Live By Example expects and demands politicians, media personalities, public figures and entertainers to put their own money where their mouth is, to lead and live by example, practice what you preach, actions speak louder than words and to put up or shut up.
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S’s: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman’s issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.
Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.
In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/541314/201007221919/JournoGate-Continued-Pouncing-On-Palin.aspxthe Daily Caller published exchanges from a private forum called JournoList or J List that showed how 400 top mainstream reporters and their activist buddies conspired in an attack against Palin the minute she entered the presidential race. “journalists” from the Nation, Mother Jones, Time, Politico, Bloomberg, etc. cooking up approaches, arguments, "narratives" and templates to paint a false picture of the candidate.http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/541494/201007231906/JournoLisms-Bias.aspx all these left-leaning journalists, an estimated 400 in all, used the JournoList site to refine their messages for maximum effect. It was an exercise in mass propaganda, getting everyone to sing from the same ideological hymnal — which explains the tedious sameness of the mainstream media's 2008 election coverage.
Energy is the lifeblood of the mighty U.S. economy, and it ought to surprise no one that America's enemies know this. One way to neutralize the U.S. is to hurt its ability to produce its own energy.
Soros is known to fund Tides in the U.S. Canada's TransCanada is proposing to end 40% of U.S. overseas oil dependency with its Keystone XL pipeline. Both Tides Canada and the Obama administration have lined up against it.
Venezuelan petrotyrant Hugo Chavez's Foundation National Cinematheque bankrolled a scurrilous anti-fracking documentary called "Gasland" that was nominated for an Academy Award, exploiting Hollywood's leftist gullibility. The meritless anti-fracking documentary also was screened in the Environmental Protection Agency by Al Armendariz, the EPA official who resigned last week after declaring his "philosophy" of environmental enforcement was to "crucify" oil companies.
Hillary Clinton's State Department also showcased the anti-energy propaganda film. Why is the U.S. paying any attention at all to Chavista propaganda?
Energy security is more than technology and supply, as conventional wisdom has it — it's our freedom to innovate and produce. They're trying to stop that.
Shortly after taking office, President Obama gutted a $1.2 billion Bush administration R&D program designed to bring hydrogen-fueled cars to market.
But Obama decided instead to invest billions of dollars in electric cars — a technology that dates back more than 150 years but has yet to succeed commercially.
The episode stands in stark contrast to the president's depiction of his energy policies as ones that "invest in stuff that's new" and "stop subsidizing stuff that's old."
In fact, several of Obama's energy priorities are very "old stuff," much of it predating the gasoline engine, and little finding much commercial success despite massive public investments.
A little history:
Electric cars. The first electric cars actually predate those powered by gasoline. In fact, it wasn't until the early 1900s that gas-powered cars came to dominate, as their advantages over battery-powered engines became increasingly obvious.
Advanced batteries. Battery technology, too, is "old stuff," invented by Alessandro Volta in 1800. Batteries have improved greatly, but still have serious limitations. And Obama's heavy investment in advanced batteries has produced decidedly mixed results. One company, Ener1, sought bankruptcy protection after getting $118 million in federal grants. Ener1 exited bankruptcy last week.
High-speed rail. The first passenger train ran between Swansea and Mumbles in England in March 1807. More than 200 years later, passenger rail in the U.S. has failed, except in a few areas, to be commercially viable.
Wind energy. Charles Brush built the first wind generator in the U.S. in 1888. Twenty years later, there were 72 in operation in the country. By the 1930s they were common on farms. But wind power continues to be far more expensive than other sources of energy — up to 290% more expensive than natural gas powered plants, according to the Energy Information Administration. It can also be less reliable — with winds tending to diminish on hot days when electricity demand spikes, for example.
Solar power. Discovery of the photovoltaic effect dates back to 1839. William J. Bailley invented the first solar collector in 1908, and Bell Labs scientists built the first solar cell able to power everyday electrical equipment in 1954. But after decades of research and development, solar power continues to cost far more than traditional plants, according to the EIA. Like wind, solar power is erratic. And it requires vast tracts of land.
.http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/552518/201011021903/George-Soros-And-The-Margin-Of-Theft.aspx In 2006, along with Minnesota's Ritchie, the SOS project endorsed and helped elect Jennifer Brunner in Ohio. As Soviet dictator Josef Stalin once remarked in a sentiment George Soros holds dear, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.
