven years’ worth of records!
So, now we find that Miller, despite this record of being a top official partly responsible for the last wave of IRS abuse during the Clinton years, was rewarded by Barack Obama with the top position at the IRS. Given our well-publicized experience with him, it is no surprise to me that Miller was content to allow this illegal IRS harassment of Obama’s hit list – and the subsequent cover-up.
As I say, Obama pretended to “fire” Miller this week, an empty gesture considering the fact that Miller had already planned to leave – and, in fact, will be running the IRS for several more weeks. It was an attempt by the president to show command of a situation that continues to spiral out of control.
In fact, Thursday night we learn courtesy of ABC News that the woman in charge of the IRS office during the Tea Party attacks is now running theObamacare IRS office!
The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.
These IRS abuses are one more example of how the Obama administration is off the rails and out of control. Judicial Watch is your watchdog in Washington and is mobilizing its investigative and legal resources to protect the American people from the crisis caused by Obama’s corrupted IRS.
Stay tuned as news is breaking by the moment. As Democratic Senator Max Baucus said during an interview with Bloomberg’s Capital Gain, “I have a hunch that a lot more is going to come out.”
This is true – especially if we have anything to do with it.
Big Media Gets Pass from Criminal Accountability?
If there is one lesson I have learned over my decade and a half at Judicial Watch, it is this: you must never overestimate the hypocrisy of the Left – especially in covering for their own. Lest you have even the slightest doubt, cast an eye to the outrageous behavior of District of Columbia Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan when he allowed NBC-TV’s David Gregory to walk away scot free for a firearm offense, even while openly acknowledging “the clarity of the violation of the law.”
We don’t know for certain what prompted Nathan to decline to prosecute Gregory. We do know that, according to the Washington Post, until the Republican sweep in 2010, he had been the House Democrats’ top lawyer. We also know that he was appointed attorney general by D.C. Democrat Mayor Vincent Gray. And we know that some legal experts have questioned why Nathan did not recuse himself from the case when it was discovered that he had a personal relationship with David Gregory’s wife. Clearly more information was required. So, Judicial Watch began investigating.
On January 14, 2013, acting on behalf of William A. Jacobson, founder and author of the outstanding blog website, Legal Insurrection, we submitted a District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and Office of the Attorney General (OAG) seeking access to the following records:
1. The January 9, 2013 letter from Lee Levine on behalf of David Gregory, referenced in the letter dated January 11, 2013 from Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan to Mr. Levine which was publicly disclosed on that date.
2. All communications between the District of Columbia Office of Attorney General and/or Metropolitan Police Department, on the one hand, and legal counsel for David Gregory and/or NBC News, on the other hand, with regard to the incident involving the display on television by Mr. Gregory of an alleged high-capacity ammunition clip (the “Gregory incident”).
3. All documents in the possession of the MPD and OAG regarding the Gregory Incident, to the extent not exempted from disclosure under applicable law, including but not limited to witness statements, evidence review and possession records, interview notes, and forensic testing.
On February 20, 2013, OAG informed Jacobson that it was withholding certain requested records, including the January 9, 2013, letter from NBC attorney Lee Levine, as well as responsive emails between OAG and MPD. (We just learned the letter from Levine was made available to the media, but is being withheld from us!)
The OAG also withheld in their entirety an affidavit and a warrant responsive to the Jacobson FOIA request. On April 17, 2013, MPD informed Jacobson that it was withholding responsive records as well. This past week, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit on Jacobson’s behalf asking that the Court to declare OAG and MDP in violation of the law and to order them to produce the records without further delay.
The known facts in the Gregory case are simple. On Sunday December 23, 2012, the “Meet the Press” host interviewed the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre concerning firearms policy in the United States. During the course of the interview, Gregory exhibited a high-capacity ammunition clip. The possession of such an ammunition clip is in violation of the law of the District of Columbia.
Gregory displayed the ammunition clip despite the fact that, according to the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, “NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD (Metropolitan Police Department) employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any other federal official.”
Some argued that, in accordance with D.C. law, Gregory should have been charged with a weapons violation and taken into custody, as other alleged offenders have been. The MPD failed to do so, however, and in early January announced that it had completed its two-week investigation and presented the case to the OAG “for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case.”
On January 11, 2013, after just two days of deliberation, Attorney General Nathan sent a letter to NBC saying that his office would not prosecute Gregory, “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law.” The Attorney General added, “There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter…”
Yet, in what surely must be one of the most glaring non sequiturs I’ve seen, Nathan then refused to prosecute Gregory. And the Washington Times’ outstanding editorialist Emily Miller well summed up the absurdity of the situation when Gregory first committed his violation:
The District came up with its overly restrictive laws in response to the Supreme Court overturning the capital city’s 30-year gun ban. The statutes shouldn’t apply just to regular people but to the rich and powerful as well. The District should either repeal its over-the-top restrictions or send a squad car to take David Gregory into custody.
The way Gregory’s prosecution decision was handled undermines confidence in the fair administration of justice. If Gregory shouldn’t be prosecuted then no one should be – and the law should be rescinded. Our client Prof. Jacobsen also is seeking justice in the public interest:
“The documents being withheld will help shed light on the details of this highly publicized non-prosecution, which raised issues as to whether well-connected and famous D.C. insiders were treated as any other citizen in a similar situation. I appreciate Judicial Watch assisting in this search for the truth.”
Let’s hope the courts put an end to this cover-up.
Judicial Watch Sues U.S. Secret Service for Obama’s Hawaiian Vacation Documents
With approximately one-third of congressional committees preoccupied with investigating Obama corruption – from Benghazi-gate, to the IRS scandal, to Obamacare propaganda – the First Family might be tempted to escape to some far away location for vacation.
As Judicial Watch knows all too well, this is something the Obamas have done with some frequency since taking office in 2009, and largely on the taxpayers’ dime. JW has been the leading investigative force on the Obama’s taxpayer-funded luxury trips, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get ahold of records about the costs of this abuse of the perks of the presidency.
Our feeling is that, especially considering the massive budget crisis in Washington, the president must be completely transparent to the American people regarding the cost of these vacations. Instead, however, all we’ve received is more stonewalling. The pattern, by now, should be familiar to you. We file a FOIA. The Obama administration ignores it. We sue to get the records. And often we are successful.
JW was back at it again on May 6, when we were forced to file a FOIA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Secret Service in order to obtain records concerning use of U.S. Government funds to provide “security and/or any other services to President Obama and any companions on their January 1 and 2, 2013, trip to Honolulu, Hawaii.”
On January 2, 2013, Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request about taxpayer funds used to pay for President Obama and his entourage to travel to Hawaii, seeking access to: All records concerning use of U.S. Government funds to provide security and/or other services to President Obama and any companions on their January 1 and 2, 2013 trip to Honolulu, Hawaii.
Per usual, we are getting the runaround. By a letter dated January 31, 2013, the Secret Service acknowledged that they received the request. By law the agency was required to determine whether to comply with the FOIA request within 20 days and provide Judicial Watch with the requisite notifications by February 11, 2013 at the latest. But as of May 6, the Secret Service had yet to produce a single record.
So now onto step three: file a lawsuit.
Veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler provided the public with important information about these Hawaiian trips when he wrote on January 4, 2013, that the “total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more.” Evidently, this is based on estimates for the trips taken by the Obama family during the Christmas holiday season in four consecutive years.
“According to a detailed breakdown by the Hawaii Reporter, the annual excursions in 2009, 2010, and 2011 cost about $4 million, much of it attributable to the expense of taking Air Force One, at an hour rate of about $180,000, on an eighteen-hour roundtrip journey to Honolulu and back,” Koffler writes.
These trips to Hawaii are just one example of the Obamas jet-setting lifestyle. According to records obtained by Judicial Watch, First Family vacations since Obama took office have come at great costs to taxpayers. Those costs have included:
In August 2010, when Michelle Obama traveled to Spain with multiple friends and one of her daughters, the total cost to taxpayers was at least $467,555.
From June 21 – 27, 2011, when Michelle Obama along with her daughters and staff traveled to South Africa and Botswana, charges to the taxpayers for the aircraft and crew alone were $424,142.
During President’s Day weekend of February 2012, when Michelle Obama and her two daughters vacationed in Aspen, Colorado, charges to the taxpayers were $83,182.99.
As I say, the Obamas’ opulent vacation lifestyle is particularly objectionable during a time when government debt is out of control. President Obama is not king and his administration should stop ignoring the FOIA open records law and account to the American people for the spending on his luxury vacations.
These vacations may seem but a drop in the bucket when compared to other examples of Obama’s spending-gone-wild, but waste is waste. And these trips are adding up.
Until next week…
Tom Fitton
Tom Fitton, President
Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation's public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013051732561/us/politics/a-scandal-for-the-ages.html
In my experience, the term “BOLO” is a law enforcement term short for “be on the lookout” for criminals and suspects on the run. But for the Obama IRS, BOLO meant, literally, “be on the lookout” for citizen groups who might be opposed to the Obama agenda.
Here are the facts as we know them today.
First, we know that the “independent” IRS purposely stonewalled the approval of non-profit applications from “Tea Party” and other conservative groups that were seeking tax exempt status. As reported by CNN:
Among the criteria used by IRS officials to flag applications was a “Be On the Look Out” list, or a BOLO, which was discontinued in 2012, according to the report. The criteria on the BOLO included:
Whether “Tea Party,” “Patriots” or “9/12 Project” was referenced in the case file.
Whether the issues outlined in the application included government spending, government debt or taxes.
Whether there was advocating or lobbying to “make America a better place to live.”
Whether a statement in the case file criticized how the country is being run.
Whether it advocated education about the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And how bad was the stonewalling? Epic. Over the course of 27 months, not a single Tea Party type organization received tax exempt status. This was no political witch hunt, says the IRS. So why is it that liberal groups had their applications approved in as little as nine months?
And it was not simply a matter of lengthy bureaucratic delays. Conservative groups were subjected to an unprecedented amount of scrutiny, draining both time and resources. Politico explains:
The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls.
It asked for printouts of Facebook posts.
And it asked what books people were reading.
(RSN ADDED CONTENT:Right Side News Report from 14 months ago and the list of IRS docs below)
IRS Letter targeting board members
IRS Letter demanding donor lists
IRS Letter demanding volunteer lists
IRS Letter specifically targeting the Tea Party as an organization of interest
IRS Letter demanding more copies, names and activities-multiple
IRS Letter demanding printed out copies of all Facebook Wall posts
IRS Letter demanding resumes from each member
IRS Letter demanding copies of all printed material, EVERYTHING
A POLITICO review of documents from 11 tea party and conservative groups that the IRS scrutinized in 2012 shows the agency wanted to know everything — in some cases, it even seemed curious what members were thinking. The review included interviews with groups or their representatives from Hawaii, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas and elsewhere.
They were asking for a “U-Haul truck’s worth of information,” one conservative organization the Waco Tea Party told Politico.
We also know that the IRS targeted conservative donors with painful audits. For example, consider the case of Frank VanderSloot, who made a sizable donation to a Romney-connected organization. Shortly thereafter, after an opposition research firm dug through Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records, the IRS subjected the conservative donor to three audits in four months. Mr. VanderSloot had never been audited previously and now faces $80,000 in legal fees.
The IRS also reportedly “leaked” confidential tax information on conservative benefactors, such as Charles and David Koch, of Koch Industries, who are important donors to a number of constitutional government groups. And they did the same to conservative organizations as well. For example, as reported by Breitbart.com, one of Obama’s campaign co-chairmen leaked the tax records of our pro-traditional marriage friends at the National Organization of Marriage to a homosexual activist who also happened to be an Obama campaign supporter. There were also illegal leaks of taxpayer information (of conservatives) to the leftist publication Pro Publica.
And what was the purpose of this all-out assault? Was this simply a case of retribution against enemies? No, this was much bigger than political payback. This was a systemic, and concerted effort to squash the Tea Party movement, the most organic and powerful political movement in recent memory, during election season. This was about campaign politics.
This is a scandal for the ages. Reports are that nearly 500 groups were targeted. The Obama IRS jihad against conservatives had the effect of suppressing the First Amendment-protected activity of virtually the entire Tea Party movement as Obama was seeking reelection. If you want to know how an election is stolen in plain sight, this is how.
Of course, per usual, the finger pointing has begun. But there is no question in my mind that all fingers should be pointing to the top of the White House food chain. As the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel points out: “Mr. Obama didn’t need to pick up the phone. All he needed to do was exactly what he did do, in full view, for three years: Publicly suggest that conservative political groups were engaged in nefarious deeds; publicly call out by name political opponents whom he’d like to see harassed; and publicly have his party pressure the IRS to take action.”
The president took to the airwaves this week to feign angry indignation about the IRS targeting his enemies, while denying any knowledge whatsoever of what his administration had been up to. I am not surprised that Obama is pretending, in careful language, not to know about the worst abuse of power by a presidential administration in a generation. Let’s call it Obama’s Nixonian “I’m not a crook” moment.
Why do I believe that Obama knew exactly what his Internal Revenue Service was up to (besides it being in the news for the last two years)? Because of the record of Steven T. Miller – the man Obama first hired and has now pretended to fire as acting commissioner of the IRS.
Make no mistake about it. When Obama appointed Miller head of the IRS, the president should have known what he was getting. Before becoming acting commissioner, he had been the commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division of the IRS, where, according to the IRS faux folksy website, “Steve oversaw the administration of tax law relating to employee plans, tax-exempt organizations and various government entities.”
Perhaps the description should more accurately have read “oversaw and undermined the administration of tax law relating to … tax exempt organizations.” At Judicial Watch we know this well because, very early on, we were one of the many conservative organizations and Clinton critics that Miller’s tax exempt branch subjected to politically-inspired audits.
As the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported in his “Washington Secrets” column, “Steven T. Miller, the acting IRS commissioner who managed the division that has admitted targeting anti-Obama Tea Party groups, was one of several agents who investigated anti-Clinton organizations including Judicial Watch during that Democrat’s administration, according to court documents and interviews.”
As I relate in my book, The Corruption Chronicles, when Judicial Watch complained about the audit and its political nature, an IRS official told us, “What do you expect when you sue the President?”
Miller was one of the IRS officials who oversaw the invasive audit of Judicial Watch even while conceding that the audit “had created at least the appearance of a problem.” It seemed every time we complained about the audit, Miller’s bureaucrats expanded its scope until it covered seven years’ worth of records!
So, now we find that Miller, despite this record of being a top official partly responsible for the last wave of IRS abuse during the Clinton years, was rewarded by Barack Obama with the top position at the IRS. Given our well-publicized experience with him, it is no surprise to me that Miller was content to allow this illegal IRS harassment of Obama’s hit list – and the subsequent cover-up.
As I say, Obama pretended to “fire” Miller this week, an empty gesture considering the fact that Miller had already planned to leave – and, in fact, will be running the IRS for several more weeks. It was an attempt by the president to show command of a situation that continues to spiral out of control.
In fact, Thursday night we learn courtesy of ABC News that the woman in charge of the IRS office during the Tea Party attacks is now running theObamacare IRS office!
The Internal Revenue Service official in charge of the tax-exempt organizations at the time when the unit targeted tea party groups now runs the IRS office responsible for the health care legislation.
Sarah Hall Ingram served as commissioner of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations between 2009 and 2012. But Ingram has since left that part of the IRS and is now the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act office, the IRS confirmed to ABC News today.
These IRS abuses are one more example of how the Obama administration is off the rails and out of control. Judicial Watch is your watchdog in Washington and is mobilizing its investigative and legal resources to protect the American people from the crisis caused by Obama’s corrupted IRS.
Stay tuned as news is breaking by the moment. As Democratic Senator Max Baucus said during an interview with Bloomberg’s Capital Gain, “I have a hunch that a lot more is going to come out.”
This is true – especially if we have anything to do with it.
Big Media Gets Pass from Criminal Accountability?
If there is one lesson I have learned over my decade and a half at Judicial Watch, it is this: you must never overestimate the hypocrisy of the Left – especially in covering for their own. Lest you have even the slightest doubt, cast an eye to the outrageous behavior of District of Columbia Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan when he allowed NBC-TV’s David Gregory to walk away scot free for a firearm offense, even while openly acknowledging “the clarity of the violation of the law.”
We don’t know for certain what prompted Nathan to decline to prosecute Gregory. We do know that, according to the Washington Post, until the Republican sweep in 2010, he had been the House Democrats’ top lawyer. We also know that he was appointed attorney general by D.C. Democrat Mayor Vincent Gray. And we know that some legal experts have questioned why Nathan did not recuse himself from the case when it was discovered that he had a personal relationship with David Gregory’s wife. Clearly more information was required. So, Judicial Watch began investigating.
On January 14, 2013, acting on behalf of William A. Jacobson, founder and author of the outstanding blog website, Legal Insurrection, we submitted a District of Columbia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and Office of the Attorney General (OAG) seeking access to the following records:
1. The January 9, 2013 letter from Lee Levine on behalf of David Gregory, referenced in the letter dated January 11, 2013 from Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan to Mr. Levine which was publicly disclosed on that date.
2. All communications between the District of Columbia Office of Attorney General and/or Metropolitan Police Department, on the one hand, and legal counsel for David Gregory and/or NBC News, on the other hand, with regard to the incident involving the display on television by Mr. Gregory of an alleged high-capacity ammunition clip (the “Gregory incident”).
3. All documents in the possession of the MPD and OAG regarding the Gregory Incident, to the extent not exempted from disclosure under applicable law, including but not limited to witness statements, evidence review and possession records, interview notes, and forensic testing.
On February 20, 2013, OAG informed Jacobson that it was withholding certain requested records, including the January 9, 2013, letter from NBC attorney Lee Levine, as well as responsive emails between OAG and MPD. (We just learned the letter from Levine was made available to the media, but is being withheld from us!)
The OAG also withheld in their entirety an affidavit and a warrant responsive to the Jacobson FOIA request. On April 17, 2013, MPD informed Jacobson that it was withholding responsive records as well. This past week, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit on Jacobson’s behalf asking that the Court to declare OAG and MDP in violation of the law and to order them to produce the records without further delay.
The known facts in the Gregory case are simple. On Sunday December 23, 2012, the “Meet the Press” host interviewed the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre concerning firearms policy in the United States. During the course of the interview, Gregory exhibited a high-capacity ammunition clip. The possession of such an ammunition clip is in violation of the law of the District of Columbia.
Gregory displayed the ammunition clip despite the fact that, according to the D.C. Office of the Attorney General, “NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD (Metropolitan Police Department) employee that its plans to exhibit on the broadcast a high capacity magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advice from any other federal official.”
Some argued that, in accordance with D.C. law, Gregory should have been charged with a weapons violation and taken into custody, as other alleged offenders have been. The MPD failed to do so, however, and in early January announced that it had completed its two-week investigation and presented the case to the OAG “for a determination of the prosecutorial merit of the case.”
On January 11, 2013, after just two days of deliberation, Attorney General Nathan sent a letter to NBC saying that his office would not prosecute Gregory, “despite the clarity of the violation of this important law.” The Attorney General added, “There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter…”
Yet, in what surely must be one of the most glaring non sequiturs I’ve seen, Nathan then refused to prosecute Gregory. And the Washington Times’ outstanding editorialist Emily Miller well summed up the absurdity of the situation when Gregory first committed his violation:
The District came up with its overly restrictive laws in response to the Supreme Court overturning the capital city’s 30-year gun ban. The statutes shouldn’t apply just to regular people but to the rich and powerful as well. The District should either repeal its over-the-top restrictions or send a squad car to take David Gregory into custody.
The way Gregory’s prosecution decision was handled undermines confidence in the fair administration of justice. If Gregory shouldn’t be prosecuted then no one should be – and the law should be rescinded. Our client Prof. Jacobsen also is seeking justice in the public interest:
“The documents being withheld will help shed light on the details of this highly publicized non-prosecution, which raised issues as to whether well-connected and famous D.C. insiders were treated as any other citizen in a similar situation. I appreciate Judicial Watch assisting in this search for the truth.”
Let’s hope the courts put an end to this cover-up.
Judicial Watch Sues U.S. Secret Service for Obama’s Hawaiian Vacation Documents
With approximately one-third of congressional committees preoccupied with investigating Obama corruption – from Benghazi-gate, to the IRS scandal, to Obamacare propaganda – the First Family might be tempted to escape to some far away location for vacation.
As Judicial Watch knows all too well, this is something the Obamas have done with some frequency since taking office in 2009, and largely on the taxpayers’ dime. JW has been the leading investigative force on the Obama’s taxpayer-funded luxury trips, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get ahold of records about the costs of this abuse of the perks of the presidency.
Our feeling is that, especially considering the massive budget crisis in Washington, the president must be completely transparent to the American people regarding the cost of these vacations. Instead, however, all we’ve received is more stonewalling. The pattern, by now, should be familiar to you. We file a FOIA. The Obama administration ignores it. We sue to get the records. And often we are successful.
JW was back at it again on May 6, when we were forced to file a FOIA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Secret Service in order to obtain records concerning use of U.S. Government funds to provide “security and/or any other services to President Obama and any companions on their January 1 and 2, 2013, trip to Honolulu, Hawaii.”
On January 2, 2013, Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request about taxpayer funds used to pay for President Obama and his entourage to travel to Hawaii, seeking access to: All records concerning use of U.S. Government funds to provide security and/or other services to President Obama and any companions on their January 1 and 2, 2013 trip to Honolulu, Hawaii.
Per usual, we are getting the runaround. By a letter dated January 31, 2013, the Secret Service acknowledged that they received the request. By law the agency was required to determine whether to comply with the FOIA request within 20 days and provide Judicial Watch with the requisite notifications by February 11, 2013 at the latest. But as of May 6, the Secret Service had yet to produce a single record.
So now onto step three: file a lawsuit.
Veteran White House reporter Keith Koffler provided the public with important information about these Hawaiian trips when he wrote on January 4, 2013, that the “total cost to taxpayers of Obama’s vacations to Hawaii since becoming president is likely in excess of $20 million, and possibly much, much more.” Evidently, this is based on estimates for the trips taken by the Obama family during the Christmas holiday season in four consecutive years.
“According to a detailed breakdown by the Hawaii Reporter, the annual excursions in 2009, 2010, and 2011 cost about $4 million, much of it attributable to the expense of taking Air Force One, at an hour rate of about $180,000, on an eighteen-hour roundtrip journey to Honolulu and back,” Koffler writes.
These trips to Hawaii are just one example of the Obamas jet-setting lifestyle. According to records obtained by Judicial Watch, First Family vacations since Obama took office have come at great costs to taxpayers. Those costs have included:
In August 2010, when Michelle Obama traveled to Spain with multiple friends and one of her daughters, the total cost to taxpayers was at least $467,555.
From June 21 – 27, 2011, when Michelle Obama along with her daughters and staff traveled to South Africa and Botswana, charges to the taxpayers for the aircraft and crew alone were $424,142.
During President’s Day weekend of February 2012, when Michelle Obama and her two daughters vacationed in Aspen, Colorado, charges to the taxpayers were $83,182.99.
As I say, the Obamas’ opulent vacation lifestyle is particularly objectionable during a time when government debt is out of control. President Obama is not king and his administration should stop ignoring the FOIA open records law and account to the American people for the spending on his luxury vacations.
These vacations may seem but a drop in the bucket when compared to other examples of Obama’s spending-gone-wild, but waste is waste. And these trips are adding up.
Until next week…
Tom Fitton
Tom Fitton, President
Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Through its educational endeavors, Judicial Watch advocates high standards of ethics and morality in our nation's public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people. Judicial Watch fulfills its educational mission through litigation, investigations, and public outreach.
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013051732561/us/politics/a-scandal-for-the-ages.html
Ronald Reagan Speech on June 6, 1984
President Obama’s Dragnet
From our Facebook page:
www.nytimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?_r=0
The scooping up of all our phone records is an abuse of power that demands a real explanation.
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100220730/prism-scandal-big-obama-is-watching-you-browse-the-web-even-bush-wasnt-this-power-mad/
PRISM scandal: Big Obama is watching you browse the web. Even Bush wasn't this power mad –...
blogs.telegraph.co.uk (link above)
Internet companies deny helping the NSA to spy on customers What next? We’ve had the IRS targeting conservative groups, journalists hounded by the st....
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/06/NSA-ability-spy-American-conversations-PRISM
PRISM: 'They Quite Literally Can Watch Your Ideas Form As You Type'
www.breitbart.com
When the UK Guardian reported on Wednesday that the Obama National Security Admi...See More
Article V Project to Restore Liberty REFERENCE DATA MINING FACILITY BEING BUILT IN UTAH FURTHER DOWN IN OUR NEWS THREAD...REMEMBER THAT GAME WE PLAYED AS CHILDREN...CONNECT-THE-DOTS....????
Article V Project to Restore Liberty
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/james-clapper-clarifies-remarks-over-nsa-snooping-20130606
James Clapper Clarifies Remarks Over NSA Snooping
www.nationaljournal.com (link above)
Director of national intelligence clarifies remarks over NSA snooping, says Benghazi culprits were a "mixed bag."
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/07/intelligence-officials-reportedly-mining-data-from-us-internet-companies/
Obama administration pushes back on NSA document leaks (link above)
www.foxnews.com
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/jim-sensenbrenner-nsa-violated-law-92348.html?hp=lh_b1
Jim Sensenbrenner: NSA violated law - Jake Sherman
www.politico.com
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Republican author of the Patriot Act, sent a letter...See More
Article V Project to Restore Liberty
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
Documents: U.S. mining data from 9 leading Internet firms; companies deny knowledge
www.washingtonpost.com
U.S. intelligence has access to the servers of nine Internet companies as part of top-secret effort.(link above)
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/06/harry_reid_on_nsa_phone_surveillance_everyone_should_just_calm_down.html
Harry Reid On NSA Phone Surveillance: "Everyone Should Just Calm Down"
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NEVADA): "Right now I think everyone should just calm down an..(link above)
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.rightspeak.net/2013/04/fox-news-your-secrets-out-full-video-04.html
RIGHT SPEAK: Fox News 'Your Secret's Out' (Full Video 04-14-13)
www.rightspeak.net (link above)
Funny, for an agency who claims not to have an interest in data on ordinary citi...
The scooping up of all our phone records is an abuse of power that demands a real explanation.
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100220730/prism-scandal-big-obama-is-watching-you-browse-the-web-even-bush-wasnt-this-power-mad/
PRISM scandal: Big Obama is watching you browse the web. Even Bush wasn't this power mad –...
blogs.telegraph.co.uk (link above)
Internet companies deny helping the NSA to spy on customers What next? We’ve had the IRS targeting conservative groups, journalists hounded by the st....
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/06/NSA-ability-spy-American-conversations-PRISM
PRISM: 'They Quite Literally Can Watch Your Ideas Form As You Type'
www.breitbart.com
When the UK Guardian reported on Wednesday that the Obama National Security Admi...See More
Article V Project to Restore Liberty REFERENCE DATA MINING FACILITY BEING BUILT IN UTAH FURTHER DOWN IN OUR NEWS THREAD...REMEMBER THAT GAME WE PLAYED AS CHILDREN...CONNECT-THE-DOTS....????
Article V Project to Restore Liberty
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/james-clapper-clarifies-remarks-over-nsa-snooping-20130606
James Clapper Clarifies Remarks Over NSA Snooping
www.nationaljournal.com (link above)
Director of national intelligence clarifies remarks over NSA snooping, says Benghazi culprits were a "mixed bag."
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/07/intelligence-officials-reportedly-mining-data-from-us-internet-companies/
Obama administration pushes back on NSA document leaks (link above)
www.foxnews.com
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/jim-sensenbrenner-nsa-violated-law-92348.html?hp=lh_b1
Jim Sensenbrenner: NSA violated law - Jake Sherman
www.politico.com
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Republican author of the Patriot Act, sent a letter...See More
Article V Project to Restore Liberty
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
Documents: U.S. mining data from 9 leading Internet firms; companies deny knowledge
www.washingtonpost.com
U.S. intelligence has access to the servers of nine Internet companies as part of top-secret effort.(link above)
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/06/06/harry_reid_on_nsa_phone_surveillance_everyone_should_just_calm_down.html
Harry Reid On NSA Phone Surveillance: "Everyone Should Just Calm Down"
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NEVADA): "Right now I think everyone should just calm down an..(link above)
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.rightspeak.net/2013/04/fox-news-your-secrets-out-full-video-04.html
RIGHT SPEAK: Fox News 'Your Secret's Out' (Full Video 04-14-13)
www.rightspeak.net (link above)
Funny, for an agency who claims not to have an interest in data on ordinary citi...
|
WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE - Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best.
This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion. |
PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho 's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho 's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
CALL TO ACTION FROM SATP PRESIDENT ALLEN THARP
|
Fellow Tea Party Members, Supporters, and Patriots: Now is the time to reach out to your friends, co-workers and family who were intimidated by the IRS's intrusive and illegal inquisition into the San Antonio Tea Party's application for 501(c)4 non-profit organization status. While this action had the result of knocking us off our game over the past two years and in part nationally insured the reelection of the President in the 2012 national elections, it has failed to deter us. Many of our friends chose to cease participation in Tea Party activities or to not donate to the SATP for fear of an IRS audit at worst and harassment at least. Now that this IRS program has been totally exposed and discredited, the threat of such persecution for our beliefs has been removed. Many of our former members and friends just drifted away, some joined similar organizations or contributed their time and effort to one of the political parties in the last elections and our numbers dwindled, our contributions dried up, and our enthusiasm was on the wane. A lot of us never wavered in our relationship with the SATP. While our numbers were greatly reduced, we are still involved and proactive on many fronts that serve the principles of the Tea Party: |
smaller government; fiscal responsibility on the part of government; and free enterprise, not government control, as the engine that drives Americans to be exceptional among all other societies on Earth. We have many talented, dedicated, and enthusiastic members of the San Antonio Tea Party. Their skills, passion, and involvement never cease to amaze.
Our citizen lobbyist committees have made great strides in understanding and working with the State legislature; our local neighborhood groups continue to meet, discuss, and hear from outstanding speakers on a wide range of issues affecting the freedom of this great land; we have members researching and presenting information on how groups hostile to our Constitution and way of life conduct their business so we can better understand where to place our best efforts; the Boiling Point radio program just returned to the air last night with a very timely and effective discussion of this whole issue; and we have many leaders in the SATP donating their time, skills and professionalism to the cause of Liberty.
We ask that anyone sharing these principles, with a will to participate, to donate, and to get active, come join us in this quest. It is still as worthwhile as it was in 2009 and can be as effective as it was in the 2010 mid-term elections. As we approach the crucial 2014 mid-term elections, the time is right now to reassert the Tea Party as a driving force in promoting American values.
That is the action this Strike Zone is calling for. Get more involved, help us redouble our efforts, bring new people into the Tea Party who now see what the excesses of government can lead to if not kept in check by honest Patriots whose love of country calls them to action in this hour of its greatest need.
Come join us. Again.
J. Allen Tharp
President, San Antonio Tea Party
Our citizen lobbyist committees have made great strides in understanding and working with the State legislature; our local neighborhood groups continue to meet, discuss, and hear from outstanding speakers on a wide range of issues affecting the freedom of this great land; we have members researching and presenting information on how groups hostile to our Constitution and way of life conduct their business so we can better understand where to place our best efforts; the Boiling Point radio program just returned to the air last night with a very timely and effective discussion of this whole issue; and we have many leaders in the SATP donating their time, skills and professionalism to the cause of Liberty.
We ask that anyone sharing these principles, with a will to participate, to donate, and to get active, come join us in this quest. It is still as worthwhile as it was in 2009 and can be as effective as it was in the 2010 mid-term elections. As we approach the crucial 2014 mid-term elections, the time is right now to reassert the Tea Party as a driving force in promoting American values.
That is the action this Strike Zone is calling for. Get more involved, help us redouble our efforts, bring new people into the Tea Party who now see what the excesses of government can lead to if not kept in check by honest Patriots whose love of country calls them to action in this hour of its greatest need.
Come join us. Again.
J. Allen Tharp
President, San Antonio Tea Party
|
|
You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up!
Quote of the Day (r u kidding me?)
"The essence of good government is trust."
Kathleen Sebelius on FB!!
The Progressives lie even when they try to justify the very existence of the agencies that are outside the Article I section 8 limits - they can read but do not recognize the Constitution as valid anymore.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/k/kathleense168387.html
"The essence of good government is trust."
Kathleen Sebelius on FB!!
The Progressives lie even when they try to justify the very existence of the agencies that are outside the Article I section 8 limits - they can read but do not recognize the Constitution as valid anymore.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/k/kathleense168387.html
Cover Stories, News
Last Week’s Conspiracy Theories are This Week’s Reality
By Erik Rush
It is now safe to say that if one cannot see the abject evil of the Obama administration as well as the endemic corruption and criminality in our federal government, it is only because they are refusing to look. Due to what some are calling a “perfect storm of circumstances, three scandals have rocked Washington, but these are only the grossest symptoms of the systemic infection that has been festering there for decades.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=b3fe55dd25&e=0f83cc85d1
‘The Incident in the Rose Garden Rain’
By Judi McLeod
Armed by the arrogant confidence that comes via a protective circle of self-serving, back-scratching politicians (including Republican ones), who do nothing to deter his increasing taunts against all things American, President Barack Hussein Obama continues to publicly trash the cherished image of the military.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=8ae359b31b&e=0f83cc85d1
Cloaked in misinformation
By Doug Hagmann
What’s one of the most effective and expedient methods of taking an incident that is true and making it not only appear false, but outrageously and demonstrably false? You know the kind of false I mean… the “urban legend” type of false, causing anyone who hears about the incident to immediately dismiss it and attack the messengers as conspiracy nuts?
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=5b667d0b8f&e=0f83cc85d1
Pro-Life Groups Confirm: IRS Targeting Began in 2009
By Arnold Ahlert
The list of categories included in the IRS’s effort to target conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status continues to widen. On Wednesday, the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, announced that cases they handled “demonstrate the agency’s abuse of pro-life organizations in addition to those identified as ‘tea party’, ‘patriot’, or ‘government spending’ groups.”
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=3ddc325ce9&e=0f83cc85d1
Obama and the “Official Truth”
By Caroline Glick
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has been sitting in a US federal prison in Texas since his photographed midnight arrest by half a dozen deputy sheriffs at his home in California for violating the terms of his parole. As many reporters have noted, the parole violation in question would not generally lead to anything more than a court hearing.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=9fc33acf17&e=0f83cc85d1
The Benghazi deception
By Doug Hagmann
It is interesting that the corporate media, like sharks attracted to chum in the water, is just now appearing to treat Benghazi as a political scandal similar to Watergate that took down former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon in his second term. While many people see the comparison, I not only see the comparison, but also sense a collusion of a different, more nefarious and less conspicuous type as well.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=c2508e36a7&e=0f83cc85d1
The Worst President Ever
By Alan Caruba
All through George W. Bush’s two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented “a culture of corruption” and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration’s governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=c1bb799b8b&e=0f83cc85d1
The IRS Targeted Conservative Media
By Cliff Kincaid
Of the IRS abuse cases that have recently come to light, the use of the IRS to enforce the defunct “Fairness Doctrine” on broadcasters is one of the most disturbing.
“I am alarmed by reports that suggest a federal official at the IRS instituting a de facto Fairness Doctrine,” National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) President & CEO Dr. Frank Wright said in a press release. Wright was referring to long-time Christian radio host Dr. James Dobson revealing that his organization had to submit sample radio programs to the IRS, and that an IRS agent indicated that his criticism of President Obama would prevent his ministry from getting a certain form of non-profit status.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=76a07a1563&e=0f83cc85d1
From Rags to Riches on You and Your Neighbor’s Tax Dollars
By Jerry McConnell
The wheels of TRUE justice, not those of the Obama-Holder unJustice Department, are beginning to move, if ever so slightly; but moving they do appear to be. With all the roadblocks the dastardly duo of Obama and Holder are placing in the path of progress, it’s a wonder that they are moving at all.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=0362d448d7&e=0f83cc85d1
IRS Scandal another Reason Why We Need the Fair Tax
By Doug Patton
“It will create a bureaucracy with the efficiency of the Post Office, the frugality of the Pentagon and the compassion of the IRS.”
– Mantra of those who opposed HillaryCare in the 1990s.
