home        comments     back    ARCHIVE 2014

If You Wish To Make a Comment Go to Our Forum

 

Republicans and Democrats Agree: America is Not Safer Today

By Brigitte Gabriel


In today’s politically charged atmosphere, it is rare to see a Republican and a Democrat politician side-by-side agreeing with each other.

That’s just what happened on Sunday when Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) appeared on CNN’s State of the Union program.

Unfortunately, Senator Feinstein and Congressman Rogers were agreeing on what can only be described as very bad, disturbing news.

When asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley, both said that the US is not safer from terrorism today than it was in recent years:

http://sotu.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/01/intel-chairs-were-not-safer/

Crowley was aghast at their answer to her questioning. She had assumed that, at the very least, Democrat Feinstein might say the opposite. After all, the Obama administration, particularly attorney general Eric Holder, has been giving America the impression that we are safer from terrorism ever since the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

But Feinstein and Rogers were steadfast in their report to the CNN host. And they are in a position to know: Feinstein is the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Rogers is the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

Moreover, they backed up their assertion with facts. They pointed out that terrorist attacks and fatalities from terror attacks are “up worldwide” and our enemies are hard at work building more powerful, harder to detect bombs with which to attack us. In addition, there are more Jihadist terrorist organizations today than ever before and Al Qaeda is evolving into a broader, worldwide organization focused on carrying out more numerous, smaller attacks, as opposed to the big event, such as September 11th.

The one thing that has not changed as Al Qaeda has evolved is the fact that all of the global Al Qaeda affiliates share a continued desire to attack targets inside the US and in the West in general.

What’s even more worrisome is that Al Qaeda’s new diversity makes it harder for America’s intelligence services to discover and head off terrorist attacks before they are committed.

Furthermore, many of today’s Jihadist terrorists have gained invaluable combat experience in places like Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, making them that much more potentially lethal when they plot to commit acts of terrorism against civilian targets in the West.

This sobering report shows that America can never afford to let down its guard. We must remain ever-vigilant to the threat of Jihadist terrorism.

That is why the mission of ACT for America is so vital. As America’s largest and fastest-growing grassroots national security organization, we are uniquely positioned to see to it that our elected and appointed officials stay focused on the number one job of government: to protect citizens from foreign threats and provide for the common defense.

Too many Americans—both in and out of public office—seem to have gone to sleep when it comes to the threat from Jihadist terrorism from groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and HAMAS. But ACT for America’s 270,000 members have not gone to sleep and can be counted on to constantly remind politicians, the media and their fellow citizens of the threats we face. As you are reading this article I am on Capital Hill today meeting with seven members of congress in back to back meetings, discussing how we can work together to make our country safer. Thanks for all our members for your activism and your involvement.

Together we rise in defense of our security, our liberty and our freedoms!

Are you ready to ditch the excuses yet?

By: Herman Cain

Dear liberal friends,

Get a grip! 

You have been lied to, deceived and asked to stay supportive even as your health insurance costs have increased, or are getting ready to increase. It's not a matter of whether they will increase. It's when.

You are now going to pay more and you can't keep your plan. You can't keep your doctor. And you may not be able to go to the hospital nearest your home.  You may have to drive past the one closest to you to get to a hospital in “network,” and those specialty hospitals for illnesses like cancer will be at your own cost. 

One of the reasons for these limitations is that insurance companies thought they were going to remain profitable because of all the people who would be signing up for ObamaCare, and happily sharing the cost of covering everybody for everything.

Well, people are not signing up in droves and they are not happy, because of problems with the healthcare.gov website, security issues and premium sticker shock.

Even worse! Some people are being caught in the ObamaCare "gap" between insurance they had and insurance they can't yet get! So they are vulnerable until they can find a plan more expensive than what they had, or until they can find one on the ObamaCare exchanges, which will also cost more because of mandated features they may not want or need.

Shortly after President Obama was elected for his first term, he reminded the Republicans that "I'm the president." This was during a photo-op pretending to listen to the other side of the aisle on the national debt and other issues, and the critical need to stop the spending. He didn't listen.

On another occasion, President Obama reminded the Republicans in Congress and the rest of us that he won re-election. He did win by a narrow popular vote margin. But he and his administration thought that was a mandate to push through his tax-and-spend, anti-economic growth and regulatory tyranny agenda on the nation without being noticed or challenged.

Well Mr. President, the 48 percent of us that did not vote for you noticed! And we are not being quiet about it. It's our constitutional right!

Some of my liberal friends are waking up! They include Democrat voters, independents who voted for Obama, young people under the age of 35, and conservatives who thought he might be another JFK-like leader. He's no JFK and he's no leader.

Just like the mainstream media and congressional Democrats, many of my liberal friends have constantly made excuses for Obama and his administration's failures and lingering scandals. But the failure of ObamaCare, the deception, and the parade of scams we are finding out about cannot be excused. 

Outrage by conservatives is not new. But many liberals and Obama supporters have openly expressed disappointment and betrayal. They are waking up!

Many of you still do not regret how you voted in the last two presidential elections. That was your choice. But you can now choose to stop drinking the Kool-Aid of excuses for the ObamaCare train wreck, which is only going to get worse.

I'm not suggesting that those of you who are now awakened from the slick and elusive presidential rhetoric blindly vote Republican or declare yourselves conservative. No, because Republicans and constitutionally minded conservatives need to earn your vote. And yes, they have and have had an alternative to ObamaCare all along, but the Democrats and the mainstream media didn't want you to know about it. 

But for now, join the chorus of voices that are screaming, "Stop the train wreck. Start over!" It's not about political party, and it should not be about political power. 

It's about the people, and the nation is hurting.

Are You Having Problems With Obamacare

October 26, 2013

 Dear Friend,

 It’s been no secret that I oppose Obamacare.  Instead of making health care more accessible, it’s actually increasing health care costs.  Not only does Obamacare raise taxes and increase government spending, but it’s also forcing thousands of Americans out of their jobs and preferred health care plans.  And now that the Obamacare exchanges have opened, we’re seeing a whole new layer of flaws.  Website crashes, closures, and glitches are preventing many people from enrolling in the exchanges – and the President is still refusing to waive the penalty for not signing up on time.

 Every day, people in West Texas and the Big Country contact me with problems stemming from the President’s health care law.

 Jena from Lubbock had insurance that cost $100 per month, but is being forced off her plan. “I received a letter last month stating that my plan would no longer be provided because it did not comply with the new regulations.  It didn't have substance abuse coverage, mental health coverage or maternity coverage.  I purchased coverage without those things on purpose.  I don't need them. The only comparable plan…would cost approximately $250 per month.”

 Paula in Slaton is currently covered by the Texas state plan for people with pre-existing conditions, but will have to enter the exchanges in 2014.  “The premium for less coverage will be $150 per month more expensive under the new system.  Never thought after years of work…that we would be in this position.”

 And John, a business owner in Anson wrote, “This legislation has increased my health care costs for my employees and forced me to cut benefits. It has driven our costs to the point we cannot justify hiring full time entry level employees, thus stopping our growth.”

 The problems with Obamacare go beyond a broken website.  I want to know how this law is affecting you and your family. 

 If you’d like to share your personal story on Obamacare with me, you can email TX19Feedback@mail.house.gov.  I’ll help you make your voice heard so that we can work together on solutions. 

 Thanks for your time,

Randy Neugebauer
Member of Congress

Source: https://iqconnect.lmhostediq.com/iqextranet/view_newsletter.aspx?id=162050&c=TX19RN

Standing Up for Veterans

By: Randy Neugebauer

Dear Friends,

Today is the fifth day the government has been closed because of the Senate’s refusal to compromise on funding the government.  While some of the consequences of a shutdown are unavoidable, it has come to my attention that the Obama Administration is intentionally increasing the public’s discomfort by playing politics with our veterans.

Earlier this week, I came across one example that was particularly upsetting.  Many of you have seen video of part of my reaction to the closure of the World War II Memorial.  I want to be clear: I meant no disrespect to the park ranger, who was simply doing her job. 

I’d like to share some details about what happened that day.  The World War II Memorial, an open-air site on the National Mall that is open to the public 24-7, was barricaded off using metal fences set up by heavy machinery.  This site, which was built with private funds, is minimally staffed when the government is running.  But, the Obama Administration ordered the memorial to be fenced off and guarded by park rangers.  That means that the time and resources they spent fencing off the memorial is greater than the resources required to leave it open to the public. 

I visited the memorial when I heard it was being closed off to veterans.  An Honor Flight from Lubbock will be bringing veterans from West Texas to Washington, DC in a few weeks, and I wanted to be sure that they would have access to their monument.

I was pleased to see that other Members of Congress had managed to open the gates to veterans that were visiting that day.  After I welcomed these American heroes to the structure built in their honor, I turned to leave.  And as I did so, the park rangers began closing the fences, barring veterans who weren’t part of the Honor Flight. 

I was stunned.

I asked the ranger why the gates were being closed to American veterans.  I regret that my frustration with the situation seemed to be directed at her--that was not my intention. 

When I asked the ranger why Honor Flight veterans were allowed inside but other veterans were excluded, I was told that the Honor Flight was a “First Amendment” demonstration.  While the memorial is closed to the public, they decided to open it to organized protests.  Folks, that’s the Obama Administration’s clever way of having their cake and eating it too.  They want the memorials closed to the public—and they’re spending money to do that.  But they know that Americans would be outraged by seeing hundreds of veterans turned away from a memorial built in their honor.  So they came up with this “First Amendment” loophole. 

You know what?  Everyone has First Amendment rights.  And the individual veterans I saw being turned away put their lives on the line to protect those rights.  So I was upset.  I believe that what the Obama Administration is asking the Park Service to do is disgraceful.  It’s a deliberate attempt to dramatize the debate over government funding and health care.  It’s meant to provoke people into anger, and I sure was provoked.  I believe that what the Park Service is doing at the direction of the Obama Administration is shameful, and we should all be ashamed of these political ploys.

So I’m calling on the Obama Administration to stop using our veterans as pawns, and to stop using the American people as pawns.  Let’s have an honest discussion about the real issue here: giving all Americans the same protections from Obamacare that the President has already given to businesses and special interest groups.

That is the heart of the Republican proposal.  We’re asking for a one-year delay of the individual healthcare mandate—the same delay that the Administration just gave to businesses.  And we’re asking for all Members of Congress, our staffs, and political appointees to take part in the Obamacare exchanges without any special treatment.  It’s a reasonable request, but instead of negotiating with us on this, the President is trying to strong-arm Republicans into giving up, by making the shutdown as painful as possible. 

Texans don’t budge easily—especially not when we’re standing up for the principals that make this country great: fairness, equality, and freedom. 

As your representative in Washington, I’m committed to promoting those values, and I’ll keep working to get our country back on track. 

URGENT LETTER TO ALL CATHOLICS IN THE STATE OF HAWAII FROM BISHOP LARRY SILVA

"To Discriminate Regarding Marriage is NOT Unjust"

Dear Brothers and Sisters:   

 August 22, 2013

The issue of same-sex marriage is in the limelight once again in our community, with a move for a special legislative session to vote on a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Hawaii.

While the Catholic Church is clear in its insistence that true marriage can only be between one man and one woman, there are many people, even among Catholics, who perceive such insistence as unjust discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Therefore, it is urgent to clarify certain issues...Read More

Obamacare's Broken Promises

Listen Button

By: Ted Cruz

Hi, I’m Ted Cruz and this is the Freedom Minute.

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." That was one of the many promises that President Obama made about his health care law. And it’s just not true.

According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, under Obamacare, seven million people will lose their employer-sponsored insurance.

McKinsey & Company found that thirty percent of employers will definitely or probably stop offering employer-sponsored insurance in the years after 2014.

In addition, any health insurance you do pay for will almost certainly be more expensive.

One study found that 98% of health care plans currently fail to meet Obamacare’s essential health benefits standards. These plans will all become more expensive.

Obamacare is burdensome, costly, and killing jobs. I’m leading the fight to defund it – please join us. I’m Ted Cruz, and this is the Freedom Minute.

Source: http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=345530

 

The Left Attacks Hillsdale President

By: Herman Cain

Ridiculous.

Liberals hate Michigan’s Hillsdale College, which not only celebrates a decidedly conservative point of view, but also galls them by refusing to take government funding – which means they have no way of threatening Hillsdale and trying to force it to fall in line. It’s no surprise, then, that liberals and their media allies are trying to manufacture a scandal over Hillsdale President Larry Arnn’s use of the phrase “dark ones” during testimony before the Michigan Legislature.

They are trying to say Arnn is racist because he “described minorities as ‘dark ones.’” What he actually did, however, was describe the arguably racist actions of state bureaucrats who invaded his campus to play diversity police.

Arnn told a legislative committee at the state capital that bureaucrats from the Michigan Department of Education showed up at Hillsdale’s campus in 2000, wandering around with clipboards looking at the faces of students and writing down what they saw.

“What were they looking for besides dark ones?” he said.

Scandal!

Members of the committee gasped, scolded Arnn and suggested that he had better apologize. The news media went to work immediately, churning out stories announcing that Arnn “described minorities as ‘dark ones’” while burying the context of his statement, if they explained it at all. The usual race-mongers declared that context didn’t matter because the simple, literal, descriptive two-word phrase was so offensive.

The Rev. Charles Williams II, president of the Michigan chapter of the National Action Network – whatever that is – demanded that Hillsdale funders denounce Arnn, and warned darkly (uh oh, can I say that?) that if they do not, “we will be very strategic in how we deal with any of their industries and venues.”

I am so tired of this nonsense. In case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of black people, and some have darker complexions than others. I am one of the dark ones! Now, having said that, I could spend the rest of the day figuring out how to boycott myself for offending myself, but I think I will skip that absurd exercise because all I did was tell you what I look like.

You want to know a secret? Normal, everyday black Americans do not sit around getting offended because some college president, or politician, or celebrity, or media person, or talk show host, or whoever . . . used some phrase. It is not important and we do not care. But there is a whole industry that consists of people who do nothing but sit around and wait for someone to utter a phrase to which they can take offense. And when it happens, they pounce, and the media does their bidding.

Oh, and when the person who utters the phrase is an identifiable conservative – bar the door. It’s outrage time. Crank out the press releases. Organize the boycotts. Demand retribution. It’s your moment in the sun when you are a professional offense-monger.

And in the midst of all this, the media completely missed the real story. Arnn was describing an action of state bureaucrats that was totally inappropriate – showing up on his campus with clipboards and counting how many black faces they saw. In the aftermath of Arnn’s testimony, the Michigan Department of Education denied this had ever taken place – until admitting yesterday that it did.

Oh, by the way, conservative Hillsdale was the first private college in the nation to bar discrimination on the basis of race, sex or religion in its charter. That fact has shown up in a few of the media stories, but it’s buried underneath all the faux outrage over Arnn’s dastardly utterance.

Stand strong, Dr. Arnn! The left is attacking you not because you said anything wrong – you didn’t – but because you lead a conservative institution that doesn’t take their money and can’t be controlled by them. To them, that makes you a target. To this “dark one,” it makes you a hero.

Source: http://www.caintv.com/dark-ones-the-left-attacks-hil

Washington vs. the People


To prevent abuses of government power we have to reduce government power.

By  Sen. Mike Lee

The recent scandals that have rocked the White House represent Americans’ worst fears about big government: Your government is spying on you; your government is targeting you; and your government is lying to you. Americans should be outraged, but they should not be surprised.

It would be wrong to view the controversy over the IRS scandal as a typical Republican vs. Democrat squabble. The IRS is a powerful agency that can influence nearly every decision Americans make through its authority to tax and regulate. The IRS grows stronger and more powerful the more the federal government spends and borrows.

Organizations and individuals who promote fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, greater government accountability, and more local autonomy present a threat to the structure that gives the IRS its power. It should not come as a surprise, then, that the culture of the IRS would promote enhanced scrutiny of these groups.

This has nothing to do with what party is in power. That’s why Americans should not mistake this for a battle between Republicans and Democrats. They should understand that it is a fight between Washington and everyone else.

Consider other examples of this fight between Washington and the people. The Associated Press, hardly a right-wing organization, is now a victim of privacy violations and excessive overreach by the Department of Justice. Private companies are being strong-armed by the Department of Health and Human Services to contribute to a “voluntary” fund to promote Obamacare. The administration’s response to the sequester — which cut a paltry sum from Washington’s $3.7 trillion budget — was to punish innocent Americans with long lines at airports and no more White House tours. The Environmental Protection Agency is accused of waiving fees for favored environmental groups but not for right-leaning organizations.

Though the recent examples involve a Democratic administration, Republicans have shown they are just as tempted to abuse the power of government. At its core, the IRS scandal is not the result of one political party attacking another. It is the inevitable consequence of a federal government that has gotten too big and too expensive to control. The federal government’s massive bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional, corrupt, intolerant, and incompetent — regardless of who is in charge. These are not random incidents perpetrated by bad actors. They are systemic features of the $4 trillion enterprise known as the federal government.

To a certain extent, the president is justified in shifting blame on to others. How could any one person be responsible for everything that goes on in his administration?

Unfortunately for the president, his best defense is the same reason Americans should reject his liberal agenda to make the federal government more powerful, more intrusive, and more involved in the decisions we make. The bigger government gets, the less control the president has and the more opportunities there are for abuse. And that means less freedom and security for the rest of us.

When the IRS can harass tea-party groups, when the Department of Justice can monitor reporters’ conversations, when the EPA can adopt double standards for ideological allies and opponents, when Health and Human Services regulators can openly extort the businesses they regulate -- in short, when there is no accountability -- we are no longer citizens but subjects.

Conservatives often have a difficult time explaining why we support a smaller, more limited federal government. These scandals make that job a little easier. It’s not that we don’t like government, but we don’t like government intimidating and harassing media outlets, businesses, citizen organizations, or anyone else in the manner these scandals have brought to light.

And we understand that because this kind of corruption and incompetence is inherent in any massive, unaccountable organization, simply passing a new law will not solve the problem. To prevent the next abuse of government power, we need to reduce government power.

Taxed Enough Already?


By Sarah Palin

This new tax increase – the internet sales tax – must be stopped in the House. The Senate just passed it, and many Senators want to justify their tax increase vote by claiming that it will somehow “level the playing field” for brick and mortar retailers. This isn’t legit.

This is actually a boon to the big online powerhouses like Amazon who can afford the insane paperwork that comes with complying with government’s newest tax. The smaller mid-size online operations and smaller brick and mortar businesses, many family-owned with small staffs, who want to have larger online presences will be swamped with the regulatory paperwork of complying with the tax requirements for all these different states.

This new internet tax is not only another barrier to entry for smaller online start-ups, it’s a disincentive to grow a company. This will hit these smaller companies right where their margin of profit is, which means that this will cost jobs because when businesses lose profitability, they lay off workers or shut down.

Did Republicans who voted for this new tax on businesses forget that it will trickle down to consumers in this dangerously weak economic era?

And when smaller and mid-size operations are pushed out of business, we have less competition and fewer choices in the marketplace. ...