Obama suffers amnesia blaming Bush for economy Oweblamer
Democrats pumped subprime mortgage market, triggering banking collapse
(Dr. Jerome Corsi) - In the current narrative presented by Democratic Party operatives, the banking industry collapse of September 2008 was caused by tax cuts under George W. Bush and supply-side economics tracing back to the era of Ronald Reagan. The narrative, however, ignores the personal responsibility Barack Obama and Democratic Party operatives played in creating the subprime mortgage market, beginning with the passage of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
The 2008 banking collapse was triggered by a series of failures in the mortgage-backed securities market resulting from massive defaults in the subprime mortgage market and derivatives supporting the mortgage market that caused Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns to go bankrupt. Financial giants such as Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Merrill Lynch and AIG threatened to follow suit, as detailed by the Guardian of London. As WND reported in May 2009, Obama himself played a role as an activist lawyer in Chicago, representing ACORN in the 1994 case Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings Bank. In the case, ACORN pressed Citibank to make more loans to marginally qualified African-American applicants “in a race neutral way.” ACORN Housing, then a nationwide organization with offices in more than 30 cities, used the Citibank litigation to push the group’s radical agenda to get subprime homebuyers mortgages under the most favorable terms available. The CRA was super-charged during the Clinton administration with a set of new rules that allowed subprime mortgages to be securitized.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, in a speech to the Community Affairs Research Conference in Washington, D.C., on March 30, 2007, noted a 1992 law passed during the Clinton administration expanded the CRA market by requiring the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize “affordable housing loans,” a euphemism widely understood to mean low-income housing loans. Clinton expands subprime mortgage market. Securitization of mortgages into bonds, a process that became a multi-trillion-dollar business in the 1990s, increased dramatically the liquidity, or amount of money available, to make new home loans. Because mortgage originators could sell their mortgages to investment bankers, creating mortgage-backed securities, mortgage originators did not have to hold the mortgage in their portfolio. As a result, mortgage lenders could more easily engage in riskier lending, including lending to less qualified buyers in the subprime market. By allowing CRA-generated and other subprime mortgages to be included in mortgage-backed securities, the Clinton administration advanced a social agenda to extend homeownership into inner-city poverty, where prospective homeowners were typically not qualified to obtain a mortgage. By definition, subprime lenders are not credit-worthy under normal lending standards. They typically cannot meet normal lending requirements to verify income and have a history of credit problems. Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner, in their 2011 book “Reckless Endangerment,” detailed how the subprime mortgage crisis resulted in the collapse of financial institutions in September 2008. The authors demonstrated, as noted on page 3 of the book, how Clinton’s “calamitous” homeownership strategy developed and “came to blow up the economy.” The authors calls it a “story of greed, good intentions, corporate corruption and government support.” In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover of Fannie and Freddie, attention focused on three prominent Democrats who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin D. Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general. All three prominent Democrats earned millions in questionable compensation while serving as top Fannie Mae executives.
There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology. You can run against his record or you can run against his ideas.
The stewardship case is pretty straightforward: the worst recovery in U.S. history, 42 consecutive months of 8%-plus unemployment, declining economic growth — all achieved at a price of another $5 trillion of accumulated debt.
The ideological case is also simple. Just play in toto (and therefore in context) Obama's Roanoke riff telling small business owners: "You didn't build that." Real credit for your success belongs not to you — you think you did well because of your smarts and sweat? he asked mockingly — but to government that built the infrastructure without which you would have nothing. Play it. Then ask: Is that the governing philosophy you want for this nation?
Obama's ideology — and the program that followed — explains the failure of these four years.
What program? Obama laid it out boldly early in his presidency. The roots of the nation's crisis, he declared, were systemic. Fundamental change was required. He had come to deliver it. Hence his signature legislation:
First, the $831 billion stimulus that was going to "reinvest" in America and bring unemployment below 6%.
We know about the unemployment. And the investment? Obama loves to cite great federal projects such as the Hoover Dam and the interstate highway system. Fine. Name one thing of any note created by Obama's Niagara of borrowed money.A modernized electric grid? Ports dredged to receive the larger ships soon to traverse a widened Panama Canal? Nothing of the sort. Solyndra, anyone?
Second, radical reform of health care that would reduce its ruinously accelerating cost: "Put simply," he said, "our health care problem is our deficit problem" — a financial hemorrhage drowning us in debt.
Except that the CBO reports that ObamaCare will cost $1.68 trillion of new spending in its first decade. To say nothing of the price of the uncertainty introduced by an impossibly complex remaking of one-sixth of the economy — discouraging hiring and expansion as trillions of investable private-sector dollars remain sidelined.