In the idealistic constitutional fantasies of those who harbor high hopes and short memories, the accumulating effect of the scandals piling up like rotting garbage at the front door of the White House will result in the impeachment and removal from office of Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States. Despite the dog and pony show Congress will inevitably put on, no such scenario will ever play itself out.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=8055ba07ea&e=0f83cc85d1
American Politics, Freedom
Many additional great articles here....http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=6c0c3f3d1c&e=0f83cc85d1
By Erik Rush
It is now safe to say that if one cannot see the abject evil of the Obama administration as well as the endemic corruption and criminality in our federal government, it is only because they are refusing to look. Due to what some are calling a “perfect storm of circumstances, three scandals have rocked Washington, but these are only the grossest symptoms of the systemic infection that has been festering there for decades.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=b3fe55dd25&e=0f83cc85d1
‘The Incident in the Rose Garden Rain’
By Judi McLeod
Armed by the arrogant confidence that comes via a protective circle of self-serving, back-scratching politicians (including Republican ones), who do nothing to deter his increasing taunts against all things American, President Barack Hussein Obama continues to publicly trash the cherished image of the military.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=8ae359b31b&e=0f83cc85d1
Cloaked in misinformation
By Doug Hagmann
What’s one of the most effective and expedient methods of taking an incident that is true and making it not only appear false, but outrageously and demonstrably false? You know the kind of false I mean… the “urban legend” type of false, causing anyone who hears about the incident to immediately dismiss it and attack the messengers as conspiracy nuts?
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=5b667d0b8f&e=0f83cc85d1
Pro-Life Groups Confirm: IRS Targeting Began in 2009
By Arnold Ahlert
The list of categories included in the IRS’s effort to target conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status continues to widen. On Wednesday, the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based public interest law firm, announced that cases they handled “demonstrate the agency’s abuse of pro-life organizations in addition to those identified as ‘tea party’, ‘patriot’, or ‘government spending’ groups.”
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=3ddc325ce9&e=0f83cc85d1
Obama and the “Official Truth”
By Caroline Glick
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula has been sitting in a US federal prison in Texas since his photographed midnight arrest by half a dozen deputy sheriffs at his home in California for violating the terms of his parole. As many reporters have noted, the parole violation in question would not generally lead to anything more than a court hearing.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=9fc33acf17&e=0f83cc85d1
The Benghazi deception
By Doug Hagmann
It is interesting that the corporate media, like sharks attracted to chum in the water, is just now appearing to treat Benghazi as a political scandal similar to Watergate that took down former U.S. President Richard M. Nixon in his second term. While many people see the comparison, I not only see the comparison, but also sense a collusion of a different, more nefarious and less conspicuous type as well.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=c2508e36a7&e=0f83cc85d1
The Worst President Ever
By Alan Caruba
All through George W. Bush’s two terms, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and others claimed that they represented “a culture of corruption” and yet I cannot recall any significant examples, nor does a look back at those years reveal any scandals resulting from his administration’s governance. It was not perfect, but it was not corrupt.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=c1bb799b8b&e=0f83cc85d1
The IRS Targeted Conservative Media
By Cliff Kincaid
Of the IRS abuse cases that have recently come to light, the use of the IRS to enforce the defunct “Fairness Doctrine” on broadcasters is one of the most disturbing.
“I am alarmed by reports that suggest a federal official at the IRS instituting a de facto Fairness Doctrine,” National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) President & CEO Dr. Frank Wright said in a press release. Wright was referring to long-time Christian radio host Dr. James Dobson revealing that his organization had to submit sample radio programs to the IRS, and that an IRS agent indicated that his criticism of President Obama would prevent his ministry from getting a certain form of non-profit status.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=76a07a1563&e=0f83cc85d1
From Rags to Riches on You and Your Neighbor’s Tax Dollars
By Jerry McConnell
The wheels of TRUE justice, not those of the Obama-Holder unJustice Department, are beginning to move, if ever so slightly; but moving they do appear to be. With all the roadblocks the dastardly duo of Obama and Holder are placing in the path of progress, it’s a wonder that they are moving at all.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=0362d448d7&e=0f83cc85d1
IRS Scandal another Reason Why We Need the Fair Tax
By Doug Patton
“It will create a bureaucracy with the efficiency of the Post Office, the frugality of the Pentagon and the compassion of the IRS.”
– Mantra of those who opposed HillaryCare in the 1990s.
In the idealistic constitutional fantasies of those who harbor high hopes and short memories, the accumulating effect of the scandals piling up like rotting garbage at the front door of the White House will result in the impeachment and removal from office of Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States. Despite the dog and pony show Congress will inevitably put on, no such scenario will ever play itself out.
http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=8055ba07ea&e=0f83cc85d1
American Politics, Freedom
Many additional great articles here....http://canadafreepress.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=0c6082e7eaf9e485b69bc177e&id=6c0c3f3d1c&e=0f83cc85d1
WE ARE A REPRESENTATIVE BASED REPUBLIC
Our excellent researcher 'THE SENTINEL' has shared with us this information post, along with all of her research in our State News thread. We are thankful for the good research and for the vital contributions of this member of our site team.
Mr. Scheer builds the case for State and national Education of OUR REPRESENTATIVES as they are the ones that will make or not make changes. Just sitting back a carping is actually more damaging to the desired changes than doing nothing . . Make POSITIVE options that lead to a solution for the Representatives to use and apply.
America at the local government to the National government - WE ARE A REPRESENTATIVE BASED REPUBLIC - all laws from schools to the US Congress are made by we the people electing some person to represent us as individuals and collectively these people will make the laws we live by.
The policy of rejection can work if 50% plus one citizens says no. But short of that majority it will be like Ruby Ridge, WACO Branch Dravidian, EPA taking property, IRS seizures, illegal searches, searching emails, and personal communications. Yes, these all happen everyday but yet it appears that the people do not reach out and say to our representatives - it is time for us to just stop.
Education of the Legislators is imperative so they will understand what serves the WILL OF THE PEOPLE best. Restores Freedoms and Liberties and reducing the size and scope of government involvement with individual businesses and citizens. The best government is the one that governs the least.
Mr. Scheer builds the case for State and national Education of OUR REPRESENTATIVES as they are the ones that will make or not make changes. Just sitting back a carping is actually more damaging to the desired changes than doing nothing . . Make POSITIVE options that lead to a solution for the Representatives to use and apply.
America at the local government to the National government - WE ARE A REPRESENTATIVE BASED REPUBLIC - all laws from schools to the US Congress are made by we the people electing some person to represent us as individuals and collectively these people will make the laws we live by.
The policy of rejection can work if 50% plus one citizens says no. But short of that majority it will be like Ruby Ridge, WACO Branch Dravidian, EPA taking property, IRS seizures, illegal searches, searching emails, and personal communications. Yes, these all happen everyday but yet it appears that the people do not reach out and say to our representatives - it is time for us to just stop.
Education of the Legislators is imperative so they will understand what serves the WILL OF THE PEOPLE best. Restores Freedoms and Liberties and reducing the size and scope of government involvement with individual businesses and citizens. The best government is the one that governs the least.
In the time I have spent in the field of public policy, I’ve noticed people like to post on social media platforms, talk about, or blog about how their representatives do not represent them, or do not wish to hear their concerns and suggestions. It also seems many people generally treat public policy with great distaste. They make it their objective to deter people from voting, from “working within the system”, and from attempting to “change things from within.”
These folks are understandably angry because of a perceived lack of representation and diminishing faith in the constitutional system.
They may have a point. But how many times do you think those individuals have actually gone out of their way to communicate with their local or state representatives? How many people actually spend time working to direct change? How many people, out of the millions in our republic, actually spend time talking about solutions with their representatives?
Maybe part of the problem is that we aren’t proactive enough.
Our elected officials pack their days with committee hearings, floor sessions, speaking engagements, radio/television interviews, and press conferences. It’s reasonable to assume that their time is at a premium. So, if you want good representation, you need take the time to schedule a meeting. Then show up prepared with an objective, a solution, and a positive attitude. This will go a long way toward developing a strong two-way relationship with your representative. They aren’t used to this kind of effort, and it WILL have an impact.
If you do this on your own free-time, it will show your representative that you want to help in his or her efforts. Additionally, it reveals that, yes, their constituents are watching their legislative performance closely. Failing to properly communicate with your representative is no one’s fault but your own.
How you can begin getting involved?
Do a Google search for your state legislature website. There you will find legislative contacts, information on pending legislation, calendars and general legislative procedures.
Click HERE to track important bills in your state, and for model legislation you can propose to your representative and senator.
Network with other people in your state. Find out what issues have the most traction, and focus your attention on coalition building to get bills passed.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/why-your-representativ...
These folks are understandably angry because of a perceived lack of representation and diminishing faith in the constitutional system.
They may have a point. But how many times do you think those individuals have actually gone out of their way to communicate with their local or state representatives? How many people actually spend time working to direct change? How many people, out of the millions in our republic, actually spend time talking about solutions with their representatives?
Maybe part of the problem is that we aren’t proactive enough.
Our elected officials pack their days with committee hearings, floor sessions, speaking engagements, radio/television interviews, and press conferences. It’s reasonable to assume that their time is at a premium. So, if you want good representation, you need take the time to schedule a meeting. Then show up prepared with an objective, a solution, and a positive attitude. This will go a long way toward developing a strong two-way relationship with your representative. They aren’t used to this kind of effort, and it WILL have an impact.
If you do this on your own free-time, it will show your representative that you want to help in his or her efforts. Additionally, it reveals that, yes, their constituents are watching their legislative performance closely. Failing to properly communicate with your representative is no one’s fault but your own.
How you can begin getting involved?
Do a Google search for your state legislature website. There you will find legislative contacts, information on pending legislation, calendars and general legislative procedures.
Click HERE to track important bills in your state, and for model legislation you can propose to your representative and senator.
Network with other people in your state. Find out what issues have the most traction, and focus your attention on coalition building to get bills passed.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/why-your-representativ...
FEDERAL BUDGET 101
Where Does the Money Go?
In fiscal year 2014, the federal government will spend around $3.8 trillion. These trillions of dollars make up a considerable chunk – around 22 percent – of the US. economy, as measured by Gross Domestic Product(GDP). That means that federal government spending makes up a sizable share of all money spent in the United States each year. So, where does all that money go?
Mandatory and Discretionary Spending
The U.S. Treasury divides all spending into three groups: mandatory spending and discretionary spending and interest on debt. Interest on debt, which is much smaller than the other two categories, is the interest the government pays on its accumulated debt, minus interest income received by the government for assets it owns. This pie chart shows all projected federal spending in 2014 broken into these three categories.
Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget which goes through the annual appropriations process each year. In other words, Congress directly sets the level of spending on programs which are discretionary. Congress can choose to increase or decrease spending on any of those programs in a given year.
This pie chart shows how President Obama proposes dividing up discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014.
This pie chart shows how President Obama proposes dividing up discretionary spending in fiscal year 2014.
Mandatory spending is largely made up of earned-benefit or entitlement programs, and the spending for those programs is determined by eligibility rules rather than the appropriations process. For example, Congress decides to create a program like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. It then sets criteria for determining who is eligible to receive benefits from the program. The amount of money spent on SNAP each year is then determined by how many people are eligible and apply for benefits.
Congress therefore cannot decide each year to increase or decrease the budget for SNAP. Instead, it can review the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people.
Mandatory spending makes up around two-thirds of the total federal budget. The largest mandatory program is Social Security, which comprises more than a third of mandatory spending and around 22 percent of the total federal budget.
This chart shows where the projected $2.4 trillion in mandatory spending will go in fiscal year 2014.
Congress therefore cannot decide each year to increase or decrease the budget for SNAP. Instead, it can review the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people.
Mandatory spending makes up around two-thirds of the total federal budget. The largest mandatory program is Social Security, which comprises more than a third of mandatory spending and around 22 percent of the total federal budget.
This chart shows where the projected $2.4 trillion in mandatory spending will go in fiscal year 2014.
Finally, putting together discretionary spending, mandatory spending, and interest on the debt, you can see how the total federal budget is divided into different categories of spending. This pie chart shows how President Obama proposes dividing up the whole federal budget in fiscal 2014. Income security programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance together comprise the largest slice, followed by Medicare & Health, and Military.
The Limits of U.S. Influence
By Daniel Larison • May 20, 2013, 8:49 AM
Fred Hiatt concludes his latest column on Obama’s foreign policy with this non sequitur: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-obamas-lean-inward-poses-risk-for-us-interests-abroad/2013/05/19/8cc5231c-bd6d-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html
In 2012, according to Freedom House, three countries became freer and more democratic, while 27 became less so — the seventh consecutive year of more declines than gains. That’s an unprecedented streak in the wrong direction — and not consistent with long-term, hard-headed U.S. interests.
This is an odd way for Hiatt to end his complaint about Obama’s foreign policy, because it so clearly demonstrates the limits of what the U.S. can influence. These limits have nothing to do with the president in office at any given time. This trend in declining global freedom and increased authoritarianism around the globe predates Obama and began at the height of the so-called “freedom agenda” when the U.S. was still occupying Iraq, which tells us that hyperactive or less active U.S. foreign policy has little or nothing to do with whether or not other nations liberalize and democratize. This suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have much ability to discourage or reverse this trend, and it also suggests that the U.S. has little success in promoting liberal democracy abroad even when our policies are at their most ideologically ambitious and activist. It’s not immediately obvious why this trend isn’t consistent with “long-term, hard-headed U.S. interests,” but even if this is true it’s even less clear what the U.S. could do to change it.
What if it is not true that “U.S. engagement and influence” can “open the world to more democracy and more prosperity”? More countries are becoming less free and less democratic, but the reason for this in many countries is that the middle class has increasingly soured on democracy when it empowers or threatens to empower majorities that don’t share their economic and political interests. Joshua Kurlantzick has been documenting this phenomenon for the last several years:
It seems, however, that this new global middle is choosing stability over all else. From Algeria to Zimbabwe, the rising middle class has often supported the military as a bulwark against popular democracy, fearing that it might empower the poor, the religious, and the less-educated.
That shouldn’t surprise us. This is hardly be the first time that middle-class liberals recoiled from mass democracy and/or religious movements. The important thing to bear in mind here is that the U.S. can’t change middle-class opposition to democratization in their own countries no matter how “engaged” it is in the world. Of course, it’s possible that this trend is temporary, but we should also consider the possibility that the U.S. may have to “engage” a world that is becoming less free and less democratic regardless of what the U.S. is doing abroad.
Posted in foreign policy, politics. Tagged "freedom agenda", Fred Hiatt, Freedom House, Joshua Kurlantzick.
6 Responses to The Limits of U.S. Influence
#1
“This [Freedom House reported] trend in declining global freedom and increased authoritarianism around the globe predates Obama and began at the height of the so-called “freedom agenda” when the U.S. was still occupying Iraq”
Hiatt fails to mention how “the freedom agenda” dovetailed with the explosive growth of the surveillance state and the militarization of domestic police forces under Bush and Obama.
Freedom House used to publish interesting and relevant material, but its reports are now marred by passing over in silence the massive loss of freedom happening here and now on its own doorstep: the huge decline in critical freedoms in countries like the United States and the UK, which are abandoning fundamental concepts like personal privacy and freedom from government monitoring and intrusion, also developing and exporting technologies that allow foreign governments to do the same.
Freedom House has made itself irrelevant, even ludicrous, by ignoring these seismic developments: this year its sole remark on freedom in North America was “there were no major gains or declines in this region.” Absurd.
#2
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Americans just can’t stop believing that their freedom and prosperity have everything to do with their values and their Constitution, and nothing to do with fortune.
So, we assume if we just remove the artificial barriers to democracy, all good things will flourish.
Re-reading the opening chapter of de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” once a year should be mandatory for every pundit who insists on venturing into these we waters.
#3
Fred Hiatt is one reason why on the ‘tubes we often write ‘freedumb’.
#4
I second your praise for Mr. Larison concerning this post, Charlie.
#5
I think America’s unvocalized definition of “democracy” has always been the kind of government which makes possible and protects the growth of the middle class in a particular nation, which gives that nation stability and assures to them the personal liberties enjoyed in the developed West. The fact that we have actively assisted in suppressing the rise of regimes which reflect the desires of the mass of their countries’ populations, particularly when those desires reflect overtly religious sensibilities, from Algeria in 90′s going forward, has not been troublesome to us for the simple reason that democracy such as this is not what we mean when we talk about “democracy”.
#6
Among the “personal liberties” the American middle class has had the past twenty five years or more, is that of wage stagnation, outsourcing effects, exporting “democracy” with
ample loss of its own blood and treasure, freedom to bail-out corrupt banksters with its money etc etc.
Fred Hiatt concludes his latest column on Obama’s foreign policy with this non sequitur: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-obamas-lean-inward-poses-risk-for-us-interests-abroad/2013/05/19/8cc5231c-bd6d-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html
In 2012, according to Freedom House, three countries became freer and more democratic, while 27 became less so — the seventh consecutive year of more declines than gains. That’s an unprecedented streak in the wrong direction — and not consistent with long-term, hard-headed U.S. interests.
This is an odd way for Hiatt to end his complaint about Obama’s foreign policy, because it so clearly demonstrates the limits of what the U.S. can influence. These limits have nothing to do with the president in office at any given time. This trend in declining global freedom and increased authoritarianism around the globe predates Obama and began at the height of the so-called “freedom agenda” when the U.S. was still occupying Iraq, which tells us that hyperactive or less active U.S. foreign policy has little or nothing to do with whether or not other nations liberalize and democratize. This suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have much ability to discourage or reverse this trend, and it also suggests that the U.S. has little success in promoting liberal democracy abroad even when our policies are at their most ideologically ambitious and activist. It’s not immediately obvious why this trend isn’t consistent with “long-term, hard-headed U.S. interests,” but even if this is true it’s even less clear what the U.S. could do to change it.
What if it is not true that “U.S. engagement and influence” can “open the world to more democracy and more prosperity”? More countries are becoming less free and less democratic, but the reason for this in many countries is that the middle class has increasingly soured on democracy when it empowers or threatens to empower majorities that don’t share their economic and political interests. Joshua Kurlantzick has been documenting this phenomenon for the last several years:
It seems, however, that this new global middle is choosing stability over all else. From Algeria to Zimbabwe, the rising middle class has often supported the military as a bulwark against popular democracy, fearing that it might empower the poor, the religious, and the less-educated.
That shouldn’t surprise us. This is hardly be the first time that middle-class liberals recoiled from mass democracy and/or religious movements. The important thing to bear in mind here is that the U.S. can’t change middle-class opposition to democratization in their own countries no matter how “engaged” it is in the world. Of course, it’s possible that this trend is temporary, but we should also consider the possibility that the U.S. may have to “engage” a world that is becoming less free and less democratic regardless of what the U.S. is doing abroad.
Posted in foreign policy, politics. Tagged "freedom agenda", Fred Hiatt, Freedom House, Joshua Kurlantzick.
6 Responses to The Limits of U.S. Influence
#1
“This [Freedom House reported] trend in declining global freedom and increased authoritarianism around the globe predates Obama and began at the height of the so-called “freedom agenda” when the U.S. was still occupying Iraq”
Hiatt fails to mention how “the freedom agenda” dovetailed with the explosive growth of the surveillance state and the militarization of domestic police forces under Bush and Obama.
Freedom House used to publish interesting and relevant material, but its reports are now marred by passing over in silence the massive loss of freedom happening here and now on its own doorstep: the huge decline in critical freedoms in countries like the United States and the UK, which are abandoning fundamental concepts like personal privacy and freedom from government monitoring and intrusion, also developing and exporting technologies that allow foreign governments to do the same.
Freedom House has made itself irrelevant, even ludicrous, by ignoring these seismic developments: this year its sole remark on freedom in North America was “there were no major gains or declines in this region.” Absurd.
#2
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that Americans just can’t stop believing that their freedom and prosperity have everything to do with their values and their Constitution, and nothing to do with fortune.
So, we assume if we just remove the artificial barriers to democracy, all good things will flourish.
Re-reading the opening chapter of de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” once a year should be mandatory for every pundit who insists on venturing into these we waters.
#3
Fred Hiatt is one reason why on the ‘tubes we often write ‘freedumb’.
#4
I second your praise for Mr. Larison concerning this post, Charlie.
#5
I think America’s unvocalized definition of “democracy” has always been the kind of government which makes possible and protects the growth of the middle class in a particular nation, which gives that nation stability and assures to them the personal liberties enjoyed in the developed West. The fact that we have actively assisted in suppressing the rise of regimes which reflect the desires of the mass of their countries’ populations, particularly when those desires reflect overtly religious sensibilities, from Algeria in 90′s going forward, has not been troublesome to us for the simple reason that democracy such as this is not what we mean when we talk about “democracy”.
#6
Among the “personal liberties” the American middle class has had the past twenty five years or more, is that of wage stagnation, outsourcing effects, exporting “democracy” with
ample loss of its own blood and treasure, freedom to bail-out corrupt banksters with its money etc etc.
Mychal Massie - The Daily Rant
|
BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE EVER!Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles . The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state. |
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America . They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous. I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.
I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.
The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America . I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.
Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same. I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.
He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel . His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood...
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America 's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those that are willing to work and give to those who would not"
I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.
The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America . I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.
Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same. I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.
He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel . His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood...
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America 's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those that are willing to work and give to those who would not"
NERO IN THE WHITE HOUSE
PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM
Exclusive: Mychal Massie says O's lying makes Nixon, Clinton look like amateurs
Published: 08/08/2011 at 5:20 PM
Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton’s stain on Monica’s dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.
I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.
Richard Nixon’s words “I am not a crook,” punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton’s finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.
Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn’t only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.
Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.
As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event’s sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski’s $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.
Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago’s Cabrini-Green.
The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they’re not. They are employees of “we the people,” who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?
What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball’s chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?
Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated “we the people” the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.
Exclusive: Mychal Massie says O's lying makes Nixon, Clinton look like amateurs
Published: 08/08/2011 at 5:20 PM
Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton’s stain on Monica’s dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.
I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.
Richard Nixon’s words “I am not a crook,” punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton’s finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.
Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn’t only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.
Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.
As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event’s sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski’s $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.
Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago’s Cabrini-Green.
The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they’re not. They are employees of “we the people,” who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?
What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball’s chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?
Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated “we the people” the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.
Impeach the President? Then what?
May 15, 2013 at 5:00 am / by Michele Holt
As we all know, there have been hints circulated that the act of impeachment should be considered against President Obama based on the cover up of Benghazi. However, have you thought about what would replace him if that action takes place? Most of us have used the analogy that the cover up behind the attacks on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi has the characteristics of Watergate but much more severe because four Americans died. Watergate became the scandal when it was discovered that then President Richard Nixon was involved personally with the knowledge of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s office in the Watergate Plaza building. Prior to that revelation representatives in office on both sides of the isle did not want to make a big deal of the initial demands of impeachment because quite frankly this was not the first time something of this nature had taken place. The Democrats did not want Spiral Agnew to be the next President if Nixon was impeached so it was only after Agnew resigned as Vice President for fear of federal prosecution that Democrats rejoiced louder for Nixon’s impeachment. I don’t know about you, but Biden has been extremely quiet lately and maybe he is reminded of Agnew’s decision.
I really don’t think we need to hold our breath on the possibility of Biden deciding to resign. So if Obama is impeached (which is still highly unlikely to happen) we would get President Biden. Is anyone else seeing this as an equal disaster for the country? Also who would Biden pick to be his new Vice President? Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? I mean the thought of either scenario is just frightening to say the least!
It is certainly interesting to watch even MSNBC discuss the word impeachment and reference Watergate as the example. Quite frankly I was looking for flying pigs after I viewed the clip of the panel of the MSNBC show “Now with Alex Wagner”, discussing this scenario.
It is certainly disingenuous for the left leaning media and Democrats to continue to defend Benghazigate as nothing more the Republican’s on a witch-hunt considering our history and what happened during Watergate. I was a young girl during Nixon’s scandal but I do recall countless news coverage both on the television and the newspapers about the story. Today, it was only after the whistleblowers stepped forward that CBS and MSNBC decided to talk about it a little more. Last week many of us watched incisively the hearings with the whistleblowers and the new revelations coming out showing without a doubt a cover up existed and the American people were flat out lied to. Jay Carney in November 2012 stated only one change in the talking points occurred and that was a word being changed.
On all the Sunday morning MSM talk shows Democrats seems to be working lock step with each other by touting it was the fault of the CIA that more wasn’t done to save the four brave men who died on September 11, 2012. The word “witch hunt” was used several times as well. So just like during the campaign when the mantra from the left was “war on women” the new mantra is just another way to excuse the fact that this administration lied. I also watched David Gregory bring up Reagan’s 1983 Iran-Contra scandal to use in comparison to the events of Benghazi. Do you ever notice that when the administration that is in the “hot seat” is Democratic, the reason they use is to look at the past administrations under Republican as a deflector?
To the American people who are educated, informed and involved it is not a matter of who is simply in power that makes the difference to us, but rather the fact that people that we elected to represent us continue to do just the opposite. Don’t hold your breath on the thought of impeachment because frankly, the process would pass the House but fail miserably in the Senate. Instead we as conservatives need to hope that the mid-term elections of 2014 bring about a change in the makeup of Congress in our favor.
Here is a breakdown of open Senate seats for 2014:
35 seats will be contested
21 of those seats are currently held by Democrats, 14 by Republicans
6 Democrat and 2 Republican incumbents have already announced their intent to retire
If the Republicans gain control of congress impeaching Obama could happen, but having Biden step in is just a continuation of the same ideology only maybe with a Republican-controlled congress we can hope to see policies move closer to the middle and be able to see a light at the end of the tunnel. However in order for that to happen conservatives would actually have to show up at the polls and vote because trust me the Democrats will make sure they do!
http://politichicks.tv/column/impeach-the-president-then-what/
As we all know, there have been hints circulated that the act of impeachment should be considered against President Obama based on the cover up of Benghazi. However, have you thought about what would replace him if that action takes place? Most of us have used the analogy that the cover up behind the attacks on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi has the characteristics of Watergate but much more severe because four Americans died. Watergate became the scandal when it was discovered that then President Richard Nixon was involved personally with the knowledge of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee’s office in the Watergate Plaza building. Prior to that revelation representatives in office on both sides of the isle did not want to make a big deal of the initial demands of impeachment because quite frankly this was not the first time something of this nature had taken place. The Democrats did not want Spiral Agnew to be the next President if Nixon was impeached so it was only after Agnew resigned as Vice President for fear of federal prosecution that Democrats rejoiced louder for Nixon’s impeachment. I don’t know about you, but Biden has been extremely quiet lately and maybe he is reminded of Agnew’s decision.
I really don’t think we need to hold our breath on the possibility of Biden deciding to resign. So if Obama is impeached (which is still highly unlikely to happen) we would get President Biden. Is anyone else seeing this as an equal disaster for the country? Also who would Biden pick to be his new Vice President? Hillary Clinton? Nancy Pelosi? I mean the thought of either scenario is just frightening to say the least!
It is certainly interesting to watch even MSNBC discuss the word impeachment and reference Watergate as the example. Quite frankly I was looking for flying pigs after I viewed the clip of the panel of the MSNBC show “Now with Alex Wagner”, discussing this scenario.
It is certainly disingenuous for the left leaning media and Democrats to continue to defend Benghazigate as nothing more the Republican’s on a witch-hunt considering our history and what happened during Watergate. I was a young girl during Nixon’s scandal but I do recall countless news coverage both on the television and the newspapers about the story. Today, it was only after the whistleblowers stepped forward that CBS and MSNBC decided to talk about it a little more. Last week many of us watched incisively the hearings with the whistleblowers and the new revelations coming out showing without a doubt a cover up existed and the American people were flat out lied to. Jay Carney in November 2012 stated only one change in the talking points occurred and that was a word being changed.
On all the Sunday morning MSM talk shows Democrats seems to be working lock step with each other by touting it was the fault of the CIA that more wasn’t done to save the four brave men who died on September 11, 2012. The word “witch hunt” was used several times as well. So just like during the campaign when the mantra from the left was “war on women” the new mantra is just another way to excuse the fact that this administration lied. I also watched David Gregory bring up Reagan’s 1983 Iran-Contra scandal to use in comparison to the events of Benghazi. Do you ever notice that when the administration that is in the “hot seat” is Democratic, the reason they use is to look at the past administrations under Republican as a deflector?
To the American people who are educated, informed and involved it is not a matter of who is simply in power that makes the difference to us, but rather the fact that people that we elected to represent us continue to do just the opposite. Don’t hold your breath on the thought of impeachment because frankly, the process would pass the House but fail miserably in the Senate. Instead we as conservatives need to hope that the mid-term elections of 2014 bring about a change in the makeup of Congress in our favor.
Here is a breakdown of open Senate seats for 2014:
35 seats will be contested
21 of those seats are currently held by Democrats, 14 by Republicans
6 Democrat and 2 Republican incumbents have already announced their intent to retire
If the Republicans gain control of congress impeaching Obama could happen, but having Biden step in is just a continuation of the same ideology only maybe with a Republican-controlled congress we can hope to see policies move closer to the middle and be able to see a light at the end of the tunnel. However in order for that to happen conservatives would actually have to show up at the polls and vote because trust me the Democrats will make sure they do!
http://politichicks.tv/column/impeach-the-president-then-what/
JUST CHECK THE TIMELINE ON BENGHAZI
|
House Judiciary Committee Cites Federalists Society Report on Over Criminalization5/07/13
The U.S. House Judiciary Committee today distributed the following press release: House Judiciary Committee Creates Bipartisan Task Force on Over-Criminalization Washington, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee today approved by voice vote the creation of a bipartisan task force on over-criminalization to assess our current federal criminal statutes and make recommendations for improvements. |
The task force is authorized for six months and will be led by Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.) and Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-Va.). Members of the task force include Reps. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), George Holding (R-N.C.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Karen Bass (D-Calif.), and Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). Ex officio members of the task force include House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.).
At present, there are an estimated 4,500 federal crimes in the U.S. Code, many of which address conduct also regulated by the states. According to a study by the Federalist Society, the number of federal criminal offenses increased by 30 percent between 1980 and 2004. There were 452 new federal criminal offenses enacted between 2000 and 2007, averaging 56.5 new crimes per year. Over the past three decades, Congress has been averaging 500 new crimes per decade. One problem with the expansion of the federal criminal code is that along with it has come an ever-increasing labyrinth of federal regulations, often which impose criminal penalties without requiring that criminal intent be shown to establish guilt.
Below are statements on the creation of this task force from Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member Scott.
Chairman Goodlatte: “Over-criminalization is an issue of liberty. As federal criminal laws and regulations have increased, so has the number of Americans who have found themselves breaking the law with no intent of doing so. Americans who make innocent mistakes should not be charged with criminal offenses. We need to take a closer look at our laws and regulations to make sure that they protect freedom, work as efficiently and fairly as possible, and do not duplicate state efforts. I am hopeful that the bipartisan task force established today will be able to reach consensus and make recommendations to the House Judiciary Committee on how to improve our federal criminal statutes and protect our freedom.”
Ranking Member Conyers: “Unduly expansive criminal provisions in our law unnecessarily drive up incarceration rates. Almost one-quarter of the world’s inmates are locked up in the United States, yet Americans constitute only 5 percent of the world population. In addition, the incarceration rate for African Americans is six times that of the national incarceration average. I welcome the work of the over-criminalization task force in analyzing this serious issue.”
Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner: “Our current criminal code is riddled with outdated provisions, inconsistent with modifications made to reflect America’s contemporary approach to criminal law. This bipartisan task force will review federal laws in Title 18 and work to clean it up. Congress must ensure the federal role in criminal prosecutions is properly limited to offenses within federal jurisdiction and within the scope of constitutionally-delegated federal powers. I also plan to reintroduce the Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act which reforms and recodifies Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This bill cuts more than one-third of the existing criminal code, consolidates criminal offenses from other titles, and streamlines the code to make it more coherent for attorneys, judges, and Congress.”
Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Scott: “Although crime is primarily a matter for states and localities to handle, over the last 40 or so years Congress has increasingly sought to address societal problems by adding criminal provisions to the federal code. There are now over 4,000 federal criminal provisions, plus hundreds of thousands of federal regulations which impose criminal penalties, often without requiring that criminal intent be shown to establish guilt. As a result, we are hearing many complaints of overuse and abusive uses of federal criminal laws from a broad-based coalition of organizations ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Today, we are establishing a bipartisan task force on over-criminalization to assess issues and make recommendations for improvements to the federal criminal system, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this worthy endeavor.” http://judiciary.house.gov/news/2013/05082013.html
http://www.fedsocblog.com/blog/house_judiciary_committee_cites_fede...
Goodlatte Questions "Over-Criminalization" In Federal Law
David Ress
May 10, 2013 - 10:11 AM
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke County, is raising an intriguing issue people don’t talk much about these days: the steady growth of federal criminal laws, many of which deal with crimes already covered by state laws in places subject to state law.
Goodlatte is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which this week formed a bipartisan task force on what it is calling over-criminalization of federal law. The committee estimates there are now 4,500 federal crimes detailed in the U.S. Code. In addition, a number of federal regulations impose criminal penalties without requiring proof of criminal intent.
“Over-criminalization is an issue of liberty,” Goodlatte said. “As federal criminal laws and regulations have increased, so has the number of Americans who have found themselves breaking the law with no intent of doing so. Americans who make innocent mistakes should not be charged with criminal offenses.”
http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2013/05/10/goodlatte-questions-ov...
At present, there are an estimated 4,500 federal crimes in the U.S. Code, many of which address conduct also regulated by the states. According to a study by the Federalist Society, the number of federal criminal offenses increased by 30 percent between 1980 and 2004. There were 452 new federal criminal offenses enacted between 2000 and 2007, averaging 56.5 new crimes per year. Over the past three decades, Congress has been averaging 500 new crimes per decade. One problem with the expansion of the federal criminal code is that along with it has come an ever-increasing labyrinth of federal regulations, often which impose criminal penalties without requiring that criminal intent be shown to establish guilt.
Below are statements on the creation of this task force from Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member Scott.
Chairman Goodlatte: “Over-criminalization is an issue of liberty. As federal criminal laws and regulations have increased, so has the number of Americans who have found themselves breaking the law with no intent of doing so. Americans who make innocent mistakes should not be charged with criminal offenses. We need to take a closer look at our laws and regulations to make sure that they protect freedom, work as efficiently and fairly as possible, and do not duplicate state efforts. I am hopeful that the bipartisan task force established today will be able to reach consensus and make recommendations to the House Judiciary Committee on how to improve our federal criminal statutes and protect our freedom.”
Ranking Member Conyers: “Unduly expansive criminal provisions in our law unnecessarily drive up incarceration rates. Almost one-quarter of the world’s inmates are locked up in the United States, yet Americans constitute only 5 percent of the world population. In addition, the incarceration rate for African Americans is six times that of the national incarceration average. I welcome the work of the over-criminalization task force in analyzing this serious issue.”
Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner: “Our current criminal code is riddled with outdated provisions, inconsistent with modifications made to reflect America’s contemporary approach to criminal law. This bipartisan task force will review federal laws in Title 18 and work to clean it up. Congress must ensure the federal role in criminal prosecutions is properly limited to offenses within federal jurisdiction and within the scope of constitutionally-delegated federal powers. I also plan to reintroduce the Criminal Code Modernization and Simplification Act which reforms and recodifies Title 18 of the U.S. Code. This bill cuts more than one-third of the existing criminal code, consolidates criminal offenses from other titles, and streamlines the code to make it more coherent for attorneys, judges, and Congress.”
Crime Subcommittee Ranking Member Scott: “Although crime is primarily a matter for states and localities to handle, over the last 40 or so years Congress has increasingly sought to address societal problems by adding criminal provisions to the federal code. There are now over 4,000 federal criminal provisions, plus hundreds of thousands of federal regulations which impose criminal penalties, often without requiring that criminal intent be shown to establish guilt. As a result, we are hearing many complaints of overuse and abusive uses of federal criminal laws from a broad-based coalition of organizations ranging from the Heritage Foundation to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Today, we are establishing a bipartisan task force on over-criminalization to assess issues and make recommendations for improvements to the federal criminal system, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on this worthy endeavor.” http://judiciary.house.gov/news/2013/05082013.html
http://www.fedsocblog.com/blog/house_judiciary_committee_cites_fede...