Bottom line: These anti-small business measures disincentivize the start-ups we need, and any measure to stick it to the consumer by increasing taxes for government growth is not what Republicans are supposed to fight for. I bet that once the tax increase is explained, your constituents won’t want you to contribute to government growth via increased internet taxes. And that’s what this is all about. House GOP, read your constituent’s lips: No New Taxes.

-- Sarah Palin

P.S. I see that some are saying that a “positive” measure in this bill that the GOP Senators who voted for it liked is that it requires the government to provide “free” sales tax calculating software to all companies for compliance. Here’s a little newsflash: when it’s from the government, it’s not “free”! It’s being paid for by the very same people this new tax will hit in the pocketbook. That would be “We the People.”

 

Source: http://www.grassrootsaction.com/r.asp?U=254384&RID=39246814

Sen. Cruz Delivers Remarks at NRA Convention

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) delivered remarks at the 2013 NRA Convention held in Houston, Texas. This is a partial Transcript. To view the speech go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xklgDF6fz3s&feature=player_embedded

 

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

“It seems to me that when the Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, that means the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Constitution matters. All of the Constitution. It’s not pick and choose. It’s not take what part you like and get rid of the parts you don’t like. For some reason Obama liberals want to disregard the First Amendment and take away our right to speak and political speech. For some reason they want to disregard the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. And, for some reason the Obama liberals want to disregard the Tenth Amendment and implement Obamacare and take away our liberties. Every word of the Constitution matters. It is our fundamental protection of our liberties against the government….”

“In America, the people have the power. A month ago you had the president holding press conference after press conference after press conference and his package of legislation that would have undermined the Second Amendment looked like an unstoppable freight train. I was proud to join my friends Senator Rand Paul and Senator Mike Lee in writing a short and simple letter to Harry Reid that said we will filibuster any legislation that undermines the bill of rights and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. But what happened next was truly amazing. What happened next was each and every one of you, millions of Americans began speaking out…and what happened in this battle is that millions of men and women across the country got on the phone, got on Facebook, got on Twitter and said, ‘Leave our Constitution alone.’

“Standing in front of this ginormous American flag is the closets this lawyer will come to feeling like General Patton. But I’m looking out at an Army, and the voice of each of you is how we win. And because each of you spoke out and because millions of Americans spoke out two weeks ago, when those proposals came to a vote every amendment that would have violated our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms was voted down.

“The fight is not over. President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have come out and said they intend to come back at it…I would like to invite the Vice President to engage in an hour long conversation and debate about how we stop crime. If Vice President Biden really believes the facts are on his side and this is not an exercise in political power, I would think he would welcome the opportunity to talk about the sources of violent crime and how we can do everything we can to stop it."

###

 

How to Tell If You’re Rich


By Alexander Green, Investment U Chief Investment Strategist
Monday, April 29, 2013

One of the biggest points of contention in the last election was whether the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Polls show the majority of voters don't believe they do.

Of course, this raises the questions: Who is "rich" and what is "fair"? 

Answers are largely a matter of opinion. But here is a fact: IRS figures show that the top 10% of income earners make 43% of all the income and pay 70% of all the taxes. Is that fair? If not, how much should they pay: 75%… 90%… all of it? And how about the now widely recognized fact – thanks to Mitt Romney's secret videographer – that 47% of Americans don't pay any income taxes. Is that fair? Opinions will vary.
 

According to the IRS, the top 2% of income earners – the ones that just had their marginal tax rate raised 13% to 39.6% – already pay approximately half of all income taxes. President Obama says it's about time these folks "chipped in." What a kidder.

And who is "rich"? For today's discussion, Read More

Education Diversity, Indoctrination, Global Competetiveness and the Voucher System

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, diversity in education is a bulwark against economic and intellectual stagnation. Diversity in education is an anathema to the Elite in America however. They seek to limit children's access to a diverse subject matter, diverse methods of learning, and instead impose doctrinal standards on our children, theirs however are in private schools. Anyone with their eyes open can see the results of this policy over the last few generations. US children falling behind in math, reading, writing, history and critical thinking. We also see the manifestation of the practice of common core type education, imposed from the top, that every child must follow, in the lowering of the work ethic. If we don't address this growing problem it will become a crisis, one that will not only destroy the standard of living of Americans, but will usher in a World wide recession.

Today, industries in the US are able to find qualified applicants with a good work ethic, from immigrants. In other countries where the school system is an educational enterprise, instead of an indoctrination center, the level of education is exceptional. The students from these countries regularly outperform US students, in standardized tests, on most any subject. The Education department in the Federal government, (an unconstitutional apparition), makes the excuse that many in America test poorly, because they have economic disadvantages. Are we to assume that American children are on a lower economic rung than children in China? Where wages are a tenth of the US? A friend of mine says, “Excuses are like rear ends, everyone has them, and they all stink.”

The answer of the US educational elite is always to do more of what is not working. The latest incarnation is Common Core, where new math is taught, communism is glorified, and reading is reduced from mind elevating literature, like Great Expectations... to federal reserve fact sheets. Boy what interesting material for a kid to read, economic fact sheets. The government is even planning on foisting this insanity on home schooled children! The Executive branch under Obama has foisted this absurdity on every school child in the US. Inevitably lowering the education of our children even further. As it is most likely intended to.

In the 1970's they tried new math. If you ever see the old TV show, Family Affair, Buffy and Jodie's homework was new math. Old math apparently was seen as outmoded. The result of new math was a dramatic lowering of the arithmetic skills of American school children. Instead of elevating, as it was promised to do, the ability of US educated students was diminished to that of a third world country. Not only the economy suffered as a result, but the waste of human potential, people who could have achieved excellence but, due to the failing of our schools, achieved mediocrity instead, was a tragedy. In the end new math had to be abandoned for old math. Today, under common core we are embarking on a new, new math experiment. One that will certainly end the same way the last one did... No matter how much I want vinegar to mix with baking soda without reaction, it won't, empirical testing proves that.

The education department within the Federal government, is unconstitutional, because the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government the power... to concentrate all educational decisions in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, working in the dark of night, imposing their view of how every child must be taught in the US. The tenth amendment is the most overlooked in the Bill of Rights and this is as good an example as any. The education department in the Federal government should be eliminated, not only to save our children from the vicissitudes of power drunk bureaucrats, but to save their little minds from the indoctrination centers our schools have become.

To achieve diversity in education there needs to be a voucher system. One where schools don't need to be accredited by a Federal agency, but by the parents, who freely choose to send their kids there. Instead of regulating means, the bailiwick of tyrants, regulate results. Test students who graduate from the diverse schools set up under the voucher, publish the results, and let the voucher schools compete for students in the marketplace of education, that would be created under such a system. Some will argue, “But some schools under a voucher system will give poor educations.” Which is a high form of spurious reasoning because, under their system, all of the students are getting a poor education. The real worry is that some will get exceptional educations... and we can't have that! Only the children of the Elite should get a good education! Obama's daughters are not in public schools, they are not subject to common core... your children are!

Education is a fundamentally important undertaking. The economy of the nation depends on it. Our children's futures depend on it. Unconstitutional top down imposition of the means, has never worked, but it empowers the bureaucrat to be all knowing and all seeing... like Oz. The ego of the Elite is massaged when they choose the curriculum and subject matter of every student in the nation. But education is not a means to serve the bloated egos of bureaucrats, it is to prepare children to engage in the market system, become thoughtful citizens and have the tools to make critical decisions. Diversity in education, created by a voucher system, delivers that ideal. Let's get back to educating children instead of indoctrinating them... for the sake of our children, and our own.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The blog with links can be read here; http://incapp.org/blog/?p=1912

 I want to share this since I have permission to publish it. This is a very good article and should be shared. Please read and think about what is written here it could mean the difference between being free and becoming a slave.

God bless America

America please bless God

If They Come For Your Guns

by Dean Garrison

I feel a tremendous responsibility to write this article though I am a little apprehensive. Thinking about the possibility of rising up against our own government is a frightening thing for many of us. I am not Johnny Rambo and I will be the first to admit that I do not want to die. The reason I feel compelled to write this, however, is simply because I don’t think the average American is equipped with the facts. I feel that a lot of American citizens feel like they have no choice but to surrender their guns if the government comes for them. I blame traditional media sources for this mass brainwash and I carry the responsibility of all small independent bloggers to tell the truth. So my focus today is to lay out your constitutional rights as an American, and let you decide what to do with those rights. Read More

CRUZ: “Obama Most Radical President We’ve Ever Seen”…

 Tea Party stalwart Sen. Ted Cruz has tough words for President Barack Obama in a recent interview.

“I think President Obama is the most radical president we’ve ever seen, but I think an awful lot of Republicans fail to stand for principle and contributed to getting us in this mess,” the Republican Texas senator told The Christian Broadcasting Network in a recent interview.

Cruz has already risen through the political ranks despite being a first-term senator. Cruz has taken a stand against Obama on immigration and gun control. The freshman senator also voted against John Kerry as secretary of state.

Cruz told The Christian Broadcasting Network that he is hoping to form a new Republican Party.

“Life, liberty, and property, the fundamental natural rights of man are given to every one of us by God, and the role of government fundamentally is to protect those rights,” Cruz said.

Despite his popularity, Cruz says he doesn’t pay attention to his own media coverage.

“I try to pay very little attention to the media,” Cruz explained. “It is, as you know, a fickle creature. They can say anything today, and tomorrow, it can change dramatically.”

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/22/sen-cruz-obama-is-the-most-radical-president-weve-ever-seen/

Letters From Sheriffs about Gun Control

Letter from Sheriff Charles Heiss

Letter from Sheriff Glenn Palmer

Letter from Sheriff Steve Cox

Letter from Sheriff Brad DeLay

Letter from Sheriff John Hanlin

Letter from Sheriff Gil Gilbertson

Letter from Sheriff Jon Lopey

Letter from Sheriff John Bishop

Letter from the Utah Sheriff's Association

A Letter from a Constitutional County Sheriff to the Unconstitutional Vice President

letter of tim mueller

Against Government Debt

By Sheldon Richman

The last time the debt-ceiling controversy arose, it occurred to me that if the raising "ceiling" is a mere formality—if in fact the sky's the limit to government borrowing—it's no ceiling at all. Hence, I dubbed this charade the "debt sky." 

Those who favor automatic increases in the "limit"—or no limit at all—give the game away when they argue that the borrowing authority must be increased because the full faith and credit of the United States is on the line. After all, they say, the money is needed to pay bills already incurred, not for new spending. Obama makes this claim routinely, as though the case for raising the limit is open and shut.

Who knows if that is true? But if it is, think about what it means. Congress has been incurring bills the payment of which depends on...Read More

Why Grandpa carries a gun
"A Little Gun History”

By: Marilyn J. Boersma

Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin’.' I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed. I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place. I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world. I don't carry a gun because I'm evil. I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world...Read More

Fiscal Cliff Creates Problems That Don’t Faze Obama

By Michael Barone

Is Barack Obama bluffing when he threatens to go over the fiscal cliff if Republicans refuse to agree to higher tax rates on high earners?  
 
Some analysts think so. Keith Hennessey, a former top staffer for the Bush White House and Senate Republicans and a veteran of budget negotiations, argues that Obama's whole second term would be blighted if he allows the fiscal cliff tax increases and sequestration budget cuts to take place next month.  
 
His argument is based on three assumptions. One is that going over the fiscal cliff would trigger a sharp recession and a weak economy thereafter. Many economists agree. Some disagree. I leave that argument to them.  
 
Hennessey's second assumption is that Obama has other second term policy goals — immigration reform, cap-and-trade legislation, tax reform — that would be difficult to achieve if he breaks sharply with Republicans.  
 
Third, he assumes that Obama, like previous presidents, wants...Read More

After the cliff

Newt Gingrich

The most troubling aspect of the current Republican disarray over the so-called “fiscal cliff” is the lack of strategic planning.

Republicans talk as though solving this challenge will end their problems.

After President Barack Obama extorts taxes in the current negotiations he will have an Inaugural Address, a State of the Union address to a Joint Session of Congress, and then he will submit a budget.  Each of these national events will be designed to maximize the president’s support and to set new benchmarks that force the Republicans to choose between their base and other elements of America.  The news media will, of course, trumpet President Obama’s proposals and adopt his language.

Beyond the legislative struggles, President Obama will issue a continuing deluge of new Executive Orders and regulations. More than 4,000 new federal regulations are currently in the pipeline — and even more are coming. The inventiveness and aggressiveness of a victorious left wing bureaucracy should not be underestimated.

Over the last two years the Obama team has learned to maximize its impact while stalemated in the legislative arena. That skill will now be exercised with vigor and enthusiasm in every aspect of the federal government.

Some Republicans suggest that surrendering on taxes now will somehow lead to better negotiations with President Obama in the future. They assert that giving the president higher taxes might mellow him and encourage him to offer substantial entitlement reforms later.

What possible pressure could there be on the president to make greater concessions after he has gotten the increased taxes and spending?  If he won’t give it to you to get the taxes he wants, why would he give it to you for nothing?

In fact the exact opposite will happen.

Once House Republicans prove they will cave on taxes, President Obama will assume they will cave on everything. Expanded spending, additional forms of income transfer, greater bureaucracy, weaker defenses, more taxes when the current increases don’t “solve” the deficit.

Some Republicans fantasize that they can draw a stronger line on the debt ceiling than they have on taxes.

The very pressures that are breaking the House GOP on taxes will be mobilized to break their will on the debt ceiling.

The news media will declare them irresponsible. The Senate Democrats will attack them for undermining the national credit. The bankers will publicly demand a debt ceiling fix. The Obama grassroots system will go to work.

Why would anyone believe that the habit of surrender could be reversed on the debt ceiling? A trivial fig leaf will be displayed and the spending will rush onward.

Then the president will demand immediate citizenship for 11,000,000 plus people — no one knows the real number — with no requirements for learning English or American history and no guarantees of honest elections. Republican objections will be dismissed as racist, heartless and reactionary. The entire fight will be designed to infuriate the Republican base and maximize Republican infighting while further alienating Latinos and Asian Americans from Republicans.

Finally, for its goals that cannot be achieved through these efforts, the Obama team will focus on appointing very liberal judges and on using the United Nations. (Note the effort to limit the Second Amendment by a United Nations treaty.)

House Republicans need to lift their eyes from the immediate “fiscal cliff” and design a strategy for coping with, slowing down, and then defeating the overall effort to create a radically different America.

Until they understand the larger strategic fight, they can’t possibly know what to do in the current short-term tactical situation.

Source: http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/12/gingrich-after-the-cliff-gop-must-have-a-strategic-plan/

Fiscal Cliff Notes


By Thomas Sowell

Amid all the political and media hoopla about the "fiscal cliff" crisis, there are a few facts that are worth noting.

First of all, despite all the melodrama about raising taxes on "the rich," even if that is done it will scarcely make a dent in the government's financial problems. Raising the tax rates on everybody in the top two percent will not get enough additional tax revenue to run the government for ten days.
 

And what will the government do to pay for the other 355 days in the year? Read More

Egypt and America's slide to tyranny

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, no one should be surprised that the Islamofascist who now oppresses Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, would decree himself above the Law. Such shenanigans have been the currency of tyrants the World over and throughout time. Dictators and presidents for life have always considered themselves above the law, come to think of it... all Elite have that opinion. Look at the Elite in Europe and the US. They pass laws that apply to everyone but them. They hold themselves to no standards whatsoever. The Elite the World over consider themselves above any Law they write or precedes them. Morsi is just another tin pot dictator cut from the same cloth. I shudder to think of the violence, oppression and poverty, Morsi will visit on Egypt. But then again, it was Saint Agustin who said, people get the government they deserve. This adage is never more true then when the people themselves have elected a tyrant, instead of a President... both in Egypt and the US.

Mohamed Morsi is an islamofascist and makes no bones about it. His speeches are laced with anti Christian, anti Jewish and anti western rhetoric. He himself has called for the destruction of Israel, and his religious leader, for the extermination of the Jews, and Jerusalem as the capital of their World wide Caliphate. His rhetoric is uniformly anti democratic. The reality is that Morsi would be only too happy to deliver the Jews into another holocaust. Someone who is as extreme as Mohamed Morsi can be expected to usurp power every chance he gets.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood led government was elected in a free and fair election. That election delivered the Egyptian people into the hands of the group that spawned Al Queda, Hammas, Hezbollah and every terrorist organization in the twentieth century. This is a crowd that are evil incarnate. They openly seek World domination. Imagine if a capitalist regime sought World domination in their chartering documents and speeches? The unbiased media would be wall to wall coverage about the power hungry capitalists. The media feeding frenzy would never end until those people were driven from power and jailed.

The treatment the Islamofascists get is far different however. Obama gave up on a Middle East summit to keep weapons of mass destruction, (WMD), out of the Middle East. He capitulated because the evil men that run that part of the World are determined to get WMD. They see Nuclear weapons as their means to World domination. A very few electro-magnetic- pulse weapons could easily overturn the World's power structure. Sure, billions would die in the ensuing wars and famines, but the World could then fall under the total arbitrary power of a Caliph. The results of Obama's miscalculation in the Middle East will inevitably lead to human tragedy.

What would have been surprising is if Morsi had been a President instead of dictator. That would have upended the normal paradigm of Middle East politics however. That outcome was as unlikely as space Aliens landing, and giving the governments around the World trillions of dollars, to maintain their welfare spending. To say that Morsi has no mercy would be an understatement. The crucifixions of Christians that took place, shortly after Morsi came to power, might have been a wake up call that this man is evil. But the unbiased world media remained silent, until it came out, then the Islam apologists called it a hoax! It was no hoax! Especially to those who suffered a slow, painful and unmerciful death.

Would they have remained silent if a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto or a member of any other religion were crucifying protesters? Of course not. But then again, news, by definition, is something that is out of the ordinary. Since this is the case, a newly elected Islamofascist crucifying people, being normal for them, is not news. Those poor people, who live under the jackboot of an Islamofascist regime have plenty of torture, hunger, oppression and lack of religious freedom, to look forward to. To expect anything good from the election of an Islamofascist, or a socialist, is just plain stupid. Apparently the Egyptian and the American people have that in common too.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

New American Socialism

By Porter Stansberry

No one knows what to call it…  
 
That's part of the problem. It's difficult to criticize something that doesn't yet have a proper name.
 
You can't just call our economic system "socialism." It's not. There's a profit motive and private ownership of nearly all assets. Socialism has neither of these. Besides, far too many people have become far too rich in our system to simply label it "socialism." 
 
If you have ever traveled to an actual socialist country – with a power grid that never works, little public sanitation, petty graft at every turn, and endemic, horrifying poverty – you realize our system and real socialism aren't the same at all.
 
Our system isn't truly capitalism either, though. The State intervenes in almost every industry, often in a big and expensive way. With government at all levels making up more than...Read More

STATEMENT FROM GOVERNOR JAN BREWER

No More Broken Promises on Border Security

“If there is any consolation in last week's disappointing election results it is that illegal immigration has returned to the forefront of our national dialogue. This is a good thing. America’s immigration system is broken.