The third part of Obama's promised transformation was energy. His cap-and-trade federal takeover was rejected by his own Democratic Senate. So the war on fossil fuels has been conducted unilaterally by bureaucratic fiat:
Regulations that will kill coal. A no-brainer pipeline (Keystone) rejected lest Canadian oil sands be burned. (China will burn them instead.) A drilling moratorium in the Gulf that a federal judge severely criticized as illegal.
That was the program — now so unpopular that Obama barely mentions it. ObamaCare got exactly two lines in this year's State of the Union address. Seen any ads touting the stimulus? The drilling moratorium? Keystone?
How does Obama intend to pay for our cradle-to-grave welfare state? Why, by charging the dastardly "millionaires and billionaires" who "can afford to pay a little bit more." No more extending the Bush-era tax rates for the rich. To do so, Obama tells us, would "cost" $700 billion -- over 10 years. So this "break" for the rich "costs" $70 billion a year -- or a mere 6 percent of the trillion dollar annual deficits that Obama has rung up since he became president.
This leaves us short about $930 billion per year -- just for the annual deficit, never mind paring down the ever-growing national debt. From where is the shortfall to be made up?
In 1900, government spending at all three levels -- local, state and federal -- amounted to about 10 percent of national income. Government spending today amounts to 40 percent -- or 50 percent, if one places a dollar value on the unfunded mandates imposed on states and businesses by Washington. The voters re-elected a President who increased the national debt faster and by a greater amount than any previous administration. And there are simply not enough rich folks to pay for it.
Obama, on Nov. 6, won the political argument to continue to expand government. But the election did nothing to change "the math." Memo to the middle class: Get ready, you're next.
More MEDIA BIAS: Public Television touted the Bill Clinton documentary as a long-awaited warts-and-all piece. USA Today called the two-parter a "solid and even-handed account ... of a remarkably skillful politician with an immense intellect." While calling it "tedious and predictable," the Washington Post described the documentary as "honest."
Clinton entered office in January 1993. According to the NBER, did he inherit a recession? Not even close. The recession began in July 1990 and ended eight months later, in March 1991 — a full 19 months before Clinton was even elected.
"In the winter of 1993 ... the economic crisis . .. showed few signs of abating"? Jan. 29, 1993, seven days after Clinton took office, the New York Times wrote, "U.S. Says Economy Grew at Fast Pace in Fourth Quarter: The economy grew at a faster-than-expected annual rate of 3.8% in the final quarter of 1992, the strongest performance in four years, the Commerce Department reported today."
The confusion is understandable. Many in the media suffer from CRAP — Clinton Recession Amnesia Problem. CRAP spares few victims. as Investor's Business Daily noted, 90% of the newspaper stories on the economy were negative. Who could that help get elected??? Yet the following month, when Clinton defeated Bush 41, suddenly only 14% of economic news stories were negative!??
http://news.investors.com/article/602711/201202291817/recovery-no-panacea-for-obama-re-election.htm?Ntt=tide-doesnt-raise-all-boats In 1988, Bush won with 53.4% of the popular vote and 426 electoral votes. Two decades later, Obama won by thinner margins — 52.5% of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes. Abroad, Bush's presidency was marked by enormous success: the collapse of the USSR, the end of the Cold War and an almost flawless victory in the Persian Gulf War. So stratospherically popular, big-name Democrats refused to challenge him.
Compared with Bush's robust election-year recovery, the Congressional Budget Office's latest projection has economic growth at less than 3% this year. Bush's highest unemployment rate was 7.8%; Obama's lowest has been 7.8% — in February 2009.
In sum, Bush won the presidency by a bigger margin, had greater global success, suffered a less severe recession and smaller deficits, and enjoyed a stronger and faster economic recovery. And he still lost re-election — with 37.5% of the popular vote and 168 electoral votes. Unlike Bush 41, Obama has not alienated his political base. Pressured by Democrats, Bush accepted higher taxes — breaking his 1988 "no new taxes" pledge in a deficit-reduction deal. The result was an irreparable fissure into which stepped third party candidate Ross Perot.
Bush 41 proved it was the political factor that was determinative — not the economy or the deficit. Had Bush 41 received just half of Perot's votes, he would have won resoundingly. With all of them, he would have won in a landslide — with Clinton only remembered for the magnitude of his defeat. And into the White House stepped Bill Clinton, with just 43% of the popular vote — substantially lower than McCain's 46.5% in 2008.
Obama wants to expand government into every corner of our lives, and make as many Americans dependent on it as possible. Obama really is the Best Food Stamp President…
That's true of ObamaCare, his crony capitalist policies, his tax policies. But it's nowhere more true than when it comes to food stamps. Food stamp enrollment climbed an average 153,000 a month under Bush. Under Obama, it's climbed an average 403,000 a month.