Goodlatte Questions "Over-Criminalization" In Federal Law
David Ress
May 10, 2013 - 10:11 AM
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke County, is raising an intriguing issue people don’t talk much about these days: the steady growth of federal criminal laws, many of which deal with crimes already covered by state laws in places subject to state law.
Goodlatte is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which this week formed a bipartisan task force on what it is calling over-criminalization of federal law. The committee estimates there are now 4,500 federal crimes detailed in the U.S. Code. In addition, a number of federal regulations impose criminal penalties without requiring proof of criminal intent.
“Over-criminalization is an issue of liberty,” Goodlatte said. “As federal criminal laws and regulations have increased, so has the number of Americans who have found themselves breaking the law with no intent of doing so. Americans who make innocent mistakes should not be charged with criminal offenses.”
http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2013/05/10/goodlatte-questions-ov...
Posted 7 Hours Ago by Dave Jolly 05/10/2013
It has been repeatedly reported on some of our websites that President Barack Hussein Obama is guilty of multiple accounts of treason against the people and Constitution of the United States. He has not been charged with any of his many crimes because he controls the US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (Holder is just as guilty of treason as is Obama). The rest of Congress seems too spineless or fearful to say or do anything about it. |
|
But let someone else try to stand up against Obama’s crime syndicate and he’s the first one to start hollering treason.
It seems that a growing number of state governors are re-establishing State Defense Forces, also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves and State Militias. These forces are under the direct authority of the governor of the state and are not subject to federal control. They can be readily deployed in the case of any natural or man-made disasters.
As of 2010, 23 states and territories have organized State Defense Forces (SDFs) with approximately 14,000 people serving in them. SDFs were established by federal and state law at the very beginning of our country’s history. They have played important roles over the years in helping to defend our nation, however, due to many state budget deficits, SDFs are becoming a thing of the past.
The Heritage Foundation did a report on State Defense Forces back in 2010 and if you want to read more about their history, please click here.
According to a recent report, 14 governors have been working to reinstate SDFs in their states. Governors Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Rick Perry of Texas have been fronting the drive to get more states to re-establish their STFs.
The report goes on to say that each of the 14 governors have now supposedly received National Security Letters from the Obama administration demanding that they halt the formation of their SDFs or face possible charges of treason. It seems that since Obama has drastically reduced the size of the military and their forces are stretched thin with troops still in Afghanistan and Iraq, that he is fearing rebellion from the states. Further evidence of his fear of a rebellion or revolution is the fact that he has nationalized all of the state National Guard units.
Perhaps this is the reason that he has had the Department of Homeland Security purchase over 2 billion rounds of ammunition and thousands of fully automatic assault rifles.
It is typical of Obama to bully everyone who stands up to him and does not bow down and kiss their bottoms goodbye for him. He’s tried this with many states when they passed voter ID laws. He bullied and harassed Sheriff Joe Arpaio because he dared to defy Obama and investigate Obama’s birth certificate.
President Obama is the most corrupt and despicable president our country has ever had. He considers himself to be above the law, above Congress and above the Constitution. He is still actively engaged in giving aide and support to our enemies (Egypt for one) which are the definable terms for the charge of treason according to the US Constitution. He is not acting as our president but rather our dictator. He’s not any different than Fidel Castro or any other dictator in history.
If the report on the governors receiving National Security Letters is true, then America could well be on verge of a national showdown between state governors and the federal government. What better way is it for Obama to rid himself of some of his most ardent state opposition leaders than to start charging them with treason, the very crime that he is guilty of several times over?
Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/10763/treasonous-president-obama-to-charge-14-governors-with-treason/#ixzz2Sun4Q6ew
It seems that a growing number of state governors are re-establishing State Defense Forces, also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves and State Militias. These forces are under the direct authority of the governor of the state and are not subject to federal control. They can be readily deployed in the case of any natural or man-made disasters.
As of 2010, 23 states and territories have organized State Defense Forces (SDFs) with approximately 14,000 people serving in them. SDFs were established by federal and state law at the very beginning of our country’s history. They have played important roles over the years in helping to defend our nation, however, due to many state budget deficits, SDFs are becoming a thing of the past.
The Heritage Foundation did a report on State Defense Forces back in 2010 and if you want to read more about their history, please click here.
According to a recent report, 14 governors have been working to reinstate SDFs in their states. Governors Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Rick Perry of Texas have been fronting the drive to get more states to re-establish their STFs.
The report goes on to say that each of the 14 governors have now supposedly received National Security Letters from the Obama administration demanding that they halt the formation of their SDFs or face possible charges of treason. It seems that since Obama has drastically reduced the size of the military and their forces are stretched thin with troops still in Afghanistan and Iraq, that he is fearing rebellion from the states. Further evidence of his fear of a rebellion or revolution is the fact that he has nationalized all of the state National Guard units.
Perhaps this is the reason that he has had the Department of Homeland Security purchase over 2 billion rounds of ammunition and thousands of fully automatic assault rifles.
It is typical of Obama to bully everyone who stands up to him and does not bow down and kiss their bottoms goodbye for him. He’s tried this with many states when they passed voter ID laws. He bullied and harassed Sheriff Joe Arpaio because he dared to defy Obama and investigate Obama’s birth certificate.
President Obama is the most corrupt and despicable president our country has ever had. He considers himself to be above the law, above Congress and above the Constitution. He is still actively engaged in giving aide and support to our enemies (Egypt for one) which are the definable terms for the charge of treason according to the US Constitution. He is not acting as our president but rather our dictator. He’s not any different than Fidel Castro or any other dictator in history.
If the report on the governors receiving National Security Letters is true, then America could well be on verge of a national showdown between state governors and the federal government. What better way is it for Obama to rid himself of some of his most ardent state opposition leaders than to start charging them with treason, the very crime that he is guilty of several times over?
Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/10763/treasonous-president-obama-to-charge-14-governors-with-treason/#ixzz2Sun4Q6ew
BENGHAZI
FROM OUR COMPANION SITE ON FACEBOOK THIS WEEK
Beginning May 3rd
****Article V Project to Restore Liberty shared a link.
ADVANCE ARTICLE. COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE BENGHAZI TALKING POINTS.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?page=1
****The Benghazi Talking Points
www.weeklystandard.com
Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults.
*****Official: We knew Benghazi was an attack "from the get go"
****Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/
Greg Hicks - second-highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya before Benghazi strike - will testify before House Oversight Committee
www.cbsnews.com
*****Article V Project to Restore Liberty LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THIS WILL MOST LIKELY BE THE BIGGEST NEWS STORY OF THE WEEK. TESTIMONY SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY. THESE 3 POSTS HAVE MULTIPLE LINKS FOR YOU TO FOLLOW. PLEASE INFORM YOURSELF ABOUT THIS ISSUE. IT INVOLVES QUESTIONS OF LEADERSHIP AN...See More
*****Dem Rep. on Benghazi Talking Points: 'It Was Scrubbed ... It Was False Information. There's No Excus
www.weeklystandard.com
Democratic congressman Stephen Lynch said this morning on TV that Susan Rice use...See More
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty shared a link.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/dod-had-assets-pre-positioned-libya-case-it-needed-rescue-hillary-clinton
****DOD Had ‘Assets Pre-Positioned’ Off Libya—In Case It Needed to Rescue Hillary Clinton | CNS News
cnsnews.com
CNSNews.com was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.
*****http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/benghazi-whistleblowers-hearing/2013/05/04/id/502782?s=al&promo_code=13604-1
*****http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/democrats-now-critical-rice-benghazi-explanation-amid-more-damaging-evidence/
*****http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-ops-halted-from-responding-to-benghazi-attacks-us-diplomat-says/2013/05/06/c3f311d4-b677-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html
*****Special ops halted from responding to Benghazi attacks, U.S. diplomat says
www.washingtonpost.com
An account by Gregory Hicks says U.S. soldiers were told to stand down after attack on diplomatic compound.
*****Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/06/Source-Only-President-Could-Have-Made-Stand-Down-Call-During-Benghazi-Attack?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
*****Source: Only President Could Have Made 'Stand Down' Call On Benghazi
www.breitbart.com
A source with intimate information about the events that happened on the ground ...See More
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/06/Democrats-Agenda-for-Benghazi-Hearing-Protect-Hillary-at-All-Costs
*****Democrats' Agenda for Benghazi Hearing: Protect Hillary at All Costs
www.breitbart.com
Ahead of Wednesday's long-awaited hearings at the House Oversight and Government...See More
BENGHAZI UPDATES...AND BREAKING NEWS
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
*****Politics
www.foxnews.com
Presidential politics and political news from FOXNews.com. News about political ...See More
*****http://video.foxnews.com/v/2360564721001/part-1-president-obamas-election-lies-unravel/?playlist_id=2114913880001
*****Part 1: President Obama’s election lies unravel
video.foxnews.com
Benghazi witnesses prepare for bombshell testimonies
*****Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://thoughtfulwomen.org/2013/05/07/issa-no-question-obama-team-involved-in-benghazi-cover-up-video/
Issa: No Question Obama Team Involved in Benghazi Cover-Up [Video] - Thoughtful Women
thoughtfulwomen.org
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.,...See More
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/state-department-benghazi-review-panel-under-investigation-fox-news-confirms/
******State Department's Benghazi review panel under investigation, Fox News confirms
www.foxnews.com
The State Department's Office of Inspector General is investigating the special ...See More
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty shared a link.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/50693-benghazi-whistleblowers-testify-at-congressional-hearing-livestream-coverage/
Benghazi Whistleblowers Testify at Congressional Hearing: Livestream Coverage!
www.ijreview.com
Check here for livestream coverage and live updates!
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/transcript-whistle-blower-account-sept-11-libya-terror-attack/?intcmp=trending
Transcript: Whistle-blower's account of Sept. 11 Libya terror attack
www.foxnews.com
The following is the transcript of Gregory Hicks' testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the events of Sept.
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://video.foxnews.com/v/2366627195001/whistle-blower-hearing-raises-unanswered-questions/?playlist_id=2114913880001
Whistle-blower hearing raises unanswered questions
Reaction from 'Special Report' All-Star panel
*****Article V Project to Restore Liberty shared a link.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=WK9mvbQjEl0&feature=player_embedded&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DWK9mvbQjEl0
Explosive: Rep. Trey Gowdy Unloads Unreleased Email Exposing Benghazi Coverup
m.youtube.com
Explosive Video: Rep. Trey Gowdy Unloads Unreleased Email Exposing Benghazi Coverup - 5/8/2013 - http://www.BirtherReport.com - http://www.ObamaReleaseYourRe...
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/benghazi_mysteries_eV49lqZBkJ0RrDnnxAoRPO?utm_campaign=OutbrainA&utm_source=OutbrainArticlepages&obref=obinsite
******Benghazi mysteries
www.nypost.com
In what may well turn out to be the biggest Washington circus since the Watergat...See More
*******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://thehill.com/video/senate/298699-coburn-undisclosed-glaring-omission-in-benghazi-documents-will-cause-real-trouble-for-state-dept
Coburn: Undisclosed 'glaring omission' in Benghazi documents will cause 'real trouble' for State Dep
thehill.com
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.
Damning dozen twelve revelations from Benghazi hearings
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/09/the-damning-dozen-twelve-revelations-from-the-benghazi-hearings-n1591336
Mother of Benghazi victim says
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/09/mother-of-benghazi-victim-hillary-and-susan-rice-told-me-nose-to-nose-that-the-mohammed-video-was-to-blame/
Beginning May 3rd
****Article V Project to Restore Liberty shared a link.
ADVANCE ARTICLE. COMPREHENSIVE REPORT ON THE BENGHAZI TALKING POINTS.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/benghazi-talking-points_720543.html?page=1
****The Benghazi Talking Points
www.weeklystandard.com
Even as the White House strove last week to move beyond questions about the Benghazi attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2012, fresh evidence emerged that senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened in the days following the assaults.
*****Official: We knew Benghazi was an attack "from the get go"
****Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57582929/official-we-knew-benghazi-was-a-terrorist-attack-from-the-get-go/
Greg Hicks - second-highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya before Benghazi strike - will testify before House Oversight Committee
www.cbsnews.com
*****Article V Project to Restore Liberty LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THIS WILL MOST LIKELY BE THE BIGGEST NEWS STORY OF THE WEEK. TESTIMONY SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY. THESE 3 POSTS HAVE MULTIPLE LINKS FOR YOU TO FOLLOW. PLEASE INFORM YOURSELF ABOUT THIS ISSUE. IT INVOLVES QUESTIONS OF LEADERSHIP AN...See More
*****Dem Rep. on Benghazi Talking Points: 'It Was Scrubbed ... It Was False Information. There's No Excus
www.weeklystandard.com
Democratic congressman Stephen Lynch said this morning on TV that Susan Rice use...See More
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty shared a link.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/dod-had-assets-pre-positioned-libya-case-it-needed-rescue-hillary-clinton
****DOD Had ‘Assets Pre-Positioned’ Off Libya—In Case It Needed to Rescue Hillary Clinton | CNS News
cnsnews.com
CNSNews.com was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that’s ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission.
*****http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/benghazi-whistleblowers-hearing/2013/05/04/id/502782?s=al&promo_code=13604-1
*****http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/05/democrats-now-critical-rice-benghazi-explanation-amid-more-damaging-evidence/
*****http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-ops-halted-from-responding-to-benghazi-attacks-us-diplomat-says/2013/05/06/c3f311d4-b677-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html
*****Special ops halted from responding to Benghazi attacks, U.S. diplomat says
www.washingtonpost.com
An account by Gregory Hicks says U.S. soldiers were told to stand down after attack on diplomatic compound.
*****Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/06/Source-Only-President-Could-Have-Made-Stand-Down-Call-During-Benghazi-Attack?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
*****Source: Only President Could Have Made 'Stand Down' Call On Benghazi
www.breitbart.com
A source with intimate information about the events that happened on the ground ...See More
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/05/06/Democrats-Agenda-for-Benghazi-Hearing-Protect-Hillary-at-All-Costs
*****Democrats' Agenda for Benghazi Hearing: Protect Hillary at All Costs
www.breitbart.com
Ahead of Wednesday's long-awaited hearings at the House Oversight and Government...See More
BENGHAZI UPDATES...AND BREAKING NEWS
Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html
*****Politics
www.foxnews.com
Presidential politics and political news from FOXNews.com. News about political ...See More
*****http://video.foxnews.com/v/2360564721001/part-1-president-obamas-election-lies-unravel/?playlist_id=2114913880001
*****Part 1: President Obama’s election lies unravel
video.foxnews.com
Benghazi witnesses prepare for bombshell testimonies
*****Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://thoughtfulwomen.org/2013/05/07/issa-no-question-obama-team-involved-in-benghazi-cover-up-video/
Issa: No Question Obama Team Involved in Benghazi Cover-Up [Video] - Thoughtful Women
thoughtfulwomen.org
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.,...See More
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/02/state-department-benghazi-review-panel-under-investigation-fox-news-confirms/
******State Department's Benghazi review panel under investigation, Fox News confirms
www.foxnews.com
The State Department's Office of Inspector General is investigating the special ...See More
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty shared a link.
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/50693-benghazi-whistleblowers-testify-at-congressional-hearing-livestream-coverage/
Benghazi Whistleblowers Testify at Congressional Hearing: Livestream Coverage!
www.ijreview.com
Check here for livestream coverage and live updates!
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/08/transcript-whistle-blower-account-sept-11-libya-terror-attack/?intcmp=trending
Transcript: Whistle-blower's account of Sept. 11 Libya terror attack
www.foxnews.com
The following is the transcript of Gregory Hicks' testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the events of Sept.
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://video.foxnews.com/v/2366627195001/whistle-blower-hearing-raises-unanswered-questions/?playlist_id=2114913880001
Whistle-blower hearing raises unanswered questions
Reaction from 'Special Report' All-Star panel
*****Article V Project to Restore Liberty shared a link.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=WK9mvbQjEl0&feature=player_embedded&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DWK9mvbQjEl0
Explosive: Rep. Trey Gowdy Unloads Unreleased Email Exposing Benghazi Coverup
m.youtube.com
Explosive Video: Rep. Trey Gowdy Unloads Unreleased Email Exposing Benghazi Coverup - 5/8/2013 - http://www.BirtherReport.com - http://www.ObamaReleaseYourRe...
******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/benghazi_mysteries_eV49lqZBkJ0RrDnnxAoRPO?utm_campaign=OutbrainA&utm_source=OutbrainArticlepages&obref=obinsite
******Benghazi mysteries
www.nypost.com
In what may well turn out to be the biggest Washington circus since the Watergat...See More
*******Article V Project to Restore Liberty http://thehill.com/video/senate/298699-coburn-undisclosed-glaring-omission-in-benghazi-documents-will-cause-real-trouble-for-state-dept
Coburn: Undisclosed 'glaring omission' in Benghazi documents will cause 'real trouble' for State Dep
thehill.com
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.
Damning dozen twelve revelations from Benghazi hearings
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/05/09/the-damning-dozen-twelve-revelations-from-the-benghazi-hearings-n1591336
Mother of Benghazi victim says
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/09/mother-of-benghazi-victim-hillary-and-susan-rice-told-me-nose-to-nose-that-the-mohammed-video-was-to-blame/
Analysis Of Future Immigration Flow In Gang Of Eight Plan
More than 30 Million Immigrants Granted Legal Status In 10 Years; An Additional 25 Million Will Be Granted Nonimmigrant Work Visas, Bringing Total To 57 Million
Friday, May 3, 2013
The Gang of Eight has stated, “this legislation does not significantly increase long-term, annual migration to the United States” and has indicated the legislation shift the United States from low-skill and chain migration to high-skill merit-based. Conspicuously, however, they have refused to provide an estimate of future flow. A conservative analysis of the legislation, with low-range estimates for the new and expanded visa programs, reveals that the proposal would dramatically increase the future flow of low-skill workers and chain migration and provide legal status and work authorization to 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years—who will then be able to bring in family members, initiating a wave of non-merit-based chain migration that will greatly increase low-skilled immigration. Another 25 million individuals will be granted nonimmigrant work visas over that same time frame. This proposal, being rushed through the Senate, will have sweeping legal and social consequences, and—while benefiting the special interests who helped write it behind closed doors—will cause substantial economic harm to both American citizens and current legal immigrants.
Here is a shorthand way of looking at the explosive growth in the number of people who will be granted work authorization and permanent residency over the next 10 years, largely on a non-merit based track:
An estimated 2.5 million DREAM beneficiaries of any age (including those no longer living in the country) will be eligible for citizenship in five years.
DREAM beneficiaries will be able to bring in an unlimited number of parents, spouses, and children (not subject to any cap) and those spouses, children, and parents will get permanent legal status in five years and be eligible for citizenship in 10.
An estimated 800,000 illegal agricultural workers will become legal permanent residents (green card holders) in five years and will then be eligible to bring in an unlimited number of spouses and children.
An estimated 8 million additional illegal immigrants, including recent arrivals and millions of visa overstays, will receive legal status and work authorization. These 8 million will be able to bring in their relatives as soon as 10 years from now. Those relatives, over time, will be able to bring in spouses, children, and parents.
An estimated 4.5 million aliens awaiting employment and family-based visas under current cap limitations will be cleared in less than 10 years, not subject to the family-based annual cap (thus freeing up room for more family-based migration that is subject to the annual cap).
The bill increases the level of immigration through current and new visa systems. Here are just some examples of how the bill increases legal immigration through visas:
The bill creates a new merit based visa, which allows for up to 250,000 visas annually. If a little over half of the visas are issued over a 10-year period, the increase in the number of immigrants would be 1,250,000.
The bill creates a new guest worker program (W-1) for low-skilled workers with a cap of 200,000 visas annually. If a little over a half of the guest workers visas available are issued over a 10-year period, the increase in the number of immigrants would be 1,000,000.
The bill creates a new nonimmigrant agricultural workers program (W-3 & W-4 visa) which allows up to 112,333 annually. If half of the visas are issued over a 10-year period, the increase in the number of nonimmigrants would be 561,665.
The bill exempts Priority Workers (EB-1 under current law), STEM graduates, and spouses and children of LPRs from the employment-based visa caps. By taking the average number of immigrants in the two exempt categories over the past 10 years, the exemption will account for an additional 762,000 immigrants over 10 years.
The bill increases the H-1B visa cap up to 180,000 with a floor of 110,000. If half of the H-1B visas are issued over a 10-year period, the increase in the number of immigrants would be 1,450,000.
The bill leaves current employment visa caps unchanged and moderately decreases family caps, allowing 301,000 visas a year with some exemptions, but allows for unused visas from 1992 through 2013 to be recaptured. Over a 10-year period, the number of legal immigrants would be 3,879,094.
The total number of immigrants obtaining legal status from the programs listed above is 24,702,759 over a 10-year period. That number does not include other immigrant and nonimmigrant visa programs in the bill (i.e. refugee and asylum seekers, W-1 visas, W-2 visas, W-3 visas, W-4 visas), nor does it include student visas who are now allowed dual intent.
The Gang of Eight’s bill will drastically increase low-skill chain migration. Some of the chain categories are subject to an annual family-based visa cap of 161,000, including adult unmarried sons and daughters of citizens or LPRs, and married sons and daughters (under the age of 31) of U.S. citizens. However, the bill completely exempts the largest categories of chain migrants from the family- and employment-based visa caps, including spouses and children of LPRs or citizens and parents of citizens. The following illustrates how the exempt chain migration categories will dramatically increase the future flow by millions of immigrants over the next 10 years:
An estimate 2–3 million DREAM beneficiaries are eligible for legal permanent residency and citizenship after just 5 years. After receiving LPR status, the DREAMers may bring a spouse and child through the bill’s exempt chain category and, once granted citizenship, can bring their parents as well (not subject to cap). Assuming 1 million DREAMers bring any combination of two people, the future flow of immigrants would increase by over 2 million. This does not include other chain migrants that a DREAMer may petition under the caps, including adult unmarried sons and daughters, and married sons and daughters. Subsequently, the chain migrants will have the same opportunity to petition for their relatives in the same manner as the DREAMers.
In sum, over the first decade, the total number granted will be well over 32 million (not taking into account chain migration from increased legal flow). Adding in all the various categories of nonimmigrant work visas, and the number climbs to more than 57 million. Further, because approximately 7 million illegal immigrants are on a 13-year track to citizenship, there will be a second wave of chain migration initiated just outside the 10-year window (substantially increasing the net low-skill immigration).
To view this document as a PDF, including two charts which break down each category by visa and by year, please click here.
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressSho...
Friday, May 3, 2013
The Gang of Eight has stated, “this legislation does not significantly increase long-term, annual migration to the United States” and has indicated the legislation shift the United States from low-skill and chain migration to high-skill merit-based. Conspicuously, however, they have refused to provide an estimate of future flow. A conservative analysis of the legislation, with low-range estimates for the new and expanded visa programs, reveals that the proposal would dramatically increase the future flow of low-skill workers and chain migration and provide legal status and work authorization to 30 million immigrants over the next 10 years—who will then be able to bring in family members, initiating a wave of non-merit-based chain migration that will greatly increase low-skilled immigration. Another 25 million individuals will be granted nonimmigrant work visas over that same time frame. This proposal, being rushed through the Senate, will have sweeping legal and social consequences, and—while benefiting the special interests who helped write it behind closed doors—will cause substantial economic harm to both American citizens and current legal immigrants.
Here is a shorthand way of looking at the explosive growth in the number of people who will be granted work authorization and permanent residency over the next 10 years, largely on a non-merit based track:
An estimated 2.5 million DREAM beneficiaries of any age (including those no longer living in the country) will be eligible for citizenship in five years.
DREAM beneficiaries will be able to bring in an unlimited number of parents, spouses, and children (not subject to any cap) and those spouses, children, and parents will get permanent legal status in five years and be eligible for citizenship in 10.
An estimated 800,000 illegal agricultural workers will become legal permanent residents (green card holders) in five years and will then be eligible to bring in an unlimited number of spouses and children.
An estimated 8 million additional illegal immigrants, including recent arrivals and millions of visa overstays, will receive legal status and work authorization. These 8 million will be able to bring in their relatives as soon as 10 years from now. Those relatives, over time, will be able to bring in spouses, children, and parents.
An estimated 4.5 million aliens awaiting employment and family-based visas under current cap limitations will be cleared in less than 10 years, not subject to the family-based annual cap (thus freeing up room for more family-based migration that is subject to the annual cap).
The bill increases the level of immigration through current and new visa systems. Here are just some examples of how the bill increases legal immigration through visas:
The bill creates a new merit based visa, which allows for up to 250,000 visas annually. If a little over half of the visas are issued over a 10-year period, the increase in the number of immigrants would be 1,250,000.
The bill creates a new guest worker program (W-1) for low-skilled workers with a cap of 200,000 visas annually. If a little over a half of the guest workers visas available are issued over a 10-year period, the increase in the number of immigrants would be 1,000,000.
The bill creates a new nonimmigrant agricultural workers program (W-3 & W-4 visa) which allows up to 112,333 annually. If half of the visas are issued over a 10-year period, the increase in the number of nonimmigrants would be 561,665.
The bill exempts Priority Workers (EB-1 under current law), STEM graduates, and spouses and children of LPRs from the employment-based visa caps. By taking the average number of immigrants in the two exempt categories over the past 10 years, the exemption will account for an additional 762,000 immigrants over 10 years.
The bill increases the H-1B visa cap up to 180,000 with a floor of 110,000. If half of the H-1B visas are issued over a 10-year period, the increase in the number of immigrants would be 1,450,000.
The bill leaves current employment visa caps unchanged and moderately decreases family caps, allowing 301,000 visas a year with some exemptions, but allows for unused visas from 1992 through 2013 to be recaptured. Over a 10-year period, the number of legal immigrants would be 3,879,094.
The total number of immigrants obtaining legal status from the programs listed above is 24,702,759 over a 10-year period. That number does not include other immigrant and nonimmigrant visa programs in the bill (i.e. refugee and asylum seekers, W-1 visas, W-2 visas, W-3 visas, W-4 visas), nor does it include student visas who are now allowed dual intent.
The Gang of Eight’s bill will drastically increase low-skill chain migration. Some of the chain categories are subject to an annual family-based visa cap of 161,000, including adult unmarried sons and daughters of citizens or LPRs, and married sons and daughters (under the age of 31) of U.S. citizens. However, the bill completely exempts the largest categories of chain migrants from the family- and employment-based visa caps, including spouses and children of LPRs or citizens and parents of citizens. The following illustrates how the exempt chain migration categories will dramatically increase the future flow by millions of immigrants over the next 10 years:
An estimate 2–3 million DREAM beneficiaries are eligible for legal permanent residency and citizenship after just 5 years. After receiving LPR status, the DREAMers may bring a spouse and child through the bill’s exempt chain category and, once granted citizenship, can bring their parents as well (not subject to cap). Assuming 1 million DREAMers bring any combination of two people, the future flow of immigrants would increase by over 2 million. This does not include other chain migrants that a DREAMer may petition under the caps, including adult unmarried sons and daughters, and married sons and daughters. Subsequently, the chain migrants will have the same opportunity to petition for their relatives in the same manner as the DREAMers.
In sum, over the first decade, the total number granted will be well over 32 million (not taking into account chain migration from increased legal flow). Adding in all the various categories of nonimmigrant work visas, and the number climbs to more than 57 million. Further, because approximately 7 million illegal immigrants are on a 13-year track to citizenship, there will be a second wave of chain migration initiated just outside the 10-year window (substantially increasing the net low-skill immigration).
To view this document as a PDF, including two charts which break down each category by visa and by year, please click here.
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressSho...
The Sentinel has produced a fine research product concerning the 'immigration issue'. We encourage you to study the compilation of these links concerning this topic and are appreciative of the research shared.
Immigration bill to bring in at least 33 million people, says group
9:30 AM 04/26/2013
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/26/anti-immigration-group-immigratio...
Projecting Immigration’s Impact on the Size and Age Structure of the 21st Century American Population
By Steven A. Camarota December 2012
http://cis.org/projecting-immigrations-impact-on-the-size-and-age-s...
Why Less-Skilled Immigration and Amnesty Are so Costly to Taxpayers
Testimony Prepared for Senate Committee on the Judiciary
By Steven A. Camarota April 2013
http://cis.org/Testimony/Camarota-Senate-Judicary-Hearing-Bill-744
Video: Jeff Sessions and Big Sis Tangle During Immigration Hearing Over ICE Employee Morale
by Debra Heine 23 Apr 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/23/Video-Jeff-Sessions-a...
State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report
Published August 30, 2010
FoxNews.com Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/state-department-stands-...
The United States and Department of Justice
Promoting justice by prosecuting human rights violators and other international criminals
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/hrsp/
Eric Holder and the 'civil right' of amnesty
by John Hayward 27 Apr 2013
Attorney General Eric Holder burbles out a sticky pile of politically correct, intellectually challenged verbiage on the urgency of creating a "pathway to earned citizenship" for illegal aliens, i.e. amnesty:
Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.
Full Article Continues At
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/27/Eric-Holder-and-the-c...
It all boils down to....
State sovereignty versus international human rights law
http://www.examiner.com/article/state-sovereignty-versus-internatio...
Chain Migration Will Bury the Republic and Republican Party
By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | April 26th, 2013 at 10:36 AM
http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2013/04/26/chain-migration-will-...
House conservatives to push own immigration agenda
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-conservatives-to-push-...
Illegal Immigration, Open Borders, For the common good Humanity...used as a reason to go to war, Migration
Lost Sovereignty and Individualism = Collectivism
9:30 AM 04/26/2013
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/26/anti-immigration-group-immigratio...
Projecting Immigration’s Impact on the Size and Age Structure of the 21st Century American Population
By Steven A. Camarota December 2012
http://cis.org/projecting-immigrations-impact-on-the-size-and-age-s...
Why Less-Skilled Immigration and Amnesty Are so Costly to Taxpayers
Testimony Prepared for Senate Committee on the Judiciary
By Steven A. Camarota April 2013
http://cis.org/Testimony/Camarota-Senate-Judicary-Hearing-Bill-744
Video: Jeff Sessions and Big Sis Tangle During Immigration Hearing Over ICE Employee Morale
by Debra Heine 23 Apr 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/23/Video-Jeff-Sessions-a...
State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report
Published August 30, 2010
FoxNews.com Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/state-department-stands-...
The United States and Department of Justice
Promoting justice by prosecuting human rights violators and other international criminals
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/hrsp/
Eric Holder and the 'civil right' of amnesty
by John Hayward 27 Apr 2013
Attorney General Eric Holder burbles out a sticky pile of politically correct, intellectually challenged verbiage on the urgency of creating a "pathway to earned citizenship" for illegal aliens, i.e. amnesty:
Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.
Full Article Continues At
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/04/27/Eric-Holder-and-the-c...
It all boils down to....
State sovereignty versus international human rights law
http://www.examiner.com/article/state-sovereignty-versus-internatio...
Chain Migration Will Bury the Republic and Republican Party
By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary) | April 26th, 2013 at 10:36 AM
http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2013/04/26/chain-migration-will-...
House conservatives to push own immigration agenda
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-conservatives-to-push-...
Illegal Immigration, Open Borders, For the common good Humanity...used as a reason to go to war, Migration
Lost Sovereignty and Individualism = Collectivism
Becoming American: Understanding legal and illegal immigration
The United States is one hot destination. Whether the lure is Hollywood, the Statue of Liberty or the world's highest standard of living, people pour over American borders every day, searching for a better life. To do either, every one of these people is legally required to have a visa, issued by the United States Department of State. If someone comes to the United States without a visa, or stays after his or her visa is expired, that person is breaking the law.
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/immigration/becoming-american-understanding-legal-and
http://www.illegalaliens.us/
http://roygermano.com/2011/03/18/how-many-illegal-immigrants-live-in-the-united-states-and-where-do-they-come-from/
http://www.cis.org/IdentityTheft
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/solutions_to_the_illegal_immigration_problem.html
http://cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/more-documents-released-show-usdas-partnership-mexico-promoting-food-stamps
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/immigration/becoming-american-understanding-legal-and
http://www.illegalaliens.us/
http://roygermano.com/2011/03/18/how-many-illegal-immigrants-live-in-the-united-states-and-where-do-they-come-from/
http://www.cis.org/IdentityTheft
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/solutions_to_the_illegal_immigration_problem.html
http://cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/more-documents-released-show-usdas-partnership-mexico-promoting-food-stamps
How to Think About Regulation
Posted by Perry Willis — November 12, 2010Millions of people believe . . .
Without government regulation business people would run wild, laying waste to the environment, and selling us bad food, bad drugs, and harmful products.
It would be silly to claim that business people never do these things. After all . . .
But politicians and bureaucrats are people too, and subject to these same failings. Do we really solve the problem of human imperfection by giving one small group of imperfect people vast power over all the others?
That last sentence is so important that it bears constant repeating . . .
Do we really solve the problem of human imperfection by giving one small group of imperfect people vast power over all the others?
To this we might add . . .
"Is there any form of human being more imperfect than the politician?"
To give this question its proper weight, don't think only about politicians you love (if there are any). Don't cherry-pick the evidence in this way. Instead, think also of the politicians you hate. Should such people have great power over other people?
We think a strong case could be made that the worst politicians, and the worst bureaucrats, have done far more harm to humanity than the worst business people. In fact, this probably has to be true for the simple reason that the power scales are so vastly different . . .
It's important to focus on this . . .
Given this, isn't it reasonable to ask . . .
Can anything other than politicians and bureaucrats regulate how business people behave, and if so . . .
How do these non-state sources of business regulation compare to the regulations politicians and bureaucrats provide?
Consider the following answers . . .
Consumers regulate businesses.
And, because "the customer is always right," investors and lenders also regulate business owners. They do this to protect their investments from potential retaliation by dissatisfied customers. Sometimes this regulation involves direct oversight, and sometimes it involves the purchase of insurance, which then leads to this . . .
Regulation by insurance companies.
Unlike the politicians and bureaucrats, insurance companies have their own money at stake. This motivates them to regulate the companies they cover. One approach to this is product-testing through organizations like Underwriter's Laboratory. Insurance companies will only cover products that test safe.
Legal liability also regulates businesses.
This liability is determined through due process in a government court, but it differs from government regulation in a crucial way. Government regulation attempts to prejudge which products and services may be harmful, and to dictate how this danger must be mitigated, in advance.
This sounds good, but there are serious problems with it, as you will see below. By contrast, legal liability presumes that a product or service is innocent until there is evidence of harm. This is the commercial equivalent of the principle we know so well from our criminal law -- "innocent until proven guilty."
The above points expose a bit of commonly believed mythology, that a completely free market is also completely free of regulation. Clearly, nothing could be further from the truth. A free market actually has multiple levels of regulation. In fact . . .
It's inherently impossible to have a de-regulated society, for the simple reason that consumers, investors, lenders, and insurance companies will always take steps to control what businesses do, even if The State does nothing.
Taking notice of these overlooked facts allows us to think more clearly, and to refine the questions we need to answer . . .
Does the state really have a role to play in regulating businesses, beyond providing a court system for determining legal liability when there's evidence that a product or service causes harm?
Do we really need politicians and bureaucrats to craft regulations that prejudge whether a product or service is potentially harmful, and that dictate how that risk must be mitigated?
Answering these questions depends on how you respond to concerns that are even more fundamental . . .
Will the politicians and bureaucrats who devise these regulations be liable for the mistakes they make, in the same way that businesses are held liable by consumers, investors, lenders, insurance companies, and courts of law?
Can you fire politicians and bureaucrats who regulate incompetently?
Will politicians and bureaucrats have to personally pay the cost of any harm they cause, the way businesses must?
What do you do if politicians and bureaucrats abuse their power of regulation in order to reward friends and punish enemies?
What recourse do you have if politicians and bureaucrats use their vast power and resources to serve their own selfish interests?
These are powerful questions. But they are really only a more detailed way of asking the question we began with:
Do we really solve the problem of human imperfection by giving one small group of imperfect people vast power over all the others?
I humbly submit to you that the answer is NO. The real problem is NOT how to better regulate businesses, but rather, how to better regulate the politicians and the bureaucrats.
In conclusion:
Thank you for reading this educational essay. For a concrete example of the points made above, please read our essay about "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. It demonstrates that much of what a lot of people think they know about American economic history is pure myth.