“But we must not rush head-long into a ‘solution’ that only makes things worse. Right now, there are well-meaning people – including some in my own party – who are advocating a grand bargain in which the American people would be promised border security in exchange for the granting of amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens. We’ve been here before.

“I remember it was in 1986 that my idol, President Reagan, helped usher through a similar compromise. Three million aliens became American citizens; the border was never secured. In fact, recent American history is littered with similar broken promises when it comes to border security.

“That’s why I have a simple request for the President and Congress: Secure our border first. Demonstrate that you take seriously the safety concerns of Americans living in the border region. With that completed, we can pursue – together – ways to fix our Nation’s broader immigration system in a fashion that is effective, practical and humane.”

 Why the New Left is Now the Democratic Party

By Scott S. Powell

If Harry Truman and Jack Kennedy were somehow resurrected and transported in time to the present, they would not recognize the Democratic Party, which raised them up as successful presidents in earlier times. So how did the Democratic Party become transformed into what it is today? 

The two major political parties in the U.S. have always been fundamentally different. The Republican Party has been rooted in transcendent values and unchanging principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Democratic Party acknowledges that the starting point of the country was the Declaration and the Constitution, but has contended since Woodrow Wilson that progress requires constant...Read More

Syrian Revolution

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, if we really have made up our collective minds, that we want to participate in the Syrian revolution, we must protect our interests and the interests of humanity. In the prior three engagements we took part in, we did nothing to guide where our help went, except to give weapons to, as it turns out, the very people who raped and murdered our ambassador to Libya. The Government in Egypt is the worst possible case scenario, and our abysmal failure to back the Iranian people in their bid for liberty, has empowered the enemies of mankind's freedom, and weakened those of human hearted people. In the case of Syria we could help but only if we use a tiny bit of common sense. To help the enemies of liberty, usurp power another country, would be stupid... helping three was plenty.

Apparently the Obama administration was giving weapons to the worst element of the Libyan revolution. On September 11, 2012 the terrorists, it seems, waited for the Turkish ambassador to finish dinner with the American ambassador, get safely away, then they launched an assault on the American compound, culminating in the seizure of our ambassador, his subsequent sodomizing and murder... by the people we were supplying weapons, and with those very weapons! Clearly, the Obama administration didn't use safe gun practices. If the gun is loaded, you let them know the gun is loaded... More importantly, you know for certain that they are in fact a friend and will not turn that gun on you! Obviously we didn't protect the interests of the US in the Libyan revolution... Or use common sense.

Egypt went off the rails almost as soon as Hosni left office. Christians were run down by armored personnel carriers during a protest. (That might have been a clue that this may go bad, as was the celebratory rape of Lara Logan in Tahrir square). Did Obama step in with a plan, to help our ally move from a despot, to some form of republican liberal government? No he didn't. Instead, he backed the Muslim brotherhood's agenda, to have elections as soon as possible. They, being the only fully prepared political party, won elections handily from ill prepared and under funded, more libertarian options. The result was as predictable as snow in winter. Now, we have an Islamofascists regime in control in Egypt, that holds the “Peace Treaty” with Israel hostage, if we don't fund their military buildup to invade Israel, they will invade Israel. In what world does that make even a tiny bit of sense? That we would pay billions to keep evil people... who have sworn to their god, that they will overthrow our way of life and install their theocratic law, the World over... on friendly terms?

Iran is on the cusp of a deliverable nuclear warhead. We had a golden opportunity to back a home grown revolution against the Islamofascist regime there. Instead of taking advantage of this Godsend the Obama administration turned his back on the protesters. Even to the point of, allowing Iranians in Europe and the US, to be bullied by the Iranian regime from speaking out. Iranian freedom fighters were silenced by the Islamofascist despots oppressing Iran, and Obama did nothing, he said, nothing, and he partied on like it was 1984.

The Syrian Rebels are terrorizing the Syrian Christians. The Christians are being used as human shields, the dead bodies of the “human shields” are then presented to the unbiased media, as proof of Assad's brutality. In no country, anywhere or anytime, that has been controlled by Islamofascists, have other religions been able to survive. Look at the native Christians and Jews that live in Saudi Arabia for instance. Descended from the tens of thousands that once lived and thrived there among the Arabs. The Christians in Egypt are being systematically ethnically cleansed and now face extinction too. Their property is being seized and they are being threatened with death and in some cases being killed. This is not the type of philosophy that the US should in any way lionize or support. Especially militarily!

Before a single shot glass is handed out to a Syrian revolutionary, we must have a constitution they are fighting for, publicly printed, posted and presented. It must be the banner they fight for. Moreover, the constitution they espouse, must be one that comports with Our American ideals! One that protects people's Right to... freedom of commerce, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of property and the protection of their persons and property. With sufficient controls to protect those rights. In fact, there should be several constitutions already written to pick from, for just such a circumstance. That there isn't, seems short sighted to me, for people tasked with protecting America. Make anyone and everyone, who gets a single American bullet, sign and swear an oath to this constitution. Not everyone will follow through but at least there will be a standard in which to adhere. A single set of ideas, calling for liberal government, that fully recognizes the rights of individuals. Only this way, will the Rights of Man be protected, and never, by giving psychopaths heavy weapons.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

How Romney can improve the lives of Americans in the next 4 years

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the way Romney could improve the lives of the American people, both economically and socially, (by diminishing crime and improving education)... would be to implement the concepts from the International Capitalist Party. The ideas we have put forth, throughout our series of articles, is a historically proven road map, to a society that is entrepreneurial. When a society has good education and a fast growing economy it necessarially has less crime. The growing crime rate, drop in educational scores and flat GDP growth, are all signs the policies in place today are ineffectual at best, but more likely, pernicious and counter productive. The true cost of counter productive government policy is the cumulative drop in future GDP growth. This not only impacts our standard of living... but the effect is magnified over a generation.

The economy is both the easiest and the hardest to fix. The answer we have pointed out, time and again, is to clean every regulation on the books, in regards to their applicability, economic impact, and redundancy. To do this, we could set up a panel of learned people, give them six months to produce an initial report, and then implement as much of that report as possible. Subsequent reports can be every six months for two years, then every two years after that, to keep regulation from running amok again. The final report should have something on the state of regulation in the US. The releasing of the US, (or any economy), from the onerous regulation that has built up over generations, would propel the economy into fast GDP growth, driven by the release of the US entrepreneurial spirit.

Tax law is another avenue of improving the lives of Americans, by helping the profitability of US businesses and therefore, their competitiveness in the World economy. Tax law can be pernicious, because when high wage earners are targeted, they tend to be business owners, and so it is business profitability that is effected. The rhetoric always presupposes some “rich” people will be punished but it is never the actual rich who are victimized. The victims are those trying to get rich, and the laborers who are denied work, when government tax policy extinguishes their jobs.

The schools have become an arm of the US government's jobs program. They have lost their original mandate and have replaced it with a new one. That is, to provide high paying jobs to overly educated people, while insuring that the students are indoctrinated away from the morals of their family, and inculcate them into a blind worship of State power. To change the education system, back to one where students are educated in, math, reading, history and creative thinking, and also, interpersonal discourse, rhetoric and logical thinking, would require the hated repair be applied, one that has worked every time, everywhere and in every circumstance... competition.

The Societies of most “advanced” countries in the World, have made the conscious decision, to pay for education with government largess. The non excludable good argument has been made, and in my opinion, is the best grounds to justify such a system. Since we as a people have made this decision it is best to work within it as much as possible. The best means, within our criteria, to competition... is a voucher system. Under a voucher system, parents would be empowered, to be consumers in the education market. This education market would be geared so that children would be educated, in such a way as to be in the best position, when graduating, to participate effectively in the market system. The value for each school would be the achievement of the students that came from them. This would set up a whole series of positive feedback loops within the complex system of our society.

Crime is a result of, rendering risk takers hopeless, and giving them bad role models. This leads to a glamorization of crime, and the view that law-breaking is the only means to get ahead. (Notice this implies, onerous regulations are a cause of crime, if legal means are impossible)? The breakup of the nuclear family is largely due to government relegating the role of father irrelevant. The rampant drug use among our youth is a sign that there is a lack of opportunities for them. At least opportunities that they see as feasible.

We need to change the paradigm, from one that creates the problems, into one that erases them. To do that we need a competitive educational system, an entrepreneurial people, clean and fair tax code, and government officials who model good behavior... not bad. These are concrete policy points Romney should make to the American public, how he would improve their lives, and thereby, the lives of every human being on the Planet.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Free Will

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the gift of free will, is both a blessing and a curse for us. It is self evident... we are given free will, and that free will comes from God. Our free will is the font of our virtuous desire for liberty and our iniquitous wish to control others. It is through free will that we created the World we live in, and our free will is the source of all that is good and bad. This is an important concept to understand if we want to create a better World for our children to live in. If we get it wrong however, the World we create, will be devoid of free will and may take centuries or millenia to recapture.

Many argue that God should make everything good. That it is his duty to fix all the problems in the World, like poverty, disease, famine and tyranny. But they don't go all the way with their logic. If God were to fix even one of these things it would make God a tyrant. Look at out original state. God made Mankind free of law, compulsion and ethos. We have imposed them on ourselves. As Carneades said, “mankind imposed a set of laws and moors on itself out of necessity. Because people, being like animals, each seeking his or her own good, make true justice impossible. For a man to be truly just he must do damage to his own self interest…”

God also gave us, avarice, jealousy and ego. These are what makes us so willing to impose our wants and desires on others. These are the reasons all evil is in the World. All sin comes from these emotions. Stealing from avarice, lying from jealousy and from ego comes cruelty. To counter these negative inclinations, God also gave us, compassion, a sense of justice and love. These emotions create all that is good in the World... but can be twisted to serve evil.

To remove poverty God would also have to remove free will. Free will is the source of poverty, in not only the modern World, but the ancient one as well. For God to remove disease, would also require the destruction of free will, since most all disease is due to our own actions. IE. uncleanliness, engaging in dangerous activities, thoughtless commingling and venturing out when we are sick. To remove tyranny from the planet, would certainly eliminate free will, for it is free will that brings a tyrant to power. We seek leisure, safety and control over others lives and property, it is these desires that are why tyranny exists in the World.

Yet God allows evil of our own making to exist in the World. Why? Because to eliminate them would eliminate free will. Therefore, it is clearly true that God considers free will, more important than out comfort and safety. God must hold free will, as one of the highest goods... if not the highest good. Since free will is a profound source of wickedness in the World and God allows it.

It is free will that provides the driving force in our lives... to live in liberty. We all, no matter our culture, ethos, race or upbringing, want to live in freedom. Our culture may impel us to disallow others to be free, but we all want freedom in our own lives... it is others we argue, that should be subjugated. This duality of concept, that creates a friction in our societies, renders no man truly free.

Any system of government, religion or ethos, that allows men and women free will, is human hearted and in line with God's will. As I have shown, if God believes that free will is the highest good then any system that uses pain of death to compel people to do, believe or think in a certain way, is antithetical to God's will. Such a system will not be blessed no matter how powerful or wealthy. Power and wealth being merely human metrics of good. They fall far short of the role God has for us and our individual salvation. However, even by these secular measures of good, a system that allows free will, is blessed.

If we look at the most prosperous society in the history on Mankind, we see that it is Western culture. Western culture, buttressed by the Christian doctrine, that has expressly given homage to free will. Slavery as a system, was condemned and finally outlawed in the West, due to our father's and mother's moral outrage, at the taking of another's free will by force. No other society in the history of Mankind has done this. It was Western society that eliminated the dread diseases from our midst. Western love of free will that produced the concept of a constitution, as a contract between the rulers and the ruled, limiting the power of the Elite, for the first time ever. The Free market and competition, which are a reflection of free will, have created incredible wealth, a prosperity that is so pervasive, it was unimaginable only a few centuries ago. All the good that has flowed from this recognition, of the role of free will in the lives of people, are blessings from God on the World. Yet, even the Western civilizations have fallen short of our own ideals, due to our egos, avarice and jealousy. No one is immune to the congenital nature of Man.

Today, the paradigm of human hearted religion, that has served us so well for so long, is being overturned by people that despise God, and the free will of others. We are increasingly being subjected to ever more intrusive regulation imposed by unelected bureaucrats. The Constitution that protected our liberty, so well for so long, is being rewritten to control us, instead of the Elite, as it was intended. The Constitution is called a “Living Breathing Document” which really says the Constitution means whatever the hell the Elite claim it does. Moral equivalency is all the rage in our academic circles. We are told it is “compassionate” to render our fellow human beings dependent on the government for food, clothing and housing. We are becoming subjects of an all powerful State. In short, our gift from God... free will, is being exchanged for empty trinkets and glittering lies. This is a bargain with the devil... because, since God gave us free will, it is the role of Lucifer to take it away.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

This blog can also be read here; http://incapp.org/blog/?p=1732

Two Empty Chairs

By: Sharon Pawkett

I just watched as the bodies of our murdered ambassador and his colleges were taken off the airplane. With tears in my eyes I witnessed soldiers carry flag draped caskets down the isle and to waiting hearses. Sadness and anger overwhelmed me when Obama and Clinton walked to the podium to "honor" the lives of these poor men. There are many questions that these two "leaders" need to answer...

~ How could you???
How could you go to sleep the night YOU were warned about this attack, when you did absolutely NOTHING to prevent this tragedy? As you lay in your comfortable beds that night, these men were being tortured and killed!!! Ignorance is NOT bliss!!! This should have never happened!!! The blood of these men is on YOUR hands!!!

~How dare you???
How dare you apologize to the sick savages who did this? And after the apology, you go on partying in Vegas while the country grieved!!! You did not cut off funding to these hell hole countries, you didn't even give them a slap on the wrist!!! Instead, we have to hear you glorify the "religion" that condones the murder and torture of INNOCENT people!!! We are still waiting in vain for you to put a stop to the madness going on in the Middle East!!!

~Will you please stop???
Stop acting like you care when we all know you don't!!! Stop pretending that you do everything in your power to save lives, because we know you are getting Americans killed!!! Stop turning your back on our allies, while encouraging our enemies!!! Stop ruining our great country!!!

I know I am posing these questions to two empty chairs. I also know that if Obama and Clinton were in those chairs, I would get nothing but excuses and lies. The fact is that they just don't care. The situation is so very desperate... we absolutely HAVE TO make sure that these two shameful idiots get voted out in November. Then I would like to see them brought to justice for their crimes against the United States of America!!!

You Can Sense the Pundits' Frustration

 The self-righteous indignation that the punditry directed at Mitt Romney this week shows that he touched a nerve in his statements on the events in Egypt. You can sense the frustration. The elites are vaguely aware that their ‘enlightened’ posture toward the threat of Islamism is out of step with the views of the American people. Hence the outrage with Romney, totally out of proportion to the real world, as he said what most Americans were thinking.

With an angry mob at the gates of the U.S. embassy in Cairo on the anniversary of the September 11 attacks—ostensibly inflamed by an obscure, anti-Islamic film, the embassy released a groveling statement apologizing for “continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” The “protesters” proceeded to breach the embassy walls, tear down the American flag, and raise an Al Qaeda banner. The embassy then reiterated its earlier statement, all before anything was known about the Libyan consulate. The White House and the State Department later condemned the attacks but also tripped over themselves to denounce the obscure, stupid film they had nothing to do with and of which no one had ever heard.

Two American embassies are attacked on September 11 – and, we later learned, the four Americans killed – and the immediate reaction of our leaders and the press is to cast blame on a ridiculous film for inciting the violence.

Thus while condemning the violence, they give legitimacy to the grievance.

As I wrote in an op-ed at Politico yesterday, our elites are determined to analyze each outbreak of Islamist aggression in isolation – as though they’re inexplicable acts of random violence.

The fact is, if it wasn’t the film, it would have been something else.

That’s because it is not “senseless violence,” as President Obama and Secretary Clinton described in their statements. They are attacks in a war that our enemies openly confess to waging. And as accounts of the assault on the Benghazi consulate make clear, they are sophisticated and highly coordinated.

Eleven years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it’s a tragedy that our leaders refuse to treat seriously our enemies’ motives.

This is nothing new.

Attributing the attacks in Libya and Egypt to a proximate excuse (such as this hateful film) rather than confronting the true nature of our enemies is nothing new for the Obama administration.

Major Nidal Hassan was the Army psychiatrist who shot dozens of people at Fort Hood in 2009 while screaming “Allahu Akbar,” handed out business cards describing himself as a “soldier of Allah,” and sent emails to Anwar al-Awlaki, the American later killed by a drone attack in Yemen as an Al Qaeda member. President Obama after the shooting warning Americans against “jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”

Following the attempted Times Square car bombing, the administration jumped to the conclusion that the would-be bomber acted alone. Press reports speculated that the young man had simply cracked under financial pressures. Mayor Michael Bloomberg even suggested the bomber could be an American upset with Obamacare. The administration later admitted that the Pakistani Taliban was responsible for the attack.

In his first statement after the attempted Christmas Day bombing in 2009, President Obama jumped to the conclusion that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an “isolated extremist” – only to find later that the attack was organized by Al Qaeda in Yemen.

This intellectual dishonesty is par for the course for an administration that upon entering the White House declared that the “War on Terror” would now be called an “overseas contingency operation,” and whose Secretary of Homeland Security made a point to refer to acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”

This is the mindset, the lead from the top down throughout this administration, that causes an American embassy in Egypt to issue a statement apologizing for the free speech of an irrelevant, unknown filmmaker as a mob outside prepares to breach the walls and hoist an Al Qaeda flag. Mitt Romney was right: it is disgraceful.

Your friend,

Newt

 I would like to attribute this letter to a fellow Patriot and a friend John Pepin. After reading this please go to his website: http://incapp.org/

 road to ruin

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, when anyone gets on US route 1 south, they will always eventually end up in Key West. No matter where you get on, headed south, the end of the road is always Key West. This is a fundamental fact. Unless a person traveling south on US Route 1, changes direction, they will always end up in the same place. This fact holds true no matter where a person gets on, who is driving, what car we take or how fast a person is going. The entire science of cartography is based on this simple to understand concept. There is not one among us who would argue differently, when it comes to a road... but many seem to be ignorant of this fact when it comes to politics and economics.

History is one means of determining where a road leads. We can look at the history of where a given economic or political road leads. If those who have traveled that road in the past, and present, end up at a certain destination, we can reliably say that we will end up in the same destination, if we travel that same road. Even if that road is taken a million times it will always lead to the same destination. A road always leads to the same place.

Road maps are another way to determine where a given road leads... without going to the end and finding what the destination actually is. Economists have regaled us with various road maps that show where various economic roads lead. Political scientists have written millions of pages mapping political paths and destinations. Some go to temperate locals where jobs are plentiful and freedom is rife. Other roads lead to the oppressive heat of famine and oppression. There are many maps available to consult as to what destination each path leads.

If we change the name of the road it will still lead to the same place. We could change the name of US Route 1 to Happiness Highway, but if we get on and travel south, we will still end up in Key West. Even if we changed the name of the island to Liberty Land, we will still land in the same place, only with a different name. The moniker we ascribe to a place does not change the nature of that place or even our perception of it... only what we call it.