• As of last December, there were 46.5 million on food stamps. That's 65% higher than at any time in the past four decades.
• Today, 14.8% of Americans get food stamps. That's also a record-shattering number. In Bush's last year, the figure was 9.3%.
• Obama's Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack even claimed that all this food stamp spending was accelerating economic growth. "It's the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times," he said last August.
How long do politicians have to keep on promising heaven and delivering hell before people catch on, and stop getting swept away by rhetoric?
With all the talk about people paying their "fair share" of income taxes, why do nearly half the people in this country pay no income taxes at all? Is that their "fair share"? Or is creating more recipients of government handouts, at no cost to themselves, simply a strategy to gain more votes?
Some people are puzzled by the fact that so much that is said and done by politicians seems remote from reality. But reality is not what gets politicians elected. Appearances, rhetoric and emotions are what get them elected. Reality is what the voters and taxpayers are left to deal with, as a result of electing them.
When politicians say "spread the wealth," translate that as "concentrate the power," because that is the only way they can spread the wealth. And once they get the power concentrated, they can do anything else they want to, as people have discovered — often to their horror — in countries around the world.
If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore's new book, "Who's The Fairest of Them All?", Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide. Since "Who's The Fairest of Them All?" was published in October, there was little chance that it would affect this year's election.
But this little gem of a book exposes, in plain language and with easily understood facts, the whole house of cards of assumptions, fallacies and falsehoods which constitute the liberal vision of the economy.
Yet that vision triumphed on election day, thanks to misinformation that was artfully presented and seldom challenged.
If you want a brief but thorough education on that, just read Chapter 4, which by itself is well worth the price of the book. A couple of graphs on Pages 104 and 108 are enough to annihilate the argument about "tax cuts for the rich."
These graphs show that, under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before. There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or is shipped overseas.
At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output and rising incomes. Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower. Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions. It is what hard evidence shows happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, from the days of Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
A quick overview of the law's shortcomings is a stark reminder of the dangers of legislating in haste:
Codifies Too-Big-to-Fail. Rather than eliminating the market's expectation that certain big financial firms are too big to fail, Dodd-Frank creates an explicit set of too-big-to-fail entities—those selected by the Financial Stability Oversight Council for special regulation by the Fed.
Threatens Small Businesses. Dodd-Frank's complex web of regulations favors large financial firms that can afford the lawyers to analyze them. New requirements will be disproportionately costly for small banks and small credit rating agencies. Dodd-Frank's complex derivatives rules will further concentrate an already concentrated industry.
Hurts Retail Investors. Dodd-Frank gives the Securities and Exchange Commission a new set of responsibilities that distracts it from its core mission. New rules impose costs on nonfinancial companies that will be passed on to investors and consumers. Commission resources will be diverted to protecting the wealthiest investors.
Consumer "Protections" Harm Consumers. The consumer financial products regulator established by Dodd-Frank, rather than helping consumers, threatens to raise the prices consumers pay and limit the products, services, and providers available to help them achieve their financial objectives. Various rules, such as price controls on banks' debit charge fees to merchants, are likely to increase bank fees for consumers and drive low-income customers away from basic banking services.
Sows the Seeds for the Next Financial Crisis. Dodd-Frank forces complex derivatives into clearinghouses. These entities will be large, difficult to manage safely, and very deeply connected with the rest of the financial markets. If one of these clearinghouses runs into trouble, the economic ramifications could be massive, which means the government will be tempted to engineer a bailout.
Creates New Unaccountable Bureaucracies. Dodd-Frank establishes several new bureaucracies, including consumer protection, data management, and stability oversight agencies that operate with limited transparency and little accountability to the American people.
More Power for Failed Regulators. Despite their past regulatory failures, Dodd-Frank gives the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Fed broad new regulatory powers.
Unchecked Government Power to Seize Firms. Dodd-Frank allows the government to sidestep bankruptcy and instead seize and liquidate companies. Vague criteria define which companies may be seized, and there is limited judicial oversight of the whole process. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation might use the process to prop up failing firms and to favor particular creditors.
Interferes With Basic Market Functions. The Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks from engaging in proprietary trading and limits their investments in hedge funds and other private funds, is proving to be difficult to implement. It will be more difficult to comply with and will interfere with the functioning of the market.
Replaces Market Monitoring with Regulatory Monitoring. Dodd-Frank relies on the hope that regulators that failed before and during the last crisis will be able to spot problems in the future. For example, Dodd-Frank gives broad new systemic risk oversight responsibilities to the Fed and the Financial Stability Oversight Council. It also raises the deposit insurance cap to $250,000, which will discourage large depositors from monitoring banks and correspondingly increase the likelihood of regulatory intervention.