This message is an educational service of the Downsize DC Foundation. Please share it with others. Please tell your friends that they can receive similar material in the future by subscribing to our free email newsletter, The Downsizer-Dispatch.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Perry Willis. Permission to distribute this blog post for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the Downsize DC Foundation. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.
http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/how-to-think-about-regulation
Without government regulation business people would run wild, laying waste to the environment, and selling us bad food, bad drugs, and harmful products.
It would be silly to claim that business people never do these things. After all . . .
- Not all people are good.
- Neither are people who are mostly good, consistently good.
- And sometimes goodness has nothing to do with it -- sometimes people simply make mistakes, out of ignorance or carelessness.
But politicians and bureaucrats are people too, and subject to these same failings. Do we really solve the problem of human imperfection by giving one small group of imperfect people vast power over all the others?
That last sentence is so important that it bears constant repeating . . .
Do we really solve the problem of human imperfection by giving one small group of imperfect people vast power over all the others?
To this we might add . . .
"Is there any form of human being more imperfect than the politician?"
To give this question its proper weight, don't think only about politicians you love (if there are any). Don't cherry-pick the evidence in this way. Instead, think also of the politicians you hate. Should such people have great power over other people?
We think a strong case could be made that the worst politicians, and the worst bureaucrats, have done far more harm to humanity than the worst business people. In fact, this probably has to be true for the simple reason that the power scales are so vastly different . . .
- Politicians and bureaucrats have a monopoly over the use of coercion.
- They also have access to vastly greater resources than even the largest company.
- And they cannot be easily fired, unlike a business.
It's important to focus on this . . .
- You can refuse to trade with Wal-Mart, or Microsoft, or Exxon, but you cannot refuse to submit to anything that the politicians and the bureaucrats tell you to do.
- You can easily switch from one business to another, but you cannot easily fire a bureaucrat or a politician.
Given this, isn't it reasonable to ask . . .
Can anything other than politicians and bureaucrats regulate how business people behave, and if so . . .
How do these non-state sources of business regulation compare to the regulations politicians and bureaucrats provide?
Consider the following answers . . .
Consumers regulate businesses.
- Consumers punish every business that provides a bad product or service.
- They also spread the word about bad companies to other consumers.
- Many consumers will even refuse to do business with companies that harm the environment.
- This form of regulation is enshrined in the proverb "The customer is always right."
And, because "the customer is always right," investors and lenders also regulate business owners. They do this to protect their investments from potential retaliation by dissatisfied customers. Sometimes this regulation involves direct oversight, and sometimes it involves the purchase of insurance, which then leads to this . . .
Regulation by insurance companies.
Unlike the politicians and bureaucrats, insurance companies have their own money at stake. This motivates them to regulate the companies they cover. One approach to this is product-testing through organizations like Underwriter's Laboratory. Insurance companies will only cover products that test safe.
Legal liability also regulates businesses.
This liability is determined through due process in a government court, but it differs from government regulation in a crucial way. Government regulation attempts to prejudge which products and services may be harmful, and to dictate how this danger must be mitigated, in advance.
This sounds good, but there are serious problems with it, as you will see below. By contrast, legal liability presumes that a product or service is innocent until there is evidence of harm. This is the commercial equivalent of the principle we know so well from our criminal law -- "innocent until proven guilty."
The above points expose a bit of commonly believed mythology, that a completely free market is also completely free of regulation. Clearly, nothing could be further from the truth. A free market actually has multiple levels of regulation. In fact . . .
It's inherently impossible to have a de-regulated society, for the simple reason that consumers, investors, lenders, and insurance companies will always take steps to control what businesses do, even if The State does nothing.
Taking notice of these overlooked facts allows us to think more clearly, and to refine the questions we need to answer . . .
Does the state really have a role to play in regulating businesses, beyond providing a court system for determining legal liability when there's evidence that a product or service causes harm?
Do we really need politicians and bureaucrats to craft regulations that prejudge whether a product or service is potentially harmful, and that dictate how that risk must be mitigated?
Answering these questions depends on how you respond to concerns that are even more fundamental . . .
Will the politicians and bureaucrats who devise these regulations be liable for the mistakes they make, in the same way that businesses are held liable by consumers, investors, lenders, insurance companies, and courts of law?
Can you fire politicians and bureaucrats who regulate incompetently?
Will politicians and bureaucrats have to personally pay the cost of any harm they cause, the way businesses must?
What do you do if politicians and bureaucrats abuse their power of regulation in order to reward friends and punish enemies?
What recourse do you have if politicians and bureaucrats use their vast power and resources to serve their own selfish interests?
These are powerful questions. But they are really only a more detailed way of asking the question we began with:
Do we really solve the problem of human imperfection by giving one small group of imperfect people vast power over all the others?
I humbly submit to you that the answer is NO. The real problem is NOT how to better regulate businesses, but rather, how to better regulate the politicians and the bureaucrats.
- They are the monopoly.
- Their power of coercion is inherently dangerous.
- They have vastly more resources than businesses.
- They are vastly more difficult to control.
In conclusion:
- The State is a monopoly -- regulate it!
- Politicians and bureaucrats have only one tool -- coercion. Regulate them!
- Businesses are peaceful and voluntary. Leave their regulation to consumers, investors, competition, and insurance companies.
Thank you for reading this educational essay. For a concrete example of the points made above, please read our essay about "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. It demonstrates that much of what a lot of people think they know about American economic history is pure myth.
This message is an educational service of the Downsize DC Foundation. Please share it with others. Please tell your friends that they can receive similar material in the future by subscribing to our free email newsletter, The Downsizer-Dispatch.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Perry Willis. Permission to distribute this blog post for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the Downsize DC Foundation. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.
http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/how-to-think-about-regulation
Win One for the Gipper? Yes, We Can!April 23, 2013 | By Nick Dranias
Even in his sunset years, Ronald Reagan understood too well that Congress will never tie its own hands when it comes to debt spending. Lamenting the repeated failure of Congress to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment, Reagan wrote on May 23, 1994: We can’t depend on Congress to discipline itself . . . we must rely on the states to force Congress to act on our amendment. Fortunately, our Nation’s Founders gave us the means to amend the Constitution through action of state legislatures . . . . That is the only strategy that will work. |
|
Reagan knew the only practical option for limiting federal debt spending was for the states to advance a Balanced Budget Amendment by convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution —not because it would be easy, but because Washington would never do it on its own. Reagan focused on a BBA not because he was a bean counter, but because he knew dispelling the illusion of limitless resources created by limitless debt spending was essential to restraining the federal government to its proper functions. And yet, decades of failed attempts have given rise to doubts over whether the states will ever successfully use their ultimate power under Article V to reform the federal government. It is time to dispel those doubts.
With the Compact for America, it has finally become feasible for the states to fix the national debt. The Compact for America is an agreement among the states to advance and ratify a pre-defined Balanced Budget Amendment. Although Congress will have a role in blessing the Compact for it to work as designed, the necessary resolution will only require simple majorities of each house of Congress, instead of the two-thirds otherwise required for a direct amendment proposal. Once three-fourths of the states join the Compact, this congressional blessing will set in motion a fully regulated convention of state governors, which will have the job of deliberating over and voting up or down the specific Balanced Budget Amendment the Compact proposes. If the convention approves the Balanced Budget Amendment, it will become the 28th Amendment.
In short, the Compact transforms the amendment by convention process into a “turn-key” operation that would be the rough equivalent of a ballot measure for the states. Rather than the 100+ state and federal enactments needed for the ordinary amendment by convention process to work (including 34 state applications, one congressional call, 26+ delegate appointments, one congressional ratification referral, and 38 state ratifications), the Compact would only need 39 enactments—one congressional blessing plus adoption by 38 states. It would thereby cut the lobbying time and resources needed for the Article V amendment process by more than 60 percent.
With the Compact for America, we can finally win one for the Gipper. And with the gross federal debt already in excess of 100 percent of GDP, we must.
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/win-one-gipper-yes-we-can
With the Compact for America, it has finally become feasible for the states to fix the national debt. The Compact for America is an agreement among the states to advance and ratify a pre-defined Balanced Budget Amendment. Although Congress will have a role in blessing the Compact for it to work as designed, the necessary resolution will only require simple majorities of each house of Congress, instead of the two-thirds otherwise required for a direct amendment proposal. Once three-fourths of the states join the Compact, this congressional blessing will set in motion a fully regulated convention of state governors, which will have the job of deliberating over and voting up or down the specific Balanced Budget Amendment the Compact proposes. If the convention approves the Balanced Budget Amendment, it will become the 28th Amendment.
In short, the Compact transforms the amendment by convention process into a “turn-key” operation that would be the rough equivalent of a ballot measure for the states. Rather than the 100+ state and federal enactments needed for the ordinary amendment by convention process to work (including 34 state applications, one congressional call, 26+ delegate appointments, one congressional ratification referral, and 38 state ratifications), the Compact would only need 39 enactments—one congressional blessing plus adoption by 38 states. It would thereby cut the lobbying time and resources needed for the Article V amendment process by more than 60 percent.
With the Compact for America, we can finally win one for the Gipper. And with the gross federal debt already in excess of 100 percent of GDP, we must.
http://goldwaterinstitute.org/blog/win-one-gipper-yes-we-can
|
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today issued a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging him to incorporate various national security concerns into the comprehensive immigration reform debate in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings. Sen. Paul believes that comprehensive immigration reform requires a strong national security and until we can fully understand the systematic failures that enabled two individuals to immigrate to the United States from an area known for being hotbed of Islamic extremism, we should not proceed.
TEXT OF LETTER: [Below] http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=776 |
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Majority Leader Reid,
As our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to those affected by the tragedy in Boston, I urge you to incorporate the following national security concerns into the comprehensive immigration reform debate. Before Congress moves forward, some important national security questions must be addressed.
I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don't use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.
We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?
There should be hearings in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that study the national security aspects of this situation, making sure that our current immigration system gives individuals from high-risk areas of the world heightened scrutiny.
In the wake of 9/11, there was a comprehensive reform of our intelligence gathering system, yet our improved intelligence gathering system did not adequately detect these extremists. We need to understand possible intelligence failures and craft solutions.
Media reports indicate that the deceased bombing suspect was interviewed by the FBI two years ago at the request of a foreign government. We need to know the details of this interview. We need to know if this interview might have given investigators any reason to conclude that this individual might be dangerous or at least worthy of further inquiry. If so, was there an intelligence failure? At the very least, it should be examined.
Media reports indicate that both the bombing suspects were legal permanent residents and one is reported to be a naturalized citizen. We need to make sure that we have safeguards against this type of situation happening again.
In 2002, Congress set up the National Security Registration System (NSEERS), yet it was suspended in 2011 by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. That system had problems, yet was still based on the practical idea that extra screening is necessary from nations that have a higher population of extremists. Congress might need a similar system updated for current circumstances to be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform.
I would like the US-VISIT/OBIM program studied to see if it actually works, or at least study the process by which we collect and analyze biometric data on immigrants.
Our refugee programs have proven to be a problem. On, January 29, 2013, two Iraqi citizens living in Bowling Green, in my home state of Kentucky, were sentenced to long prison terms for participating in terrorism and providing material support to terrorists while living in the United States. How did this happen? Does the current immigration reform address how this might have happened? We may need more scrutiny when accepting refugees from high-risk nations.
I want to make sure that any new bill addresses the visa entry and exit programs, in addition to refugee programs that have proven problematic in Bowling Green and possibly, if media reports are correct, in Boston.
Finally, do we need to take a hard look at student visas? Should we suspend student visas, or at least those from high-risk areas, pending an investigation into the national security implications of this program?
I respectfully request that the Senate consider the following two conditions as part of the comprehensive immigration reform debate:One, the Senate needs a thorough examination of the facts in Massachusetts to see if legislation is necessary to prevent a similar situation in the future. Two, national security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform to make sure the federal government does everything it can to prevent immigrants with malicious intent from using our immigration system to gain entry into the United States in order to commit future acts of terror.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul, M.D.
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Majority Leader Reid,
As our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to those affected by the tragedy in Boston, I urge you to incorporate the following national security concerns into the comprehensive immigration reform debate. Before Congress moves forward, some important national security questions must be addressed.
I believe that any real comprehensive immigration reform must implement strong national security protections. The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don't use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.
We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?
There should be hearings in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that study the national security aspects of this situation, making sure that our current immigration system gives individuals from high-risk areas of the world heightened scrutiny.
In the wake of 9/11, there was a comprehensive reform of our intelligence gathering system, yet our improved intelligence gathering system did not adequately detect these extremists. We need to understand possible intelligence failures and craft solutions.
Media reports indicate that the deceased bombing suspect was interviewed by the FBI two years ago at the request of a foreign government. We need to know the details of this interview. We need to know if this interview might have given investigators any reason to conclude that this individual might be dangerous or at least worthy of further inquiry. If so, was there an intelligence failure? At the very least, it should be examined.
Media reports indicate that both the bombing suspects were legal permanent residents and one is reported to be a naturalized citizen. We need to make sure that we have safeguards against this type of situation happening again.
In 2002, Congress set up the National Security Registration System (NSEERS), yet it was suspended in 2011 by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. That system had problems, yet was still based on the practical idea that extra screening is necessary from nations that have a higher population of extremists. Congress might need a similar system updated for current circumstances to be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform.
I would like the US-VISIT/OBIM program studied to see if it actually works, or at least study the process by which we collect and analyze biometric data on immigrants.
Our refugee programs have proven to be a problem. On, January 29, 2013, two Iraqi citizens living in Bowling Green, in my home state of Kentucky, were sentenced to long prison terms for participating in terrorism and providing material support to terrorists while living in the United States. How did this happen? Does the current immigration reform address how this might have happened? We may need more scrutiny when accepting refugees from high-risk nations.
I want to make sure that any new bill addresses the visa entry and exit programs, in addition to refugee programs that have proven problematic in Bowling Green and possibly, if media reports are correct, in Boston.
Finally, do we need to take a hard look at student visas? Should we suspend student visas, or at least those from high-risk areas, pending an investigation into the national security implications of this program?
I respectfully request that the Senate consider the following two conditions as part of the comprehensive immigration reform debate:One, the Senate needs a thorough examination of the facts in Massachusetts to see if legislation is necessary to prevent a similar situation in the future. Two, national security protections must be rolled into comprehensive immigration reform to make sure the federal government does everything it can to prevent immigrants with malicious intent from using our immigration system to gain entry into the United States in order to commit future acts of terror.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Rand Paul, M.D.
State lawmakers are already dreaming up new spending programs which they can create with additional revenue from an Internet sales tax, claims Sen. Rand Paul.
|
|
http://www.newsmax.com/US/paul-internet-sales-tax/2013/04/22/id/500770
*CISPA, what are we giving up??
" No freedom, no debate. In the midst of chaos of the Boston Marathon bomber and the explosions in Texas, on Thursday, Americans moved closer to losing more 4th amendment rights when the House of Representatives passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This came after Republican Mike Rogers (MI) held closed-door meetings with his Intelligence Committee and disallowed debate on an amendment that would have required a warrant for the government to spy on you."
CISPA now moves to the Senate.
http://www.conservative-daily.com/2013/04/21/4th-amendment-is-attacked-during-boston-mayhem/
*CISPA, what are we giving up??
" No freedom, no debate. In the midst of chaos of the Boston Marathon bomber and the explosions in Texas, on Thursday, Americans moved closer to losing more 4th amendment rights when the House of Representatives passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). This came after Republican Mike Rogers (MI) held closed-door meetings with his Intelligence Committee and disallowed debate on an amendment that would have required a warrant for the government to spy on you."
CISPA now moves to the Senate.
http://www.conservative-daily.com/2013/04/21/4th-amendment-is-attacked-during-boston-mayhem/
What would the Senate look like without the 17th Amendment?
|
By Scott Bomboy | National Constitution Center – Mon, Apr 8, 2013
It’s the 100th anniversary of the 17th Amendment, leading us to consider what today’s U.S. Senate would look like if its members weren’t directly elected by voters. Image via Wikimedia Commons. Source: Wikimedia Commons. The answer is simple: It would be probably be controlled by the Republicans, with a chance that it could be a filibuster-proof majority. Related Link: Happy Birthday, 17th Amendment! |
Given that the House is already controlled by the GOP, laws enacted by the Democrats in the past two years may not have fared well with a Republican-controlled Congress.
Prior to 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, state legislatures elected two U.S. senators to represent them in Congress.
Members in each state House and each state Senate, in most cases, would meet separately to pick a candidate as its representative in the U.S. Senate.
If the two caucuses picked the same person, the race was over and that person was sent to the U.S. Senate. (The elections were staggered so only one senator was chosen every two or four years.) But if different candidates were preferred for that one U.S. Senate seat, the legislatures met in a combined session until they could agree on a selection.
This indirect selection method had its flaws. Deadlocks could prevent a state from sending someone to Congress.
In a research paper, Wendy Schiller from Brown University and Charles Stewart III from MIT looked extensively at data between 1871 and 1913 about indirect U.S. Senate elections.
About 75 percent of the elections were handled quickly within state legislatures, and in 69 percent of cases, a majority party was able to elect the same candidate in each chamber. Other races were resolved in joint assemblies.
Only 2 percent of the races ended in a deadlock–but these deadlocks were devastating, because they prevented patronage jobs from being appointed.
Jumping forward 100 years, Constitution Daily looked at the current composition of state legislatures to see how the U.S. Senate would look if it reflected how Democrats and Republicans currently control state Houses and Senates.
If we consider any state chamber that has a margin between the two parties of less than 10 percent as “undecided,” the breakdown would be 51 seats for the Republicans, 36 for the Democrats, and 15 seats undecided (where chambers have a smaller difference between the parties).
Along strict party lines, the GOP would have 58 seats in the U.S. Senate, with 41 seats for the Democrats, and one seat deadlocked. That would put the Republicans within two votes of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.
Currently, the Democrats control 53 seats in the U.S. Senate; plus, two independent senators caucus with the Democrats.
In 2009, the Senate would have looked different under a Constitution without the 17th Amendment. Before the 2010 midterm elections shifted power at a state level to the Republicans, the Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures, with the GOP in control of 14 states and 8 states with split legislatures.
The Democrats lost control of nine state legislatures in those midterm elections, and the Republicans now control 27 state legislatures.
The amendment ratified 100 years ago still has its critics, particularly among states’ rights advocates. Just last month, Georgia state legislators proposed a resolution asking Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Repeal proponents have pointed to several benefits. Foremost, it gives state governments a direct voice in the federal government and budgeting process, something proponents believe reflect the desire of the Founding Fathers for states to have a dynamic role in Washington.
But other factors would make repeal problematic. Only one amendment, the 18th, has ever been repealed, when the 21st Amendment ended Prohibition.
The anti-17th Amendment forces would need 38 states to ratify a repeal amendment, which is no small task, since two-thirds of Congress or the states would need to agree to offer one up for ratification votes.
And there is the debate over redistricting–specifically, how states each determine the districts that send representatives to the state capital. For example, Pennsylvania currently has 50 U.S. Senate districts and 203 U.S. House districts. Redrawing those districts would be as critical to a U.S. Senate election as redistricting is at a federal level for U.S. House of Representative elections.
Another factor would be campaign spending. Millions of dollars of outside money poured into 2012 U.S. Senate elections. According to data from the Campaign Finance Institute, $315 million was spent on U.S. Senate campaigns in 2012. The U.S. Senate race in Virginia has $51 million in spending by itself. Under the pre-1913 voting rules, the candidates for that seat wouldn’t even be in play until after the November general election was over, so there would be no opportunity for special interests to invest in campaigns.
On top of these challenges, perhaps the most significant factor preventing repeal would be what helped the amendment pass in the first place–the idea that the direct election of senators, giving power to the people rather than the states, is the most democratic approach.
Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-look-without-17th-amendment-095822973....
Prior to 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, state legislatures elected two U.S. senators to represent them in Congress.
Members in each state House and each state Senate, in most cases, would meet separately to pick a candidate as its representative in the U.S. Senate.
If the two caucuses picked the same person, the race was over and that person was sent to the U.S. Senate. (The elections were staggered so only one senator was chosen every two or four years.) But if different candidates were preferred for that one U.S. Senate seat, the legislatures met in a combined session until they could agree on a selection.
This indirect selection method had its flaws. Deadlocks could prevent a state from sending someone to Congress.
In a research paper, Wendy Schiller from Brown University and Charles Stewart III from MIT looked extensively at data between 1871 and 1913 about indirect U.S. Senate elections.
About 75 percent of the elections were handled quickly within state legislatures, and in 69 percent of cases, a majority party was able to elect the same candidate in each chamber. Other races were resolved in joint assemblies.
Only 2 percent of the races ended in a deadlock–but these deadlocks were devastating, because they prevented patronage jobs from being appointed.
Jumping forward 100 years, Constitution Daily looked at the current composition of state legislatures to see how the U.S. Senate would look if it reflected how Democrats and Republicans currently control state Houses and Senates.
If we consider any state chamber that has a margin between the two parties of less than 10 percent as “undecided,” the breakdown would be 51 seats for the Republicans, 36 for the Democrats, and 15 seats undecided (where chambers have a smaller difference between the parties).
Along strict party lines, the GOP would have 58 seats in the U.S. Senate, with 41 seats for the Democrats, and one seat deadlocked. That would put the Republicans within two votes of a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.
Currently, the Democrats control 53 seats in the U.S. Senate; plus, two independent senators caucus with the Democrats.
In 2009, the Senate would have looked different under a Constitution without the 17th Amendment. Before the 2010 midterm elections shifted power at a state level to the Republicans, the Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures, with the GOP in control of 14 states and 8 states with split legislatures.
The Democrats lost control of nine state legislatures in those midterm elections, and the Republicans now control 27 state legislatures.
The amendment ratified 100 years ago still has its critics, particularly among states’ rights advocates. Just last month, Georgia state legislators proposed a resolution asking Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Repeal proponents have pointed to several benefits. Foremost, it gives state governments a direct voice in the federal government and budgeting process, something proponents believe reflect the desire of the Founding Fathers for states to have a dynamic role in Washington.
But other factors would make repeal problematic. Only one amendment, the 18th, has ever been repealed, when the 21st Amendment ended Prohibition.
The anti-17th Amendment forces would need 38 states to ratify a repeal amendment, which is no small task, since two-thirds of Congress or the states would need to agree to offer one up for ratification votes.
And there is the debate over redistricting–specifically, how states each determine the districts that send representatives to the state capital. For example, Pennsylvania currently has 50 U.S. Senate districts and 203 U.S. House districts. Redrawing those districts would be as critical to a U.S. Senate election as redistricting is at a federal level for U.S. House of Representative elections.
Another factor would be campaign spending. Millions of dollars of outside money poured into 2012 U.S. Senate elections. According to data from the Campaign Finance Institute, $315 million was spent on U.S. Senate campaigns in 2012. The U.S. Senate race in Virginia has $51 million in spending by itself. Under the pre-1913 voting rules, the candidates for that seat wouldn’t even be in play until after the November general election was over, so there would be no opportunity for special interests to invest in campaigns.
On top of these challenges, perhaps the most significant factor preventing repeal would be what helped the amendment pass in the first place–the idea that the direct election of senators, giving power to the people rather than the states, is the most democratic approach.
Scott Bomboy is the editor-in-chief of the National Constitution Center.
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-look-without-17th-amendment-095822973....
Obama Admin has been put down 6 times by the Supreme court rejected . .
|
The REAL Weapon of Government TyrannyWritten by Damon Geller
As talk of serious gun control dominates our politics and media, many people are warning of an assault on our Second Amendment and the threat of government tyranny if we civilians are disarmed. Tragically, government tyranny is not a future nightmare; government tyranny is a reality here and now. And in the 21st century, the tyrants don’t care if we have guns or not. The weapons they're using to tyrannize us don't have a chamber or a barrel – the real weapons of tyranny do not involve guns and cannot be halted by guns. Rather, the real weapons of tyranny slowly bankrupt us and threaten our future and security. And there's only one true "protector" that rises to our defense. |
Taxation by Inflation
While the country is force-fed the fight over gun-control by the media like a poisonous potion, we’re looking at an impending debt BOMB that will inevitably bankrupt this nation, finish-off the gutting of our middle class and our retirees, and ultimately tax everyone to the moon. The real tyranny people need to be protecting themselves from in a big way is the unchecked tyranny of central banks and their monetary destruction.
The Fed debases your currency on a daily basis to steal wealth through an unfair and unconstitutional taxation called inflation. Central banks are the monetary cornerstone of an essentially Communist system. Gun rights may indeed be worth fighting over, but even without gun control, you’re already being subjugated by your own government and The Fed now. A gun isn’t going to protect you from current monetary tyranny or keep you from having your wealth robbed by a collection of sociopaths that have taken over our political, financial and economic systems.
How Do You Protect Yourself From This Type Of Tyranny?
You move some of your wealth out of government controlled “fiat” currency, which can be printed all day, and into a hard asset that has protected people against government money corruption and government created inflation for thousands of years. You must hold some hard gold and silver to protect yourself during times like these.
The Debt and Debasement of Currencies will Never Stop
Yes, The Land of The Free is set to impose gun rights restrictions. I would argue, much more importantly, no one is talking about fiscal restrictions or central bank control. The United States Government constantly teeters on the verge of defaulting on its mountain of debt. The German Central Bank has announced that they will withdraw their massive gold holdings from the United States and repatriate it in an unprecedented move that clearly indicates central banks around the world don’t trust each other – and specifically don’t trust the US Federal Reserve or The US Treasury, both of whom have refused to allow gold audits for years.
We exceeded the US debt-ceiling of $16.39 trillion on Jan 1, 2013. The arguing hasn’t even begun yet, but the Treasury has already said it will begin tapping civil servant retirement funds because Congress has not yet raised the ceiling and we’re BROKE. For a little history, Gold ran from $1500/oz. to $1900/oz. in a three-month period from June to September, 2011 the last time the politicians had a big fight over a debt ceiling. The US also came very close to losing its credit rating. During times of corrupt monetary policy, rogue governments and a corrosion of public confidence in our political, economic and financial systems, one must own the one asset that detaches your wealth from all of them: hard gold and silver.
They WILL Raise the Ceiling
As Citigroup has predicted, “First Complacency, Then Horror” is the current and common path through these fiscal messes. Asset markets are likely to ignore the debt ceiling until the last minute, or even later, and then rather than being proactive people, we will be stuck in reactive panic.
There is no choice but to raise the debt ceiling. And debt is a self-imploding monster with a set path. The only question is not if but when the DEBT-BOMB explodes. Raising the debt ceiling (or not raising the debt ceiling) has no effect on spending. Raising the ceiling simply allows the Treasury to pay for spending that congress has already approved. The bottom line is, debt cannot be reduced, period. We don’t pay the compounding interest on our debt; we borrow more money and add it back into the deficit.
The Treasury has debt running up to $28 trillion by 2018. That’s a $1.5 trillion deficit per year (plus compounded interest) for 6 years. Gold and gas prices follow debt. If the cost of gasoline to move your car (or get food to your area) is going to double by 2018 as debt doubles, so will gold. That means gold is protecting your purchase power against the coming debt bomb and the inflation that will follow.
Here’s the correlation between Debt, Gold and Gas since 2005:
2005 US Debt = 7.6T | Gold = $430/oz. | Gas = $1.82/gallon
2006 US Debt = 8.1T | Gold = $520/oz. | Gas = $2.28/gallon
2007 US Debt = 8.7T | Gold = $635/oz. | Gas = $2.40/gallon
2008 US Debt = 10.7T | Gold = $875/oz. | Gas = $2.90/gallon
2009 US Debt = 10.6T | Gold = $855/oz. | Gas = $1.90/gallon
2010 US Debt = 12.3T | Gold = $1,100/oz. | Gas = $2.80/gallon
2011 US Debt = 14T | Gold = $1,360/oz. | Gas = $3.15/gallon
2012 US Debt = 15.2T | Gold = $1,545/oz. | Gas = $3.40/gallon
And here’s where we’re going:
2013 US Debt = 17T | Gold = $1,875/oz. | Gas = $4.50/gallon
2014 US Debt = 18.8T | Gold = $2,200/oz. | Gas = $5.00/gallon
2015 US Debt = 21T | Gold = $2,600/oz. | Gas = $6.00/gallon
2016 US Debt = 22.7T | Gold = $3,100/oz. | Gas = $6.75/gallon
2017 US Debt = 25.5T | Gold = $3,575/oz. | Gas = $7.50/gallon
2018 US Debt = 28T | Gold = $3,800/oz. | Gas = $9.00/gallon
And so on, with many outside shots of inflation breaking out, banking systems imploding, currencies failing, or any host of black-swan events that could speed this trajectory.
We Have Passed the point of No Return
As a result of our actions, money printing will accelerate at a much faster pace in order to service that debt and keep interest rates low, which will further drive up the debt. The fact is, debt MUST grow because of compounding interest and spending liabilities, yet it can’t grow forever. At some point in this debt accumulation process we hit a wall; there’s an “end game.” That end game is either when the service on our debt exceeds our income or when the rest of the world stops loaning the US money and the Fed can’t possibly print enough money to support the Treasury market. At that point, rates rise, credit ratings get hit and economic growth literally stops.
Essentially we have passed the point of no return. We are taking a HUGE portion of this nation’s income just to service the interest on the debt we’ve already incurred. Yes, rates are very low, but imagine if you had a $17 trillion credit card bill! Even with rates as low as they can be, the United States spent $133,728,304,681.78 just on interest last year! Most of that interest in simply compounded, added to the debt number and borrowed against. So debt WILL keep growing regardless of gun control, debt ceilings, fiscal cliffs, political discord, banking fraud or literally anything else.
Prepare NOW. There is an End Game
You won't be worse off for taking control of your retirement. You won't be worse off for holding some of your hard-earned retirement in hard gold in a jurisdiction where politicians can't seize it. You won't be worse off for having some precious metals stashed away close to you and you certainly won’t be worse off for getting at least a meaningful percentage of your wealth out of the “system” and into a hard asset that is not connected to banks, governments, or politicians or that can be debased by central bankers. Hold some of the one global currency that has outlasted every paper currency ever invented and has been a wealth preserver for over 5000 years. You must hold some hard gold and silver in times like these.
While the country is force-fed the fight over gun-control by the media like a poisonous potion, we’re looking at an impending debt BOMB that will inevitably bankrupt this nation, finish-off the gutting of our middle class and our retirees, and ultimately tax everyone to the moon. The real tyranny people need to be protecting themselves from in a big way is the unchecked tyranny of central banks and their monetary destruction.
The Fed debases your currency on a daily basis to steal wealth through an unfair and unconstitutional taxation called inflation. Central banks are the monetary cornerstone of an essentially Communist system. Gun rights may indeed be worth fighting over, but even without gun control, you’re already being subjugated by your own government and The Fed now. A gun isn’t going to protect you from current monetary tyranny or keep you from having your wealth robbed by a collection of sociopaths that have taken over our political, financial and economic systems.
How Do You Protect Yourself From This Type Of Tyranny?
You move some of your wealth out of government controlled “fiat” currency, which can be printed all day, and into a hard asset that has protected people against government money corruption and government created inflation for thousands of years. You must hold some hard gold and silver to protect yourself during times like these.
The Debt and Debasement of Currencies will Never Stop
Yes, The Land of The Free is set to impose gun rights restrictions. I would argue, much more importantly, no one is talking about fiscal restrictions or central bank control. The United States Government constantly teeters on the verge of defaulting on its mountain of debt. The German Central Bank has announced that they will withdraw their massive gold holdings from the United States and repatriate it in an unprecedented move that clearly indicates central banks around the world don’t trust each other – and specifically don’t trust the US Federal Reserve or The US Treasury, both of whom have refused to allow gold audits for years.
We exceeded the US debt-ceiling of $16.39 trillion on Jan 1, 2013. The arguing hasn’t even begun yet, but the Treasury has already said it will begin tapping civil servant retirement funds because Congress has not yet raised the ceiling and we’re BROKE. For a little history, Gold ran from $1500/oz. to $1900/oz. in a three-month period from June to September, 2011 the last time the politicians had a big fight over a debt ceiling. The US also came very close to losing its credit rating. During times of corrupt monetary policy, rogue governments and a corrosion of public confidence in our political, economic and financial systems, one must own the one asset that detaches your wealth from all of them: hard gold and silver.
They WILL Raise the Ceiling
As Citigroup has predicted, “First Complacency, Then Horror” is the current and common path through these fiscal messes. Asset markets are likely to ignore the debt ceiling until the last minute, or even later, and then rather than being proactive people, we will be stuck in reactive panic.
There is no choice but to raise the debt ceiling. And debt is a self-imploding monster with a set path. The only question is not if but when the DEBT-BOMB explodes. Raising the debt ceiling (or not raising the debt ceiling) has no effect on spending. Raising the ceiling simply allows the Treasury to pay for spending that congress has already approved. The bottom line is, debt cannot be reduced, period. We don’t pay the compounding interest on our debt; we borrow more money and add it back into the deficit.
The Treasury has debt running up to $28 trillion by 2018. That’s a $1.5 trillion deficit per year (plus compounded interest) for 6 years. Gold and gas prices follow debt. If the cost of gasoline to move your car (or get food to your area) is going to double by 2018 as debt doubles, so will gold. That means gold is protecting your purchase power against the coming debt bomb and the inflation that will follow.
Here’s the correlation between Debt, Gold and Gas since 2005:
2005 US Debt = 7.6T | Gold = $430/oz. | Gas = $1.82/gallon
2006 US Debt = 8.1T | Gold = $520/oz. | Gas = $2.28/gallon
2007 US Debt = 8.7T | Gold = $635/oz. | Gas = $2.40/gallon
2008 US Debt = 10.7T | Gold = $875/oz. | Gas = $2.90/gallon
2009 US Debt = 10.6T | Gold = $855/oz. | Gas = $1.90/gallon
2010 US Debt = 12.3T | Gold = $1,100/oz. | Gas = $2.80/gallon
2011 US Debt = 14T | Gold = $1,360/oz. | Gas = $3.15/gallon
2012 US Debt = 15.2T | Gold = $1,545/oz. | Gas = $3.40/gallon
And here’s where we’re going:
2013 US Debt = 17T | Gold = $1,875/oz. | Gas = $4.50/gallon
2014 US Debt = 18.8T | Gold = $2,200/oz. | Gas = $5.00/gallon
2015 US Debt = 21T | Gold = $2,600/oz. | Gas = $6.00/gallon
2016 US Debt = 22.7T | Gold = $3,100/oz. | Gas = $6.75/gallon
2017 US Debt = 25.5T | Gold = $3,575/oz. | Gas = $7.50/gallon
2018 US Debt = 28T | Gold = $3,800/oz. | Gas = $9.00/gallon
And so on, with many outside shots of inflation breaking out, banking systems imploding, currencies failing, or any host of black-swan events that could speed this trajectory.
We Have Passed the point of No Return
As a result of our actions, money printing will accelerate at a much faster pace in order to service that debt and keep interest rates low, which will further drive up the debt. The fact is, debt MUST grow because of compounding interest and spending liabilities, yet it can’t grow forever. At some point in this debt accumulation process we hit a wall; there’s an “end game.” That end game is either when the service on our debt exceeds our income or when the rest of the world stops loaning the US money and the Fed can’t possibly print enough money to support the Treasury market. At that point, rates rise, credit ratings get hit and economic growth literally stops.
Essentially we have passed the point of no return. We are taking a HUGE portion of this nation’s income just to service the interest on the debt we’ve already incurred. Yes, rates are very low, but imagine if you had a $17 trillion credit card bill! Even with rates as low as they can be, the United States spent $133,728,304,681.78 just on interest last year! Most of that interest in simply compounded, added to the debt number and borrowed against. So debt WILL keep growing regardless of gun control, debt ceilings, fiscal cliffs, political discord, banking fraud or literally anything else.