If we seek to go to a destination it is counter productive to go in a direction that is opposite that place. If we want to go to Fort Kent Maine, no matter how many times we go south on route 1, we will not end up in Fort Kent. In the same manner, if we take the road to a command and control economy, we will end up with a command and control economy, with all the negative consequences of that choice. To believe that the road to Marxist economics will lead somehow to freedom and prosperity is delusion. Just as taking US Route 1 south will always lead away from Fort Kent and to Key West. If we seek a destination, that is the opposite of communism, then we must take that route. There is no other logical option.

The road to communism is the path of distributive justice by political favor. As we go further down that road, we inevitably get closer to a destination where all the goods of society, are distributed by the state, and therefore by political favor. Now, there are some people, who want to land in communist ville... but to say that taking the road to communism will lead to more freedom and a better economy, and not famine and tyranny, is sophistry at best. If we want to reach prosperity and liberty, we must take the road that history and maps say will lead there... The US Constitution for example.

The road to prosperity begins with less regulation, less taxation and most importantly less government spending. If someone claims that road will lead to poverty and want they are lying to you. Just as if they claimed that US Route 1 south leads to Fort Kent Maine. It is a preposterous statement that we will instantly recognize, if it were applied to US Route 1, but many people have no sense of direction in economics and politics, as well as geography. They can be convinced that the road to prosperity is more regulation, more government spending and less individual freedom. It is an unfortunate fact of life. Those people will get us lost every time they take the wheel. Too bad they seek, more often than not, to be our navigators. Perhaps we can get a competent driver before we get to a destination we fear most.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Newt University An opportunity for ideas and solutions

by Newt Gingrich

"First you win the argument, then you win the vote" was a motto of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

A key part of winning any election is communicating to the American people that you can best represent their opinions, beliefs, and interests. Self-government is based on the notion that informed citizens can choose representatives who reflect their views and who explain what they promise to do if elected.

This is what gives the people the confidence to give you their vote.

At the suggestion of Governor Romney's campaign team I have agreed to organize a series of workshops at the Republican National Convention which they dubbed "Newt University," aimed at winning the argument just as Margaret Thatcher described. Each morning from ten to twelve we will be sharing a series of ideas focused on the major challenges we have to meet as Americans.

I am excited to have an opportunity to introduce many successful people in both public and private life.

Our goal is to start a dialogue about the big ideas of the campaign. We will use the opportunities created by the Internet and the growing field of distance learning to form a more solid understanding of what is at stake this fall.

Our challenges are so great that we have to reach beyond the 30 second sound bite and develop a much more informed and more positive approach to self-government. Today we have Internet based technologies which enable us to share ideas and information with a depth and focus that would have been literally impossible a decade or two ago. So rather than an election about trivial issues, we can give the American people the choice they deserve, between two very different sets of ideas.

America faces challenges in every aspect of life. From government budgets to obsolete bureaucratic systems to inadequate education, mismanaged approaches to health and healthcare, cumbersome systems of defense procurement, misguided economic and energy policies, communities of poverty isolated from the world of opportunity, and international threats, the challenges facing the American people are collectively as complex and daunting as any we have faced since the Civil War 152 years ago.

Newt University is focused on empowering citizens with facts, principles and solutions so they can make the most informed decision about which candidates can better help to solve the problems in their own lives.

 We will help supporters, activists, and candidates learn how to "win the argument" with defenders of the obsolete, failing systems and policies in campaigns, in the media, and in public policy development.

We will bring together presenters from every level of American activity – from government, business, and civil society – to explain how smaller, smarter government can lead to a bigger economy with more jobs and more prosperity.

To win the vote in November, citizens across America must first win the argument in conversations with their friends, families, and neighbors. The resources we develop at Newt University in Tampa and which we hope to make available online will be designed to help do just that over the next 76 days.

Your Friend,

 Newt

The War Next Door

By: Newt Gingrich

Dear Fellow Conservative,

Every single day, atrocities take place just south of our border in Mexico that are nearly unimaginable in the United States. The results of drug-related violence in our most populous neighbor are truly horrific: just this week, 49 mutilated and decapitated bodies were found in a city just 80 miles from the United States.  In May alone, the Christian Science Monitor reports that 23 bodies have been found "either strewn or hanging off bridges and underpasses" in Nuevo Laredo, just across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas.

Americans may not realize the extraordinary level of violence in our most populous neighbor, but we should...Read More

Sarkozy, Obama, Romney, Ron Paul and the Recent European Elections

 Human Events
May 9, 2012
Newt Gingrich

In the past few weeks, a number of elections in Europe have offered telling signs for American politics about the effect of the current pain on voters.

Two consistent patterns are emerging in virtually every European country where citizens have the opportunity to make their voices heard.

First, incumbent parties are being punished without regard to ideology. Whichever side is in power, the right or the left, it is being punished for failure.

Second, centrist parties everywhere are losing ground to anti-establishment parties.

These patterns are holding firm in France, Britain (local elections), Germany (one major local election), Greece, Spain and Italy.

Again and again voters are protesting bad economies with their votes. And they are increasingly rejecting policies of austerity and pain.

In significant numbers, they are also repudiating the establishment parties and moving to both right and left wing protest parties.

These rising protest parties indicate that more and more European voters are rejecting the performance, the ideas and the authority of the traditional establishment parties.

The results in France in particular offer some interesting suggestions for American politics--and it isn't good news for President Obama.

First, the defeat of French President Nicolas Sarkozy very much follows the pattern of the 2006 and 2010 American elections. In both cases the opposition party (Democrats in 2006 and Republicans in 2010) were able to ride a wave repudiating the failed reform efforts of the incumbent party.

Sarkozy ran as a reformer in 2007. In fact, his book "Testimony: France in the 21st Century" was the best conservative statement in the last decade of the need for fundamental reform. His defense of the work ethic as essential to French prosperity was a clearer case than any American has offered since Ronald Reagan.

Unfortunately, Sarkozy was unable to deliver on his reforms. His personality overwhelmed his policies. The French economy's failure overwhelmed his personality.

The French Socialist Hollande won in part by deemphasizing his personality and focusing on his desire to serve France rather than dominate it.

President Obama has every reason to be worried by European results. They offer solid proof that high unemployment, high gasoline prices, weak growth and big deficits can overwhelm his billion dollar campaign.

They also suggest that picking his NCAA bracket and flying off to Afghanistan may not count for much when voters look at their own pocketbooks.

For Gov. Mitt Romney, there is solid evidence in these results that his "it's-the economy-and-we're-not-stupid" message is the right focus for his campaign.

His recent call for the goal of 4 percent unemployment--a full employment economy--is exactly the right one.

The voters want a balanced budget through growth and opportunity and will reject austerity and pain. The governor and his team are working to build this positive contrast based on policy, not personality--much as Hollande did in France, though his politics could not be more different from Romney's.

The European results also put the popularity of Ron Paul in a wider context. The support for his ideas and his anti-establishment campaign is not a uniquely American phenomenon. He is, in fact, challenging the establishment in exactly the same manner as the various protest parties of the right and left in Europe.

These election results suggest the tea party movement and the support focused on Ron Paul is not a small development. It betrays historic discontent, and I doubt we have seen the last of it.

If Gov. Romney succeeds in giving voice to that discontent in a serious discussion with the American people, he has a strong chance in the fall. Indeed, the European elections suggest President Obama faces a much steeper mountain to climb as the choice clarifies over the next few months.

Your Friend,

Newt

Source: http://go.madmimi.com/redirects/1336770344-fd3b51dfd4c730861bd1979a6f3181e3-c04f1b6?pa=9224028724

Patriot Call to Action

 I am asking that this letter be circulated among your friends, families, and communities, and forwarded to our government. Or once you have acquired the signatures, you can send them to me at:

Craig Bowden
2888 N 400 E
North Ogden, UT 84414

I also recommend emailing this to news organizations and newspapers. As many avenues at your disposals.

You can hear the letter read by me, and send to friends at:
http://youtu.be/JWb90l3AG4I

You can also sign that you have read this letter and support it at:
http://www.petition2congress.com/6514/we...

Thanks, and God Bless
Craig Bowden  Read the Letter

Some Get Rich Off Taxpayers in Obama's Greenback Energy Program

 By: Newt Gingrich

Dear Fellow Conservative,

Under the Obama Energy Department, a lot of people are winning big by losing the taxpayers' money. In the government-sponsored green energy industry, working Americans have effectively handed millions in salaries and bonuses to executives of companies on the road to bankruptcy.

At the most famous failed solar company, Solyndra--to which the Obama administration gave a $530 million loan guarantee--several executives were making nearly half a million dollars a year, including large bonuses taken in the months before the company filed for bankruptcy. For them, the failed endeavor was extremely lucrative.

Solyndra was hardly the only taxpayer-backed firm that paid big bonuses while stumbling to bankruptcy, however. As ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity recently uncovered in a report, Beacon Power, which received a $43 million loan guarantee, paid bonuses of about $260,000 to three individuals before going bankrupt last year. Another company, Ener1, the recipient of a grant worth $118 million, paid its CEO a $450,000 bonus. In January, it, too, filed for bankruptcy.

Supposedly, the Department of Energy approved these loans to foster an industry which the market didn't come close to supporting. Certainly most Americans, if they knew about the program at all, did not imagine leaders at these startups paying themselves millions in taxpayer dollars.

 

In 2009, after bailing out many of the country's financial institutions, President Obama made executive compensation a major political issue, proposing rules to limit it for firms that had received the taxpayer money. He observed that "what gets people upset -- and rightfully so -- are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers." He said these words just weeks before his administration made its half-billion dollar commitment to Solyndra.

Later that same year, President Obama demanded executives at AIG return their bonuses, asking "How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?"

I have a couple questions of my own.

Why isn't the President just as concerned about the looting of failed energy startups at taxpayer expense?

Why isn't he demanding that executives at Solyndra and the other bankrupt green energy firms return their bonuses, since we were keeping those firms afloat with gigantic and unjustified loans?

In truth, the real scandal goes far beyond bonuses and salaries. Many of these companies were dependent on an enormous amount of government support all along--far more than just a little boost to get them going.

Two numbers give you a sense of the scale of the bad energy bets the Obama administration is making. Several weeks ago, in my newsletter on the transition to liquefied natural gas as a less expensive source of fuel, I reported that Chesapeake Energy had invested more than $150 million to build a national network of LNG truck stops--an investment by a private company to be supported by genuine demand.

President Obama, on the other hand, is putting taxpayer money into dozens of risky ventures. Last week yet another green energy firm, Solar Trust of America, declared bankruptcy after having received a $2.1 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

That loan guarantee is more than the value of Regal Entertainment, the nation's largest chain of movie theaters, and about the value of HSN, the Home Shopping Network. It's one heck of a loan for a startup. And it put taxpayers on the hook for 14 times the amount Chesapeake invested in its far more viable project to build a nationwide natural gas highway.

Of course, there could be a lot more where all this came from. The Energy Department's current loan program has approved nearly $35 billion in total--more than $110 from every American citizen. Feel like you're getting your money's worth?

Your friend,

Newt

Why Obama is Absurd to Suggest Algae

By: Newt Gingrich

Dear Fellow Conservative,

We knew the people writing President Obama's energy speeches didn't know very much about American oil and gas potential when he started telling us that some of the largest untapped oil reserves in the world couldn't do anything to affect fuel prices. But we didn't know they were quite this hopeless. When the President told them he wanted to focus on "green" energy sources in his speech, I don't think he meant it literally.

That's one of the most rational explanations I can think of for how President Obama ended up giving a speech in which he told Americans that the solution to the rising cost of gasoline could be algae. After all, he reasoned, "You've got a bunch of algae out here, right? If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we'll be doing all right."

This is a classic move of the Left: observe a real world problem (high gasoline prices) and propose a solution that is totally disconnected from the practical realities of the world and has little chance of success (algae).

It's true that research labs are experimenting with algae-based biofuels, and we wish them well. If someday in the future, we're all driving cars based on inexpensive fuel from algae, it's possible that would be a positive development. But there's a big difference between that and offering algae today as an answer to high gas prices, or using taxpayer money to subsidize this particular technology -- such as the $14 million grant the administration gave an algae experimenter, or the tens of millions of dollars in loan guarantees the Department of Agriculture has handed out.

In theory, algae fuels would work by growing a strain of algae that produces some amount of oil in water and sunlight. Spreading this production over many acres, it's possible to produce a large amount of algae. The algae must then be separated out -- which today is done using centrifuges -- leaving behind an oil product.

Unfortunately, there's an overwhelming probability that these will turn out to be very bad investments for the taxpayers. Even the Algal Biomass Organization (the people charged with advocating the technology) don't believe algae could be a competitive source of fuel until at least 2020.

In fact, fuel from algae costs anywhere between $140 and $900 a barrel to produce today. As most Americans probably understood intuitively when they heard the President's speech, there's not much indication algae can ever overcome its fundamental problems to be competitive with oil and natural gas, of which the world also has plentiful supplies.

There are a few simple reasons algae is not likely to succeed in the real world, even a decade from now as its proponents predict:

  1. Even compared to other biofuels, it is extremely expensive to produce. For fuels such as ethanol (which is widely used even today), the cost of growing the crop is essentially the cost of the agricultural land. In many parts of the country that means a few thousand dollars per acre. With algae, however, a large amount of equipment is involved, including machinery to mix the water constantly, equipment to separate the algae from the water, and an impermeable liner so water doesn't leach into the ground. Even if we assumed all this cost $1 per square foot -- less than cheap linoleum flooring -- that would be nearly $44,000 per acre. That is much more expensive than the cost for alternative crops.
  2. To achieve high yields of algae, growers have to enrich the water with large amounts of carbon dioxide (which algae consumes). This means the CO2 would likely need to be captured and transported from fossil fuel plants, most of which are not located anywhere near the best locations for algae farming -- the desert. The capture of CO2 and the pipeline to transport this CO2 add significant cost (which, again, even other biofuels do not entail).
  3. The process requires large volumes of water, but if algae production takes place in the desert, large volumes of water are also hard to come by.
  4. As President Obama points out, there's "a bunch of algae out there." But producers of algae fuel use special strains in order to produce oil. In order to preserve their strains, they would somehow have to protect thousands of acres from contamination.
  5. Producers of algae have to somehow dispose of the actual algae once they have separated it from the oil. The mass of this algae would add up very quickly, and producers can only sell so much of the "algae bodies" as animal feed.

All of these things suggest that algae fuel is not likely to be competitive with other forms of fuel anytime in the foreseeable future. And more importantly, it is definitely not a solution to Americans' urgent energy crisis brought on by unnecessarily high gasoline prices.

President Obama recently compared those who doubted his green energy fantasies to the "Flat Earth Society" and claimed that his side of the debate represented "the Wright Brothers, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs."

I don't recall any of those people receiving $50 million loan guarantees from Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan -- and their technologies worked.
 

 

American Guns and Mexican Violence

 By Sen. John Cornyn

The debate over U.S. gun laws and Mexican drug violence brings to mind Mark Twain’s famous quip about lies, damned lies, and statistics. In a recent editorial, the Washington Post blamed American policies for exacerbating the bloodshed, pointing out that “70 to 80 percent of the traceable guns seized in Mexico can be tracked to the United States.” The key word there is “traceable.” While it’s true that most of the traceable guns originated north of the border, those weapons represent a very small portion of total Mexican gun seizures.

According to a Government Accountability Office study based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), only 7,200 of the roughly 30,000 guns seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were sent to ATF for a tracing analysis. Scott Stewart of STRATFOR has noted that just 4,000 of them were found to be traceable. Of the traceable guns, 3,480 were linked back to the United States. In other words, only 12 percent of the guns confiscated in 2008 were positively traced to the United States. In May 2009, the Associated Press reported that the Mexican military had “305,424 confiscated weapons locked in vaults.” Because those weapons were not submitted to ATF, their origin is unclear.

We should obviously take reasonable steps to block cartel members and their associates from buying guns in America, while also upholding Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens. Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s bewildering strategy was to let more than 2,000 weapons “walk” across the border into Mexico as part of “Operation Fast and Furious.” The Post editorial characterized this program as a “well-intentioned, misguided response to—and not the cause of—the proliferation of illegal guns in Mexico.” That is a rather generous description. The program was disastrously conceived and disastrously executed. Fast and Furious weaponry has been used to commit scores and scores of killings. In December 2010, it was used to murder a brave U.S. Border Patrol agent named Brian Terry.

What about the U.S. assault-weapons ban (AWB), which expired in 2004? Citing estimates from a senior Mexican official, the Post said that the portion of seized guns classified as “assault weapons” has grown from about one-third in 2005 to 60–65 percent today. Yet Mexican drug violence was accelerating before the AWB lapsed -- in 2001, then-President Vicente Fox called for “a war without mercy” against the cartels -- and President Felipe Calderón’s courageous post-2006 crackdown on organized crime has prompted the gangs (1) to fight back against the government and (2) to fight a lot more with each other.

In his 2011 STRATFOR report, Stewart made an important observation about trends in Mexico drug violence: “In recent years the cartels (especially their enforcer groups such as Los Zetas, Gente Nueva and La Linea) have been increasingly using military weaponry instead of sporting arms. A close examination of the arms seized from the enforcer groups and their training camps clearly demonstrates this trend toward military ordnance, including many weapons not readily available in the United States” (emphasis added). “Some of these seizures have included M60 machine guns and hundreds of 40 mm grenades obtained from the military arsenals of countries like Guatemala.”

Indeed, wrote Stewart, “Latin America is awash in weapons that were shipped there over the past several decades to supply the various insurgencies and counterinsurgencies in the region. When these military-grade weapons are combined with the rampant corruption in the region, they quickly find their way into the black arms market. The Mexican cartels have supply-chain contacts that help move narcotics to Mexico from South America and they are able to use this same network to obtain guns from the black market in South and Central America and then smuggle them into Mexico.”

As Stewart concluded: “Even if it were somehow possible to hermetically seal the U.S.-Mexico border and shut off all the guns coming from the United States, the cartels would still be able to obtain weapons elsewhere -- just as narcotics would continue to flow into the United States from other places.”

No question, the United States should be doing more to help Mexico stem the rising tide of drug-related violence. But we should also be skeptical of claims that American gun laws are at the root of the problem.

President Obama’s Incredible Shrinking Labor Force
by Newt Gingrich

Dear Fellow Conservative,

President Obama last week brandished new jobs numbers as proof that his policies were having an effect on the unemployment rate, which the report said declined to 8.3 percent in January.

The president is right about one thing: his big government agenda and class warfare tactics are having an effect -- but it's not the one he claims. In truth, last month's drop in the unemployment statistic was due largely to the evaporation of 1.2 million people from the labor force number. When people become so discouraged they stop actively looking for work, they are no longer counted as unemployed and the rate goes down even though Americans are hardly better off than they were before.

The rate went down in January because (apparently) 1.2 million people decided in a single month not to pursue work. This is the number, in effect, that President Obama is touting.

The January report caps an extraordinary decline in the participation rate that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has been reporting under the Obama administration. Since January 2009, the BLS said more than five million people have dropped out of the labor force -- the greatest decline in American history and the lowest participation rate in more than three decades. Only about six in 10 adult American civilians are counted as part of the labor force. 