Prepare NOW. There is an End Game
You won't be worse off for taking control of your retirement. You won't be worse off for holding some of your hard-earned retirement in hard gold in a jurisdiction where politicians can't seize it. You won't be worse off for having some precious metals stashed away close to you and you certainly won’t be worse off for getting at least a meaningful percentage of your wealth out of the “system” and into a hard asset that is not connected to banks, governments, or politicians or that can be debased by central bankers. Hold some of the one global currency that has outlasted every paper currency ever invented and has been a wealth preserver for over 5000 years. You must hold some hard gold and silver in times like these.
|
Bush, Obama focus on standardized testing leads to ‘opt-out’ parents’ movementBy Lyndsey Layton, Published: April 14
A decade into the school accountability movement, pockets of resistance to standardized testing are sprouting up around the country, with parents and students opting out of the high-stakes tests used to evaluate schools and teachers. |
From Seattle, where 600 high school students refused to take a standardized test in January, to Texas, where 86 percent of school districts say the tests are “strangling our public schools,” anti-testing groups argue that bubble exams have proliferated beyond reason, delivering more angst than benefits.
“Over the last couple of years, they’ve turned this one test into the all and everything,” said Cindy Hamilton, a 50-year-old mother of three in Florida who founded Opt Out Orlando in response to the annual Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which starts again Monday. Her group is one of dozens of new organizations opposed to such testing.
The opt-out movement is nascent but growing, propelled by parents, students and some educators using social media to swap tips on ways to spurn the tests. They argue that the exams cause stress for young children, narrow classroom curricula, and, in the worst scenarios, have led to cheating because of the stakes involved — teacher compensation and job security.
Standardized testing is one of the most controversial aspects of the accountability movement that began in earnest in 2002 when President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act.
That law required public schools for the first time to test students annually in grades three through eight and once in high school. Schools were required to show steadily improving scores until all students tested proficient in math and reading by 2014, or face escalating sanctions. Civil rights groups, progressives and conservatives united behind the idea that testing would hold schools accountable for educating all students.
“If a test is done right . . . there is no more efficient, less expensive, no simpler way to get a snapshot of whether students are effectively learning,” said Sandy Kress, a Texas lawyer and former Bush aide who has been working on school accountability issues for 25 years and helped write No Child Left Behind.
“It should be a tool to understand where students are, where achievement gaps exist, provide diagnostic information to teachers and parents,” said Kress, who lobbies on behalf of Pearson, the education publisher that writes K-12 tests. “It’s one, objective piece of data that can push and assure quality.”
But too many school districts have gone overboard, he said.
“You’ve got drilling and benchmark testing every six weeks,” Kress said. “Clearly, there’s a lot of overtesting in a lot of places. It’s just awful, and it draws really negative reactions from parents, teachers and communities. Tests weren’t intended to be treated that way.”
Some say the Obama administration has pushed the stakes even higher through its Race to the Top program, which encourages states to use the standardized test scores to evaluate teachers. In some states, as much as half of a teacher’s job evaluation is now determined by student scores on standardized tests.
http://wapo.st/113pnRN
“Over the last couple of years, they’ve turned this one test into the all and everything,” said Cindy Hamilton, a 50-year-old mother of three in Florida who founded Opt Out Orlando in response to the annual Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which starts again Monday. Her group is one of dozens of new organizations opposed to such testing.
The opt-out movement is nascent but growing, propelled by parents, students and some educators using social media to swap tips on ways to spurn the tests. They argue that the exams cause stress for young children, narrow classroom curricula, and, in the worst scenarios, have led to cheating because of the stakes involved — teacher compensation and job security.
Standardized testing is one of the most controversial aspects of the accountability movement that began in earnest in 2002 when President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act.
That law required public schools for the first time to test students annually in grades three through eight and once in high school. Schools were required to show steadily improving scores until all students tested proficient in math and reading by 2014, or face escalating sanctions. Civil rights groups, progressives and conservatives united behind the idea that testing would hold schools accountable for educating all students.
“If a test is done right . . . there is no more efficient, less expensive, no simpler way to get a snapshot of whether students are effectively learning,” said Sandy Kress, a Texas lawyer and former Bush aide who has been working on school accountability issues for 25 years and helped write No Child Left Behind.
“It should be a tool to understand where students are, where achievement gaps exist, provide diagnostic information to teachers and parents,” said Kress, who lobbies on behalf of Pearson, the education publisher that writes K-12 tests. “It’s one, objective piece of data that can push and assure quality.”
But too many school districts have gone overboard, he said.
“You’ve got drilling and benchmark testing every six weeks,” Kress said. “Clearly, there’s a lot of overtesting in a lot of places. It’s just awful, and it draws really negative reactions from parents, teachers and communities. Tests weren’t intended to be treated that way.”
Some say the Obama administration has pushed the stakes even higher through its Race to the Top program, which encourages states to use the standardized test scores to evaluate teachers. In some states, as much as half of a teacher’s job evaluation is now determined by student scores on standardized tests.
http://wapo.st/113pnRN
Ron Paul’s Online Curriculum: I’m Director of Curriculum Development.
|
Written by Gary North on April 11, 2013 The Ron Paul Curriculum is an online, homeschool curriculum like nothing else ever assembled: a free market-based curriculum with a core course, the history of Western civilization. I am assembling the curriculum. Dr. Tom Woods (Meltdown) is working with me. On September 2, the site will post its first high school courses: personal finance, English, public speaking, government, Western civilization, algebra/geometry/logic, introduction to science, and biology. It will also start posting middle school courses. Grades K-5 will be free. Today, your teenager can take my course on high school preparation, which will get students ready for September 2. It covers study habits, speed reading, goal-setting, time management, leadership, note-taking, and much more. Here’s a 90-second description. |
If you want to get an idea of what the entire curriculum will offer, give me five minutes to explain. If this sounds good to you, be sure to read the frequently asked questions. Click the link at the bottom of this page. Once you read them, you will not need to send me an email about this . . . I hope. (I have this nightmare of 2,000 e-mails: “I have just one question. It will only take a minute of your time.”)
Continue Reading on www.ronpaulcurriculum.com
Continue Reading on www.ronpaulcurriculum.com
SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitutional Issues In Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by Rob Natelson
I’ve found that most of the discussion about same-sex marriage, even among lawyers, tends to mis-characterize the constitutional issues. This is particularly true of the “equal protection” issues.
Under the Constitution as originally understood, jurisdiction over domestic relations outside federal enclaves and federal territories was reserved to the states.
State laws dealing with domestic relations are, however, subject to the mandates of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision requires states to honor “due process of law” and to grant all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” (The Supreme Court has added that the Fifth Amendment imposes a similar equal protection standard on the federal government; a more credible reading of the Constitution would derive some federal equal protection obligations from the “proper” component of the Necessary and Proper Clause.)
Modern Supreme Court Due Process cases recognize a constitutional right to make free sexual and co-habitation choices, both heterosexual and homosexual. People also have the right to obtain religious sanction for unions not recognized by state civil marriage laws. But there is no general federal constitutional right to the government benefits bestowed by state civil marriage laws; indeed, the states are not required to adopt civil marriage laws at all.Some commentators argue we would be better off if they didn’t, and formal recognition of marriage were left to the private sector.
It is important to understand what civil marriage laws are. They are enactments authorizing the grant of special state benefits for certain kinds of unions. In other words, they give to people in qualifying relationships what the Framers called “privileges and immunities”—an 18th century legal phrase that refers to benefits bestowed by government on some people to the exclusion of others.American governments traditionally have conceded the “privileges and immunities” of civil marriage only to a social union complying with certain exacting requirements. With some variations, state laws traditionally require that the union be (1) of a man and a woman, (2) who undergo certain procedures in advance, (3) obtain a valid license, (4) have consented, (5) are above a certain age, (6) are not married to any one else, (7) are not too closely related to each other, and (8) meet certain other requirements of ceremony and/or cohabitation. States traditionally have excluded from special benefits all other groupings—including, but not limited to, same-sex marriages, polygamous marriages, polyandric marriages, other plural clusters, designated intra-family unions (e.g., brother/sister and uncle/niece), and unions that are unlicensed or that otherwise fail to meet the states’ rules.
Now we come to the big question: Does a state’s decision to grant benefits to just one sort of union violate the equal protection doctrine? A grant of special privileges to one group while excluding others does violate that doctrine unless the state can point to legitimate public reasons for its decision. How strong the reasons have to be depends on the kind of case. For better or worse, the Supreme Court is very tolerant of government discrimination among economic classes. In social-issue cases, on the other hand, the Court sets more exacting standards.
Get the Book Today!
It is clear that for constitutional purposes civil marriage laws that include one man/one woman unions do meet those exacting standards. This is because of the overwhelming evidence of social benefit deriving from such unions. This evidence arises both from formal empirical studies and from practical experience gathered, quite literally, over millennia.
What about extending the “privileges and immunities” of civil marriage to other groupings? That’s a much tougher case to make because, with the arguable exception of polygamous marriage, the supporting evidence is so much weaker.Particularly in the case of same-sex marriage, the evidence of social benefit is spotty and highly politicized. Under Supreme Court Equal Protection jurisprudence, it is not strong enough to require states to recognize such unions.
Thus, under existing Supreme Court Equal Protection doctrine, the real issue is not whether the evidence is sufficient to compel states to recognize same-sex marriage. The real issue is whether that evidence is sufficient to justify states granting to same-sex couples “privileges and immunities” that most other groupings—such as polygamous and polyandrous unions—do not receive.
My own view, for what it is worth, is that such questions are best left to the individual states to resolve. That doesn’t address the special problems arising under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but it’s a good general principle.
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.constitution.i2i.org/about/.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 at 10:36 pm. It is filed under Featured, Founding Principles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Posted by Rob Natelson
I’ve found that most of the discussion about same-sex marriage, even among lawyers, tends to mis-characterize the constitutional issues. This is particularly true of the “equal protection” issues.
Under the Constitution as originally understood, jurisdiction over domestic relations outside federal enclaves and federal territories was reserved to the states.
State laws dealing with domestic relations are, however, subject to the mandates of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision requires states to honor “due process of law” and to grant all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” (The Supreme Court has added that the Fifth Amendment imposes a similar equal protection standard on the federal government; a more credible reading of the Constitution would derive some federal equal protection obligations from the “proper” component of the Necessary and Proper Clause.)
Modern Supreme Court Due Process cases recognize a constitutional right to make free sexual and co-habitation choices, both heterosexual and homosexual. People also have the right to obtain religious sanction for unions not recognized by state civil marriage laws. But there is no general federal constitutional right to the government benefits bestowed by state civil marriage laws; indeed, the states are not required to adopt civil marriage laws at all.Some commentators argue we would be better off if they didn’t, and formal recognition of marriage were left to the private sector.
It is important to understand what civil marriage laws are. They are enactments authorizing the grant of special state benefits for certain kinds of unions. In other words, they give to people in qualifying relationships what the Framers called “privileges and immunities”—an 18th century legal phrase that refers to benefits bestowed by government on some people to the exclusion of others.American governments traditionally have conceded the “privileges and immunities” of civil marriage only to a social union complying with certain exacting requirements. With some variations, state laws traditionally require that the union be (1) of a man and a woman, (2) who undergo certain procedures in advance, (3) obtain a valid license, (4) have consented, (5) are above a certain age, (6) are not married to any one else, (7) are not too closely related to each other, and (8) meet certain other requirements of ceremony and/or cohabitation. States traditionally have excluded from special benefits all other groupings—including, but not limited to, same-sex marriages, polygamous marriages, polyandric marriages, other plural clusters, designated intra-family unions (e.g., brother/sister and uncle/niece), and unions that are unlicensed or that otherwise fail to meet the states’ rules.
Now we come to the big question: Does a state’s decision to grant benefits to just one sort of union violate the equal protection doctrine? A grant of special privileges to one group while excluding others does violate that doctrine unless the state can point to legitimate public reasons for its decision. How strong the reasons have to be depends on the kind of case. For better or worse, the Supreme Court is very tolerant of government discrimination among economic classes. In social-issue cases, on the other hand, the Court sets more exacting standards.
Get the Book Today!
It is clear that for constitutional purposes civil marriage laws that include one man/one woman unions do meet those exacting standards. This is because of the overwhelming evidence of social benefit deriving from such unions. This evidence arises both from formal empirical studies and from practical experience gathered, quite literally, over millennia.
What about extending the “privileges and immunities” of civil marriage to other groupings? That’s a much tougher case to make because, with the arguable exception of polygamous marriage, the supporting evidence is so much weaker.Particularly in the case of same-sex marriage, the evidence of social benefit is spotty and highly politicized. Under Supreme Court Equal Protection jurisprudence, it is not strong enough to require states to recognize such unions.
Thus, under existing Supreme Court Equal Protection doctrine, the real issue is not whether the evidence is sufficient to compel states to recognize same-sex marriage. The real issue is whether that evidence is sufficient to justify states granting to same-sex couples “privileges and immunities” that most other groupings—such as polygamous and polyandrous unions—do not receive.
My own view, for what it is worth, is that such questions are best left to the individual states to resolve. That doesn’t address the special problems arising under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but it’s a good general principle.
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.constitution.i2i.org/about/.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 10th, 2013 at 10:36 pm. It is filed under Featured, Founding Principles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Obama, Washington DC and Getting it Right…What Does the Second Amendment Actually Limit?
As we all know, Obama called for three new pieces of legislation and issued twenty-three Executive Orders…all in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Read the last part of the sentence again;Second AMENDMENT to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights AMENDED the existing Constitution as it was ratified in 1788 to place further restrictions onto the newly created (created by the States, by the way) “federal” government.
From Merriam-Websters Dictionary, amend:
to put right; especially
to make emendations in (as a text) to change or modify for the better, improve; “amend the situation”
to alter especially in phraseology; especially to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
As you read some of the later States’ ratification documents and debates, it becomes quite clear that many were quite nervous about the Constitution and its ability to stop the federal government from growing. Their fears appear to be well-founded.
When the States began ratifying the Constitution, many were afraid that the Constitution wasn’t strong enough to prevent the federal government from expanding and becoming despotic. When you read the State ratification documents, you see some States offering Amendments to try and further restrict the newly-formed government.
For example, when New Hampshire ratified the Constitution they apparently wanted to make it clear they were not surrendering their sovereignty, by suggesting the following Amendment to the Constitution:
I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.
Virginia, apparently, was very nervous and offered forty Amendments, or changes, to the Constitution. Like New Hampshire, they were also concerned about the newly-created government growing too large when they offered this in their ratifying document:
17th. That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers, be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever, to extend the powers of Congress; but that they be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise, as inserted merely for greater caution.
Back to the Second Amendment, after the Constitution was ratified (approved) by the States, there was still that lingering fear. James Madison had agreed during the Virginia Ratification Debates that he would promptly introduce a Bill of Rights once the first Congress convened. Even though it was difficult, Madison did as he promised and the Bill of Rights was passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification.
It is VERY important to read the Bill of Rights, but more importantly, it’s important to start with its Preamble because it states the purpose of these ten Amendments. If we miss the Preamble, we miss the entire purpose of these Amendments and end up negotiating how much of these rights we’ll give up to the federal government. So, with that, read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights below, concentrating on one particular boldfaced part:
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Translated, “we’re a bit nervous that the Constitution by itself will not stop the government from growing and as it grows, trampling on the States and the People of the States. So, we’re going to add additional crystal-clear limitations on what you can do as a federal government!” Do you agree that is what the Ratifiers of the Bill of Rights were attempting to do, based on your reading of the Preamble? If you agree, this has profound implications in the steps that need to be taken via the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
So let’s see why this matters to the current debate about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
It doesn’t matter where the commas are, as the Supreme Court or pro-big government Think Tanks or Congressmen would like you to think.
It doesn’t matter what technical definition of militia is.
All that matters is that the federal government, which according to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was the object being restricted, was legally bound from INFRINGING on our God-given right to protect ourselves.
The Second Amendment essentially says federal government, you cannot do anything, not one single thing, not even a hint of anything, to regulate even our State Militia!” Why do you suppose they put that in there? As James Madison himself wrote in Federalist #48: “The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.”
Obviously Madison is writing that mere paper (the Constitution) was not going to be enough to stop the natural progression of a government towards despotism and tyranny. Thus the need for the Second Amendment – because it prohibits the federal government from infringing on our personal unalienable right to bear arms as a final protection against the government, as they head toward tyranny and despotism. Additionally, the federal government is not allowed to infringe on the right of a State to raise a militia to ensure the States’ freedom from an out-of-control federal government dead set on acting tyrannically.
Do you see the difference when we look at the Second Amendment as a restriction on the federal government instead of a debate to be had in Congress about how much of a “right” we have? This is a critical distinction.
So, reading the Second Amendment properly, we conclude this:
We rightly assert our unalienable right to protect ourselves in our States when the federal government goes rogue by pointing to the Second Amendment and saying to DC (Obama, Congress and the Courts) that they have zero, zip, nada authority to regulate firearms of any sort. That regulation is up to the People of the States, not DC. This is important because when we cede to the federal government the ability to “negotiate” over the unalienable right to protect ourselves by bearing arms, we essentially cede to them the ability to grant or arbitrate all of our unalienable rights. A VERY big and profound mistake! Governments don’t grant or arbitrate rights, God grants them or they are observed as part of our humanity. Failure to defend our God-given rights against tyranny is completely our fault because most of us don’t understand these distinctions.
We wrongly defend our unalienable right to self-defense when we assert that we have some mystical Second Amendment Right to bear arms! We do not have a right to bear arms, we have an unalienable right to defend ourselves, even from a rogue illegitimate government, using weapons if necessary. The Second Amendment simply states that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY delegated to it to do anything with our guns whatsoever.
Why does this matter? Because if we don’t understand the difference, we do what we do now…beg them not to do anything that infringes on our God-given unalienable right. Emphasize the term “beg.” We’re fighting them on their battlefield, folks, and they control the battlefield! It’s that simple. Which is why we lose so often…we keep fighting them on their turf and liberty is getting its butt kicked!
What should happen is this:
You should resign yourself to the fact that Washington DC is rogue and therefore it is morally and constitutionally illegitimate. It refuses to stay within the limits of the Constitution and could care less about what the Constitution actually says. Stop begging them…hint, it’s not very becoming and they’re not listening to us anyway.
Recognize that you are the sovereign, not the federal government. Getting to this point is actually quite liberating. Failure to do so will cause you irreparable harm going forward. You will simply keep begging.
Read more....
http://www.redefinegov.com/obama-washington-dc-and-getting-it-right-what-does-the-2nd-amendment-actually-limit/
From Merriam-Websters Dictionary, amend:
to put right; especially
to make emendations in (as a text) to change or modify for the better, improve; “amend the situation”
to alter especially in phraseology; especially to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition
As you read some of the later States’ ratification documents and debates, it becomes quite clear that many were quite nervous about the Constitution and its ability to stop the federal government from growing. Their fears appear to be well-founded.
When the States began ratifying the Constitution, many were afraid that the Constitution wasn’t strong enough to prevent the federal government from expanding and becoming despotic. When you read the State ratification documents, you see some States offering Amendments to try and further restrict the newly-formed government.
For example, when New Hampshire ratified the Constitution they apparently wanted to make it clear they were not surrendering their sovereignty, by suggesting the following Amendment to the Constitution:
I. That it be explicitly declared that all powers not expressly and particularly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised.
Virginia, apparently, was very nervous and offered forty Amendments, or changes, to the Constitution. Like New Hampshire, they were also concerned about the newly-created government growing too large when they offered this in their ratifying document:
17th. That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers, be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever, to extend the powers of Congress; but that they be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise, as inserted merely for greater caution.
Back to the Second Amendment, after the Constitution was ratified (approved) by the States, there was still that lingering fear. James Madison had agreed during the Virginia Ratification Debates that he would promptly introduce a Bill of Rights once the first Congress convened. Even though it was difficult, Madison did as he promised and the Bill of Rights was passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification.
It is VERY important to read the Bill of Rights, but more importantly, it’s important to start with its Preamble because it states the purpose of these ten Amendments. If we miss the Preamble, we miss the entire purpose of these Amendments and end up negotiating how much of these rights we’ll give up to the federal government. So, with that, read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights below, concentrating on one particular boldfaced part:
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
Translated, “we’re a bit nervous that the Constitution by itself will not stop the government from growing and as it grows, trampling on the States and the People of the States. So, we’re going to add additional crystal-clear limitations on what you can do as a federal government!” Do you agree that is what the Ratifiers of the Bill of Rights were attempting to do, based on your reading of the Preamble? If you agree, this has profound implications in the steps that need to be taken via the Ninth and Tenth Amendment.
So let’s see why this matters to the current debate about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
It doesn’t matter where the commas are, as the Supreme Court or pro-big government Think Tanks or Congressmen would like you to think.
It doesn’t matter what technical definition of militia is.
All that matters is that the federal government, which according to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was the object being restricted, was legally bound from INFRINGING on our God-given right to protect ourselves.
The Second Amendment essentially says federal government, you cannot do anything, not one single thing, not even a hint of anything, to regulate even our State Militia!” Why do you suppose they put that in there? As James Madison himself wrote in Federalist #48: “The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.”
Obviously Madison is writing that mere paper (the Constitution) was not going to be enough to stop the natural progression of a government towards despotism and tyranny. Thus the need for the Second Amendment – because it prohibits the federal government from infringing on our personal unalienable right to bear arms as a final protection against the government, as they head toward tyranny and despotism. Additionally, the federal government is not allowed to infringe on the right of a State to raise a militia to ensure the States’ freedom from an out-of-control federal government dead set on acting tyrannically.
Do you see the difference when we look at the Second Amendment as a restriction on the federal government instead of a debate to be had in Congress about how much of a “right” we have? This is a critical distinction.
So, reading the Second Amendment properly, we conclude this:
We rightly assert our unalienable right to protect ourselves in our States when the federal government goes rogue by pointing to the Second Amendment and saying to DC (Obama, Congress and the Courts) that they have zero, zip, nada authority to regulate firearms of any sort. That regulation is up to the People of the States, not DC. This is important because when we cede to the federal government the ability to “negotiate” over the unalienable right to protect ourselves by bearing arms, we essentially cede to them the ability to grant or arbitrate all of our unalienable rights. A VERY big and profound mistake! Governments don’t grant or arbitrate rights, God grants them or they are observed as part of our humanity. Failure to defend our God-given rights against tyranny is completely our fault because most of us don’t understand these distinctions.
We wrongly defend our unalienable right to self-defense when we assert that we have some mystical Second Amendment Right to bear arms! We do not have a right to bear arms, we have an unalienable right to defend ourselves, even from a rogue illegitimate government, using weapons if necessary. The Second Amendment simply states that the federal government has NO AUTHORITY delegated to it to do anything with our guns whatsoever.
Why does this matter? Because if we don’t understand the difference, we do what we do now…beg them not to do anything that infringes on our God-given unalienable right. Emphasize the term “beg.” We’re fighting them on their battlefield, folks, and they control the battlefield! It’s that simple. Which is why we lose so often…we keep fighting them on their turf and liberty is getting its butt kicked!
What should happen is this:
You should resign yourself to the fact that Washington DC is rogue and therefore it is morally and constitutionally illegitimate. It refuses to stay within the limits of the Constitution and could care less about what the Constitution actually says. Stop begging them…hint, it’s not very becoming and they’re not listening to us anyway.
Recognize that you are the sovereign, not the federal government. Getting to this point is actually quite liberating. Failure to do so will cause you irreparable harm going forward. You will simply keep begging.
Read more....
http://www.redefinegov.com/obama-washington-dc-and-getting-it-right-what-does-the-2nd-amendment-actually-limit/
Why Political Progressives Need to Think About the Entire Constitution
By Sanford Levinson, W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas Law School, and Professor of Government at the University of Texas at Austin.
I am immensely grateful to be invited to discuss my new book, Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance, to the readers of ACSblog. I have crafted these comments in a way that highlights what may be an important difference between my take on the Constitution and that of many of my friends in the ACS. Although many, perhaps most of us, share the perception that the contemporary United States is increasingly caught in a “crisis of governance,” attention tends to be addressed at the defects of particular leaders, including, of course, the present majority of the United States Supreme Court. There is much with which I agree in the vision of The Constitution in 2020 set out in the book co-edited by my friends and casebook co-editors Jack Balkin and Reva Siegel.
However, I believe that we cannot begin to diagnose the causes of our crisis by focusing only on what I call the Constitution of Conversation. It can also be described as the litigatedConstitution, and it is litigated precisely because clever lawyers are highly skilled in demonstrating that the indeterminate language of, say, the Commerce or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, can be used to support a constitutional vision congruent with the collective goals of the lawyers’ clients or perhaps the lawyers themselves (if they are “cause lawyers”). In any event, these conversations are known to all of us, and we see them being spelled out particularly passionately with regard to the Affordable Care Act.
But the most important political realities of the Affordable Care Act are first that it took literally more than a half century to pass after initial proposals by Harry Truman and, secondly, that it is a defective bill in many respects with regard genuinely to getting a handle on the costs of a modern medical system. To explain these realities requires no conversation about the “meaning” of the Constitution. Rather, it requires addressing too-often-ignored “civics class” features of the United States Constitution. How does a bill become a law (or, more practically, why do most legislative proposals have only a snowballs chance in hell of being passed)? The answer lies in the almost insurmountable hurdles set up by the particular American system of bicameralism and the opportunity of presidents to veto any legislation they do not like on policy grounds, with the near impossibility of overrides. I will rejoice when the Supreme Court upholds the Affordable Care Act, as I still think is likely. But it should also be recognized that what the Court will be doing, at best, is saying that a mediocre, albeit necessary, piece of legislation is constitutional if it can run the minefield against progressive legislation established in 1787 and left remarkably unchanged since then. That is the importance of looking at the basic “framing” of the Constitution and the assumptions underlying it. It was designed by people who were basically mistrustful of popular democracy and, more particularly, redistributive legislation. They succeeded quite well in creating a political system that stifles both.
Moreover, the book looks at the constitutions of the 50 states, almost all of which differ in extremely interesting ways from the national constitution. All but Delaware’s, for example, include at least some element of direct democracy, whereas the national Constitution is committed exclusively to representative democracy. All of the state constitutions include some elements of “positive rights,” the most important example being education. Each and every state constitution is easier to amend than the national constitution. Fourteen state constitutions allow the electorate at regular intervals to vote whether to have a new state constitutional convention. Each and every state follows the rule of “one-person/one vote” established by the Supreme Court in 1964 instead of tolerating the sheer absurdity of an institution like the national Senate and its grant of equal representation to Wyoming and California, Vermont and Texas. Most state judges in the United States are elected—and have limited tenure in office—as distinguished from the national practice of appointed judges (with Senate confirmation) and tenure until death.
A century ago, political progressives were well aware of the deficiencies of the national Constitution and put great effort into such amendments as the 16th, 17th, and 19thamendments. Today, that kind of “constitutional imagination,” which requires that one attend to the seemingly dull and boring “structural Constitution”— what I call the Constitution of Settlement — is almost completely absent as we devote almost literally all of our time and attention to the Constitution of Conversation.
My deepest hope is that members of the ACS will realized that serious discussion of The Constitution in 2020 should include how it might be necessary to transform basic constitutional structures if we are ever going to achieve the progressive changes in national policy that most of us support.
I am immensely grateful to be invited to discuss my new book, Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance, to the readers of ACSblog. I have crafted these comments in a way that highlights what may be an important difference between my take on the Constitution and that of many of my friends in the ACS. Although many, perhaps most of us, share the perception that the contemporary United States is increasingly caught in a “crisis of governance,” attention tends to be addressed at the defects of particular leaders, including, of course, the present majority of the United States Supreme Court. There is much with which I agree in the vision of The Constitution in 2020 set out in the book co-edited by my friends and casebook co-editors Jack Balkin and Reva Siegel.
However, I believe that we cannot begin to diagnose the causes of our crisis by focusing only on what I call the Constitution of Conversation. It can also be described as the litigatedConstitution, and it is litigated precisely because clever lawyers are highly skilled in demonstrating that the indeterminate language of, say, the Commerce or Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, can be used to support a constitutional vision congruent with the collective goals of the lawyers’ clients or perhaps the lawyers themselves (if they are “cause lawyers”). In any event, these conversations are known to all of us, and we see them being spelled out particularly passionately with regard to the Affordable Care Act.
But the most important political realities of the Affordable Care Act are first that it took literally more than a half century to pass after initial proposals by Harry Truman and, secondly, that it is a defective bill in many respects with regard genuinely to getting a handle on the costs of a modern medical system. To explain these realities requires no conversation about the “meaning” of the Constitution. Rather, it requires addressing too-often-ignored “civics class” features of the United States Constitution. How does a bill become a law (or, more practically, why do most legislative proposals have only a snowballs chance in hell of being passed)? The answer lies in the almost insurmountable hurdles set up by the particular American system of bicameralism and the opportunity of presidents to veto any legislation they do not like on policy grounds, with the near impossibility of overrides. I will rejoice when the Supreme Court upholds the Affordable Care Act, as I still think is likely. But it should also be recognized that what the Court will be doing, at best, is saying that a mediocre, albeit necessary, piece of legislation is constitutional if it can run the minefield against progressive legislation established in 1787 and left remarkably unchanged since then. That is the importance of looking at the basic “framing” of the Constitution and the assumptions underlying it. It was designed by people who were basically mistrustful of popular democracy and, more particularly, redistributive legislation. They succeeded quite well in creating a political system that stifles both.
Moreover, the book looks at the constitutions of the 50 states, almost all of which differ in extremely interesting ways from the national constitution. All but Delaware’s, for example, include at least some element of direct democracy, whereas the national Constitution is committed exclusively to representative democracy. All of the state constitutions include some elements of “positive rights,” the most important example being education. Each and every state constitution is easier to amend than the national constitution. Fourteen state constitutions allow the electorate at regular intervals to vote whether to have a new state constitutional convention. Each and every state follows the rule of “one-person/one vote” established by the Supreme Court in 1964 instead of tolerating the sheer absurdity of an institution like the national Senate and its grant of equal representation to Wyoming and California, Vermont and Texas. Most state judges in the United States are elected—and have limited tenure in office—as distinguished from the national practice of appointed judges (with Senate confirmation) and tenure until death.
A century ago, political progressives were well aware of the deficiencies of the national Constitution and put great effort into such amendments as the 16th, 17th, and 19thamendments. Today, that kind of “constitutional imagination,” which requires that one attend to the seemingly dull and boring “structural Constitution”— what I call the Constitution of Settlement — is almost completely absent as we devote almost literally all of our time and attention to the Constitution of Conversation.
My deepest hope is that members of the ACS will realized that serious discussion of The Constitution in 2020 should include how it might be necessary to transform basic constitutional structures if we are ever going to achieve the progressive changes in national policy that most of us support.
The Goldberg File
By Jonah Goldberg
April 12, 2013
Dear Reader (including those of you still languishing behind the veil of ignorance),
So earlier this week MSNBC released one of its "Lean Forward" ads, this time with a woman named Melissa Harris-Perry.
Before we get to all that, a word about the ad campaign itself. In one sense these ads are like the question, "You want extra?" from the masseuse at a shady Vietnamese massage parlor -- proof that all pretense at propriety is exactly that, pretense. This is supposed to be a news network. Moreover, it is supposed to be a news network that constantly boasts of its professional and philosophical superiority to Fox News (and it's true; except for ratings, influence, quality, and profit MSNBC kicks Fox's butt). And yet, they run testimonials to state power with a frequency that rivals North Korean TV.
But in another sense these ads are the "extra" itself -- a rather sad and perfunctory attempt to satisfy urges that barely rise above the masturbatory. The self-love oozes from the screen as the hosts' inner-15-year-olds realize this is their chance to prove they're as great as their favorite social-studies teacher told them they were!
Thanks to the magic of Hollywood, they preen for the cameras with an almost post-coital glow as they deliver their little sermonettes that amount to pointless verbal onanism. Hey, look. There's no-necked Ed Schultz at a diner, looking like he's having one last cup of coffee before he has to work up a sweat burying the corpse of a dissident union official still moldering in the trunk of his ten-year-old Coupe de Ville. And there's Rachel Maddow (looking a bit like that aforementioned dead union official) trying to give her Stakhanovite commitment to infrastructure projects a romantic hue.
All Your Children Belong to Us
And now there's Melissa Harris-Perry. By now you've heard of or seen the ad, but just in case here it is. In short, she thinks the idea that your kids are, well, yours is outdated and counterproductive.
Rich Lowry, praise be upon him, offers a fine summary of what Harris-Perry is getting at here. Actually, no disrespect to the guy who signs my paycheck (who is not only a powerful man, but a handsome one) but Harris-Perry herself was more than clear enough about what she's after. The thing is only 30 seconds long, very highly produced, and straight to the point.
Read more.....http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345053/your-kids-aren-t-your-own-rich-lowry
April 12, 2013
Dear Reader (including those of you still languishing behind the veil of ignorance),
So earlier this week MSNBC released one of its "Lean Forward" ads, this time with a woman named Melissa Harris-Perry.
Before we get to all that, a word about the ad campaign itself. In one sense these ads are like the question, "You want extra?" from the masseuse at a shady Vietnamese massage parlor -- proof that all pretense at propriety is exactly that, pretense. This is supposed to be a news network. Moreover, it is supposed to be a news network that constantly boasts of its professional and philosophical superiority to Fox News (and it's true; except for ratings, influence, quality, and profit MSNBC kicks Fox's butt). And yet, they run testimonials to state power with a frequency that rivals North Korean TV.
But in another sense these ads are the "extra" itself -- a rather sad and perfunctory attempt to satisfy urges that barely rise above the masturbatory. The self-love oozes from the screen as the hosts' inner-15-year-olds realize this is their chance to prove they're as great as their favorite social-studies teacher told them they were!
Thanks to the magic of Hollywood, they preen for the cameras with an almost post-coital glow as they deliver their little sermonettes that amount to pointless verbal onanism. Hey, look. There's no-necked Ed Schultz at a diner, looking like he's having one last cup of coffee before he has to work up a sweat burying the corpse of a dissident union official still moldering in the trunk of his ten-year-old Coupe de Ville. And there's Rachel Maddow (looking a bit like that aforementioned dead union official) trying to give her Stakhanovite commitment to infrastructure projects a romantic hue.
All Your Children Belong to Us
And now there's Melissa Harris-Perry. By now you've heard of or seen the ad, but just in case here it is. In short, she thinks the idea that your kids are, well, yours is outdated and counterproductive.
Rich Lowry, praise be upon him, offers a fine summary of what Harris-Perry is getting at here. Actually, no disrespect to the guy who signs my paycheck (who is not only a powerful man, but a handsome one) but Harris-Perry herself was more than clear enough about what she's after. The thing is only 30 seconds long, very highly produced, and straight to the point.
Read more.....http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345053/your-kids-aren-t-your-own-rich-lowry
|
Sebelius: Some Could See Insurance Premiums RiseBy Louise Radnofsky
Associated Press Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius speaks about the federal health care overhaul during a news conference at City Hall, Wednesday, Feb. 20, 2013, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke) Some people purchasing new insurance policies for themselves this fall could see premiums rise because of requirements in the health-care law, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told reporters Tuesday. |
Ms. Sebelius’s remarks come weeks before insurers are expected to begin releasing rates for plans that start on Jan. 1, 2014, when key provisions of the health law kick in. Premiums have been a sensitive subject for the Obama administration, which is counting on elements in the health law designed to increase competition among insurers to keep rates in check. The administration has pointed to subsidies that will be available for many lower-income Americans to help them with the cost of coverage.
The secretary’s remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could face higher premiums for plans that are more generous. She noted that the law requires plans to provide better benefits and treat all customers equally regardless of their medical claims.
“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” she said. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”
Ms. Sebelius added that those customers currently pay more for their health care if their plans have high out-of-pocket costs, high deductibles or exclude particular types of coverage, such as mental health treatment. She also said that some men and younger customers could see their rates increase while women and older customers could see their rates drop because the law restricts insurers’ ability to set rates based on age and gender.
Read more.....http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/03/26/sebelius-some-could-see-insurance-premiums-rise/?mod=rss_mobile_uber_feed
The secretary’s remarks are among the first direct statements from federal officials that people who have skimpy health plans right now could face higher premiums for plans that are more generous. She noted that the law requires plans to provide better benefits and treat all customers equally regardless of their medical claims.
“These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market,” she said. “But we feel pretty strongly that with subsidies available to a lot of that population that they are really going to see much better benefit for the money that they’re spending.”