A few more good jobs reports like this and we'll have a three percent unemployment rate with nobody working.

The president assures us, however, the lower unemployment rate is actually evidence that his policies are successful. Asked on Monday about the fact that unemployment had dropped in part because so many Americans left the labor force, unable to find jobs, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the decline in the participation rate could be an "economic positive" because some of it is "due to younger people getting more education." Carney also tried to blame the massive exodus on Americans getting olderwhich they must have done at record levels in January to account for 1.2 million people retiring at once.

Those are pretty glib and grasping explanations for the single largest exit from the labor force on recordespecially since it's more than four times the number who left the previous month.

In reality, almost half a million fewer Americans are employed today than when President Obama took office. The real unemployment rate, counting those who are unemployed, underemployed, or have looked for work in the past 12 months but since given up, is closer to 15 percent. More Americans are relying on food stamps than ever before. Teenage unemployment during the Obama administration is the highest since records began in 1948, with almost one in four teenagers who wants to work today unable to find a job. 8.2 million Americans have only part-time employment either because they can't find full-time work or because their hours have been cut back.

The president's unrelenting assault on job creators has made a bad economy much worse. In the middle of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, he rammed through Obamacare, spent almost a trillion dollars of "stimulus" indiscriminately, virtually took over the American auto industry, attempted to raise taxes on producers with carbon trading legislation, banned development of offshore oil and gas resources, passed the Dodd-Frank Act which crippled community banks, juiced up the regulatory powers of the EPA, FDA and other bureaucraciesand lately, has taken to demonizing job creators with class warfare rhetoric while offering policy platitudes that do nothing to solve our problems.

These are the things the president is trying to tell us are responsible for last month's drop in the unemployment rate? Having driven five million people out of the labor force, maybe on second thought he's right.

Your Friend,

Newt

 

The mission should determine the budget

By: Sen. John Cornyn

The idea that America’s military should bear the brunt of federal budget cuts is both dangerous and illogical. Defense spending didn’t cause our looming fiscal crisis, so cutting it to the bone wouldn’t solve that crisis. As the House Armed Services Committee chairman recently pointed out, defense spending represents “less than 20 percent of the federal budget,” yet it accounts for “more than 50 percent of our deficit-reduction efforts.” The Pentagon budget is already scheduled to decline substantially over the next decade. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said that slashing an extra $600 billion dollars through sequestration would “hollow out” the military and ultimately prove “catastrophic” for American national security.

And yet there are still folks in Congress who refuse to support entitlement reforms but insist on gutting our defense budget. From a fiscal perspective, that makes no sense. From a national-security perspective, it is deeply alarming. We should obviously be working to eliminate wasteful defense spending, and we should obviously be pushing the Pentagon to improve its financial-management practices so that it can become “audit ready” as soon as possible. Those are no-brainers. At the same time, we also have a strategic obligation to prepare for threats both known and unknown. As former Defense Secretary Robert Gates famously quipped, “Our record of predicting where we will use military force since Vietnam is perfect -- we have never once gotten it right.”

In early 2001, nobody in Washington thought that American troops would spend the next decade waging counterinsurgency warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the years ahead, we will undoubtedly face serious national-security challenges from terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda, rogue states such as North Korea and Iran, and rising powers such as Communist China. We will also face challenges that nobody was expecting. With these threats in mind, our two top Army officials, Secretary John McHugh and his chief of staff, General Ray Odierno, have strongly opposed drastic cuts to U.S. ground forces.

Bottom line: The world is becoming a more dangerous place, and future defense expenditures should be determined by U.S. national-security interests, not by political needs on Capitol Hill. Or, as one analyst recently put it, “The mission should determine the budget; the budget should not determine the mission.” If we want this century to be another “American century,” we will have to maintain our commitment to a robust U.S. military that is capable of handling current and future global challenges.

A Better Way to Fight the Online Theft of American Ideas and Jobs
By Senator Marco Rubio
In recent weeks, we’ve heard from many Floridians about the anti-Internet piracy bills making their way through Congress. On the Senate side, I have been a co-sponsor of the PROTECT IP Act because I believe it’s important to protect American ingenuity, ideas and jobs from being stolen through Internet piracy, much of it occurring overseas through rogue websites in China. As a senator from Florida, a state with a large presence of artists, creators and businesses connected to the creation of intellectual property, I have a strong interest in stopping online piracy that costs Florida jobs.

However, we must do this while simultaneously promoting an open, dynamic Internet environment that is ripe for innovation and promotes new technologies.

Earlier this year, this bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously and without controversy. Since then, we've heard legitimate concerns about the impact the bill could have on access to the Internet and about a potentially unreasonable expansion of the federal government's power to impact the Internet. Congress should listen and avoid rushing through a bill that could have many unintended consequences.

Therefore, I have decided to withdraw my support for the Protect IP Act. Furthermore, I encourage Senator Reid to abandon his plan to rush the bill to the floor. Instead, we should take more time to address the concerns raised by all sides, and come up with new legislation that addresses Internet piracy while protecting free and open access to the Internet.

Photo ID Provisions Important to Securing Elections

By Newt Gingrich

Millions of Americans board planes every month. On each occasion, they are asked to present a photo ID to gain entry into the gate. It’s a procedure we’ve come to accept for a little peace of mind so that air travel can be more secure.

To enter many office buildings, to cash a check or to even undergo a medical procedure, photo identification is also required. Having photo identification is an essential part of engaging in commerce in the 21st century.

Yet the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder see no reason to require a photo ID for Americans to carry out one of our most important civic duties: voting.

The Obama Justice Department has blocked a new South Carolina law that would compel residents to present a photo ID to cast a ballot. Seven other states also have adopted strict photo ID laws in an effort to prevent election fraud.

Any day now, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson will file suit against the Justice Department, asking the federal courts to overturn the Justice Department. South Carolina took the correct step to secure its own elections, particularly after a mayor in one of its cities was convicted in an election fraud scheme.

Instead of standing in the way of good government, the Obama administration should applaud efforts to bring integrity to South Carolina elections and elections in all states, especially as we enter 2012 and what will perhaps be a contentious election year.

South Carolina is among several states that have enacted voter ID laws in 2011. Mississippi voters just approved a voter ID requirement in November and are also awaiting Justice Department approval. Texas has also approved a voter ID law and is deciding whether to seek preclearance or sue the Justice Department to get the necessary approval.

Most Southern states are still governed by the 1960s-era Voting Rights Act when it comes to election laws. They must gain federal approval before enacting any changes to their election laws so as to ensure they are not discriminating against minorities.

But requiring a photo ID to vote is a common-sense security measure that helps ensure those without legal citizenship don’t vote, those with multiple homes or properties only vote once and that no one votes in place of another. Voters are harmed when illegal or fraudulent votes are cast, as they dilute or discount legitimate votes cast by honest Americans.

The arguments made by Holder are retreads of arguments which have already lost in court when the ACLU and others have sought to stop voter ID statutes in states such as Indiana and Georgia. There has not been a shred of evidence found that requiring photo identification disenfranchises minorities, as a photo ID is universally used by all Americans of all backgrounds in many other aspects of our lives.

Since photo ID passed into law in Georgia in 2005, for example, minority participation in elections has actually increased. African-American turnout at the midterm elections rose 44.2 percent between 2006 and 2010. Voter participation in the midterm elections among Hispanics rose 66.5 percent during that same period.

What voter ID will do is help prevent fraud, especially as we go forward into a highly visible election season. In the past five years alone, there have been instances of election fraud in several states, including New York, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and South Carolina, where the mayor of Eastover was convicted of election fraud in 2008. It is not unheard of for dead citizens to cast ballots in a nation that is supposed to have elections with far more integrity than the rest of the world.

A new Rasmussen poll released in December shows that 70 percent of likely voters believe Americans should have to show a photo ID such as a driver’s license before voting. Our neighbors in Mexico show a photo ID when they vote. And in emerging democracies in the Middle East such as Iraq, citizens dip their fingers in ink to show they have voted.

In the 21st century in the United States, there should not be any question whether someone could vote without proving who they are. If America is the world’s most exceptional nation, then we need to run the globe’s most exceptional and secure elections.

Requiring photo ID is a step toward getting us there.

DOJ Must Account for Recent Appointments

By U.S. Sen. John Cornyn

When President Obama appointed Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) last week, he broke with 90 years of tradition and Constitutional interpretation.  The Constitution clearly states that neither the House nor the Senate can adjourn for more than three days without the other chamber's approval.  Because that agreement was not reached, both the House and the Senate hold regular, "pro forma" sessions to maintain compliance with the Constitution.  President Obama has chosen to ignore this long-held interpretation of the Constitution by invoking the presidential power of making recess appointments - even though Congress is not formally adjourned.  

I joined my Republican colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee in sending a letter to Attorney General Holder demanding a full accounting of what role the Department of Justice played in advising the President in this regard.  As the Obama Administration continues to reinterpret the Constitution, the American people are owed, at a bare minimum, an explanation.  To read the letter, click here.

In addition to my questions over the constitutionality of the President's actions, I have serious concerns about the CFPB, which was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.  The bureau is yet another expansion of an already bloated government.  It lacks transparency and is not subject to fiscal oversight by Congress - essentially giving unaccountable bureaucrats the power of the purse.

NEUGEBAUER STATEMENT ON BIPARTISAN LETTER TO REGULATORS

"Expressing Concerns with the Proposed "Volcker Rule"

 December 22, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Representative Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) released a bipartisan letter (attached) signed by 121 members of the House of Representatives to regulators expressing deep concerns with the proposed “Volcker Rule.” Named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the rule intends to ban proprietary trading by banks, but instead goes considerably beyond Congressional intent. As just one of the hundreds of rulemakings required by the 900 page Dodd-Frank Act, the rule instead threatens to throw a blanket over U.S. Capital markets, and the ability of American companies to access funding to help create jobs. Additionally, no other country has adopted similar rules, placing U.S. companies at a notable competitive disadvantage. The letter asks for regulators to (1) extend the comment period and implementation deadline, and (2) re-propose an "interim proposed rule" once all initial comments have been received and digested by the joint regulators, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which is expected to issue their own proposal.

“The Volcker Rule began as a simple three-page proposal intended to limit the risk of taxpayer dollars to excessive risk taking by financial institutions. But instead we got a 300 page document that asks for comment on over 1,300 questions that affects every corner of our economy and leaves the taxpayer worse off than before the rule.

“The current proposal twists a simple concept into an overly complex and burdensome regulation. Going significantly beyond Congressional intent, this proposal will make it difficult for banking entities to manage risk prudently, increases systemic risk, and hinders the ability of companies – particularly small- and medium-sized businesses – to raise capital and create jobs. And because no other country has followed suit with similar regulations, American businesses will be put at a significant competitive disadvantage with international competitors.

“The letter has one straight forward message: it is more important to get this rule right than to just get it done quickly. In fact, the current proposal looks more like a ‘concept piece’ than a proposed rule, which is why in addition to asking regulators to extend the comment and compliance period of the rule, the letter also asks them to consider re-proposing the rule after carefully studying the comment letters on the current proposal. Given the stakes, it is important that regulators digest initial comments, and propose a more definitive and streamlined ‘interim proposed rule’ for comment.”

(Of the 121 members of the House of Representatives signing on to the letter, 25 are members of the House Financial Services Committee. Nineteen are members of the Ways & Means Committee and also includes the Chairmen of the following committees: Agriculture, Homeland Security, Judiciary, Small Business, Science & Technology, Veterans Affairs, and Ways & Means.)

McKeon Statement on the End of American Military Presence in Iraq

Washington DC – House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon made the following statement today regarding the end of U.S. military presence in Iraq: 

“Today we transition to a new phase in the relationship with our ally, Iraq.  Their journey to independence and freedom has not been an easy one, and it has come at a very high price.  I hope, though, that the price paid for freedom, by Americans and Iraqis alike, will make their liberty all the more dear.  

“I would not have conducted our withdrawal in this manner.  I believe it is too precipitous, and calculated on a political and not a strategic timeline.  I believe that President Obama should have engaged President Maliki earlier and been willing to heed our commanders’ recommendations concerning the size and need for a credible U.S. force.  I believe this could have been accomplished.

To all the men and women of the military who have sacrificed so much to create a functioning democracy where there was once oppression, brutality, and safety for those who would do us harm, I thank you.  You should be proud of your service to freedom.”

Issa Investigates What White House Knows about 'Occupy DC'

 A key Republican lawmaker wants the Obama administration to explain its role in allowing "Occupy Wall Street" protestors to illegally camp in a Washington D.C. park that was recently beautified with nearly half a million dollars in stimulus funds.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R.–Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked the Interior Department this week to explain why protestors have been allowed to camp in McPherson Square illegally and destroy the public property.

Issa, who has led investigations into White House connections to the Energy Department's failed Solyndra loan and the Justice Department's fatal Fast and Furious Operation, wants to know who in the Obama administration is responsible for the illegal camp and disruptive protests.

"This situation raises questions about why those decisions were made, who participated in making them, and whether political judgments played a role in not enforcing the law," Issa said in a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Issa is demanding all communications between the National Park Service (NPS), Interior Department and the White House involving the Occupy DC protests be delivered to his committee by early January.

"While the merits of this stimulus funding are debatable, we can all agree that once the federal government had invested the funds no government agency should have allowed it to be damaged or destroyed when it legally could have been prevented," Issa said.

"The NPS has an obligation to the American people to explain the decisions that were made regarding the Occupy DC protesters in McPherson Square. The NPS allowed the protesters to camp in McPherson Square and kill newly planted grass that had been funded by the stimulus," Issa said.

According to the Park Service, the $400,000 in stimulus money was used for new grass, concrete curbs, refurbished benches, new light poles, paint, fencing, trashcans, light meters and water fountains.

Camping is not allowed in the park, but tents have littered the landscape since October and officials were recently forced to tear down a wooden barn-like structure built by the occupiers. Nearly 100 arrests have been made.

Federal officials have circulated flyers to inform protestors that camping is prohibited. However, the park service says the protest is more like a 24-hour vigil than a camp.

Police are starting to crack down on occupy protestors around the country clashing with the crowds in New York and California, and shut down a camp this week in Baltimore's Inner Harbor.

—Audrey Hudson

Department of Labor New Proposed Child Labor Rule Would Affect Family Farms

By: Randy Neugebauer

The U.S. Department of Labor has proposed a new child labor rule that would affect family farms in rural America. The proposed rule would make it illegal for workers under 16 to operate power equipment, work with livestock, or perform other chores that the government deems too dangerous on farms not owned or operated by the workers’ parents.

Children have been helping their parents on the farm since the founding of our country. The safety of each child is of utmost importance on a farm or ranch, but I believe each family has the ability, the responsibility and the right to determine what his or her child can and cannot do. The government should not be involved in every decision made by families on farms and ranches across the country. This administration is trying to create a bigger, more powerful government that permeates every aspect of the American way of life. I will continue to monitor this new proposed rule from the Labor Department as it goes through the rule-making process.

House Committees to Review MF Global Bankruptcy

Since November, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on the House Financial Services Committee, of which I am Chairman, has been investigating the collapse of MF Global, a New York-based brokerage firm, and missing customer funds of as much as $1.2 billion. Futures contracts are a responsible way for businesses and farmers to hedge their risk. This bankruptcy has shaken markets and further eroded the trust that people and small businesses have in markets.

On December 15th, my subcommittee will hold a comprehensive hearing on the decisions and events leading to the bankruptcy of MF Global. This bankruptcy has caused several thousand account holders to have their accounts and money frozen. We must delve into every aspect of MF Global’s collapse in a complete and thorough way. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee will look into the regulatory and corporate behavior that led to the mishandling of customers’ money.

Many farmers and ranchers lost accounts because of MF Global’s collapse. Therefore, the House Agriculture Committee, of which I am a member, will also be reviewing the MF Global Bankruptcy with a hearing on December 8th.

Fire Eric Holder

By Sarah Palin

It’s tempting to get distracted with the horse race aspect of electoral politics during a primary season. But as pundits talk about “who’s up and who’s down” in the 24 hour news cycle, we must keep our eye on the ball with the Obama administration. They rely on distraction to skirt responsibility, but we’re going to hold them accountable for their corruption and incompetence.

 When the stories about Operation Fast and Furious first broke, it sounded too crazy even for this administration.

 Why would any government official with an ounce of common sense think it’s a good idea to facilitate the smuggling of thousands of guns into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels? That’s what Operation Fast and Furious did…Read More

Religious Groups Fighting Monk Funded Mandates to Pay for Contraception

By: Audrey Hudson 

Democrats are divided over a provision in President Barack Obama’s health care plan that requires free contraceptives through insurance provided by religious groups although they might object to the use on moral grounds.

Democrats for Life of America says it is confident Obama will grant a religious exemption for churches, universities, and hospitals to opt-out of providing insurance that does not require a co-pay to purchase birth control pills.

“The Administration has no intention of forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for services that are directly in opposition to their moral beliefs,” said Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life. “It does not make any sense from a public policy perspective and it certainly is not smart politically to alienate Catholic voters."

Day says the Obama administration...Read More

The Presidents China Recipe: All Icing, No Cake

By: Newt Gingrich

President Obama's recent announcement that the United States Marines would begin a regular training program in Australia is a helpful symbolic step, but is not a replacement for a substantive response to the rise of China.

An occasional training visit by 2,500 marines signals a U.S. commitment to project power into the southern China region. In that sense this is a good sign for the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, and Thailand, all of whom worry about growing Chinese power and assertiveness in the South China Sea.

For Australians this is...Read More
  

Washington Needs a Balanced Budget Amendment
By U.S. Sen. John Cornyn

 We are all familiar with the American dream. Individuals work hard to establish themselves and secure a better quality of life for their families. Their children, in turn, lay the groundwork for a better quality of life for their children. And on it goes down the generations, with each being elevated by the last. This is what makes America unique from the rest of the world.

But achievement in this great nation doesn’t happen overnight; it requires hard work and a willingness to make sacrifices. The challenges of fiscal prudence are something many American families grapple with every day. We must finance our homes, save for college and plan for retirement. This means making difficult choices...Read More

Super Committee Disaster and Three Alternatives for America
by Newt Gingrich

As the deadline for the so-called "Super Committee" to put forward a deficit reduction plan approaches, officials in Washington are arguing over whether the government or the American people will have to bear the pain.

What they do not realize is that the United States is actually caught between three possible futures:

1. Fantasy and collapse (the Greek model)
2. Pain and Austerity (the Washington establishment model)
3. Innovation and Growth (the Hamilton-Lincoln-Reagan-Thatcher-Gingrich model).

President Obama is wandering around the country promising billions in his bid for reelection. He is spending our children's and grandchildren's money like a teenager with...Read More

Federal Workers to Cut Back On “Swag" 

President Barack Obama is ordering federal workers to cut back on "swag" in an effort to save taxpayer dollars and roll back the government's trillion-dollar debt.

That's right, swag.

In Hollywood, swag means silk scarves, designer shoes, exotic vacations, jewelry from Tiffany's and other bling given away at Academy Awards parties and other swanky affairs.