Ms. Sebelius added that those customers currently pay more for their health care if their plans have high out-of-pocket costs, high deductibles or exclude particular types of coverage, such as mental health treatment. She also said that some men and younger customers could see their rates increase while women and older customers could see their rates drop because the law restricts insurers’ ability to set rates based on age and gender.
Read more.....http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/03/26/sebelius-some-could-see-insurance-premiums-rise/?mod=rss_mobile_uber_feed
Sebelius: 'Relentless' Politics Complicates Health Law's Implementation
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/April/09/reform-implementation
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she underestimated how long politics would dog the health law. Meanwhile, a regional official of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services tells The Washington Post what's happening in the field.
Politico: Kathleen Sebelius: Much Confusion On ACA
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she underestimated how long the politics of health reform would last and didn't anticipate how much confusion the slow rollout of the legislation would create. Sebelius said she had expected the Supreme Court ruling and President Barack Obama's reelection would tamp down some of the "relentless and continuous" politics. But the controversy goes on (Haberkorn, 4/9).
The Hill: Sebelius: Obamacare Rollout More Complicated Than Anticipated
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday that she did not anticipate how complicated implementing the president's signature health care law would be…Speaking to students at the Harvard School of Public Health, Sebelius said implementation had been hampered both by the law's slow roll out and red-state governors and legislators who have rejected state-run insurance exchanges (Sink, 4/9).
The Washington Post: Rolling Out The Affordable Care Act In The Field
As the new features of the Affordable Care Act roll out between now and 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are developing new programs and tools to help healthcare providers deliver better care to the American public — and much of the work takes place outside the Beltway. Tom Fox spoke with a leader in the field about leading from the field. David Sayen is the CMS regional administrator for Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada and the Pacific territories. He has more than 30 years of federal service and experience in health and human services programs (Fox, 4/8).
Media outlets also report on specific health law provisions -
Richmond Times Dispatch: What is the 'Obamacare' Bronze Plan?
The open enrollment period begins for the new health plans created by the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) on Oct. 1, yet most Americans couldn’t name one of the new health plans let alone describe all the services they cover. The Bronze Plan is the entry-level option of these new health plans. It is a private health plan, which means you will pay an insurance company to enroll in the plan rather than receiving the plan for free from the government. However, depending on your income level, you may qualify to receive a subsidy from the government to lower your monthly premium and lower the maximum amount of health care out-of-pocket costs you can pay in a year (4/9).
Read more......http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/April/09/reform-implementation
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/April/09/reform-implementation
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she underestimated how long politics would dog the health law. Meanwhile, a regional official of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services tells The Washington Post what's happening in the field.
Politico: Kathleen Sebelius: Much Confusion On ACA
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said she underestimated how long the politics of health reform would last and didn't anticipate how much confusion the slow rollout of the legislation would create. Sebelius said she had expected the Supreme Court ruling and President Barack Obama's reelection would tamp down some of the "relentless and continuous" politics. But the controversy goes on (Haberkorn, 4/9).
The Hill: Sebelius: Obamacare Rollout More Complicated Than Anticipated
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday that she did not anticipate how complicated implementing the president's signature health care law would be…Speaking to students at the Harvard School of Public Health, Sebelius said implementation had been hampered both by the law's slow roll out and red-state governors and legislators who have rejected state-run insurance exchanges (Sink, 4/9).
The Washington Post: Rolling Out The Affordable Care Act In The Field
As the new features of the Affordable Care Act roll out between now and 2014, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are developing new programs and tools to help healthcare providers deliver better care to the American public — and much of the work takes place outside the Beltway. Tom Fox spoke with a leader in the field about leading from the field. David Sayen is the CMS regional administrator for Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada and the Pacific territories. He has more than 30 years of federal service and experience in health and human services programs (Fox, 4/8).
Media outlets also report on specific health law provisions -
Richmond Times Dispatch: What is the 'Obamacare' Bronze Plan?
The open enrollment period begins for the new health plans created by the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) on Oct. 1, yet most Americans couldn’t name one of the new health plans let alone describe all the services they cover. The Bronze Plan is the entry-level option of these new health plans. It is a private health plan, which means you will pay an insurance company to enroll in the plan rather than receiving the plan for free from the government. However, depending on your income level, you may qualify to receive a subsidy from the government to lower your monthly premium and lower the maximum amount of health care out-of-pocket costs you can pay in a year (4/9).
Read more......http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2013/April/09/reform-implementation
Some healthcare costs may rise when "Obamacare" implemented: official
By Jeff Mason and David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's top healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to take effect next year.
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.
"Everything is speculation. I think there's likely to be some shifting in the markets," she told reporters at the White House.
The law, also known as "Obamacare," eliminates discriminatory market practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with medical conditions.
It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.
Read more.....http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/healthcare-costs-may-rise-obamacare-implemented-official-170326637.html
By Jeff Mason and David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's top healthcare adviser acknowledged on Tuesday that costs could rise in the individual health insurance market, particularly for men and younger people, because of the landmark 2010 healthcare restructuring due to take effect next year.
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said definitive data on costs will not be available until later this year when private health plans become authorized to sell federally subsidized coverage on new state-based online marketplaces, known as exchanges.
"Everything is speculation. I think there's likely to be some shifting in the markets," she told reporters at the White House.
The law, also known as "Obamacare," eliminates discriminatory market practices that have imposed higher rates on women and people with medical conditions.
It also limits how much insurers can charge older people. But while the changes are expected to lower costs for women, older beneficiaries and the sick, men and younger, healthier people will likely see higher rates as insurers try to hedge against continued risks.
Read more.....http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/healthcare-costs-may-rise-obamacare-implemented-official-170326637.html
700 special forces veterans demand Congress uncover Benghazi truth
' There’s guilt in this administration'
(Fox News) – More than 700 Special Operations veterans are urging members of Congress to back a select committee to investigate last year’s Benghazi terrorist attack, according to a letter first obtained by Fox News.
The letter from the group, “Special Operations Speaks,” supports the appointment of a special committee tasked with the single mission of investigating the attack that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead, and shut down the CIA operation in an annex of the Benghazi consulate, in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack.
“Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue,” the letter stated.
Special Operations Speaks is a political action committee whose primary mission is to “emphasize the pressing need for the nation and its representatives to understand the value of our Constitution and actively support a return to its application in all phases of government,” according to the group’s website.
The group received widespread publicity for its stance against what it described as damaging information leaks related to the raid that killed Usama bin Laden in May 2011.
The letter includes more than 16 points of possible investigation for the proposed committee.
They range from the warnings given to the State Department that security was unraveling on the ground, as Al Qaeda and Islamist militias gained a foothold leading up to the attack; the continued silence of State Department and CIA employees evacuated from Benghazi since the attack; as well as the real-time decision making of President Obama, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Department of Defense on the night of the attack, which took place on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001.
“America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when U.S. personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel,” the letter said.
Running more than 20 pages listing all its signatories, the letter supports House Resolution 36, which was introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia.
On the House floor in January, Rep. Wolf reiterated his call for the select committee, stating the American people “are no closer to understanding what caused the attack or bringing the terrorists responsible to justice.”
Before the recent congressional recess, House Speaker John Boehner convened a meeting of three leading Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of Florida and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, as well as the chairmen of the house committees on Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs, respectively, who are leading their own investigations. Rather than form a select committee, a decision was made to coordinate and pool their findings, to be completed in “weeks, not months.”
“We want to make sure that we have a full story of what happened, and where there are conflicting stories, we going to work to de-conflict them,” Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers told Fox News on Mar. 21.
His committee counterpart, Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger, said he had “no problem” with his colleagues “continuing to get the facts and data,” and suggested the Benghazi issue should not be further politicized.
With the Special Operations Speaks letter expected on Capitol Hill Monday, it is not clear whether this new push for a select committee will change the minds of lawmakers.
For its part, the Obama administration has insisted it is fully cooperating with congressional investigators.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/07/special-ops-veterans-group-calls-for-select-probe-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2PwYobqnf
The letter from the group, “Special Operations Speaks,” supports the appointment of a special committee tasked with the single mission of investigating the attack that left Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead, and shut down the CIA operation in an annex of the Benghazi consulate, in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack.
“Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue,” the letter stated.
Special Operations Speaks is a political action committee whose primary mission is to “emphasize the pressing need for the nation and its representatives to understand the value of our Constitution and actively support a return to its application in all phases of government,” according to the group’s website.
The group received widespread publicity for its stance against what it described as damaging information leaks related to the raid that killed Usama bin Laden in May 2011.
The letter includes more than 16 points of possible investigation for the proposed committee.
They range from the warnings given to the State Department that security was unraveling on the ground, as Al Qaeda and Islamist militias gained a foothold leading up to the attack; the continued silence of State Department and CIA employees evacuated from Benghazi since the attack; as well as the real-time decision making of President Obama, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Department of Defense on the night of the attack, which took place on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001.
“America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when U.S. personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel,” the letter said.
Running more than 20 pages listing all its signatories, the letter supports House Resolution 36, which was introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia.
On the House floor in January, Rep. Wolf reiterated his call for the select committee, stating the American people “are no closer to understanding what caused the attack or bringing the terrorists responsible to justice.”
Before the recent congressional recess, House Speaker John Boehner convened a meeting of three leading Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of Florida and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, as well as the chairmen of the house committees on Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs, respectively, who are leading their own investigations. Rather than form a select committee, a decision was made to coordinate and pool their findings, to be completed in “weeks, not months.”
“We want to make sure that we have a full story of what happened, and where there are conflicting stories, we going to work to de-conflict them,” Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers told Fox News on Mar. 21.
His committee counterpart, Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger, said he had “no problem” with his colleagues “continuing to get the facts and data,” and suggested the Benghazi issue should not be further politicized.
With the Special Operations Speaks letter expected on Capitol Hill Monday, it is not clear whether this new push for a select committee will change the minds of lawmakers.
For its part, the Obama administration has insisted it is fully cooperating with congressional investigators.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/07/special-ops-veterans-group-calls-for-select-probe-benghazi-attack/#ixzz2PwYobqnf
OBAMA’S WAR ON THE MILITARY
By COL. DICK BRAUER USAF (RET.)
Most Americans agree, and polling shows, that the United States armed forces are among the most respected institutions in our society.
Unfortunately, our own president disagrees.
President Obama has labeled us, outspoken veterans from all Special Forces, not heroes…but ENEMIES!
The Special Operations Speaks PAC, reported credible allegations that President Obama’s national security team disclosed sensitive national security information, particularly operational and intelligence aspects of the special operation that accurately located and eliminated Osama Bin Laden.
How did our commander-in-chief reply – “I don’t take these folks too seriously.”
Obama went as far as accusing the SOS PAC effort to stop the dangerous leaks as self-serving. We have spent our lives in the service of this country…something Obama would not understand.
His actions belie his statement. On Obama’s Attack Watch website, President Obama labeled military support groups such as the OPSEC Education Fund, Veterans for a Strong America, and Special Operations Speaks, “Swift Boat 2.0” stating the organizations are “manufacturing false attacks” to “Swift Boat” his campaign.
Our feelings might have been hurt, but when a proven liar calls Special Forces Veterans liars, we wear it as a badge of honor.
It’s not just veterans Obama is trying to stifle… Obama is suing to suppress the military vote.
In 2008, when election turnout nationwide was 62 percent, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission reported that only 5.5 percent of eligible military and overseas ballots that were cast were actually counted. To its credit, the State of Ohio proposed to allow an extra three days for overseas ballots to be counted. However, the Obama campaign legal team has taken the position those three extra days to allow overseas votes to be timely counted violates the U.S. Constitution.
Most Americans agree, and polling shows, that the United States armed forces are among the most respected institutions in our society.
Unfortunately, our own president disagrees.
President Obama has labeled us, outspoken veterans from all Special Forces, not heroes…but ENEMIES!
The Special Operations Speaks PAC, reported credible allegations that President Obama’s national security team disclosed sensitive national security information, particularly operational and intelligence aspects of the special operation that accurately located and eliminated Osama Bin Laden.
How did our commander-in-chief reply – “I don’t take these folks too seriously.”
Obama went as far as accusing the SOS PAC effort to stop the dangerous leaks as self-serving. We have spent our lives in the service of this country…something Obama would not understand.
His actions belie his statement. On Obama’s Attack Watch website, President Obama labeled military support groups such as the OPSEC Education Fund, Veterans for a Strong America, and Special Operations Speaks, “Swift Boat 2.0” stating the organizations are “manufacturing false attacks” to “Swift Boat” his campaign.
Our feelings might have been hurt, but when a proven liar calls Special Forces Veterans liars, we wear it as a badge of honor.
It’s not just veterans Obama is trying to stifle… Obama is suing to suppress the military vote.
In 2008, when election turnout nationwide was 62 percent, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission reported that only 5.5 percent of eligible military and overseas ballots that were cast were actually counted. To its credit, the State of Ohio proposed to allow an extra three days for overseas ballots to be counted. However, the Obama campaign legal team has taken the position those three extra days to allow overseas votes to be timely counted violates the U.S. Constitution.
Approximately two thirds of our military vote by absentee ballot.
Unlike previous presidents, who have strongly supported and taken action to ease voting for military and other U.S. citizens serving abroad, such as the U.S. State Department and our various intelligence agencies, Obama the candidate appears to be using this issue to support his political objectives
We at Special Operations Speaks have taken on the mission to fight for our soldiers’ right to vote wherever they may be stationed — and, regardless of which way they may vote. It a simple matter of fairness. The Team Obama opposition to military and government civilian overseas voting apparently presumes that these patriots will vote against him.
Special Operations Speaks believes all these people, regardless of whom they choose to vote for, must have their right to vote defended.
As veterans we all took one lifelong oath: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
All Special Operations Speaks members believe that our oath did not expire when we left active service. Our goal is to defend the Constitution. We encourage you will choose to help us in this critical endeavor by supporting us politically or financially.
Dick Brauer is co-founder of Special Operations Speaks
Short URL: http://reportergary.com/?p=27117
http://thefreedomreport.us/?p=5171 3-PART INTERVIEW ON BENGHAZI
Unlike previous presidents, who have strongly supported and taken action to ease voting for military and other U.S. citizens serving abroad, such as the U.S. State Department and our various intelligence agencies, Obama the candidate appears to be using this issue to support his political objectives
We at Special Operations Speaks have taken on the mission to fight for our soldiers’ right to vote wherever they may be stationed — and, regardless of which way they may vote. It a simple matter of fairness. The Team Obama opposition to military and government civilian overseas voting apparently presumes that these patriots will vote against him.
Special Operations Speaks believes all these people, regardless of whom they choose to vote for, must have their right to vote defended.
As veterans we all took one lifelong oath: To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
All Special Operations Speaks members believe that our oath did not expire when we left active service. Our goal is to defend the Constitution. We encourage you will choose to help us in this critical endeavor by supporting us politically or financially.
Dick Brauer is co-founder of Special Operations Speaks
Short URL: http://reportergary.com/?p=27117
http://thefreedomreport.us/?p=5171 3-PART INTERVIEW ON BENGHAZI
TAKE ACTION!
SpecOps Community Demands Answers on Benghazi |
Subject: The Benghazi attacks on 9/11/ 2012To: The US House of Representatives
The undersigned are a representative group of 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals who spent the majority of their careers preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans. In fact, many of us participated in both the Vietnam era POW rescue effort, The Son Tay Raid, as well as Operation Eagle Claw, the failed rescue attempt in April of 1980 in Iran, so we have been at this for many years and have a deep passion for seeking the truth about what happened during the national tragedy in Benghazi. The purpose of this letter is to encourage all members of the US House of Representatives to support H.Res. 36, which will create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. It is essential that a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012, be provided and that the American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities. We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen. |
The purpose of this letter is to encourage all members of the US House of Representatives to support H.Res. 36, which will create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. It is essential that a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012, be provided and that the American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities. We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen.
It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries. Additional information is now slowly surfacing in the media, which makes a comprehensive bipartisan inquiry an imperative. Many questions have not been answered thus far. The House Select Committee should address, at a minimum, the following questions:
Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?
Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?
If so, were they alerted?
Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?
Was military assistance requested by DOS? If so, what type?
Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?
What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?
What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?
How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?
Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?
Where are the survivors?
Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks and was a senior US military officer present?
Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis and what inputs and recommendations did they make?
Where were the National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, his Deputy, Denis McDonough, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?
Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption if not dispersion of the attackers, until “boots on the ground” (General Dempsey’s words) arrived?
Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that lead to his death?
Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?
What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?
Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?
What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?
What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?
This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Thus far it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention by the Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.
A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments. That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked. That is an unacceptable message.
The House Select Committee should focus on getting a detailed account of the events in Benghazi as soon as possible. H. Res. 36 will provide a structure for the conduct of a thorough inquiry of Benghazi and should be convened immediately.
We ask that you fulfill your responsibilities to the American people and take appropriate action regarding Benghazi. With over sixty members of the US House of Representatives calling for this Select Committee already, it seems that the time is right to take appropriate action on Benghazi.
SpecialOperationsSpeaks.com
EndTheCoverup.com
See the original letter and all 700 signatures here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/151789065/SOF-700-Letter-4713
It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries. Additional information is now slowly surfacing in the media, which makes a comprehensive bipartisan inquiry an imperative. Many questions have not been answered thus far. The House Select Committee should address, at a minimum, the following questions:
Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?
Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?
If so, were they alerted?
Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?
Was military assistance requested by DOS? If so, what type?
Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?
What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?
What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?
How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?
Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?
Where are the survivors?
Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks and was a senior US military officer present?
Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis and what inputs and recommendations did they make?
Where were the National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, his Deputy, Denis McDonough, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?
Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption if not dispersion of the attackers, until “boots on the ground” (General Dempsey’s words) arrived?
Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that lead to his death?
Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?
What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?
Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?
What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?
What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?
This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998. Thus far it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention by the Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.
A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments. That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked. That is an unacceptable message.
The House Select Committee should focus on getting a detailed account of the events in Benghazi as soon as possible. H. Res. 36 will provide a structure for the conduct of a thorough inquiry of Benghazi and should be convened immediately.
We ask that you fulfill your responsibilities to the American people and take appropriate action regarding Benghazi. With over sixty members of the US House of Representatives calling for this Select Committee already, it seems that the time is right to take appropriate action on Benghazi.
SpecialOperationsSpeaks.com
EndTheCoverup.com
See the original letter and all 700 signatures here: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/151789065/SOF-700-Letter-4713
OBAMA: THE CONSTITUTION CONSTRAINS ME
April 5, 2013 at 7:57 am
In his pursuit of overarching gun control legislation in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, President Barack
Obama has been dogged. He’s been relentless. He’s been demagogic, too, whether flanking himself with schoolchildren (the
implication being that his political opponents don’t care about dead kids) or suggesting that if just one life can be saved by
his legislation, we ought to buy into it wholeheartedly (a proposition that would justify almost any sort of government
overreach).
But on Wednesday, President Obama took his gun control push a step further: He admitted that only the Constitution
stands between him and full gun confiscation. Rejecting concerns that new background checks might be a prelude to gun
seizures, Obama suggested that worries about gun seizures were empty, and were only designed to feed “into fears about
government. You hear some of these folks: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government. We can’t do background
checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ The government’s us. These officials are elected by
you. … I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place.”
This is deeply frightening language. The notion that government tyranny is impossible in an elective republic is insanity of
the first order. Hitler was elected chancellor. Mussolini manipulated his way into power through constitutional means.
Hamas was elected in the Gaza Strip. Mohammed Morsi and his thuggish Muslim Brotherhood were elected in Egypt. If
rights are dependent on votes — if we only have a right to bear arms because a majority of the population elects
politicians who say we have a right to bear arms — then we have no rights at all.
via PatriotUpdate.com
In his pursuit of overarching gun control legislation in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre, President Barack
Obama has been dogged. He’s been relentless. He’s been demagogic, too, whether flanking himself with schoolchildren (the
implication being that his political opponents don’t care about dead kids) or suggesting that if just one life can be saved by
his legislation, we ought to buy into it wholeheartedly (a proposition that would justify almost any sort of government
overreach).
But on Wednesday, President Obama took his gun control push a step further: He admitted that only the Constitution
stands between him and full gun confiscation. Rejecting concerns that new background checks might be a prelude to gun
seizures, Obama suggested that worries about gun seizures were empty, and were only designed to feed “into fears about
government. You hear some of these folks: ‘I need a gun to protect myself from the government. We can’t do background
checks because the government’s going to come take my guns away.’ The government’s us. These officials are elected by
you. … I am constrained as they are constrained by the system that our founders put in place.”
This is deeply frightening language. The notion that government tyranny is impossible in an elective republic is insanity of
the first order. Hitler was elected chancellor. Mussolini manipulated his way into power through constitutional means.
Hamas was elected in the Gaza Strip. Mohammed Morsi and his thuggish Muslim Brotherhood were elected in Egypt. If
rights are dependent on votes — if we only have a right to bear arms because a majority of the population elects
politicians who say we have a right to bear arms — then we have no rights at all.
via PatriotUpdate.com
Our ‘True North’ for Jobs: Keystone XL Pipeline
The president gave a good speech on infrastructure late last week in Miami:
“There are few more important things we can do to create jobs right now and strengthen our economy over the long haul than rebuilding the infrastructure that powers our businesses and our economy. … As President, my top priority is to make sure we are doing everything we can to reignite the true engine of our economic growth – and that is a rising, thriving middle class. A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs – that’s got to be our true North. That's what has to guide our efforts every single day.”
And:
“When it comes to good jobs, no workers were hammered harder by the recession than construction workers. Fortunately, the unemployment rate for construction has been cut nearly in half over the past three years, partly because the housing market is starting to bounce back. But construction still has the highest unemployment rate of any industry. [Good construction jobs] end up giving people good pay and good opportunities to raise their families. Projects like this create a lot of other good jobs, too.”
And this:
“In a time of tight budgets, we’ve got to do it in a way that makes sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.”
At this point we’re thinking – the Keystone XL pipeline! It’s a no-brainer, Mr. President!
Jobs? According to the State Department’s most recent review, the Keystone XL would support more than 42,000 average annual jobs across the United States over the project’s construction period. State also said the pipeline would support employment worth more than $2 billion in earnings, spur spending of more than $3 billion and generate about $65 million in sales and use taxes that benefit states and localities.
The middle class? Construction workers? The president’s right: The economic downturn hit construction workers hard – 16 percent unemployment. The president of the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trades Department said the sector has weathered a depression and needs the jobs the Keystone XL would generate.
Tight budgets? The Keystone XL would be privately financed - $7 billion in spending without touching the taxpayers for a dime. It doesn’t get more fiscally responsible than that.
We don’t know what the president will decide on approving the full Keystone XL pipeline. We know what he should do: He should see that this shovel-ready project checks the box in just about every area he mentioned last week in Miami: needed energy infrastructure, jobs and economic stimulus – without tapping valuable and stretched public resources that could be used elsewhere.
We agree that job creation and the economic growth that comes with it should be our true North. The Keystone XL pipeline is that true North. The president should approve the full Keystone XL pipeline now.
“There are few more important things we can do to create jobs right now and strengthen our economy over the long haul than rebuilding the infrastructure that powers our businesses and our economy. … As President, my top priority is to make sure we are doing everything we can to reignite the true engine of our economic growth – and that is a rising, thriving middle class. A growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs – that’s got to be our true North. That's what has to guide our efforts every single day.”
And:
“When it comes to good jobs, no workers were hammered harder by the recession than construction workers. Fortunately, the unemployment rate for construction has been cut nearly in half over the past three years, partly because the housing market is starting to bounce back. But construction still has the highest unemployment rate of any industry. [Good construction jobs] end up giving people good pay and good opportunities to raise their families. Projects like this create a lot of other good jobs, too.”
And this:
“In a time of tight budgets, we’ve got to do it in a way that makes sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.”
At this point we’re thinking – the Keystone XL pipeline! It’s a no-brainer, Mr. President!
Jobs? According to the State Department’s most recent review, the Keystone XL would support more than 42,000 average annual jobs across the United States over the project’s construction period. State also said the pipeline would support employment worth more than $2 billion in earnings, spur spending of more than $3 billion and generate about $65 million in sales and use taxes that benefit states and localities.
The middle class? Construction workers? The president’s right: The economic downturn hit construction workers hard – 16 percent unemployment. The president of the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trades Department said the sector has weathered a depression and needs the jobs the Keystone XL would generate.
Tight budgets? The Keystone XL would be privately financed - $7 billion in spending without touching the taxpayers for a dime. It doesn’t get more fiscally responsible than that.
We don’t know what the president will decide on approving the full Keystone XL pipeline. We know what he should do: He should see that this shovel-ready project checks the box in just about every area he mentioned last week in Miami: needed energy infrastructure, jobs and economic stimulus – without tapping valuable and stretched public resources that could be used elsewhere.
We agree that job creation and the economic growth that comes with it should be our true North. The Keystone XL pipeline is that true North. The president should approve the full Keystone XL pipeline now.
Consumer Energy Alliance: Over 450,000 Americans Support Keystone Pipeline
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) has announced that they have submitted more than 450,000 public comments calling on the U.S. Department of State to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. What’s remarkable is that comments came from all parts of the U.S., helping underscore the fact that lower gas prices, jobs and economic growth aren’t just a concern in the six states that the Keystone XL Pipeline will pass through.
Michael Reeves, President of the Ports to Plains Alliance added that the economic impact of the project will be welcome in the states where the pipeline will be built:
“As leaders from the region that the Keystone XL pipeline will traverse, our members applaud the State Department’s thoroughness during this approval process. The department has fully analyzed the project’s environmental impact and the Final EIS rightfully concludes that there are no substantial environmental concerns that should prevent the construction of this valuable infrastructure project. They also understand that Keystone XL will provide significant economic benefits for our region – including the contribution of more than $5.2 billion in tax revenues to the Keystone XL corridor states — and call on the State Department to grant the Presidential Permit and allow construction of this important project.”
Read more: Consumer Energy Alliance: Keystone XL Receives Support from More than 450,000 Americans
http://keystone-pipeline-petition.com/create-economic-growth/
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) has announced that they have submitted more than 450,000 public comments calling on the U.S. Department of State to allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. What’s remarkable is that comments came from all parts of the U.S., helping underscore the fact that lower gas prices, jobs and economic growth aren’t just a concern in the six states that the Keystone XL Pipeline will pass through.
Michael Reeves, President of the Ports to Plains Alliance added that the economic impact of the project will be welcome in the states where the pipeline will be built:
“As leaders from the region that the Keystone XL pipeline will traverse, our members applaud the State Department’s thoroughness during this approval process. The department has fully analyzed the project’s environmental impact and the Final EIS rightfully concludes that there are no substantial environmental concerns that should prevent the construction of this valuable infrastructure project. They also understand that Keystone XL will provide significant economic benefits for our region – including the contribution of more than $5.2 billion in tax revenues to the Keystone XL corridor states — and call on the State Department to grant the Presidential Permit and allow construction of this important project.”
Read more: Consumer Energy Alliance: Keystone XL Receives Support from More than 450,000 Americans
http://keystone-pipeline-petition.com/create-economic-growth/
Keystone XL Pipeline: It’s About the Jobs, the Economy and Security oil pipeline construction
Before digging into some new misinformation about the job and economic impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline, let’s underscore a figure: 58 percent. That’s the share of likely U.S. voters who favor building the full Keystone XL, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll this week.
In public opinion terms, 58 percent is a slam dunk, a grand slam. Rasmussen says those who strongly favor the Keystone XL outnumber the strongly opposed by nearly three to one. Rasmussen’s finding is consistent with other Keystone XL surveys (Harris Interactive, Fox News, Pew Research). Americans want the full project built.
And they want it built despite more than four years of delay, despite often hysterical opposition from the 10 to 15 percent who’re adamantly against this project – and other pipelines, Canadian oil sands crude, refineries and most likely any fuel source or infrastructure that could provide Americans with reliable, affordable energy. They want it built for simple but important reasons: jobs, economic stimulus and energy security.
Some keep trying to dismiss the jobs and economic lift construction of the full Keystone XL could provide. The folks at Think Progress have a post this week decrying misinformation in the Keystone XL debate but then dispense a good deal of their own rhetorical chaff. Starting with jobs:
“The most recent State Department assessment, written by contractors hired by the pipeline developer, found that constructing the pipeline would create 3,900 temporary jobs, but just 35 permanent jobs.”
Here’s what the U.S. State Department said in its latest Keystone XL review:
“Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, the proposed Project would potentially support approximately 42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1-to 2-year construction period …”
State goes on to describe economic benefits that construction of the full pipeline could generate:
“This employment would potentially translate to approximately $2.05 billion in earnings. Direct expenditures such as construction and materials costs (including construction camps) would total approximately $3.3 billion. Short-term revenues from sources such as sales and use taxes would total approximately $65 million in states that levy such a tax.”
And there’s more:
“Yields from fuel and other taxes could not be calculated, but would provide some additional economic benefit to host counties and states. The proposed Project area does not have sufficient temporary housing for the anticipated construction workforce. Keystone proposes to meet the housing need through a combination of local housing and eight construction camps. Property taxes on these camps would potentially generate the equivalent of one full year of property tax revenue for seven host counties, totaling approximately $2 million.”
These are the benefits that accrue when a construction project of this magnitude gets off the drawing board. This would be real-world growth, for which real-world people – including the skilled men and women of the U.S. construction trades, suffering 16 percent unemployment – have been waiting for more than four years. Sean McGarvey, president of the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trade Department, from earlier this year:
“For the skilled craft professionals that I am privileged to represent, the past four years have not been a recession, they have been a depression. … This has been the most scrutinized infrastructure project, perhaps, in our nation’s history. And at every juncture, concerns about safety and the environment have been met and satisfied. It is now time to build the Keystone XL pipeline and put thousands of Americans back to work.”
As for jobs involved in the operation of the pipeline, let’s not miss the point that a project of this size can stimulate the economy beyond itself. According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, 117,000 new U.S. jobs linked to oil sands development because of the Keystone XL would be created by 2035.
There are other economic benefits, such as trade. The fully completed Keystone XL would change the way Gulf Coast refiners get their oil, and the change is big.
Last year the U.S. imported 331,697,000 barrels of oil worth more than $33 billion from Venezuela. The State Department says oil delivered by the Keystone XL – and remember, 25 percent of the pipeline’s pickup would be U.S. oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota – would likely displace Venezuelan oil. The Keystone XL has contracts in place to ship 555,000 barrels a day from Canada, or more than 202 million barrels a year.
Here’s why it matters whether we get that oil from Canada instead of Venezuela. According to the Census Bureau, in 2012 for every $1 in goods we bought from Venezuela, Venezuela purchased 46 cents worth of goods from us. Yet, in trade with Canada, for every $1 in good we bought from our northern neighbor, they bought 90 cents worth of goods from us – a 44-cent difference. Figure it out: The potential trade differential from buying slightly more than 202 million barrels of oil from Canada instead of Venezuela is about $9 billion a year in potential U.S. exports. The Commerce Department translates those exports into an additional 48,297 U.S. jobs per year – from buying that amount of crude oil from Canada instead of Venezuela.
Think Progress also takes another shot at the Keystone XL’s economic benefits, saying there’s no guarantee oil delivered by the pipeline will stay in the U.S. after it’s refined into gasoline, diesel and other products. The State Department says that’s unlikely. Even if State is mistaken, the export of finished, more valuable products is a win for the United States. More on that another day.
As for energy security and the Keystone XL, a new Chicago Tribune editorial says it pretty well:
“The U.S. has made great strides toward energy independence, thanks to conservation efforts and an incredible boom in exploration for domestic oil and natural gas. A recent report from Citigroup projected the U.S. could become North American energy independent by 2020. That is, this nation could get all of its energy from the U.S. and Canada. … But those projections depend on the U.S. making the right decisions about supply and consumption. One of those decisions is approval of the Keystone pipeline.”
The benefits of the Keystone XL are clear. They were clear in 2011, they were clear in 2010. They have been clear for more than four years. The facts have been discussed, parsed, researched, studied, reviewed, appraised, examined, reexamined, reviewed and scrutinized. It’s time to approve the full Keystone XL pipeline.
http://theenergycollective.com/mark-green/204186/keystone-xl-pipeline-jobs-economy-and-security
Before digging into some new misinformation about the job and economic impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline, let’s underscore a figure: 58 percent. That’s the share of likely U.S. voters who favor building the full Keystone XL, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll this week.
In public opinion terms, 58 percent is a slam dunk, a grand slam. Rasmussen says those who strongly favor the Keystone XL outnumber the strongly opposed by nearly three to one. Rasmussen’s finding is consistent with other Keystone XL surveys (Harris Interactive, Fox News, Pew Research). Americans want the full project built.
And they want it built despite more than four years of delay, despite often hysterical opposition from the 10 to 15 percent who’re adamantly against this project – and other pipelines, Canadian oil sands crude, refineries and most likely any fuel source or infrastructure that could provide Americans with reliable, affordable energy. They want it built for simple but important reasons: jobs, economic stimulus and energy security.
Some keep trying to dismiss the jobs and economic lift construction of the full Keystone XL could provide. The folks at Think Progress have a post this week decrying misinformation in the Keystone XL debate but then dispense a good deal of their own rhetorical chaff. Starting with jobs:
“The most recent State Department assessment, written by contractors hired by the pipeline developer, found that constructing the pipeline would create 3,900 temporary jobs, but just 35 permanent jobs.”
Here’s what the U.S. State Department said in its latest Keystone XL review:
“Including direct, indirect, and induced effects, the proposed Project would potentially support approximately 42,100 average annual jobs across the United States over a 1-to 2-year construction period …”
State goes on to describe economic benefits that construction of the full pipeline could generate:
“This employment would potentially translate to approximately $2.05 billion in earnings. Direct expenditures such as construction and materials costs (including construction camps) would total approximately $3.3 billion. Short-term revenues from sources such as sales and use taxes would total approximately $65 million in states that levy such a tax.”
And there’s more:
“Yields from fuel and other taxes could not be calculated, but would provide some additional economic benefit to host counties and states. The proposed Project area does not have sufficient temporary housing for the anticipated construction workforce. Keystone proposes to meet the housing need through a combination of local housing and eight construction camps. Property taxes on these camps would potentially generate the equivalent of one full year of property tax revenue for seven host counties, totaling approximately $2 million.”
These are the benefits that accrue when a construction project of this magnitude gets off the drawing board. This would be real-world growth, for which real-world people – including the skilled men and women of the U.S. construction trades, suffering 16 percent unemployment – have been waiting for more than four years. Sean McGarvey, president of the AFL-CIO’s Building and Construction Trade Department, from earlier this year:
“For the skilled craft professionals that I am privileged to represent, the past four years have not been a recession, they have been a depression. … This has been the most scrutinized infrastructure project, perhaps, in our nation’s history. And at every juncture, concerns about safety and the environment have been met and satisfied. It is now time to build the Keystone XL pipeline and put thousands of Americans back to work.”
As for jobs involved in the operation of the pipeline, let’s not miss the point that a project of this size can stimulate the economy beyond itself. According to the Canadian Energy Research Institute, 117,000 new U.S. jobs linked to oil sands development because of the Keystone XL would be created by 2035.
There are other economic benefits, such as trade. The fully completed Keystone XL would change the way Gulf Coast refiners get their oil, and the change is big.
Last year the U.S. imported 331,697,000 barrels of oil worth more than $33 billion from Venezuela. The State Department says oil delivered by the Keystone XL – and remember, 25 percent of the pipeline’s pickup would be U.S. oil from the Bakken region in North Dakota – would likely displace Venezuelan oil. The Keystone XL has contracts in place to ship 555,000 barrels a day from Canada, or more than 202 million barrels a year.
Here’s why it matters whether we get that oil from Canada instead of Venezuela. According to the Census Bureau, in 2012 for every $1 in goods we bought from Venezuela, Venezuela purchased 46 cents worth of goods from us. Yet, in trade with Canada, for every $1 in good we bought from our northern neighbor, they bought 90 cents worth of goods from us – a 44-cent difference. Figure it out: The potential trade differential from buying slightly more than 202 million barrels of oil from Canada instead of Venezuela is about $9 billion a year in potential U.S. exports. The Commerce Department translates those exports into an additional 48,297 U.S. jobs per year – from buying that amount of crude oil from Canada instead of Venezuela.
Think Progress also takes another shot at the Keystone XL’s economic benefits, saying there’s no guarantee oil delivered by the pipeline will stay in the U.S. after it’s refined into gasoline, diesel and other products. The State Department says that’s unlikely. Even if State is mistaken, the export of finished, more valuable products is a win for the United States. More on that another day.
As for energy security and the Keystone XL, a new Chicago Tribune editorial says it pretty well:
“The U.S. has made great strides toward energy independence, thanks to conservation efforts and an incredible boom in exploration for domestic oil and natural gas. A recent report from Citigroup projected the U.S. could become North American energy independent by 2020. That is, this nation could get all of its energy from the U.S. and Canada. … But those projections depend on the U.S. making the right decisions about supply and consumption. One of those decisions is approval of the Keystone pipeline.”
The benefits of the Keystone XL are clear. They were clear in 2011, they were clear in 2010. They have been clear for more than four years. The facts have been discussed, parsed, researched, studied, reviewed, appraised, examined, reexamined, reviewed and scrutinized. It’s time to approve the full Keystone XL pipeline.
http://theenergycollective.com/mark-green/204186/keystone-xl-pipeline-jobs-economy-and-security
The Keystone pipeline: A bridge to economic growth
Americans are worried about high gasoline prices and slow economic growth. The State Department has a rare opportunity to mitigate both of these problems at once — by signing off on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Keystone pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canada to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas, would secure vital resources from a trusted ally. It would also stimulate the economy, increase government revenue, and create 13,000 high-wage construction jobs over the next two years and 340,000 jobs over the next five years in manufacturing and service industries that would benefit from the pipeline’s construction.
Because the pipeline originates in a foreign country, it needs to be approved by the State Department, which is under pressure from environmental groups to block the project. Opponents of the pipeline cite familiar and unconvincing arguments about greenhouse gas emissions, but it is hard to see how blocking the Keystone pipeline from being built would be a good thing for the environment. Canada has vast oil resources that it will develop with or without a pipeline to the U.S., which is why a recent Department of Energy report concluded that construction of the Keystone pipeline would not change global refinery carbon dioxide and greenhouse has emissions. Canadian officials have said that if environmentalists scuttle the Keystone pipeline, investors will simply build a new pipeline to the coast and sell their crude to China — effectively shipping jobs and billions in economic activity overseas. The only unanswered question is whether Canadian crude will be refined in Oklahoma or in China.
Claims that the Keystone pipeline would be unsafe are entirely disingenuous — the Keystone pipeline has met or exceeded every federal safety requirement. In fact, there is ample evidence that it would be the safest pipeline ever constructed.
The Keystone pipeline is essentially a cost-free stimulus. Americans who want to realize the pipeline’s long-overdue economic benefits should contact the State Department, which is currently accepting comments. Influential organizations like the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and National Wildlife Federation have been urging their large memberships to kill the pipeline. Proponents of the pipeline must push back against these environmental groups. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake.
Christopher Prandoni is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Worker Freedom, an affiliate of Americans for Tax Reform.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/31/the-keystone-pipeline-a-bridge-to-economic-growth/
Americans are worried about high gasoline prices and slow economic growth. The State Department has a rare opportunity to mitigate both of these problems at once — by signing off on the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.
The Keystone pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canada to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas, would secure vital resources from a trusted ally. It would also stimulate the economy, increase government revenue, and create 13,000 high-wage construction jobs over the next two years and 340,000 jobs over the next five years in manufacturing and service industries that would benefit from the pipeline’s construction.
Because the pipeline originates in a foreign country, it needs to be approved by the State Department, which is under pressure from environmental groups to block the project. Opponents of the pipeline cite familiar and unconvincing arguments about greenhouse gas emissions, but it is hard to see how blocking the Keystone pipeline from being built would be a good thing for the environment. Canada has vast oil resources that it will develop with or without a pipeline to the U.S., which is why a recent Department of Energy report concluded that construction of the Keystone pipeline would not change global refinery carbon dioxide and greenhouse has emissions. Canadian officials have said that if environmentalists scuttle the Keystone pipeline, investors will simply build a new pipeline to the coast and sell their crude to China — effectively shipping jobs and billions in economic activity overseas. The only unanswered question is whether Canadian crude will be refined in Oklahoma or in China.
Claims that the Keystone pipeline would be unsafe are entirely disingenuous — the Keystone pipeline has met or exceeded every federal safety requirement. In fact, there is ample evidence that it would be the safest pipeline ever constructed.
The Keystone pipeline is essentially a cost-free stimulus. Americans who want to realize the pipeline’s long-overdue economic benefits should contact the State Department, which is currently accepting comments. Influential organizations like the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and National Wildlife Federation have been urging their large memberships to kill the pipeline. Proponents of the pipeline must push back against these environmental groups. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake.
Christopher Prandoni is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Worker Freedom, an affiliate of Americans for Tax Reform.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/31/the-keystone-pipeline-a-bridge-to-economic-growth/
Dismal Jobs Numbers Add Urgency to Obama’s Budget Bluff
“88,000”-- Estimated number of jobs added by U.S. employers in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
What’s the cause for March’s dismal jobs numbers?
A quick perusal of headlines suggests that worries about automatic decreases to automatic increases in federal spending are the culprit.
No doubt the concerns about what has been dubbed “sequestration” caused some agitation, particularly with government contractors. But the reason the economy added only 88,000 jobs in March, far short of the nearly 200,000 needed to improve the employment picture, is more complicated.
Across-the-board tax increases – six-times larger than the sequestration reductions – concerns about the imposition of new insurance costs under President Obama’s health law and generalized economic anxiety are major factors too. For many economic reporters, the only time a bad jobs report is not “unexpected” is when it can be correlated to budget cuts.
To have the biggest miss in forecast job gains since December 2009 and the worst number since the summer swoon of last year it takes more than just a small reduction to federal discretionary spending. Of course, given how much hype the Obama administration offered ahead of the sequester’s start one could understand that anxieties would be high. But still, that’s not enough to bring hiring nearly to a halt.
Also largely unexplored is the fact that the labor-force participation rate has fallen to the lowest point since May 1979. How much of that is due to the exploding number of Americans enrolled in disability programs and other welfare benefits? How much does it cost to have the smallest share of Americans working since before full female participation?
Whatever the causes for the weakened employment scene, we are seeing clearly one of its effects today as Team Obama looks to find a way to get past the looming fiscal cliffs this summer and fall.
Higher taxes, lower spending and fiscal uncertainty are terrifying to those who hire and fire workers. If Democrats hope to avoid a drubbing in next year’s elections the president needs to end the ongoing fiscal fracas. And if he can’t do that, he needs at least to reclaim the moral high ground on the issues, lost during his sequestration antics.
In the world of lowered fiscal expectations, nothing quite compares to what accounts now for a “long-term” or “grand” bargain. A full-year budget, not seen since 2007 but previously quite normal, is hardly grand.
But after the pitiful fiscal spectacles of the last four years, finding a way to borrow and spend enough money to fast forward to the 2014 elections would be a huge achievement. We don’t expect them to get sober in the first episode of “Celebrity Rehab,” after all.
In widely leaked talking points on the president’s long-delayed budget proposal, expected out next week, the White House is trying to show that the president is interested in a long-term deal, on the order of reducing the increase in the federal debt by some $4 trillion over the next decade. The suggestion is that rather than increasing the debt by nearly $5 trillion by 2023, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, to only increase it by $600 billion or so.
Conservatives grumble that it’s not much of a debt reduction plan which increases debt, but take heart at the thought of the president officially embracing any changes to entitlement programs. The growing anger and anxiety of liberals about any changes, even modest ones, to Social Security and Medicare also make Republican fiscal hawks happy. It is evidence that they must be winning.
But it would also call Republicans’ bluff. The GOP has careened from fiscal to crisis to fiscal crisis saying that if only Democrats would be willing to address the long-term drivers of debt, particularly Medicare, then maybe some larger deal could be achieved. Until then, more cuts, please.
For decades Republicans lived in fear of their own whispered worries about Medicare, Social Security and Medicare, seen in 2011 when Mitt Romney savaged Rick Perry for calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” But Romney ended up picking entitlement crusader Paul Ryan for his running mate, apparently having decided that the shock from the third rail was really just a pleasant tingle.
The Ryan pick and the inability of Democratic House candidates to exploit Ryan’s budget plan in 2012 races has left the GOP feeling emboldened on entitlements. Also emboldening is the growing public consensus that the programs are fiscal brownfields in need of detoxification.
Republicans, much changed on entitlements since they cut and ran from President George W. Bush’s proposal for individual Social Security accounts in 2005, have been further emboldened by the knowledge that Democrats would not call their bluff. By asking for something politically impossible, Republicans could stay in the happier space for them of wringing spending reductions, dollar by dollar, out of the Obama Democrats.
Even if Obama fails to get Democrats on board, simply by endorsing modest changes to entitlement programs in decades to come the president makes it much harder for Republicans to refuse him in his demands for higher taxes, higher deficits and higher spending in the next fiscal year.
As we have learned with changes to Medicare that were part of Clinton-era budget deals, future changes can always be undone. The chained CPI of 2013 could easily be unchained in 2015, etc.
This allows Obama to light up Republicans on taxes and spending: “I offered them what they wanted, which was to harm the poor, sick and elderly, and yet Republicans still won’t tax billionaires to pay for programs to strengthen the middle class…”
Obama will be cheered in the center-left press for even discussing entitlements. And as the Washington Post nods approvingly, the screeches and wails from farther left will further illustrate Obama’s preferred narrative that he is being the reasonable man.
(Bitter enders in the Senate who demand no changes be made to entitlements must have missed the moment in 2010 when they ripped up Medicare to pay for a new insurance entitlement program.)
This leaves Republicans looking rather ridiculous. How can they so forcefully object to more borrowing and higher taxes today when the president is willing to change old Democratic legacy programs? One can almost hear the clutch of Republicans on MSNBC caviling against GOP intransigency already.
And Republicans have only themselves to blame. By making their fiscal argument so much about cutting popular entitlement programs, in part based on the impossibility of such changes actually being made, they have created a huge opportunity for Obama to get what he wants now: higher taxes, more spending and weakened Republican opposition after the 2014 elections.
Republicans do best when talking about what they think the government is doing wrong in real time – waste, failed programs, rotten regulations, etc. The sequestration fight shows how well Republicans do just by reminding people about what the government is spending today.
Of course, Obama may lack the political skills to prevent open rebellion in the Senate and see his budget swiftly rebuffed on the left and right. That could well be beginning of the true lame ducking of the president. A stumble here and the economic downturn it would bring could spell the end of Obamism.
But the Republicans have given him a shot at winning the fiscal fights of today with promises of changes tomorrow, so he’s going to take it.
And Now, A Word From Charles
“What he has done completely in contradiction to what he promised as a candidate in '08. He institutionalized the permanent campaign. He's out there raising money at the beginning of the second term when he ought to be here working on the budget, on sequester, and all these other issues. But now he is the essence of exactly the system that he denounced and he promised he would messianically redeem.”
-- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”
Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com. Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET at http:live.foxnews.com.
The Observer
Dylan Matthews, writing for the Washington Post, puts the latest jobs report in graphic perspective. Here’s a chart showing the private and public sector job increases and decreases over the last few years.
What’s the cause for March’s dismal jobs numbers?
A quick perusal of headlines suggests that worries about automatic decreases to automatic increases in federal spending are the culprit.
No doubt the concerns about what has been dubbed “sequestration” caused some agitation, particularly with government contractors. But the reason the economy added only 88,000 jobs in March, far short of the nearly 200,000 needed to improve the employment picture, is more complicated.
Across-the-board tax increases – six-times larger than the sequestration reductions – concerns about the imposition of new insurance costs under President Obama’s health law and generalized economic anxiety are major factors too. For many economic reporters, the only time a bad jobs report is not “unexpected” is when it can be correlated to budget cuts.
To have the biggest miss in forecast job gains since December 2009 and the worst number since the summer swoon of last year it takes more than just a small reduction to federal discretionary spending. Of course, given how much hype the Obama administration offered ahead of the sequester’s start one could understand that anxieties would be high. But still, that’s not enough to bring hiring nearly to a halt.
Also largely unexplored is the fact that the labor-force participation rate has fallen to the lowest point since May 1979. How much of that is due to the exploding number of Americans enrolled in disability programs and other welfare benefits? How much does it cost to have the smallest share of Americans working since before full female participation?
Whatever the causes for the weakened employment scene, we are seeing clearly one of its effects today as Team Obama looks to find a way to get past the looming fiscal cliffs this summer and fall.
Higher taxes, lower spending and fiscal uncertainty are terrifying to those who hire and fire workers. If Democrats hope to avoid a drubbing in next year’s elections the president needs to end the ongoing fiscal fracas. And if he can’t do that, he needs at least to reclaim the moral high ground on the issues, lost during his sequestration antics.
In the world of lowered fiscal expectations, nothing quite compares to what accounts now for a “long-term” or “grand” bargain. A full-year budget, not seen since 2007 but previously quite normal, is hardly grand.
But after the pitiful fiscal spectacles of the last four years, finding a way to borrow and spend enough money to fast forward to the 2014 elections would be a huge achievement. We don’t expect them to get sober in the first episode of “Celebrity Rehab,” after all.
In widely leaked talking points on the president’s long-delayed budget proposal, expected out next week, the White House is trying to show that the president is interested in a long-term deal, on the order of reducing the increase in the federal debt by some $4 trillion over the next decade. The suggestion is that rather than increasing the debt by nearly $5 trillion by 2023, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, to only increase it by $600 billion or so.
Conservatives grumble that it’s not much of a debt reduction plan which increases debt, but take heart at the thought of the president officially embracing any changes to entitlement programs. The growing anger and anxiety of liberals about any changes, even modest ones, to Social Security and Medicare also make Republican fiscal hawks happy. It is evidence that they must be winning.
But it would also call Republicans’ bluff. The GOP has careened from fiscal to crisis to fiscal crisis saying that if only Democrats would be willing to address the long-term drivers of debt, particularly Medicare, then maybe some larger deal could be achieved. Until then, more cuts, please.
For decades Republicans lived in fear of their own whispered worries about Medicare, Social Security and Medicare, seen in 2011 when Mitt Romney savaged Rick Perry for calling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme.” But Romney ended up picking entitlement crusader Paul Ryan for his running mate, apparently having decided that the shock from the third rail was really just a pleasant tingle.
The Ryan pick and the inability of Democratic House candidates to exploit Ryan’s budget plan in 2012 races has left the GOP feeling emboldened on entitlements. Also emboldening is the growing public consensus that the programs are fiscal brownfields in need of detoxification.
Republicans, much changed on entitlements since they cut and ran from President George W. Bush’s proposal for individual Social Security accounts in 2005, have been further emboldened by the knowledge that Democrats would not call their bluff. By asking for something politically impossible, Republicans could stay in the happier space for them of wringing spending reductions, dollar by dollar, out of the Obama Democrats.
Even if Obama fails to get Democrats on board, simply by endorsing modest changes to entitlement programs in decades to come the president makes it much harder for Republicans to refuse him in his demands for higher taxes, higher deficits and higher spending in the next fiscal year.
As we have learned with changes to Medicare that were part of Clinton-era budget deals, future changes can always be undone. The chained CPI of 2013 could easily be unchained in 2015, etc.
This allows Obama to light up Republicans on taxes and spending: “I offered them what they wanted, which was to harm the poor, sick and elderly, and yet Republicans still won’t tax billionaires to pay for programs to strengthen the middle class…”
Obama will be cheered in the center-left press for even discussing entitlements. And as the Washington Post nods approvingly, the screeches and wails from farther left will further illustrate Obama’s preferred narrative that he is being the reasonable man.
(Bitter enders in the Senate who demand no changes be made to entitlements must have missed the moment in 2010 when they ripped up Medicare to pay for a new insurance entitlement program.)
This leaves Republicans looking rather ridiculous. How can they so forcefully object to more borrowing and higher taxes today when the president is willing to change old Democratic legacy programs? One can almost hear the clutch of Republicans on MSNBC caviling against GOP intransigency already.
And Republicans have only themselves to blame. By making their fiscal argument so much about cutting popular entitlement programs, in part based on the impossibility of such changes actually being made, they have created a huge opportunity for Obama to get what he wants now: higher taxes, more spending and weakened Republican opposition after the 2014 elections.
Republicans do best when talking about what they think the government is doing wrong in real time – waste, failed programs, rotten regulations, etc. The sequestration fight shows how well Republicans do just by reminding people about what the government is spending today.
Of course, Obama may lack the political skills to prevent open rebellion in the Senate and see his budget swiftly rebuffed on the left and right. That could well be beginning of the true lame ducking of the president. A stumble here and the economic downturn it would bring could spell the end of Obamism.
But the Republicans have given him a shot at winning the fiscal fights of today with promises of changes tomorrow, so he’s going to take it.
And Now, A Word From Charles
“What he has done completely in contradiction to what he promised as a candidate in '08. He institutionalized the permanent campaign. He's out there raising money at the beginning of the second term when he ought to be here working on the budget, on sequester, and all these other issues. But now he is the essence of exactly the system that he denounced and he promised he would messianically redeem.”
-- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”
Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com. Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET at http:live.foxnews.com.
The Observer
Dylan Matthews, writing for the Washington Post, puts the latest jobs report in graphic perspective. Here’s a chart showing the private and public sector job increases and decreases over the last few years.
When you hear people whine about bloated governments, show them the above chart.
The more worrisome chart is this one.
The more worrisome chart is this one.
That’s not good, folks.
This entry was posted in Economics, Government, Labor, Politics. Bookmark thepermalink.
RELATED TOPICS
Optimists (read: the administration) will look at the March jobs report released this morning and observe that the unemployment rate fell another tick, from 7.7 percent to 7.6 percent. Realists will look at the same data and note that a meager 88,000 jobs were added. So much for all the high-fiving after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its February report, which showed the addition of 268,000 jobs.
Apart from the new jobs numbers being less than half what economists had forecast and presaging a hiring slowdown, the drop in unemployment is a false positive. According to the report some 496,000 Americans stopped working or looking for work. As Ed Morrissey notes at Hot Air, “The jobs added fall far short of the 125K-150K needed just to keep up with population growth.”
The president has not yet responded to these abysmal new numbers, but that is because he is resting up after an exhausting two days on the campaign trail in San Francisco. You are probably saying to yourself, “But he just won a second and final term, so why is he still campaigning?” The answer is that he is busy raising funds for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the DNC.
When his propaganda minister, Jay Carney, was confronted yesterday with the sobering reality that the president is out pressing flesh while the country struggles, Carney responded that this is "a traditional exercise" and that other presidents have done the same. But other presidents were not elected on the strength of the promise to “change the way Washington works” and to do away once and for all with the endless campaign.
Anyway today’s job numbers render all of this moot.
Related Articles
Obama in FL touts American jobs standing in front of Chinese crane
To honor memory of MLK, NYC fast food workers strike for more than double the minimum wage
Obamacare hurts colleges, slashes jobs and wages
Despite sequester Obama designates 5 new national monuments
Bob Johnson, blacks and Democrats now ‘tolerate’ 15% white unemployment
Scholarships cut for children of Iraq, Afghanistan war casualties
SNL skewers Obama over sequester, handling of economy
Jay Carney guardedly optimistic about WH Easter egg roll
More Pinocchios for more WH ‘Capitol janitor’ fibs
WH releases state-by-state impact of sequestration (Photos)
HUD: Sequester cuts Obama signed could expose kids to lead poisoning
For more articles and headlines, be sure to check out Liberty Unyielding.
This entry was posted in Economics, Government, Labor, Politics. Bookmark thepermalink.
RELATED TOPICS
Optimists (read: the administration) will look at the March jobs report released this morning and observe that the unemployment rate fell another tick, from 7.7 percent to 7.6 percent. Realists will look at the same data and note that a meager 88,000 jobs were added. So much for all the high-fiving after the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its February report, which showed the addition of 268,000 jobs.
Apart from the new jobs numbers being less than half what economists had forecast and presaging a hiring slowdown, the drop in unemployment is a false positive. According to the report some 496,000 Americans stopped working or looking for work. As Ed Morrissey notes at Hot Air, “The jobs added fall far short of the 125K-150K needed just to keep up with population growth.”
The president has not yet responded to these abysmal new numbers, but that is because he is resting up after an exhausting two days on the campaign trail in San Francisco. You are probably saying to yourself, “But he just won a second and final term, so why is he still campaigning?” The answer is that he is busy raising funds for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the DNC.
When his propaganda minister, Jay Carney, was confronted yesterday with the sobering reality that the president is out pressing flesh while the country struggles, Carney responded that this is "a traditional exercise" and that other presidents have done the same. But other presidents were not elected on the strength of the promise to “change the way Washington works” and to do away once and for all with the endless campaign.
Anyway today’s job numbers render all of this moot.
Related Articles
Obama in FL touts American jobs standing in front of Chinese crane
To honor memory of MLK, NYC fast food workers strike for more than double the minimum wage
Obamacare hurts colleges, slashes jobs and wages
Despite sequester Obama designates 5 new national monuments
Bob Johnson, blacks and Democrats now ‘tolerate’ 15% white unemployment
Scholarships cut for children of Iraq, Afghanistan war casualties
SNL skewers Obama over sequester, handling of economy
Jay Carney guardedly optimistic about WH Easter egg roll
More Pinocchios for more WH ‘Capitol janitor’ fibs
WH releases state-by-state impact of sequestration (Photos)
HUD: Sequester cuts Obama signed could expose kids to lead poisoning
For more articles and headlines, be sure to check out Liberty Unyielding.
How did $300M minesweeper become scrap metal? Navy wants answers
Fox News
The commanding officer and three crewmembers aboard a U.S. Navy minesweeper have been relieved of their duties amid
an investigation into how the $300 million ship got stuck on a reef near the Philippines and had to be scuttled.
The USS Guardian became stuck on a reef in the Tubbataha National Marine Park, a World Heritage Site in the Sulu Sea
some 400 miles southeast of Manila in January.
The Navy said in a statement that the officer and crewmembers were relieved because the ship's grounding did not
comply with its navigation procedures and accountability standards.
Last week, the Navy chopped the ship up into sections and removed it, turning a valuable ship into scrap metal.
“We're paid to make sure that both the crew and that ship comes through harm’s way alright,” said Joe Sestak, a former
Democrat Congressman from Pennsylvania and retired three-star admiral. “A mistake was made here.”
On Sunday, workers removed the last major part of the ship, and experts there are now assessing possible damage to the
reef. Meanwhile, Navy investigators want to know what went wrong on Jan. 17. Initially the ship sustained minor damage,
but before it could be towed off the reef, waves pushed the hull further onto the coral.
The guardian is one of only eight sweepers in the U.S. fleet. So far, the Navy blames faulty navigational maps for
causing the ship to run aground. Its captain, Mark Rice, took command of the ship just three months before the accident.
The doomed ship's parts are being transported to a Navy facility in Sasebo, Japan, to determine which ones can be
reused and which will be junked, Philippine coast guard Commodore Enrico Efren Evangelista said.
An initial estimate showed about 4,780 square yards of coral reef were damaged by the ship grounding, according to
Tubbataha park superintendent Angelique Songco. The U.S. could be facing a fine of more than $2 million.
Asked if the Philippine government would press charges against U.S. Navy officials, Philippine Secretary Herminio Coloma
Jr., a spokesman for President Benigno Aquino III, did not reply directly, but said, "There must be accountability and we
will enforce our existing laws."
The warship's removal closes an embarrassing episode as Washington reasserts its presence in Asia amid China's rise. The
Navy and the U.S. ambassador to Manila, Harry Thomas, have both apologized for the grounding and promised to
cooperate with America's longtime Asian ally.
"As we have stated in the past, we regret this incident and the United States is prepared to pay compensation for the
damage to the reef," the U.S. Embassy said in a statement, adding that it was cooperating with a Philippine government
investigation of the incident.
The commanding officer and three crewmembers aboard a U.S. Navy minesweeper have been relieved of their duties amid
an investigation into how the $300 million ship got stuck on a reef near the Philippines and had to be scuttled.
The USS Guardian became stuck on a reef in the Tubbataha National Marine Park, a World Heritage Site in the Sulu Sea
some 400 miles southeast of Manila in January.
The Navy said in a statement that the officer and crewmembers were relieved because the ship's grounding did not
comply with its navigation procedures and accountability standards.
Last week, the Navy chopped the ship up into sections and removed it, turning a valuable ship into scrap metal.
“We're paid to make sure that both the crew and that ship comes through harm’s way alright,” said Joe Sestak, a former
Democrat Congressman from Pennsylvania and retired three-star admiral. “A mistake was made here.”
On Sunday, workers removed the last major part of the ship, and experts there are now assessing possible damage to the
reef. Meanwhile, Navy investigators want to know what went wrong on Jan. 17. Initially the ship sustained minor damage,
but before it could be towed off the reef, waves pushed the hull further onto the coral.
The guardian is one of only eight sweepers in the U.S. fleet. So far, the Navy blames faulty navigational maps for
causing the ship to run aground. Its captain, Mark Rice, took command of the ship just three months before the accident.
The doomed ship's parts are being transported to a Navy facility in Sasebo, Japan, to determine which ones can be
reused and which will be junked, Philippine coast guard Commodore Enrico Efren Evangelista said.
An initial estimate showed about 4,780 square yards of coral reef were damaged by the ship grounding, according to
Tubbataha park superintendent Angelique Songco. The U.S. could be facing a fine of more than $2 million.
Asked if the Philippine government would press charges against U.S. Navy officials, Philippine Secretary Herminio Coloma
Jr., a spokesman for President Benigno Aquino III, did not reply directly, but said, "There must be accountability and we
will enforce our existing laws."
The warship's removal closes an embarrassing episode as Washington reasserts its presence in Asia amid China's rise. The
Navy and the U.S. ambassador to Manila, Harry Thomas, have both apologized for the grounding and promised to
cooperate with America's longtime Asian ally.
"As we have stated in the past, we regret this incident and the United States is prepared to pay compensation for the
damage to the reef," the U.S. Embassy said in a statement, adding that it was cooperating with a Philippine government
investigation of the incident.
You’ll Need To Hire A Navigator Just To Understand Obamacare
You’ll Need To Hire A Navigator Just To Understand Obamacare; Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Worth of “Helpers”
Just To Explain the Ins and Outs | Peace and Freedom
Signing up an estimated 30 million uninsured Americans for coverage under the health-care law is shaping up to be, if not
a bureaucratic nightmare, at the very least a daunting task.
While some people will find registering for health insurance as easy as booking a flight online, vast numbers who are
confused by the myriad choices will need to sit down with someone who can walk them through the process.
Enter the “navigators,” an enormous new workforce of helpers required under the law. In large measure, the success of
the law and its overriding aim of making sure that virtually all Americans have health insurance depends on these people.
But the challenge of hiring and paying for a new class of workers is immense and is one of the most pressing issues as the
Obama administration and state governments implement the law.
Tens of thousands of workers will be needed — California alone plans to certify 21,000 helpers — with the tab likely to
run in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
“I would say the task we face is herculean,” said Denise de Percin, executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health
Initiative, an advocacy group that has studied what it will take to staff her state’s navigator program.
Over the short term, some workers may be funded by federal grants, state budgets or private money. But over the longer
term, most of the costs are to be covered by the new health-care marketplaces, called “exchanges,”being set up in every
state. The money will come from fees that insurers will pay to sell their plans on the exchanges.
Groups such as unions, chambers of commerce, health clinics, immigrant-service organizations, and community- or
consumer-focused nonprofits can use the grants to train and employ staff members or volunteers to provide in-person
guidance — especially to hard-to-reach populations — and to provide space for them to work.
Added to the logistical challenge is a political one: Insurance brokers inmany states are lobbying to prohibit the navigators
from giving advice on which plans to choose and to make them liable for their guidance if it results in financial harm.
The brokers, who earn commissions and fees by enrolling people in plans and who might lose business to the navigators,
contend that the navigators won’t have sufficient expertise.
“What you don’t want is for our agents to be cut out and to have this force of untrained, unlicensed individuals giving
advice with no financial responsibility,” said Ryan Young, head of government relations for the Independent Insurance
Agents and Brokers of America, an industry trade group. “Consumers are going to get hammered.”
Under the law, the exchanges must fund enough navigators to ensure that every applicant who needs assistance can get it.
“You have to ask, how many people can one navigator help in one day?” de Percin said. “Well, the people who do this kind
of work might spend an hour to three hours with folks. So the answer is not many.”
Colorado Insurance Commissioner Jim Reisberg stunned a recent gathering of state officials when he said that, to be
viable, the state’s exchange will need to sign up 150,000 people, or about 800 people a day, seven days a week, over the
six months of the open enrollment period, which will run from Oct. 1 through March.
I don’t know that any corporation would set goals that high, even if they were going into it with the kind of money they
have for marketing Coke or Pepsi,” Reisberg said afterward.
Compounding the difficulty, de Percin said, is that many of the uninsured struggle with English or don’t have easy access
to the Internet. Others aren’t familiar with concepts like co-payments and deductibles, let alone the subsidies that will be
provided for lower-income people or the new eligibility rules for Medicaid.
“If you’ve never shopped for insurance before, it’s just not a simple task. It’s going to be a lot of new information for
people,” she said.
A funding Catch-22
Adela Flores-Brennan, head of the navigator program for Colorado’s exchange, said she expects to train “thousands” of
navigators and other in-person helpers. But it’s unclear how much of that effort the exchange will be able to pay for.
In a kind of Catch-22, the money must come from an exchange’s operating funds, which will rely on fees from insurers.
But those won’t be available until at least Jan. 1, well after navigators must be in position.
States can pitch in during the meantime. But that’s an unlikely option in Colorado, which has stringent rules governing its
budget.
So Flores-Brennan is seeking grants from a third source: private foundations.She said she will also try to tap a related
funding stream that the Obama administration recently offered to help states get around the federal funding catch.
Essentially, Obama officials created another category of helpers — called “in-person assisters” — who will fill the same
role as navigators but who can be financed through certain federal grants for exchanges.
Maryland plans to apply for some of this money to pay for as many as 250 assisters, who will supplement about 150
navigators the governor has proposed paying for with $9.8 million out of the state’s general fund.
In California, where lawmakers have adopted a law barring the use of state dollars for the exchange, practically the
entire system for providing in-person help will be handled by such assisters. The state’s exchange plans to deploy about
21,000 of them to serve about 700,000 people with about $40 million in federal money already obtained for the purpose
through the end of 2014.
Arkansas has adopted the same strategy to hire about 535 in-person assisters, whom officials plan to train by midsummer
— albeit for a different reason.
The state is one of 32 that has chosen to let the federal government run its exchange. In these cases, the Obama
administration is in charge of setting up the state’s navigator program. But Cynthia Crone, Arkansas’s director of planning
for the exchange, said state officials worried that the administration wasn’t moving quickly enough.
“Our population has a lot of uninsured, not a lot of Internet use, and is very rural and very diverse,” Crone said. “We felt
like we couldn’t wait.”
States consider strict rules
Lawmakers in Virginia, Ohio and Utah, meanwhile, are considering imposing strict standards on navigators. These include
proposals to explicitly prohibit them from giving advice, require them to get a state license and mandate that they post
surety bonds to cover any liability in case they provide someone with faulty guidance.
Maine and Iowa have already passed bills along those lines. Wesley Bissett, who is coordinating the lobbying nationwide on
behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, said he is in discussions with lawmakers in seven
more states.
Consumer advocates counter that the brokers are trying to squelch potential competition for new customers.
Claire McAndrew, a senior health policy analyst with Families USA, an advocacy group that has helped organize support for the law, added that even proposals that seem innocuous — such as prohibiting navigators from offering advice — could
have a chilling effect.
To do their job well, McAndrew said, navigators will need to explain to clients how the various insurance plans compare in terms of fitting the client’s budget or including the client’s existing doctors in the plan’s network. That’s not the same as
recommending one plan over another, she said — but “it’s a subtle distinction.”
Consumer groups also note that the law already requires navigators to pass a certification exam, and they say further obligations, such as taking out a surety bond, would prove too onerous for the kind of small nonprofits most likely to have
ties to hard-to-reach populations.
A case in point is the National Tongan American Society in Utah, which helps immigrants in Salt Lake City find health-care services and check whether they qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. The organization’s president, Fahina Tavake-Pasi, said she is keen to get her group certified as a navigator.
“Pacific Islanders are so often overlooked because of our language and cultural barriers,” Tavake-Pasi said. “Our organization is in the churches. We have a weekly radio show for Pacific Islanders. We know how to get the word out to our people, and they trust us.”
Nonetheless, she added, “we only have a staff of four, and we’re already working 60 hours a week and getting paid for 30. If we have to come up with the money for a bond, we couldn’t even provide the services we offer right now.”
SOURCE:
http://johnib.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/youll-need-to-hire-a-navigator-just-to-understand-obamacare-a-hundreds-
of-millions-of-dollars-worth-of-helpers-just-to-explain-the-ins-and-outs
Just To Explain the Ins and Outs | Peace and Freedom
Signing up an estimated 30 million uninsured Americans for coverage under the health-care law is shaping up to be, if not
a bureaucratic nightmare, at the very least a daunting task.
While some people will find registering for health insurance as easy as booking a flight online, vast numbers who are
confused by the myriad choices will need to sit down with someone who can walk them through the process.
Enter the “navigators,” an enormous new workforce of helpers required under the law. In large measure, the success of
the law and its overriding aim of making sure that virtually all Americans have health insurance depends on these people.
But the challenge of hiring and paying for a new class of workers is immense and is one of the most pressing issues as the
Obama administration and state governments implement the law.
Tens of thousands of workers will be needed — California alone plans to certify 21,000 helpers — with the tab likely to
run in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
“I would say the task we face is herculean,” said Denise de Percin, executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health
Initiative, an advocacy group that has studied what it will take to staff her state’s navigator program.
Over the short term, some workers may be funded by federal grants, state budgets or private money. But over the longer
term, most of the costs are to be covered by the new health-care marketplaces, called “exchanges,”being set up in every
state. The money will come from fees that insurers will pay to sell their plans on the exchanges.
Groups such as unions, chambers of commerce, health clinics, immigrant-service organizations, and community- or
consumer-focused nonprofits can use the grants to train and employ staff members or volunteers to provide in-person
guidance — especially to hard-to-reach populations — and to provide space for them to work.
Added to the logistical challenge is a political one: Insurance brokers inmany states are lobbying to prohibit the navigators
from giving advice on which plans to choose and to make them liable for their guidance if it results in financial harm.
The brokers, who earn commissions and fees by enrolling people in plans and who might lose business to the navigators,
contend that the navigators won’t have sufficient expertise.
“What you don’t want is for our agents to be cut out and to have this force of untrained, unlicensed individuals giving
advice with no financial responsibility,” said Ryan Young, head of government relations for the Independent Insurance
Agents and Brokers of America, an industry trade group. “Consumers are going to get hammered.”
Under the law, the exchanges must fund enough navigators to ensure that every applicant who needs assistance can get it.
“You have to ask, how many people can one navigator help in one day?” de Percin said. “Well, the people who do this kind
of work might spend an hour to three hours with folks. So the answer is not many.”
Colorado Insurance Commissioner Jim Reisberg stunned a recent gathering of state officials when he said that, to be
viable, the state’s exchange will need to sign up 150,000 people, or about 800 people a day, seven days a week, over the
six months of the open enrollment period, which will run from Oct. 1 through March.
I don’t know that any corporation would set goals that high, even if they were going into it with the kind of money they
have for marketing Coke or Pepsi,” Reisberg said afterward.
Compounding the difficulty, de Percin said, is that many of the uninsured struggle with English or don’t have easy access
to the Internet. Others aren’t familiar with concepts like co-payments and deductibles, let alone the subsidies that will be
provided for lower-income people or the new eligibility rules for Medicaid.
“If you’ve never shopped for insurance before, it’s just not a simple task. It’s going to be a lot of new information for
people,” she said.
A funding Catch-22
Adela Flores-Brennan, head of the navigator program for Colorado’s exchange, said she expects to train “thousands” of
navigators and other in-person helpers. But it’s unclear how much of that effort the exchange will be able to pay for.
In a kind of Catch-22, the money must come from an exchange’s operating funds, which will rely on fees from insurers.
But those won’t be available until at least Jan. 1, well after navigators must be in position.