In Washington, swag means t-shirts, coffee mugs, water bottles and ink pens from Office Depot featuring the agency's name or emblem in drab colors and offered as parting gifts from bureaucratic conferences and summits.

The effort is part of Obama's "we can't wait for Congress to act" campaign to highlight what he calls obstructionist Republicans on Capitol Hill who won't enact his jobs bill and other agendas.

Instead, the president is taking measures into his own hands by signing a series of executive orders to cut waste and promote more efficient spending across the federal government-sphere.

"From the day I took office, I've said we're going to comb the federal budget, line by line, to eliminate as much wasteful spending as possible," Obama said.

"That's what the 'Campaign to Cut Waste' is all about. We can't wait for Congress to act—we can't wait for them to get our fiscal house in order and make the investments necessary to keep America great. That's why today, I'm signing an executive order that will build on our efforts to cut waste and promote more efficient spending across the government—we're cutting what we don't need so that we can invest in what we do need," Obama said.

The executive order directs hundreds of thousands of government workers to stop wasting taxpayer money on non-essential items used for promotional purposes, such as clothing, mugs and non-work related gadgets.

Agencies are also being told to cut back on travel and instead conduct government business through teleconferences and videoconferences, reduce the $9 million budget for cars in Washington, D.C., publish more documents electronically to save on printing costs, and purchase fewer technological gadgets like smartphones and tablets.

To read more about Obama's executive order, check it out
here.
—Audrey Hudson

Small Steps Toward Liberty

 FreedomFighter says:

November 3, 2011 at 4:31 am

Obituary — Very Interesting In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."
The Obituary follows:

Born 1776, Died 2008
It won't hurt to read this several times.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the last Presidential election:

Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's — and they vote — then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

This is truly scary! Of course we are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic . Someone should point this out to Obama. Of course we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution. There couldn't be more at stake than on Nov 2012. If you as concerned as I am please pass this along.

Laus Deo
Semper Fi

LD-18 Recall Election – Senator Pearce Recall Election – Arizona

By Linda Turley-Hansen, Arizona

Okay, I don’t live in Arizona’s Legislative District 18, but that doesn’t mean I’m not deeply affected by the possible recall of our Senate President and the contemptible, outsider intrusion into our state.  Don’t kid yourself District 18 voters; there are those who want to force a major shift in Arizona’s political base and away from policies of citizen protection.  And, they are using you.

I implore you to reconsider.

Clearly, the Democrat party wants to see Sen. Russell Pearce defeated.  I can understand that.  But those of his own party, who have been sucked into the game of an expensive recall, one short year away from a fully funded General Election is staggeringly ignorant.

This recall is a game of dangerous proportions, one that multiple Republicans, many respected in District 18, have been scammed by.

It’s one thing that a possible million dollars have been spent in this recall, (told to Pearce by AZ Congressman Trent Franks), much of it said to be from outside of Arizona, it’s another when our own citizens are blinded to hype and political carping.

I have a few questions for those, in Arizona, who have contributed to the recall effort:   Really?  You are unhappy with a strong, legislative leader who took Arizona out of the red and into the black in a time the nation is floundering economically; a leader whose state is currently number two in job growth, from number 49 in the nation when the recession began? (Bureau of Labor of Statistics, 9.16.11)

Let’s go back to the primary issue:  SB1070, which mandates aliens carry required documents.  Through Pearce’s leadership, Arizona has led the nation in finally claiming State’s Rights and taking the steps to protect its own citizens.   Following Arizona’s example, some 30 other states are creating similar legislation.  Our governor tells of standing ovations as she travels this nation.  American citizens clearly respect Arizona’s courage.

Did you know that crime in Phoenix has dropped to a 30 year low as per PLEA, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association?  And, with a reported 100,000 illegals having moved out of Arizona, the estimated drop in K-12 education costs have been substantial. (U.S. Department of Education places Arizona cost at $7,610 per pupil.)

Are you aware, rather than solve border problems, the Feds have simply erected signs south of Phoenix alerting people of the border dangers?  That five years before Rob Krentz was murdered on his own border ranch that he begged for help for himself and other ranchers?

We whine about our circumstances; about the Feds remaining unresponsive, yet when one single, strong man steps to the front and displays courage, we watch or participate in his humiliation and possibly his political martyrdom because he’s imperfect.  Really?

Pearce acknowledges he’s made mistakes.  And, absolutely, I disagree with some ways he’s tried to solve a few of our problems, but in our current, political crisis, we’re in need of courageous leaders.   As long as Pearce is in office, I will work to support him and encourage him to create humane, yet sensible policy.

As for outsiders who are intent on managing the politics of a strong Western State, where boldness comes from the genes of the courageous first settlers, I am aghast that even one District 18 citizen could be influenced in this costly sham.

To create jobs abolish the death tax now
by Newt Gingrich

There is now less than a month remaining until the so-called “Super Committee” must reveal its plan to eliminate $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit over the next 10 years.

If it fails to produce such a plan, or if Congress or President Barack Obama rejects it, it will lead to a budgetary and national security disaster.  Under this incredibly risky scheme, more than a trillion dollars will be cut from defense and domestic spending budgets automatically if the closed-door “Super Committee” cannot agree on a deficit reduction package.  If Congress fails to pass whatever proposal these 12 select members of Congress come up with—no matter how bad it is—the same automatic cuts go into effect.

They better have a good plan.

There are alternatives, some of them painless, if the members of the committee can get beyond partisanship. According to a study released last week by the American Family Business Foundation, almost a third of the needed savings could be achieved merely by repealing the death tax, something that is both ineffective and immoral.

The federal government would take in about $362 billion more than currently projected over the next 10 years if the death tax was eliminated entirely, allowing people to pass the fruits of a lifetime of labor on to their families as they chose. There would be a direct revenue loss but, as the report estimates, U.S. Gross Domestic Product would increase 2.26 percent in a decade just by eliminating the tax. New revenues generated by the economic activity that would result from the elimination of the death tax would be almost twice as much as the revenue derived from it.

This growth would create thousands of new jobs as families kept more small businesses running through multiple generations and shifted their efforts from avoiding estate taxes to investing in America.

As economist Art Laffer described the evidence, “Study after study finds that the estate tax significantly reduces the size of estates and, as an added consequence, reduces the nation's capital stock and income.”

Many small business owners have an incentive to spend their resources wastefully looking for ways to avoid the tax.  Many families are forced to close or sell the family business or the family farm in order to raise the funds needed to pay the federal government.

Hundreds of prominent economists recently added their names to a letter written a decade ago by Nobel-laureate Milton Friedman calling for the repeal of the death tax. They object that it is ineffective—as I have said, the government would be better off eliminating it—but more importantly that it is immoral.

As Friedman wrote on behalf of the original 276 signatories:

“Spend your money on riotous living - no tax; leave your money to your children - the tax collector gets paid first. That is the message sent by the estate tax. It is a bad message and the estate tax is a bad tax. The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue - living frugally and accumulating wealth.”

An additional 259 economists signed the letter this year, including another Nobel-laureate, advisors to several presidents, and former Federal Reserve Bank presidents.

The American people overwhelmingly agree with Friedman and these economists that “death should not be a taxable event.” Even though relatively few Americans will ever pay the death tax, substantial majorities oppose raising it and support its permanent repeal.

They understand it is a question fundamentally about the right to pursue happiness: if you work hard, if you invest wisely, if you save your money, it is wrong for people who did not spend their lifetimes doing that to take it away.

 “The death tax taxes yet again a lifetime of savings and investment that has already been taxed multiple times,” Peter Ferrara wrote recently. “It is double taxation on top of double taxation, which often forces loved ones left behind to sell the family farm, ranch or business to pay the taxes just when they are suffering from their loss the most.”

Eliminating the death tax will create more jobs and more revenue for the federal government. That combination should be an obvious choice for the deficit reduction committee. Repealing it is a painless part of the solution. It’s also the right thing to do.

Death by Bureaucracy

By: Newt Gingrich 

Earlier this month, a panel appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services made a recommendation so detached from the good of individual patients it could only have come from government bureaucrats. They recommended eliminating screening for the most common cancer among males nationwide.

The United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) is composed of 16 government-selected experts whose recommendations often influence the reimbursement policies of Medicare and private insurers. The range of members’ backgrounds is narrow considering the group is charged with advising the federal government and other healthcare providers on specific medical procedures: almost all are academics or administrators rather than practicing physicians. The panel includes experts in pediatrics and newborn care, in mental health and geriatrics, but not a single urologist who actually takes care of prostate cancer patients.

Despite lacking any specialist who deals with the issue, the panel issued a recommendation this month to stop using the only available test to screen for prostate cancer. PSA tests, which measure levels in the blood of a marker known to be elevated in men with prostate cancer, are the sole method of screening other than digital examination by a doctor, which cannot detect the most common form and usually identifies those cancers it can much later, when they are less curable.

Without the PSA testing, many men will have no way to know they have the disease until it has developed into much more dangerous problem. In some cases, it will be a too late by the time they discover it.

What is the basis for the panel’s recommendation to discontinue screening that can save lives?

It has nothing to do with the merits of the test. Instead, these government-appointed experts advised against screening because they disagree with what some doctors and patients choose to do with the information once they have it.

Prostate cancer is a complicated issue, and elevated PSA is not always a sign that a man should enter treatment. In some cases, men can live with benevolent cancers and remain healthy for years. In many other cases, it is simply unclear even from biopsies whether the cancers are benevolent or lethal, as both kinds register on test results.

Understandably, many men faced with this information want to do everything possible to make sure they do not have a lethal cancer, and many doctors, as well, recommend curative therapy even when they are not certain the cancer is lethal. There are definitely patients, especially older men, who undergo treatment for prostate cancer they could have lived with if it had gone undetected.

If prostate cancer is over-treated, the sensible response for the USPSTF would have been to call on the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute to help develop a better and more accurate test, and to advise doctors and patients to consider more conservative approaches when the test suggests the presence of prostate cancer.

Instead, the task force’s answer is simply to deny doctors and patients the chance to consider early treatment by recommending they not screen for prostate cancer in the first place.

That is not a reasoned response to the problem. It is a bureaucratic response to the problem. And people will almost certainly die because of it.

This points to the difference between the bureaucratic approach to healthcare, which leads to rationing, and an approach to empower individuals and their doctors to make the best decisions for them.

Bureaucrats cannot comprehend the complicated details of all the individuals for whom they try to make decisions and so they issue one-size-fits-all pronouncements for large classes of people. In this case, when the bureaucratic approach identifies a class that is being over-treated, it calls for the elimination of screening to warn of the disease. That way fewer people will have the information they need in order to be faced with choices involving some options the bureaucrats consider undesirable. Physicians can’t over-treat a prostate cancer they have not detected.

Of course, it is ridiculous to have a handful of government bureaucrats with no expertise in the matter issuing recommendations that influence federal, state, and private health systems in crafting policies. Doctors and patients are in the best position to determine whether individuals should be screened for prostate cancer and to judge the best course of action afterward.

No one should want the government interfering in these very personal medical decisions. Lethal bureaucracy is a disease we can’t afford—and one that is entirely preventable with the right policies.

Promoting Conservative Values

Congressman Randy Neugebauer

As you know, I am a passionate advocate of conservative values and causes. To this end, I want to keep you informed of some legislation I supported on the House Floor this past week.

The Protect Life Act of 2011 – Last Thursday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, by a vote of 251-172. This bill, introduced by Representative Joseph Pitts (R-PA), amends President Obama’s health care law to restrict taxpayer funding of elective abortions and ensures that conscience rights for health care providers are protected. While I support full repeal of Obamacare, this is a crucial step that must be taken immediately to protect the unborn.

The sanctity of life should be promoted by the federal government, and I do not believe we should be using hard-earned taxpayer money for abortions. I am honored to cosponsor and vote for this bill, which continues the fight for the unborn and gives further voice to those who cannot yet speak for themselves.

EPA Regulatory Relief Act of 2011 – On Thursday, the House also passed H.R. 2250, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act. In June 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations on cement plants and industrial boilers through Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) to reduce mercury emissions and other pollutants. These rules will force cement plants and businesses with industrial boilers to comply with burdensome regulations, and projected compliance costs are over $14 billion with over 230,000 jobs at risk.

The EPA Regulatory Relief Act provides job creators with relief from EPA’s Boiler MACT rules. This step toward reversing unnecessary government regulations will bring more certainty to the economy and allow small business owners to invest in and expand their companies.

Days after being dropped from ESPN’s “Monday Night Football,” Hank Williams Jr. fired back at that network, “Fox and Friends” and what he called the “United Socialist States of America” in his signature style — a song bellowing biting lyrics in between guitar licks. Keep the change

Lewis K. Uhler president of the National Tax Limitation Committee speaks out

There is a problem brewing in the House of Representatives of which most conservatives in and outside Congress are largely unaware. It has to do with H.J. Res. 1 - the balanced budget amendment - soon to be voted on per the debt-ceiling "deal" struck by Congress and the president. While H.J. Res. 1 is a solid first effort - and we have urged support for it as a symbolic vote - it is possibly fatally flawed and should be revised.
 

After years of indifference to constitutional fiscal discipline, Congress is once again stirring. In 1982, then-President Ronald Reagan, convened a federal amendment drafting committee led by Milton Friedman, Jim Buchanan, Bill Niskanen, Walter Williams and many others, and fashioned Senate Joint Resolution 58, a tax limitation-balanced budget amendment, which garnered 67 votes in the Senate under the able leadership of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican. After a successful discharge petition forced a House vote, the amendment failed to achieve the two-thirds vote necessary in a Tip O'Neill-Jim Wright-controlled House. In 1996, Newt Gingrich and company came within one vote of passing a fiscal amendment in the House.
 

Currently, H.J. Res. 1 is designed as a classic balanced budget amendment in which outlays can be as great as, but no more than, receipts for that year. However, it requires an estimate of receipts, which is notoriously faulty, and it does not necessarily produce surpluses with which to pay down our massive debt. Furthermore, it contains a second limit on outlays - "not more than 18 percent of the economic output of the United States" - without defining such output or resolving the inevitable conflict between the outlay calculations in the two provisions.
 

This could be fixed by restructuring the amendment as a spending or outlay limit based on prior year receipts or outlays (known numbers), adjusted only for inflation and population changes. This will produce surpluses in most years with which to pay down debts and will reduce government spending as a share of gross domestic product over time, right-sizing government and increasing the rate of economic growth for the benefit of all citizens, especially those least able to compete.
 

Section 4 of H.J. Res. 1 might best be described as a supreme example of the law of unintended consequences. This section imposes on the president a constitutional responsibility to present a balanced budget. Surely, the drafters were saying to themselves "We'll fix that guy in theWhite House. Now he will have to fess up and either propose specific tax increases or specific spending cuts. He won't be able to duck reality any longer." The only problem is that this section is at odds with our Constitution in that it gives the president a constitutional power over fiscal matters never intended by the Founders.
 

For much of our history, the president did not propose a budget. In the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which established the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of Management and Budget and the General Accounting Office, the president was statutorily authorized to propose a budget. Presidents have always shaped the budget and spending using their negotiating opportunities and veto pen. Wearing their chief administrator hat, earlier presidents sought to save money from the amounts appropriated by Congress, getting things done for less, impounding funds they did not think essential to spend. Congress' ceiling on an appropriation was not also the spending floor for the president, as it is now.
 

Section 4 appears to give the president co-equal power with Congress not only to present a budget but to shape it, in conflict with congressional budget authority. At a minimum, it is likely to create a conflict over the amount of allowed annual spending. The president surely will be guided by his own Office of Management and Budget, whose budget and receipts calculations will undoubtedly differ from the Congressional Budget Office's numbers that will direct Congress. We should not start the budget process each year with this kind of conflict.
 

It would be better to restore the historic role of the president to impound and otherwise reduce expenditures by repealing and revising appropriate portions of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 so a fiscally conservative president is a revitalized partner in cutting the size of government.
 

Section 5 requires a supermajority vote for "a bill to increase revenues." Whether one agrees or disagrees with making tax increases more difficult, this language is troublesome because it requires some government bureaucrat or bureaucracy to make a calculation or estimate of the effect of tax law changes on revenues. Proponents of a bill to increase cash flow to the government will argue that their tax law changes are "revenue neutral" and will likely persuade the Joint Committee on Taxation or Congressional Budget Office to back them up. Once again, estimators would be in control.
 

If we ever expect to convert our income-based tax system to a consumption tax, better not to require a two-thirds vote as liberals will use such a supermajority voting rule to stymie tax system reform.
There are other issues, as well, with debt limit and national emergency supermajority votes and definitions. While this balanced budget amendment - H.J. Res. 1 - has deserved a "yes" vote as a demonstration of commitment to constitutional fiscal discipline, it can and must be revised before the showdown vote in the House this fall.

John Hayward on People Speaks Out

 On September 28, 2011, the National Federation of Independent Business petitioned the Supreme Court to review a decision from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding ObamaCare.  The Obama Justice Department feels good about its general track record defending the law in appeals courts, and has also filed a petition with the Supremes.  

The Administration could have kept things bottled up in the 11th Circuit for a while, but most observers agree it would go all the way to the highest court sooner or later... and if "later" meant after the 2012 elections, there might have been a very different Justice Department arguing the government's case, with decidedly less enthusiasm.  

From a legal standpoint, this is the main event: The heavyweight title fight between Obama’s health care scheme and the nation that never wanted it.  If the Supreme Court upholds the 11th Circuit’s decision on the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate, but rejects the notion of severing it from the rest of the bill, ObamaCare is dead at last. If the mandate remains severed, ObamaCare lurches forward without its heart, with the remains of its basic logic and funding mechanism surgically removed while our national debt blasts into orbit.

And if the individual mandate is held to be constitutional, the relationship between American citizens and their government changes forever.  It won’t take long for the all-powerful State to think of other formerly voluntary transactions it can make compulsory, for our own good.
John Hayward

scandal surrounding Solyndra

 A report at the Atlantic Wire on the growing scandal surrounding Solyndra begins, “On Wednesday, the bankruptcy of a solar power company in California with political ties to the Obama administration appeared to be a story about the difficulties of nurturing green businesses in a cutthroat economy.”

Can someone show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to “nurture green businesses in a cutthroat economy?” 

When is the free market not cut-throat?  That’s a feature, not a bug.  One of its advantages is that stupid business plans get their throats cut, and die.  By contrast, there seems to be no way to stop President Obama from throwing billions of taxpayer dollars into “green energy” rat holes. 

Of course, the point of all this is to use compulsive force to make American taxpayers “invest” in politically favored projects, which by definition can’t succeed in that “cutthroat” free market, because nobody wants their products enough to buy them at a profit.  If “green energy” was a winner, it wouldn’t have to ride on Uncle Sam’s shoulders.

The free market can be rough on losers, but at least they have a fighting chance… and after things fall apart, money and manpower are repurposed to other ventures.  Command economies just keep plugging blindly away at failure for years at a stretch, while everyone suffers.  Boardrooms are far better environments for dealing with busted business plans than congressional subcommittees.

John Hayward

The Emerging Crises in the Middle East

by Newt Gingrich

While Americans have been focused on the economy and domestic politics, the Middle East has been deteriorating in very threatening ways.

In the last few months, events have begun to turn against the United States, Israel, and freedom in the Middle East. If you want to share this big-picture overview of threats in the region with your friends, there are buttons at the top of this message.

Consider the following developments:

  1. The Iranians are on offense in Iraq and the United States is losing ground. The radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called for his followers to stop killing Americans on the grounds that it could delay our departure, but warned that if our troops do not leave by the end of the year, his attacks will resume. American military leaders have publicly testified that Iranians are providing equipment, training, and intelligence to help kill Americans. Yet nothing is being done to stop Iran.
  2. The Obama Administrations decision to reduce the American military presence in Iraq to 3,000 creates the potential for a catastrophic disaster. Since the Army deploys in brigades of 5,000, splitting up a brigade can only signify a political calculation. Yet, a small American military force will not be able to defend itself. The Obama Administration is creating a tempting target for the Iranian radicals to see if they can humiliate us. It would be much safer to pull all the troops out than to leave so few that they are in peril.
  1. The American Embassy in Baghdad is an absurdity. It was designed when we were on the way to being the dominant power in Iraq. It covers too much space, has too much staff, and requires 3,650 people to defend it on a billion dollar contract, while thousands more work inside. Sustaining something on this scale is going to be very expensive and yield no results of comparable value. This embassy should be closed and a very modest and defensible building should replace it.
  2. The Turkish government has become increasingly Islamist in its language and policies and is rapidly reversing the 90-year legacy of Ataturk's efforts to create a modern, open Turkey. The Turkish flotilla to Gaza last year was so clearly in violation of international law that even the United Nations has said Israel was right and Turkey was wrong.

This enraged the Turkish government, and it is threatening to send a new flotilla to Gaza defended by Turkish warships. This could lead to a Turkish-Israeli confrontation that could be very dangerous.

  1. The Iranians announced Monday that their first nuclear reactor was going on line in a public demonstration of their determination to become a nuclear power.
  2. Bashar al-Assad, the dictator of Syria and ally of Iran, continues to kill his own people with Iranian help. While some pro-American governments have fallen, pro-Iranian dictators are being sustained.
  3. Egyptian radicals are building pressure for a diplomatic break with Israel, ending the 33-year peace process, which has made the region more stable and less dangerous. Mob attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Cairo are an indicator of the potential hostility which could explode and reshape the region.
  4. As I wrote over a month ago, the United Nations General Assembly is on the verge of recognizing a Palestinian state in a unilateral step which will embolden the radicals and put Israel in greater danger. Meanwhile, even the "moderate" Palestinians indicate this is not a step toward peace but merely an interim step in Palestinian statehood forced on Israel.

Chuck DeVore, who served as a Reagan appointee in the Pentagon and is an expert on foreign affairs, has written a special report on the situation in the Middle East and threats to Israels survival. You can read it here.

Despite all of these events, there is no evidence the Obama Administration has any idea how dangerous the world is becoming, or that it has a plan to deal with them.

Your Friend,

Newt

Statement by Gov Rick Perry on Announced Job Losses Due to EPA Rule

"The Obama Administration continues to put up road blocks for our nation's job creators by imposing burdensome regulations based on assumptions, not facts, that will result in job losses and increased energy costs with no definite environmental benefit. Yet again, this administration is ignoring Texas' proven track record of cleaning our air while creating jobs, opting instead for more stifling red tape. As expected, the only results of this rule will be putting Texans out of work and creating hardships for them and their families, while putting the reliability of Texas' grid in jeopardy."

H. R. 2497-"HALT  ACT"

Randy Neugebauer has stepped up and endorsed Lamar Smith to support H.R. 2497 THE “HALT ACT.” This is what he said:

I wanted to share with you my endorsement of the “HALT Act”, H.R. 2497.   As you may know, the Obama Administration wants to grant “backdoor amnesty” to illegal immigrants.   The American people have called upon Congress to defeat several amnesty bills in recent years and this legislation would once again reject the policy of amnesty.

The “rumors” of backdoor amnesty that had once been fueled by leaked administration memos have now become official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy as of last month.  The Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued two directives on the scope of DHS officers’ prosecutorial discretion that could allow millions of illegal and criminal immigrants to avoid our immigration laws.  The memos tell agency officials when to exercise “prosecutorial discretion,” such as when to defer the removal of immigrants, when not to stop, question, arrest or detain an immigrant, and when to dismiss a removal proceeding.  Unfortunately, the ICE memos make clear that DHS plans not to use but to abuse these powers.  If the Obama administration has its way, millions of illegal immigrants will be able to live and work legally in the United States.  This unilateral decision will saddle American communities with the costs of providing education and medical care to illegal immigrants.  It will also place our communities at risk by not deporting criminal immigrants. 

I have joined 32 of my colleagues, including House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) in support of this legislation and will continue to oppose Obama Administration efforts to weaken our immigration laws.

Randy Neugebauer

A Price for Raising the Debt Ceiling

Republicans should attach provisions repealing the worst aspects of ObamaCare and financial reform to spending that the president absolutely needs.

By ARTHUR B. LAFFER

Addressing the possibility of the GOP-led Congress not voting to raise the debt ceiling, Austan Goolsbee, President Obama's top economic adviser, histrionically asserted this month: "This is not a game. The debt ceiling is not something to toy with. If we hit the debt ceiling, that's . . . essentially defaulting on our obligations, which is totally unprecedented in American history. The impact on the economy would be catastrophic."

In context, his comments are more than a bit hypocritical. Over the past four years-including the last two years of the Bush presidency-he and his boss supported every big, misguided spending program they could find, regardless of how much the electorate protested. There wasn't a dollar that didn't burn a hole in their pocket.

They supported add-ons to the housing and farm bills in 2007 to stimulate the economy; Larry Summers's $600 per-capita stimulus checks of 2008; the bailout of AIG, the Fed's asset swaps with Bear Stearns; the $700 billion Toxic Asset Relief Program; Mr. Obama's nearly $900 billion stimulus package; the total government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the temporary cash-for-clunkers program; the $8,000 temporary home-buyers' tax credit; the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks; the Dodd-Frank financial reforms; and of course the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare).

Not only did Mr. Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid support all of the above government spending, they also voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 when George W. Bush was president and the Republicans controlled the House and Senate.

Here's what Mr. Obama said on the Senate floor then: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

Mr. Reid gave a similar speech: "If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy. . . . Democrats won't be making arguments to support this legislation, which will weaken our country."

Now the roles are reversed. In March, the debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion is going to be hit. Today's debt number is about $13.9 trillion and rising faster than a jack rabbit. Mr. Goolsbee is correct that it would be a mistake to use the debt ceiling as the means to control Mr. Obama's spendthrift ways. But there is no reason why House Republicans shouldn't seek and get major concessions from the Democrats in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

There are, for example, many truly bad provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial-reform law and the president's health-care legislation that should and could be repealed. The Republicans should target these provisions for repeal and attach them to the bill to raise the debt ceiling. Once the bill containing items to be repealed passes the House, it would likely also pass the Senate. Who among the 21 Democrats and two independents whose terms are up in 2012 would vote against raising the debt ceiling, especially if the legislation also removed the least-popular features of other bills? Once passed by the full Congress, it's even less likely that Mr. Obama would veto it.

But just because the debt ceiling should be raised on this occasion does not mean that the logic behind Mr. Goolsbee's argument-that not doing so would be "catastrophic" for the economy-is accurate. On the contrary, cutting spending and cutting it drastically would not hurt the economy. It would, in fact, help the economy, even if done now.

Imagine there are only two farmers who make up the whole economy-Farmer Jones and Farmer Smith. If Farmer Smith receives unemployment benefits, who do you think pays for those unemployment benefits? Farmer Jones is the correct answer.

Government spending is taxation, pure and simple. That taxation reduces output, employment and production. It's basic Econ 101. If, instead of using government spending for productive purposes, Congress uses it on bailouts for failing banks and unprofitable businesses, cash for clunkers, housing subsidies and unemployment, it's a double-whammy for the economy. You can't raise taxes on people who work, increase what you pay people not to work, and then expect more people to work.

The mistake Mr. Goolsbee makes when he says that a massive reduction in government spending will reduce output is to confuse accounting with economics. In the simplest accounting terms, GDP is equal to consumption plus investment plus government spending-that's true. But reducing government spending doesn't reduce GDP dollar-for-dollar, as this accounting equation would seem to be saying.

Reducing government spending is not only a reduction in one of the components of GDP, but it is also a reduction in effective taxation and a reduction in payments for non-work and less output. In due course, cutting government spending will increase private output (in this case consumption plus investment) by more than the reduction in government spending.

After World War II, the U.S. cut federal government spending dramatically. In 1945, federal government spending as a share of GDP peaked at 31.6%, and by 1948 it was down to 14.4%. Private real GDP (e.g., GDP less government purchases) for the three years 1946, 1947 and 1948 grew at a 7.5% annual rate. So much for the idea that cutting government spending hurts the economy.

President Clinton also cut federal government spending as a share of GDP by over four percentage points, to 18.8% in 2000 from 22.9% in 1992-more than the next four best presidents combined. We all remember the prosperity of Mr. Clinton's eight years in office. I could go on and on, but the simple fact is that cutting government spending stimulates the economy. My fervent wish would be to have Mr. Obama be more like Mr. Clinton. As it stands now, they couldn't be more diametrically opposed.

E-mail from Congressman Randy Neugebauer

Date:  Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:39 PM

From:  Congressman Randy Neugebauer <tx19ima.pub@mail.house.gov>

To:  kencook01@windstream.net

Subject:  Responding to your message

Size:  179 KB

Attachments:  Presidential travel.pdf (164.3 KB)

 Dear Mr. Cook:

 Thank you for contacting me regarding President Obama's official trips.  I appreciate knowing your views.

 As you know, the President of the United States takes many official trips throughout the year, many of them overseas.  As the attached report prepared by the Congressional Research Service details, airfare and related travel expenses for the President, Vice President, and First Lady are only a fraction of the total cost for an official trip.  Other costs include operating the aircraft (including fuel, maintenance, engineering support, and the crew) and designated "official travelers" such as Secret Service agents, communications personnel, and other officials.  Please review the attachment containing more details regarding Presidential travel.

 Please be assured I will continue to monitor use of your tax dollars to maintain the highest integrity of every dollar spent by the government. As the incoming chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on the House Financial Services Committee, I am committed to identifying and eliminating waste, fraud and abuse throughout the federal government. 

 Again, thank you for contacting me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of service to you in the future.  If you would like to receive updates of my actions in Congress, I send a weekly e-newsletter called "Randy's Roundup" to keep people up-to-date on the big issues facing Washington and West Texas.  Many people have told me they enjoy learning what activities I have been up to on behalf of West Texans.  Please visit the 19th District's website at www.randy.house.gov to sign up for the Roundup.

 Sincerely,

Randy Neugebauer
Member of Congress 

Open Attachment Presidential travel.pdf

Not a single Piece of Truth

By: Jason Mattera

OK, here’s the deal: There is as much evidence that MSNBC's resident slob Chris Matthews likes to molest farm animals each night before he goes on the air as there is that Sarah Palin had something, anything, to do with the shooting in Tucson, Ariz.

And yet Matthews and his cohorts in the old media continue to advance the libelous narrative that Palin and the conservative commentariat ignited the Tucson tragedy — even though there is not yet a single piece of proof that the shooter ever mentioned talk radio, Fox News, the Tea Party, or Palin.

Not. A. Single. Piece. Of. Proof!

Still, Chris Matthews and his fellow media tool bags are on an all-out smear campaign to link the Tucson tragedy to conservatives. On last night’s “Hardball,” Matthews said this of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and gun ownership: “Sarah Palin using gun play language. What is she talking about crosshairs and reloading . . . and Bachmann out there with her kind of talk. I mean it seems like the way people talk now has, has gotten more ballistic. . . Why are guns talked about so much, especially on the Right? Why?”

Leftists like Matthews know that conservatives have nothing to do with the killing spree that left six slain and 14 wounded. Their goal is to intimidate you into silence. They don’t want you ripping on ObamaCare, cap and trade, amnesty for illegal aliens, intrusive government, or any of Obama’s disastrous policies.

They want to put you on mute. Don’t let them.

This is not a time for us to dial down our opposition; it’s time to dial it up.

Our liberties depend on it. We won’t be silenced by smears.

Let us not forget that while the media collectively pat themselves on the back over a need to stop the “climate of violence” allegedly coming from conservatives, the real merchants of hate reside on the Left.

It is they who tastelessly sought to politicize this past weekend’s events; it is they who fantasized about George W. Bush assassinated, Palin raped, Republicans exterminated, and Tea Party members beat to a pulp.

For your easy reference guide, see the “Top 10 Examples of Liberal Hate” the old media do not want you to know about.

A Sad Weekend for America: Tragedy in Tucson

By: Congressman Neugebauer

Saturday’s tragic events in Tucson involving Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, her staff and several of her constituents delivered a hard blow to all Americans. Just last week, I had spoken with Gabby and her husband Mark, a NASA astronaut, on our way to the swearing in of the 112th Congress. I have gotten to know Gabby through our work together on the Science and Technology Committee and her cheerful mood is always refreshing to experience.

I am heartsick about her suffering, and of course Dana and I are praying for her complete recovery and return to Congress. Our hearts also go out to the other victims and their families. In these instances, faith in God and His guidance will help all of us to cope with a heinous act committed by an obviously troubled individual.

Constituent outreach in Texas-19 is a large part of my job as a Congressman, and I will continue to welcome future opportunities to meet my constituents and to listen to their concerns. This despicable event will not deter me from carrying on with the people’s business. During the weeks and months ahead, please continue to keep Representative Giffords, her family, and the families of the other victims in your prayers.

How Do We Know That ObamaCare Is On The Ropes?

     A story published in the liberal New York Times on January 2, 2011 says it all: "The Obama administration, reversing course, will revise a Medicare regulation to delete references to end-of-life planning as part of the annual physical examinations covered under the new health care law, administration officials said Tuesday."

     You remember what happened. Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh summed it up as follows: "The White House apparently has flip-flopped again. Last week they were caught trying to sneak in the death panels, essentially. A federal rule that Medicaid doctors, in order get paid by Medicaid, Medicare, had to have end-of-life discussions with their seasoned citizen patients once a year."

     Make no mistake, the Obama Administration did not reverse this "death panel" policy out of moral outrage and, if ObamaCare is not repealed, it won't be the last time that the Obama Administration tries to SNEAK "death panel" policies past the American people.

     Oh yes... they tried to sneak this "end-of-life" policy past you. A similar policy was initially included in ObamaCare (before Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Harry Reid rammed it down our throats) but was removed when former-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin used the term "death panels" to describe the policy and then-House Minority Leader John Boehner said the policy would "start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

     The policy was apparently scuttled from the final version of ObamaCare that passed Congress but it miraculously reappeared... and yes, we do mean miraculously... and when it reappeared, it reappeared in SECRET. The New York Times reported: "The proposed rule, published for public comment in July, did not include advance care planning." In other words, the "end-of-life" policy did NOT appear in the proposed ruling that was made available to the public... it was inserted AFTER THE FACT... IN SECRET.

     And attempts were made to keep the policy under wraps. According to multiple news reports, Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon wrote the following in an email to supporters of the "end-of- life" ruling: “While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops.... We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.... Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”

     Why the secrecy? And why the sudden reversal? The answer is simple. In spite of what the liberal media is telling you, the Obama Administration knows ObamaCare is on the ropes... any rocking of the boat could send it down in flames. That's why egregious rulings are being made behind closed-doors and why those ruling are being pulled when they come to light.

     And that's why the liberal elites in Washington and in the media are trying to solicit your silence. Yes, ObamaCare is on the ropes and now is the time for the American people to administer a flurry of punches and go for the knock-out.

Political end runs

By: Thomas Sowell

 The Constitution of the United States begins with the words "We the people." But neither the Constitution nor "we the people" will mean anything if politicians and judges can continue to do end runs around both.

 Bills passed too fast for anyone to read them are blatant examples of these end runs. But last week, another of these end runs appeared in a different institution when the medical "end of life consultations" rejected by Congress were quietly enacted through bureaucratic fiat by administrators of Medicare.
 
Although Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Senator Jay Rockefeller had led an effort by a group of fellow Democrats in Congress to pass Section 1233 of pending Medicare legislation, which would have paid doctors to include "end of life" counseling in their patients' physical checkups, the Congress as a whole voted to delete that provision.
  Read Full Article

THE DREAM ACT WAS AN AWFUL BILL

On December 8th, 2010, the House of Representatives forced a slightly-modified version of the DREAM Act amnesty through its chamber.  These modifications included lowering the age-limit to 30 from 35 and defining what "good moral character" meant.  These changes were an attempt to give the DREAM Act a façade of respectability and good governance, an attempt which failed.  However, due to the House's passage of the DREAM Act, the Senate decided it was time for them to take up the bill (something Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was planning to do regardless of the outcome of the House vote).  Because anti-amnesty, pro-American worker Senators filibustered the bill, Sen. Harry Reid filed cloture (the step necessary to force a vote on a filibustered bill) on the night of December 16, setting up a vote on the morning of Saturday, December 18th.

The Senate duly held their vote on the DREAM Act amnesty on Saturday morning.  Because this was a vote to invoke cloture (thereby cutting off the filibuster), the pro-amnesty forces needed 60 votes.  Fortunately for all Americans and legal immigrants, the pro-DREAM Act Senators were only able to muster 55 votes, with the final tally being 55-41 (with 4 anti-amnesty Senators not voting).

The DREAM Act amnesty bill was an awful bill that would have made the plight of unemployed and underemployed Americans even worse. Needless to say, I am glad it died in Congress.

For the record, I do not celebrate the dashed hopes of the thousands of illegal-alien students who worked so hard to pass the DREAM Act amnesty that would have given them work permits and legal residency.

Unfortunately, those compelling students hitched their wagons to cynical politicians who sought to use their "compellingness" to first pass a massive blanket amnesty (CIR) and then this loophole-filled, fraud-prone DREAM Act amnesty that showed zero concern for the compelling stories of 22 million unemployed Americans and their kids. A national community has an ethical and constitutional obligation to put those compelling stories of its own fellow citizens at the front of the line for any redress.

While I am sorry that those worthy of a shot at the American Dream were led on (and let down) by deceitful and callous politicians, I am not sorry that the DREAM Act failed. As I have said before, "If these illegal immigrants want to become Americans, then I say come through the front door not the back. Get you a sponsor, get a work visa (Green Card), pay your taxes then take your citizenship test. When this is done we will welcome you with open arms. Until then you are not welcomed."

Patriot Ken

QUESTION OF THE WEEK

When the 112th Congress convenes next year, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann’s Tea Pary Caucus will get a crash course on the constitutional separation of powers by Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, CNN reports. Justice Scalia will lead the first of the constitutional seminars for members of Congress in late January.

why do you agree or disagree that a constitutional class be held once a week to help understand what is being debated and voting on?  