States can pitch in during the meantime. But that’s an unlikely option in Colorado, which has stringent rules governing its
budget.
So Flores-Brennan is seeking grants from a third source: private foundations.She said she will also try to tap a related
funding stream that the Obama administration recently offered to help states get around the federal funding catch.
Essentially, Obama officials created another category of helpers — called “in-person assisters” — who will fill the same
role as navigators but who can be financed through certain federal grants for exchanges.
Maryland plans to apply for some of this money to pay for as many as 250 assisters, who will supplement about 150
navigators the governor has proposed paying for with $9.8 million out of the state’s general fund.
In California, where lawmakers have adopted a law barring the use of state dollars for the exchange, practically the
entire system for providing in-person help will be handled by such assisters. The state’s exchange plans to deploy about
21,000 of them to serve about 700,000 people with about $40 million in federal money already obtained for the purpose
through the end of 2014.
Arkansas has adopted the same strategy to hire about 535 in-person assisters, whom officials plan to train by midsummer
— albeit for a different reason.
The state is one of 32 that has chosen to let the federal government run its exchange. In these cases, the Obama
administration is in charge of setting up the state’s navigator program. But Cynthia Crone, Arkansas’s director of planning
for the exchange, said state officials worried that the administration wasn’t moving quickly enough.
“Our population has a lot of uninsured, not a lot of Internet use, and is very rural and very diverse,” Crone said. “We felt
like we couldn’t wait.”
States consider strict rules
Lawmakers in Virginia, Ohio and Utah, meanwhile, are considering imposing strict standards on navigators. These include
proposals to explicitly prohibit them from giving advice, require them to get a state license and mandate that they post
surety bonds to cover any liability in case they provide someone with faulty guidance.
Maine and Iowa have already passed bills along those lines. Wesley Bissett, who is coordinating the lobbying nationwide on
behalf of the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, said he is in discussions with lawmakers in seven
more states.
Consumer advocates counter that the brokers are trying to squelch potential competition for new customers.
Claire McAndrew, a senior health policy analyst with Families USA, an advocacy group that has helped organize support for the law, added that even proposals that seem innocuous — such as prohibiting navigators from offering advice — could
have a chilling effect.
To do their job well, McAndrew said, navigators will need to explain to clients how the various insurance plans compare in terms of fitting the client’s budget or including the client’s existing doctors in the plan’s network. That’s not the same as
recommending one plan over another, she said — but “it’s a subtle distinction.”
Consumer groups also note that the law already requires navigators to pass a certification exam, and they say further obligations, such as taking out a surety bond, would prove too onerous for the kind of small nonprofits most likely to have
ties to hard-to-reach populations.
A case in point is the National Tongan American Society in Utah, which helps immigrants in Salt Lake City find health-care services and check whether they qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. The organization’s president, Fahina Tavake-Pasi, said she is keen to get her group certified as a navigator.
“Pacific Islanders are so often overlooked because of our language and cultural barriers,” Tavake-Pasi said. “Our organization is in the churches. We have a weekly radio show for Pacific Islanders. We know how to get the word out to our people, and they trust us.”
Nonetheless, she added, “we only have a staff of four, and we’re already working 60 hours a week and getting paid for 30. If we have to come up with the money for a bond, we couldn’t even provide the services we offer right now.”
SOURCE:
http://johnib.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/youll-need-to-hire-a-navigator-just-to-understand-obamacare-a-hundreds-
of-millions-of-dollars-worth-of-helpers-just-to-explain-the-ins-and-outs
OBAMA CARE AND VOTER REGISTRATION
Massive Obamacare Application Asks About Registering To Vote
Right Wing News
Written By : William Teach
March 26, 2013
Should anyone be surprised that the humongous draft application for Obamacare health insurance delves into areas it shouldn’t?
(Washington Examiner) The 61-page online Obamacare draft application for health care includes asking if the applicant wants to register to vote, raising the specter that pro-Obama groups being tapped to help Americans sign up for the program will also steer them to register with the Democratic Party.
On page 59, after numerous questions about the applicant’s identity and qualification for Obamacare, comes the question: “Would you like to register to vote?” The placement of the question could lead some to believe they have to register to vote to get health care.
In the introduction of the document, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declare: “This document-the ‘questionnaire’-represents each possible item that may need to be asked for successful eligibility determinations.”
There are lots of problems with asking the question, including the ones mentioned in the excerpt, as well violating the Paperwork Reduction Act and not being authorized by the (non-affordable) health care act, but let’s consider this: the application, at least in draft form, is 61 one freaking pages long. How is this supposed to make it easier for people to obtain health insurance? And since this is a draft, the final version will, according to the way government works, mostly likely be longer. And it will, once all the blank spots, particularly when they finally get around to deciding what determines eligibility 3 years after the crappy legislation was passed.
Obviously, it asks lots and lots and lots of questions about earnings and gets in your personal business.
It also asks questions about citizenship, and never says “If you aren’t a US citizen, stop here. You’re not entitled to American taxpayer subsidized health insurance”. Though it does seem, at least in draft version, to exclude most illegal aliens, since they would have no actual immigration documents.
Near the end, after filling out all this information, one finds out if one is eligible. This is a section that will certainly increase the size of the document tremendously.
Related, Betsy McCaughey writes that Obamacare will doom Democrats in 2014.
HERE IS EXACT EXERPT OF THE ON-LINE DOCUMENT DRAFT
Appendix A: List of Questions in the Online Application to Support Eligibility Determinations for Enrollment through the Health Insurance Marketplace and for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program
Background
This document represents a full draft of questions and systems logic that CMS is developing for the online application. This document (the “questionnaire”) represents each possible item that may need to be asked for successful eligibility determinations. The questionnaire accounts for many different application scenarios: applicants may be applying for insurance affordability programs (e.g. Advanced Payment of the Premium Tax Credit, Medicaid, or CHIP) or just for eligibility to purchase a qualified health plan in the Health Insurance Marketplace.
The questionnaire contains all potential items that can be displayed on the online application. Items will be displayed depending on applicants’ household and income situations, so applicants won’t be required to complete this entire list of items. Most applicants will need to complete less than one-third of these items.
The online application is a dynamic process that’s tailored based on the application filer’s responses to questions and the electronic verification of data available during the application process. You can follow conditional logic through the italicized directions in the questionnaire—these wouldn’t appear on the screen.
For the purposes of this posting, we’ve provided headings for different sections and descriptions of the purpose of each section in “Notes to reviewers.” We’ve also provided an annotated outline at the beginning of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire doesn’t include help language, pop ups, or links to explanations, which we acknowledge will be critical to successful completion of the application for many people. We’ll be developing that text over the next several weeks.
Individual Questionnaire Annotated Outline
My account: Individuals must create an account to use the online application to apply for coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace.
Privacy: Users must indicate they understand how their information is going to be used to continue with the online application.
Getting started: Gathers contact information for the application.
Help paying for coverage: Asks whether people want assistance paying for coverage.
Tell us how many people are applying for health insurance: Creates a list of all people applying for coverage in the household.
Family & household: Determines household composition for APTC, Medicaid, and CHIP.
Personal information: Collects demographic information.
Other addresses: Collects addresses for other individuals on the application.
Special circumstances: Collects information about students, disabilities, and pregnancy, etc.
Expedited income: Collects annual income for individuals who appear eligible for advance payments of the premium tax credit.
Current/monthly income: Collects current monthly income.
Discrepancies: Collects information on any discrepancies between what an individual reported and data sources.
Health coverage (APTC eligible): access: Collects information about access to employer health insurance.
Employer health coverage information: Collects information about access to health insurance.
This section also provides a link to the “Employer Coverage Form” for applicants to gather information from their employers so they can answer these items.
Other insurance (APTC eligible): Collects information about access to other non-employer insurance (e.g., Medicaid, TRICARE, etc.).
American Indian/Alaska Native (APTC eligible)
Tax filer & other information: Double checks some data points for those who appear otherwise APTC eligible.
Special Enrollment Periods
Medicaid & CHIP specific questions: Only displayed if someone appears Medicaid or CHIP eligible.
Review & sign: Printable review and summary of the application, requests required documents be uploaded (if needed), and signatures.
Plan enrollment (for APTC or QHP eligible applicants): Displays tobacco questions, compare and select plan(s), etc.
The following items are asked if the person checked that they didn’t want financial assistance. These are required in order to enroll in a qualified health plan on the marketplace.
List applicants: Collects all individuals applying for health insurance.
Tell us how many people are applying for health insurance
Personal information: Collects demographic information.
Other addresses: Collects addresses of all applicants on the application.
American Indian/Alaska Native: Collects information on applicants who are American Indian and Alaska Native.
Special Enrollment Periods: Collects information to see if applicants qualify for a Special Enrollment Period.
Review & sign: Printable review and summary of the application, requests required documents be uploaded (if needed), and signatures.
Plan enrollment: Displays tobacco questions, compare and select plan(s), etc.
Single Streamlined Application for the Health Insurance Marketplace: Items in Online Application for Comment –
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Appendix A Revised: 01/18/2013
SCROLL CLEAR DOWN TO PAGE 60...............AND HERE IT IS.............................
FNLNS1]
[Not eligible for program name 1] [Not eligible for program name 2] [Link to more information & appeals]
[FNLNS2]
[Not eligible for program name 1] [Not eligible for program name 2] [Link to more information & appeals]
Link to more information & appeals
a. If you think the Health Insurance Marketplace has made a mistake, you can appeal the decision within 90 days. To appeal means to tell someone at the Marketplace that you think the decision is wrong and you want a fair review of the decision. Find out more about how to appeal (hyperlinked sentence).
b. Following federal law, there’s no discrimination on the basis of care, color, national origin, sex, or disability. If you feel you’ve been discriminated against, you can file a complaint of discrimination (hyperlinked sentence).
3. Would you like to register to vote?
a. Yes (Link to blank voter registration form)
b. No
(The user continues from the Eligibility Results to a “to-do” list page that includes tasks tailored to each individual to complete their application and enrollment process. No additional questions are asked on the “to-do” list page. For QHP eligible individuals, this page includes tasks to enroll in a health plan and links to section XXI [“Plan enrollment”] and additional information. If applicable, this “to-do” list also includes the status of required documents and due date(s) for document submission.)
THINK FOR YOURSELF AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. IS THIS PROGRAM AN INCENTIVE FOR THE PROPONENTS OF OBAMACARE TO ADVANCE THEIR POLITICAL POLICY'S THROUGH VOTER REGISTRATION UNDER ANOTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.??? HERD THEM THROUGH THE DOOR AND SIGN THEM UP.....
Right Wing News
Written By : William Teach
March 26, 2013
Should anyone be surprised that the humongous draft application for Obamacare health insurance delves into areas it shouldn’t?
(Washington Examiner) The 61-page online Obamacare draft application for health care includes asking if the applicant wants to register to vote, raising the specter that pro-Obama groups being tapped to help Americans sign up for the program will also steer them to register with the Democratic Party.
On page 59, after numerous questions about the applicant’s identity and qualification for Obamacare, comes the question: “Would you like to register to vote?” The placement of the question could lead some to believe they have to register to vote to get health care.
In the introduction of the document, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declare: “This document-the ‘questionnaire’-represents each possible item that may need to be asked for successful eligibility determinations.”
There are lots of problems with asking the question, including the ones mentioned in the excerpt, as well violating the Paperwork Reduction Act and not being authorized by the (non-affordable) health care act, but let’s consider this: the application, at least in draft form, is 61 one freaking pages long. How is this supposed to make it easier for people to obtain health insurance? And since this is a draft, the final version will, according to the way government works, mostly likely be longer. And it will, once all the blank spots, particularly when they finally get around to deciding what determines eligibility 3 years after the crappy legislation was passed.
Obviously, it asks lots and lots and lots of questions about earnings and gets in your personal business.
It also asks questions about citizenship, and never says “If you aren’t a US citizen, stop here. You’re not entitled to American taxpayer subsidized health insurance”. Though it does seem, at least in draft version, to exclude most illegal aliens, since they would have no actual immigration documents.
Near the end, after filling out all this information, one finds out if one is eligible. This is a section that will certainly increase the size of the document tremendously.
Related, Betsy McCaughey writes that Obamacare will doom Democrats in 2014.
HERE IS EXACT EXERPT OF THE ON-LINE DOCUMENT DRAFT
Appendix A: List of Questions in the Online Application to Support Eligibility Determinations for Enrollment through the Health Insurance Marketplace and for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program
Background
This document represents a full draft of questions and systems logic that CMS is developing for the online application. This document (the “questionnaire”) represents each possible item that may need to be asked for successful eligibility determinations. The questionnaire accounts for many different application scenarios: applicants may be applying for insurance affordability programs (e.g. Advanced Payment of the Premium Tax Credit, Medicaid, or CHIP) or just for eligibility to purchase a qualified health plan in the Health Insurance Marketplace.
The questionnaire contains all potential items that can be displayed on the online application. Items will be displayed depending on applicants’ household and income situations, so applicants won’t be required to complete this entire list of items. Most applicants will need to complete less than one-third of these items.
The online application is a dynamic process that’s tailored based on the application filer’s responses to questions and the electronic verification of data available during the application process. You can follow conditional logic through the italicized directions in the questionnaire—these wouldn’t appear on the screen.
For the purposes of this posting, we’ve provided headings for different sections and descriptions of the purpose of each section in “Notes to reviewers.” We’ve also provided an annotated outline at the beginning of the questionnaire.
The questionnaire doesn’t include help language, pop ups, or links to explanations, which we acknowledge will be critical to successful completion of the application for many people. We’ll be developing that text over the next several weeks.
Individual Questionnaire Annotated Outline
My account: Individuals must create an account to use the online application to apply for coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace.
Privacy: Users must indicate they understand how their information is going to be used to continue with the online application.
Getting started: Gathers contact information for the application.
Help paying for coverage: Asks whether people want assistance paying for coverage.
Tell us how many people are applying for health insurance: Creates a list of all people applying for coverage in the household.
Family & household: Determines household composition for APTC, Medicaid, and CHIP.
Personal information: Collects demographic information.
Other addresses: Collects addresses for other individuals on the application.
Special circumstances: Collects information about students, disabilities, and pregnancy, etc.
Expedited income: Collects annual income for individuals who appear eligible for advance payments of the premium tax credit.
Current/monthly income: Collects current monthly income.
Discrepancies: Collects information on any discrepancies between what an individual reported and data sources.
Health coverage (APTC eligible): access: Collects information about access to employer health insurance.
Employer health coverage information: Collects information about access to health insurance.
This section also provides a link to the “Employer Coverage Form” for applicants to gather information from their employers so they can answer these items.
Other insurance (APTC eligible): Collects information about access to other non-employer insurance (e.g., Medicaid, TRICARE, etc.).
American Indian/Alaska Native (APTC eligible)
Tax filer & other information: Double checks some data points for those who appear otherwise APTC eligible.
Special Enrollment Periods
Medicaid & CHIP specific questions: Only displayed if someone appears Medicaid or CHIP eligible.
Review & sign: Printable review and summary of the application, requests required documents be uploaded (if needed), and signatures.
Plan enrollment (for APTC or QHP eligible applicants): Displays tobacco questions, compare and select plan(s), etc.
The following items are asked if the person checked that they didn’t want financial assistance. These are required in order to enroll in a qualified health plan on the marketplace.
List applicants: Collects all individuals applying for health insurance.
Tell us how many people are applying for health insurance
Personal information: Collects demographic information.
Other addresses: Collects addresses of all applicants on the application.
American Indian/Alaska Native: Collects information on applicants who are American Indian and Alaska Native.
Special Enrollment Periods: Collects information to see if applicants qualify for a Special Enrollment Period.
Review & sign: Printable review and summary of the application, requests required documents be uploaded (if needed), and signatures.
Plan enrollment: Displays tobacco questions, compare and select plan(s), etc.
Single Streamlined Application for the Health Insurance Marketplace: Items in Online Application for Comment –
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Appendix A Revised: 01/18/2013
SCROLL CLEAR DOWN TO PAGE 60...............AND HERE IT IS.............................
FNLNS1]
[Not eligible for program name 1] [Not eligible for program name 2] [Link to more information & appeals]
[FNLNS2]
[Not eligible for program name 1] [Not eligible for program name 2] [Link to more information & appeals]
Link to more information & appeals
a. If you think the Health Insurance Marketplace has made a mistake, you can appeal the decision within 90 days. To appeal means to tell someone at the Marketplace that you think the decision is wrong and you want a fair review of the decision. Find out more about how to appeal (hyperlinked sentence).
b. Following federal law, there’s no discrimination on the basis of care, color, national origin, sex, or disability. If you feel you’ve been discriminated against, you can file a complaint of discrimination (hyperlinked sentence).
3. Would you like to register to vote?
a. Yes (Link to blank voter registration form)
b. No
(The user continues from the Eligibility Results to a “to-do” list page that includes tasks tailored to each individual to complete their application and enrollment process. No additional questions are asked on the “to-do” list page. For QHP eligible individuals, this page includes tasks to enroll in a health plan and links to section XXI [“Plan enrollment”] and additional information. If applicable, this “to-do” list also includes the status of required documents and due date(s) for document submission.)
THINK FOR YOURSELF AND DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. IS THIS PROGRAM AN INCENTIVE FOR THE PROPONENTS OF OBAMACARE TO ADVANCE THEIR POLITICAL POLICY'S THROUGH VOTER REGISTRATION UNDER ANOTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.??? HERD THEM THROUGH THE DOOR AND SIGN THEM UP.....
Tens of thousands Obamacare 'navigators' to be hired
The Paul Bedard Newsletter!
Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists hired as "navigators" to help Americans choose Obamacare options starting Oct. 1 could earn $20 an hour or more, according to new regulations issued Wednesday.
The 63-page rule covering navigators, drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also said the government will provide free translators for those not fluent in English -- no matter what their native language is.
"The proposed requirements would also include that such entities and individuals provide consumers with information and assistance in the
consumer's preferred language, at no cost to the consumer, which would include oral interpretation of non-English languages and the translation of written documents in non-English languages when necessary to ensure meaningful access," said the regulations.
The rules also addressed conflict of interest and other potential issues that navigators could face as the public's first stop on the Obamacare trail.
It is still not clear how many navigators will be required. California, however, provides a hint. It wants 21,000.
That could be an expensive proposition. The proposed rules, now open for public comment, suggest an estimated pay of $20-$48 an hour.
"There is a section of the proposed regulation where our financial analysts estimate how financially significant the regulation will be. In that section, for the purposes of estimating that impact, they assumed navigators would be paid an average of $20 an hour. That is an estimate, not a recommendation or a requirement," said an administration official. "States and organizations are not required by the federal government to set any payment levels for these employees," he added.
The rules allow navigators to come from the ranks of unions, health providers and community action groups such as ACORN and Planned Parenthood. They are required to provide unbiased advice.
Some in Congress are already wary of the navigators. Louisiana Republican Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., chairman of the House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee, has raised questions about a voter registration provision in the Obamacare application Americans will have to fill out to receive health care, and whether Democratic-leaning activists will influence which party people choose to join.
Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists hired as "navigators" to help Americans choose Obamacare options starting Oct. 1 could earn $20 an hour or more, according to new regulations issued Wednesday.
The 63-page rule covering navigators, drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also said the government will provide free translators for those not fluent in English -- no matter what their native language is.
"The proposed requirements would also include that such entities and individuals provide consumers with information and assistance in the
consumer's preferred language, at no cost to the consumer, which would include oral interpretation of non-English languages and the translation of written documents in non-English languages when necessary to ensure meaningful access," said the regulations.
The rules also addressed conflict of interest and other potential issues that navigators could face as the public's first stop on the Obamacare trail.
It is still not clear how many navigators will be required. California, however, provides a hint. It wants 21,000.
That could be an expensive proposition. The proposed rules, now open for public comment, suggest an estimated pay of $20-$48 an hour.
"There is a section of the proposed regulation where our financial analysts estimate how financially significant the regulation will be. In that section, for the purposes of estimating that impact, they assumed navigators would be paid an average of $20 an hour. That is an estimate, not a recommendation or a requirement," said an administration official. "States and organizations are not required by the federal government to set any payment levels for these employees," he added.
The rules allow navigators to come from the ranks of unions, health providers and community action groups such as ACORN and Planned Parenthood. They are required to provide unbiased advice.
Some in Congress are already wary of the navigators. Louisiana Republican Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., chairman of the House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee, has raised questions about a voter registration provision in the Obamacare application Americans will have to fill out to receive health care, and whether Democratic-leaning activists will influence which party people choose to join.
Where did all the money go? How $700 million in Katrina relief money went missing
Power Players
Where did all the money go?
“Your guess is as good as mine,” David Montoya, the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, says of $700 million in missing taxpayer money that Louisiana homeowners were given in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to elevate and protect their homes from future storms.
A new report released from the inspector general’s office shows that more than 24,000 homeowners who received grants of up to $30,000 to elevate their homes either misspent or pocketed the money.
Where did all the money go?
“Your guess is as good as mine,” David Montoya, the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, says of $700 million in missing taxpayer money that Louisiana homeowners were given in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to elevate and protect their homes from future storms.
A new report released from the inspector general’s office shows that more than 24,000 homeowners who received grants of up to $30,000 to elevate their homes either misspent or pocketed the money.
Goldwater Institute
|
These days, many supporters of limited government seem concerned that the public isn’t with them on issues like the role of government in society. It’s hard to deny it’s true on some level or on some issues.
But in some fundamental ways, the outlook isn’t so bleak. For instance, the American public still firmly supports the entrepreneur-driven prosperity that free markets can provide. In a February 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll, 86 percent of likely voters believe it is “fair” for those who build very successful companies to get rich from their efforts. A message that extols the virtues of entrepreneurship can also reach those concerned about people on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. Encouraging entrepreneurship – particularly by lowering the tax and regulatory barriers that inhibit its growth – is a far more effective path to poverty reduction than many government-centered income redistribution programs. As a number of academic studies have shown, poverty declines and personal income growth occurs most rapidly in states that have higher levels of entrepreneurship, even after adjusting for demographic factors and generosity of |
government welfare programs. Entrepreneurship doesn’t have to be the kind that produces the next Apple or Google, although it can be. Instead, modest entrepreneurial endeavors like a local food truck or hair salon can be, and have proven to be, the path out of poverty for many people.
Entrepreneurship transcends the simple argument that it increases material wealth. There’s a moral component as well. As Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in the Wall Street Journal recently, “Entrepreneurship should not be extolled as a path to accumulating wealth but as a celebration of everyday men and women who want to build their own lives, whether they start a business and make a lot of money or not.”
Rolling back impediments to people’s ability to enrich themselves both economically and personally through hard work and entrepreneurship is a winning message. Cutting taxes and reducing regulatory burdens aren’t good merely because they help the currently rich. On the contrary, much of the time these policies are worth enacting because they can help the poor and middle class even more. It’s a message that resonates because it’s a principal worth fighting for.
Learn more:
Goldwater Institute: Entrepreneurship is a Key to Poverty Reduction
Wall Street Journal: Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic
Rasmussen Reports: 60% Believe Letting Entrepreneurs Get Rich Is Good for Economy
Entrepreneurship transcends the simple argument that it increases material wealth. There’s a moral component as well. As Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in the Wall Street Journal recently, “Entrepreneurship should not be extolled as a path to accumulating wealth but as a celebration of everyday men and women who want to build their own lives, whether they start a business and make a lot of money or not.”
Rolling back impediments to people’s ability to enrich themselves both economically and personally through hard work and entrepreneurship is a winning message. Cutting taxes and reducing regulatory burdens aren’t good merely because they help the currently rich. On the contrary, much of the time these policies are worth enacting because they can help the poor and middle class even more. It’s a message that resonates because it’s a principal worth fighting for.
Learn more:
Goldwater Institute: Entrepreneurship is a Key to Poverty Reduction
Wall Street Journal: Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic
Rasmussen Reports: 60% Believe Letting Entrepreneurs Get Rich Is Good for Economy
The AP drops 'illegal immigrant'
The Associated Press on Tuesday announced it will no longer use the term “illegal immigrant” or “illegal” to describe a person -- but did not say which term, if any, should take its place.
The AP Stylebook has been updated to state that it no longer sanctions the use of “illegal” or “illegal immigrant" for a person, senior vice president and executive editor Kathleen Carroll wrote in a blog post. The Stylebook now directs that “illegal” should only be used to describe an action, “such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally,” Carroll noted.
The AP aims to label “behavior” instead of “people,” Carroll wrote, pointing out that “the new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was ‘diagnosed with schizophrenia’ instead of schizophrenic, for example.” The AP, she said, is working on “ridding the Stylebook of labels.”
“And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to ‘illegal immigrant’ again,” she said. “We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance. So we have.”
Carroll added that the AP will continue to examine the best way to describe “someone in a country without permission.” The AP has decided that using “illegal” only to refer to an action, not a person, is the best way to go “for now.”
“We also believe more evolution is likely down the road,” she added.
The new AP Stylebook entry for “illegal immigration” states:
illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.
Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.
Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution.
Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?
People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.
UPDATE (3:24 p.m.): Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times public editor, tweets:
Their reasoning is explained thus: the term is linguistically inaccurate. Now what is in accurate about the term illegal immigrant? They are immigrants, and they are here illegally. There's nothing in accurate about it. They also claim that the term is offensive to some people. To whom, the illegal immigrants and the progressives that want to allow them to vote? What their real agenda is, is to soften people's opinion about the people that have entered or state in this country illegally during the immigration debate in Washington DC in order to assist those who want to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Undocumented worker is much more innocuous sounding than using illegal immigrant.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/04/the-ap-drops-illegal-immigrant-160691.html
The AP Stylebook has been updated to state that it no longer sanctions the use of “illegal” or “illegal immigrant" for a person, senior vice president and executive editor Kathleen Carroll wrote in a blog post. The Stylebook now directs that “illegal” should only be used to describe an action, “such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally,” Carroll noted.
The AP aims to label “behavior” instead of “people,” Carroll wrote, pointing out that “the new section on mental health issues argues for using credibly sourced diagnoses instead of labels. Saying someone was ‘diagnosed with schizophrenia’ instead of schizophrenic, for example.” The AP, she said, is working on “ridding the Stylebook of labels.”
“And that discussion about labeling people, instead of behavior, led us back to ‘illegal immigrant’ again,” she said. “We concluded that to be consistent, we needed to change our guidance. So we have.”
Carroll added that the AP will continue to examine the best way to describe “someone in a country without permission.” The AP has decided that using “illegal” only to refer to an action, not a person, is the best way to go “for now.”
“We also believe more evolution is likely down the road,” she added.
The new AP Stylebook entry for “illegal immigration” states:
illegal immigration Entering or residing in a country in violation of civil or criminal law. Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission.
Except in direct quotations, do not use the terms illegal alien, an illegal, illegals or undocumented.
Do not describe people as violating immigration laws without attribution.
Specify wherever possible how someone entered the country illegally and from where. Crossed the border? Overstayed a visa? What nationality?
People who were brought into the country as children should not be described as having immigrated illegally. For people granted a temporary right to remain in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, use temporary resident status, with details on the program lower in the story.
UPDATE (3:24 p.m.): Margaret Sullivan, the New York Times public editor, tweets:
Their reasoning is explained thus: the term is linguistically inaccurate. Now what is in accurate about the term illegal immigrant? They are immigrants, and they are here illegally. There's nothing in accurate about it. They also claim that the term is offensive to some people. To whom, the illegal immigrants and the progressives that want to allow them to vote? What their real agenda is, is to soften people's opinion about the people that have entered or state in this country illegally during the immigration debate in Washington DC in order to assist those who want to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Undocumented worker is much more innocuous sounding than using illegal immigrant.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/04/the-ap-drops-illegal-immigrant-160691.html
OBAMACARE APPLICATION HAS REGISTRATION TO VOTE
by burstupdates
Wash Exam: "The 61-page online Obamacare draft application for health care includes asking if the applicant wants to register to vote, raising the specter that pro-Obama groups being tapped to help Americans sign up for the program will also steer them to register with the Democratic Party."
Continued: "On page 59, after numerous questions about the applicant's identity and qualification for Obamacare, comes the question: "Would you like to register to vote?" The placement of the question could lead some to believe they have to register to vote to get health care."
We told you a long time ago it was never about health care. ObamaCare does not regulate a commodity such as wheat, instead it regulates people.
http://burstupdates.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/obamacare-application-has-registration-to-vote/
.
Wash Exam- Obamavote: Healthcare application registers voters, too
OBAMACARE NOT ABOUT HEALTH CARE: INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
http://burstupdates.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/obamacare-not-about-health-care-individual-liberty/
Wash Exam: "The 61-page online Obamacare draft application for health care includes asking if the applicant wants to register to vote, raising the specter that pro-Obama groups being tapped to help Americans sign up for the program will also steer them to register with the Democratic Party."
Continued: "On page 59, after numerous questions about the applicant's identity and qualification for Obamacare, comes the question: "Would you like to register to vote?" The placement of the question could lead some to believe they have to register to vote to get health care."
We told you a long time ago it was never about health care. ObamaCare does not regulate a commodity such as wheat, instead it regulates people.
http://burstupdates.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/obamacare-application-has-registration-to-vote/
.
Wash Exam- Obamavote: Healthcare application registers voters, too
OBAMACARE NOT ABOUT HEALTH CARE: INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
http://burstupdates.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/obamacare-not-about-health-care-individual-liberty/
WE THE PEOPLE MUST DO SOMETHING!
It is long past time to remove the plague of Lawyers that have invaded Washington to suck the blood of PATRIOTS [tax money stolen] – Let us restore our pride and force our State duly elected Legislatures to protect WE THE PEOPLE FROM A TYRANNICAL OPPRESSIVE CENTRAL COLLECTIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Will you take the hours of study and weeks, months and maybe years to Restore our States Rights and Powers? Will you join with others across the many States, will you fight the good fight?
The Founders – Framers – Ratifiers all knew that the Central Federal government must be small and limited [weak] and the States should be strong and unlimited . . the following is how we the people can take our Freedoms and Liberties back . . will you do it? It is long past time to act.
It is long past time to remove the plague of Lawyers that have invaded Washington to suck the blood of PATRIOTS [tax money stolen] – Let us restore our pride and force our State duly elected Legislatures to protect WE THE PEOPLE FROM A TYRANNICAL OPPRESSIVE CENTRAL COLLECTIVE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Will you take the hours of study and weeks, months and maybe years to Restore our States Rights and Powers? Will you join with others across the many States, will you fight the good fight?
The Founders – Framers – Ratifiers all knew that the Central Federal government must be small and limited [weak] and the States should be strong and unlimited . . the following is how we the people can take our Freedoms and Liberties back . . will you do it? It is long past time to act.
We Need Motivation!
Dr. Benjamin Carson is a very smart man and a wonderful motivational speaker!
Do What’s Best For The Nation
Could we just set aside 'politics' and do what is best for the Nation? Could "the politician" today, any politician? Take off the mantle of career and fame and truly embrace the positive change that would re-shape government in this country from this point forward? Such an act would take tremendous courage and integrity?
Perhaps this is what a hungry Nation is starving for? A Nation starving for leadership, before her people are starving for sustenance and stability? Might this political hero be willing to be the "ONE' that future generations speak honorably of...the politician that dared to change the course of history and in doing so saved their Nation?
The action is fraught with personal political peril. Succeed and you are the clay statues are molded from-fail and you are no better than the goat in the political outcast pasture. Any of 'us' would be willing to try at the risk of not succeeding, for the cost is little to the nameless. Many of us might already be thought a goat, so any fall from grace would not be a far decline. Yet, the cost must be paid by an entire herd of goats -or one brave Shepard-or better yet BOTH. There can be no positive result without a catalyst causing a snowballing and tidal effect. A quantum effort is all that will prevail.
What America so desperately needs, are individuals willing to try to be heroes, goats who dare to be stallions and a David willing to stand against a Goliath.
A Good Friend shared the following thoughts to complete this post:
Leaving aside "politics" and whether "it can be done".........
If the 16th was repealed and if we returned to issuing the Federal tax bill to the States, based on populations consider these benefits:
1. Congress would no longer be involved with tax policy. Each state would decide for themselves how to allocate.
2. No need for the IRS - they are not collecting.
3. The entire tax code leviathan picking winners/losers disappears into the dust bin of history. Eliminates all federal subsidies, tax breaks, etc. on businesses.
4. States could reject "Federal" subsidies, for example medicaid. That dollar amount would come right off the top of the Federal tax bill. Lowering taxes for the People there and jettison of Federal 'mandates'
5. With every State that rejects the Federal funding, the costs for the “programs” are reduced and the cost is borne by whatever idiot states wanted to participate - literally a form of nullification.
6. The only direct Federal taxation would be for ss/medicare (FICA).
7. Repeal of the 17thA makes perfect sense, returning Senators to their original role as representatives in congress for the States. With the States having direct accountability in assessing Federal taxes, budgets, programs and therefore spending would "look" a lot different.
8. Taxpayers are closer to the government assessing the tax - a genuine advantage regarding self-rule and having a louder voice, more effective say in taxation.
9. Goes a long way towards returning the Federal Government to the box of A1, S8.
10. Greatly reduces the influence of national Parties and special interest groups.
11. Puts States in more control of their own economic prosperity based on taxation schemes they decide for themselves.
12. Add repeal of the 14thA ends Federal taxation for "any purpose" and literally helps put SCOTUS back in their Constitutional box.
Every bit of which advances the core principles of Smaller Constitutional government, free markets and fiscal responsibility.
So here is the question: why is the TPM not embracing a solution that covers the core principles so well and effectively?
~Compliments of Atlas.
There is a stone for the sling. It is Article V and repeal of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments. We await the contest and the champion.
Perhaps this is what a hungry Nation is starving for? A Nation starving for leadership, before her people are starving for sustenance and stability? Might this political hero be willing to be the "ONE' that future generations speak honorably of...the politician that dared to change the course of history and in doing so saved their Nation?
The action is fraught with personal political peril. Succeed and you are the clay statues are molded from-fail and you are no better than the goat in the political outcast pasture. Any of 'us' would be willing to try at the risk of not succeeding, for the cost is little to the nameless. Many of us might already be thought a goat, so any fall from grace would not be a far decline. Yet, the cost must be paid by an entire herd of goats -or one brave Shepard-or better yet BOTH. There can be no positive result without a catalyst causing a snowballing and tidal effect. A quantum effort is all that will prevail.
What America so desperately needs, are individuals willing to try to be heroes, goats who dare to be stallions and a David willing to stand against a Goliath.
A Good Friend shared the following thoughts to complete this post:
Leaving aside "politics" and whether "it can be done".........
If the 16th was repealed and if we returned to issuing the Federal tax bill to the States, based on populations consider these benefits:
1. Congress would no longer be involved with tax policy. Each state would decide for themselves how to allocate.
2. No need for the IRS - they are not collecting.
3. The entire tax code leviathan picking winners/losers disappears into the dust bin of history. Eliminates all federal subsidies, tax breaks, etc. on businesses.
4. States could reject "Federal" subsidies, for example medicaid. That dollar amount would come right off the top of the Federal tax bill. Lowering taxes for the People there and jettison of Federal 'mandates'
5. With every State that rejects the Federal funding, the costs for the “programs” are reduced and the cost is borne by whatever idiot states wanted to participate - literally a form of nullification.
6. The only direct Federal taxation would be for ss/medicare (FICA).
7. Repeal of the 17thA makes perfect sense, returning Senators to their original role as representatives in congress for the States. With the States having direct accountability in assessing Federal taxes, budgets, programs and therefore spending would "look" a lot different.
8. Taxpayers are closer to the government assessing the tax - a genuine advantage regarding self-rule and having a louder voice, more effective say in taxation.
9. Goes a long way towards returning the Federal Government to the box of A1, S8.
10. Greatly reduces the influence of national Parties and special interest groups.
11. Puts States in more control of their own economic prosperity based on taxation schemes they decide for themselves.
12. Add repeal of the 14thA ends Federal taxation for "any purpose" and literally helps put SCOTUS back in their Constitutional box.
Every bit of which advances the core principles of Smaller Constitutional government, free markets and fiscal responsibility.
So here is the question: why is the TPM not embracing a solution that covers the core principles so well and effectively?
~Compliments of Atlas.
There is a stone for the sling. It is Article V and repeal of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments. We await the contest and the champion.