 

RadicalRichard

It could be a good idea, I just question how long it will last. I wonder what they will name it? Beginning Congressman 101. Let's hope that someone smarter than those I have seen in Congress are teaching it, otherwise it will be like the blind leading the blind.

PatriotKen

I agree because they should know and understand what they are debating and voting on. They should know the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence but everyone needs a refresher coarse every now and then. Maybe we should follow along so WE THE PEOPLE know what is going on.

Made in the USA and PROUD OF IT

 I Am the Democratic, Republican Liberal-Progressive's Worst Nightmare. I am a White, Conservative, Tax-Paying, Gun-Owning West Texan. I do building maintenance. I work hard and long hours with my hands to earn a living. ......I believe in God and the freedom of religion, but I don't push it on others. I drive a Ford Pick-up Truck, and drive American-made cars, and I believe in American products and buy them whenever I can.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and not some liberal governmental functionary, Democratic or Republican, that wants to share it with others who don't work! I'm in touch with my feelings and I like it that way! I think owning a gun doesn't make you a killer; it makes you a smart American. I think being a minority does not make you noble or victimized and does not entitle you to anything. Get over it!

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac or any other item, you should do it in English. I believe there should be no other language option. I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to. I believe if you don't like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!

My heroes are Malcolm Forbes, Bill Gates, John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and Willie G. Davidson, who makes the awesome Harley Davidson Motorcycles.

I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake and I don't waste my time watching or arguing about it. I've never owned a slave, nor was I a slave. I haven't burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks, and neither have you!

This is AMERICA ...We like it the way it is and more so the way it was ...so stop trying to change it to look like Russia or China, or some other socialist country! If you were born here and don't like it... You are free to move to any Socialist country that will have you. I believe it is time to really clean house, starting with the White House, the seat of our biggest problems.

I want to know which church is it, exactly, where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. Can I get an AMEN on that one?

I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you're breaking the law, regardless of what color you are, but not just because you happen to ride a bike. And, no, I don't mind having my face shown on my driver's license. I think it's good.... And I'm proud that 'God' is written on my money... I think if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don't want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making 'donations' to their cause.... Get a job and do your part to support yourself and your family! I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents....

I believe 'illegal' is illegal no matter what the lawyers think! I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed in AMERICA !

If this makes me a BAD American, then yes, I'm a BAD American. We want our country back! My Country.....I hope this offends all illegal aliens.

My great, great, great, great grandfather watched and bled as his friends died in the Revolution and the War of 1812. My great, great, great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Mexican American War. My great, great grandfather watched as his friends and brothers died in the Civil War. My great grandfather watched as his friends died in the Spanish-American War. My grandfather watched as his friends died in WWI. My father watched as his friends died in WW II. I watched as my friends died in Vietnam, Panama, and Desert Storm. My son watched and bled as his friends died in Afghanistan and Iraq. None of them died for the Mexican Flag. Everyone died for the American flag.

Texas high school students raised a Mexican flag on a school flag pole; other students took it down. Guess who was expelled...the students who took it down. California high school students were sent home on Cinco de Mayo because they wore T-shirts with the American flag printed on them. A young student rode his bike wit an American flag waving on the back of it, he got expelled. These young people that got expelled are what America needs more of; people who will stand for and want to be an AMERICAN.

Enough is enough. Every American needs to stand up for America. We've bent over to appease the America-haters long enough. I'm taking a stand. I'm standing up because of the hundreds of thousands who died fighting in wars for this country, and for the American flag.

If you agree, stand up with me. If you disagree, please let me know. And shame on anyone who tries to make this a racist message.

AMERICANS, stop giving away Your RIGHTS! Let me make this clear! THIS IS MY COUNTRY! This statement DOES NOT mean I'm against immigration! YOU ARE WELCOME HERE, IN MY COUNTRY, welcome to come legally:

1. Get a sponsor!

2. Learn the LANGUAGE, as immigrants have in the past!

3. Live by OUR rules!

4. Get a job!

5. Pay YOUR Taxes!

6. No Social Security until you have earned it and paid for it!

7. NOW find a place to lay your head!

If you think that this is going to offend someone, then YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM! We've gone so far the other way . . . bent over backwards not to offend anyone. Only AMERICANS seems to care when American citizens are being offended! WAKE UP America!!!

 Made in the USA and PROUD OF IT!!!!!

Newly Elected Women Who Will Make History

by Newt and Callista Gingrich

Described as "The Year of the Republican Woman," 2010 and the historic November elections were marked by the emergence of many bold, conservative women who led the national debate and were at the forefront of the movement to reclaim government for the American people.

This week, we highlight five of the newly-elected women of 2010, including Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Kelly Ayotte, Nan Hayworth, and Linda Upmeyer.

Nine new Republican women won seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. According to the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), this surpasses the previous high mark of seven newly-elected Republican women in a single election.

New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte became the only newly-elected woman to join the U.S. Senate, and three Republican women were elected as new governors in their state -- Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma and Nikki Haley of South Carolina. Governor Jan Brewer won reelection in Arizona.  read full comment
Threat to our missile defense

I have watched the progression of the New START nuclear missile treaty with great interest, assuming that it would get a full and open hearing in the next session of Congress.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration is now trying to rush through, during the present lame duck session of Congress, what we consider a seriously flawed treaty that will endanger our national security.

The proposed New START will limit our future ability and right to build missile defense systems. This goes beyond any concerns regarding Russia.

We MUST continue to build a robust missile defense system to protect ourselves from countries like Iran and terrorist organizations that are working to acquire the technology to launch missiles with nuclear weapons from cargo ships. To allow a treaty with Russia to limit this right of self-defense is unacceptable.

A treaty like this has NEVER been rushed through a lame duck Congress—and for good reason. Something this important to national security should not be rushed through or crammed down the throats of the American people.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has stated that limitations on missile defense are “clearly spelled out in the treaty” and “legally binding.” Here’s why:

  • The preamble of the treaty gives the Russians a basis to claim a de facto veto of our missile defense options
  • There are explicit limits for using land- and sea-based offensive missile tubes for defensive missiles.

 It is especially important that the following Senators hear from their constituents:

John McCain (R – AZ)

Bob Corker (R – TN)

Jim Webb (D – VA)

Olympia Snowe (R- ME)

Susan Collins (R – ME) 

Lindsay Graham (R – SC)

Ben Nelson (D – NE)

 George Voinovich (R – OH)

 Scott Brown (R – MA)

OPPOSING VIEW ON ANCHOR BABIES: REJECT BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Birthright citizenship is a powerful anchor for keeping illegal workers in a country -- and for keeping the jobs they fill out of reach of unemployed legal residents. It is incompatible with a modern age of easy transportation and organized people smuggling. Every developed nation in the world, -- except the USA and Canada, -- has rejected citizenship for births to tourists and unlawful foreign residents.

An estimated 4 million current U.S. residents have received this type of citizenship. Who's hurt by this? Millions of poor American children live in families suffering from unemployment or depressed wages because an estimated 7 million illegal foreign workers are holding construction, manufacturing, service and transportation jobs.

 Anything that slows the decision of illegal workers to go back home prolongs the disadvantaging of the 30 million less-educated Americans and legal immigrants who don't have a job and who generally seek work in the same non-agricultural industries where most illegal workers are found.

 Birthright citizenship is a major anchor for illegal workers already here who are led to feel that their birthright citizen children may give them a claim to remain. Note that one of the loudest arguments for giving illegal workers permanent work permits is that it would be wrong to make them go back home if they have U.S. citizen children.

 Of course, ending birthright citizenship is not enough. Congress should pass the SAVE Act to impede outlaw businesses from hiring illegal workers, and take other actions to protect legal U.S. workers from an immigration system that is importing hundreds of thousands of working-age immigrants annually during a jobs depression. With unemployment high and wages stagnant in most occupations, we don't have labor shortages and don't need additional foreign labor (or the illegal labor already here).

 Scholars make strong arguments on both sides of what the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provision means. Only the Supreme Court can say, and it has never ruled about tourists and illegal residents. For now, Congress should leave the Constitution alone and pass legislation (H.R. 1868) that simply clarifies the birthright provision in current immigration law -- and then see how the Court rules. 

LETTER TO DENAIR COMMUNITY

Subject:  RE: Kid Told to Remove Flag from Bike

From:  "Changnon, Tom" <tchangnon@stancoe.org>

Date:  Thu, Dec 02, 2010 10:43 am

To:  "'ken@fightingpatriot.com'" <ken@fightingpatriot.com>

 

 As Stanislaus County Superintendent of Schools, I received many e-mails regarding the "American Flag Issue" at Denair Middle School in the Denair Unified School District.

 For those who are unfamiliar with the public school system in California, I need to share that County Superintendents in California oversee support systems for the schools.  We do not have authority over the day to day operation of the schools.  Each of the 26 schools districts in Stanislaus County is governed by their own elected Board of Education.

 Regarding the student at Denair Middle School and his rights, I understand that the immediate issue has been resolved by the School District and the young boy is again proudly displaying the American Flag.  I have printed below the message that the district posted on its website which gives more detail regarding this incident.

 As a citizen and educator I couldn't be more proud to live in America.  My father is a veteran of WWII and flew B-29 's during the war.  I attended his squadron reunions with him until the end of his life, and then went on my own until they no longer held them.  I truly understand the sacrifices that have made this country great and respect the flag that represents our country and the freedoms we enjoy.  I also respect your right to express your opinions...I hope this email and the information below provides an adequate response to your concerns.

 Sincerely,

 Tom Changnon

Stanislaus County Superintendent of Schools

  

LETTER TO DENAIR COMMUNITY

 November 12, 2010

 Dear DUSD Community,

 As most of you are aware, we’ve had a school issue that has risen to the level of national news coverage. This incident occurred on Monday, November 8th when a campus supervisor asked one of our middle school students to remove an American flag from his bicycle while he was on school grounds.

 This request was based on concerns for the student’s immediate safety, and to give school staff time to investigate a potentially dangerous situation, involving threats to this student.  While it is our responsibility to ensure that all students are safe at school, we also support every students’ First Amendment rights. We are dealing with the students who threatened to disrupt the school environment. And, the student involved in this incident is now again proudly displaying his flag.

 We recognize that we live in the greatest country in the world and that we should all be proud to display the American flag. It’s unfortunate that the entire story of this issue has not been fully portrayed in the media. Denair is a wonderful community, filled with hard working committed citizens who support our schools and our democracy.

 I’m proud to lead the schools in this community and sincerely hope we can return the focus to our children and their education. We will be addressing the issue with our Board at our regular meeting Thursday, November 18 in the District Leadership room located at 3460 Lester Road, Denair.

 Sincere Regards,

 

Ed Parraz

Superintendent

Denair Unified School District

 

 


From: ken@fightingpatriot.com [mailto:ken@fightingpatriot.com]
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:36 AM
To: Changnon, Tom
Subject: Kid Told to Remove Flag from Bike

 

To Whom it may concern,

 We The People are tired of all this Political Correctness and think that the school should give Cody a public apology. This is the United States of America not a Police State. The flag is a Representative Of this Great Nation of ours and should be waved with pride and honor.

 

God Bless America

Patriot Ken

States’ rights should be encouraged, not punished

By: Gary Johnson

As the governor of New Mexico, I spent eight years dealing with issues unique and specific to our state – addressing immigration, education, the privatization of our prison system, ways to streamline state agencies, and keeping our spending under control. During those eight years, we proved that, with a little common sense and by embracing the reality that government is not the answer to every question, spending can be controlled, bureaucracy can be reduced, and individuals can manage their own lives.

Last December, after growing not just alarmed, but angry at the direction of the current government in Washington, we launched the OUR America Initiative to help give voice to those same ideas I put to work in New Mexico. Since then I’ve been traveling around the country, visiting a total of 23 states so far.

During these travels, I’ve realized more than ever that not only are Americans ready for a very different direction, but that each of the 50 states must deal with its own unique set of challenges, needs and priorities.

As a nation, we’ve been hearing a lot about states’ rights lately, particularly in the context of Arizona’s immigration reform law, and the Obama administration’s very bad decision to challenge that state law in court.

I have said that I would not have signed the Arizona immigration law, because I’m concerned it could lead to racial profiling. But, having served as governor of another border state, New Mexico, I empathize with Arizona’s frustration, and absolutely support the prerogative of that state’s officials to act. Think about it: Congress and the federal government have failed, due to political cowardice, to do anything meaningful about immigration reform; yet when a desperate border state does decide to do something, the feds go running into court claiming that Arizona is trying to usurp their authority.

The situation in Arizona is a crystallizing example of how the federal government has taken the very limited authority granted it by the Constitution and expanded that authority to make a mockery of states’ rights and primacy.

How many times have we heard in the weeks since the Arizona law was enacted that “Immigration is a federal issue?” Certainly, securing our border and managing the flow of people across that border is an appropriate federal role – consistent with the Constitution. But, where is it written in the founding documents that a state doesn’t have the right to enact its own laws and policies relating to immigrants, both legal and illegal, who choose to enter and reside in that state?

I would suggest that just the opposite is true. Every state is different, and is presented with its own challenges and opportunities related to immigration – and countless other issues. Rather than trying, as the Obama administration is doing, to stop Arizona from implementing its own approach, we should be encouraging the states to be the policy laboratories they were intended to be in our federal system.

Arizona feels it needs to enact state law to deal with illegal immigrants. Similarly, farmers in a state like Iowa need a guest worker program that actually meets their needs for reliable, economical and legal seasonal labor. Each state needs a system where willing employers and willing immigrant workers can connect in a practical, realistic and most importantly, legal, way. And if Congress lacks the courage to enact that kind of system, why shouldn’t state legislators be free to come up with policies that serve their unique needs? That is what state primacy and federalism are all about, and should be encouraged – not punished — by an overreaching federal government.

Immigration is the issue that is right in front of us today, but it is just the tip of the states’ rights iceberg. Education, welfare, health care, drug policy: These are just a few of the issues that have been slowly but surely usurped by the feds – with no real basis in the Constitution or the clear intent of the Founders.

As the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative, challenging these federal power grabs is one of my highest priorities. Someone needs to ask the obvious questions about why the federal government insists on doing so much, spending so much, and attempting to ultimately control so many local issues.

We can see where their approach has gotten us: borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the government spends, with no end in sight.

The time has never been better for a long-overdue reassessment of the balance of power between the federal government and the 50 individual states. If it takes a controversial Arizona immigration law, or an insane federal takeover of health care to bring this debate to a head, so be it. Let’s have this debate and let common sense – and genuine states’ rights – prevail.

These are my concerns on S 510

(The Food Safety Modernization Act) 

I am seriously concerned that S. 510, The Food Safety Modernization Act, is a flawed effort to improve our system for ensuring the safety of our food supply. 

Naturally, I support efforts to ensure the safety of what we eat and drink; however S. 510 would ultimately make our food less safe, not more. In addition, the bill would do so at the expense of health food retailers, manufacturers, and consumers of natural foods. 

These are my concerns: 

1) What the bill says: If the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food (and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner) will cause serious health consequences, then the source would have to give HHS agents access to all of its records. 

My concerns: Simply believing there's a potential hazard isn't enough - there should be proof before HHS intrudes upon the livelihood of our health food retailers and manufacturers. Taking it a step further: What constitutes "reasonable," and by whom is it determined? There needs to be evidence, and it needs to be clear and definitive. 

2) What the bill says: It mandates use of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) as a means of identifying sources of contamination. 

My concern: HACCP is a risk-based algorithmic approach to food safety that allows many shortcuts and involves a monumental amount of expensive paperwork and recordkeeping with NO improvements in on-site, physical inspections. 

3) What the bill says: If the Secretary determines...that there is a reasonable probability that an article of food is adulterated or misbranded...the Secretary shall provide the responsible party an opportunity to cease distribution and recall such an article. 

My concern: Similar to #1 above, what level of evidence will constitute "reasonable" probability? In addition, the words "adulterated" and "misbranded" have been applied by the FDA so liberally over the years that they've become watered down as descriptors of contamination. 

And, the biggest problem of all with S. 510:

4) What the bill says: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the U.S. is a party." 

My concern: No other countries ensure that all of their internal regulations are consistent with WTO or any other treaty or international agreement - so why should the United States sacrifice its sovereignty? I am additionally concerned about what might happen to the affordability of - and especially my access to - the products and services I choose to maintain my health and wellness if the United States is required to harmonize with the WTO, SPS, the Uruguay Rounds, and Codex. 

The bottom line: If the above problems and deficiencies are not fixed or eliminated immediately from S. 510, then it must not pass. What constitutes reasonable belief and reasonable probability will be moving targets, moved up or down by the FDA at will. By further emphasizing the risky HAACP algorithmic approach to food safety consumers will be less safe since there will a greater reliance on mathematical and statistical hazards models and less reliance on physical, on-site inspections. Furthermore, the sovereignty of U.S. law and regulation will be further undermined and compromised by referencing international standards and bodies in internal U.S. statutes.

To see how your Representatives voted Click here .

Patriot Ken’s Citizen Mandate to the 112th Congress

This is what I feel about what the new congress should address. It's time for citizens to let members of the new Congress know precisely what WE THE PEOPLE want them to do! I am tired of Washington taking our money and flushing it down the toilet just because they think they can spend it any way they want. Remember We The People are the Government and we send Our elected officials to represent us. When the elected officials stop representing The People it is time for them to answer to The People.

My CITIZEN MANDATE on government run healthcare:


I am calling for ObamaCare to be REPEALED and REPLACED with market friendly reforms that do not add any unconstitutional mandates or burdens on the American people or business.

My CITIZEN MANDATE on illegal immigration:

Border security must be increased and those in our country illegally should be punished to the full extent of the law and deported.

My CITIZEN MANDATE on the federal debt: The federal debt is a serious problem but the answer is not higher taxes. Instead, we must cap spending and grow the economy.

My CITIZEN MANDATE on government spending: Government spending is out of control and the federal government should be required to reduce its annual budget every year until the budget is balanced.

My CITIZEN MANDATE on TARP and other government bailouts: Federal bailouts of the private sector such as the TARP program must be stopped immediately and any unspent funds returned to the taxpayers.

My CITIZEN MANDATE on taxes: I oppose any and all new taxes and want the Bush Tax Cuts made permanent

My CITIZEN MANDATE on government takeover of industry: The federal government should cease and desist its socialistic takeover of industry and return companies like General Motors, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to the private sector.

My CITIZEN MANDATE on welfare and entitlement programs: Social welfare and entitlement programs are undermining the long term solvency of our nation and must first be capped and then reduced.

The issues I believe are important for the new Congress to address: No taxpayer-funded abortions in any federal legislation or programs, Embrace free-market solutions over Government involvement, Safeguarding individual liberties of citizens, Stopping the Socialist push to remake our nation, Strengthening our defense against radical Islam's war against the West, Securing our borders and stopping illegal immigration, Restoring limited government under the Constitution, Stopping the war on small business, Repealing ObamaCare, Maintaining the tax cuts for all Americans, Reducing the deficit and government spending.

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE:  I believe the new Congress should address: Maintaining the tax cuts for all Americans