Former Gen. Georges Sada, who served as No. 2 in the Iraqi Air Force under Saddam Hussein before he defected, wrote a comprehensive book in 2006 titled "Saddam's Secrets." It detailed how the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein's WMD threat by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed. Sada, who was appointed as national security adviser by interim leader Iyad Allawi and who was privy to many state secrets, described the transport of the deadly weapons in an interview with the New York Sun shortly after the book was published and said the weapons were received in Syria by a cousin of none other than President Assad "who is known variously as General Abu Ali, Abu Himma, or Zulhimawe." Sada counted 56 flights in all. "Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes ... including 'yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel.' The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks," Sada stated. An article in the fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that on Israel's Channel 2 on Dec. 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, stated, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." Three months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, Israeli intelligence detected Iraq moving large amounts of military material into Syria, material that could have included Saddam's WMD. Moshe Yaalon, who was Israel's top general at the time, has said Iraq transported WMD to Syria six weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom began. Of course, Syria has long had a chemical weapons program of its own, making it easy to accept any WMD stocks Iraq had to offer and hide them among its existing inventory.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/567268/201103251856/Editorial-Obama-Doctrine-Is-All-Bark-No-Bite.aspx Obama, who as a former Illinois state senator voted "present" more than a hundred times, said in 2007 as an unaccomplished freshman U.S. senator that America should not unilaterally and without congressional consultation and approval engage in military action when the U.S. is not directly threatened, is doing just that in Libya. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/567121/201103241838/Stealth-And-Trade.aspx As John Merline reported in IBD way back in 1997, from 1990 to 1995 the EPA gave the American Lung Association some $5 million. JunkScience.com reports that the EPA has given the ALA an additional $20 million the past decade. In return, the ALA is putting up billboards in opposition to reining in an EPA http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/567396/201103281859/Foxed-In.aspx Media Matters, which uses millions in Soros cash to attack nonliberal press organizationshttp://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/527639/201003171843/De-Fence-De-Fence.aspx The two-tier fence in San Diego runs 14 miles along the border with Tijuana. The first layer is a high steel fence, with an inner, high, anti-climb fence with a no-man's land in between. It has been amazingly effective. According to a 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, illegal alien apprehensions in the San Diego sector dropped from 202,000 in 1992 to 9,000 in 2004. Cameras and sensors played a part, but the emphasis was on physical barriers and roads that were patrolled by real live border guards, not robots. Then in 2006 the Democrats took back Congress and, in 2008, the White House. Former border state Gov. Napolitano reportedly once said: "You show me a 50-foot fence, and I'll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Drew Westen is a professor of psychology at Emory University and the author ( A committed liberal writing in the liberal & Obama defending New York Times has an astounding revelation that now may become common knowledge and accepted truth for even the most hardcore Democrat and voters alike. ) Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what Barack Obama — and by extension the party he leads — believes on virtually any issue. As a practicing psychologist with more than 25 years of experience, I will resist the temptation to diagnose at a distance, but as a scientist and strategic consultant I will venture some hypotheses. The most charitable explanation is that he and his advisers have succumbed to a view of electoral success to which many Democrats succumb — that “centrist” voters like “centrist” politicians. Unfortunately, reality is more complicated. Centrist voters prefer honest politicians who help them solve their problems. A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he (Obama) had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.
Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) writes, “Startling evidence suggests that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation”:
JPFO has hard evidence that shows that the Nazi Weapons Law (March 18, 1938) is the source of the U.S Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA ’68). Adolph Hitler signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The Gestapo (Nazi National Secret Police) enforced it. In “Gun Control”: Gateway to Tyranny we present the official German text of the Nazi Weapons Law and a side-by-side translation into English. Even more deadly: a side-by-side, section-by-section comparison of the GCA ’68 with the Nazi Weapons Law. . . .The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb “gang activity,” violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? “Gun control” did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed. The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not “reliable.” Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them. In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other “reliable” people.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million. Check out our latest video: The State is My Shepherd, I Shall Not Want.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4425-a-fabian-socialist-dream-come-true.html In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book "The Road We Are Traveling" spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind; the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2008 America. It should be evident that while Socialist no longer use the name that the plan is Socialism at its heart.
1. Strong, centralized government.
2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial.
3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange.
4. Government control over employment.
5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions.
6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs.
7. Access to unlimited government borrowing.
8. A managed monetary system.
9. Government control over foreign trade.
10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.
11. Government regulation of labor.
12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.
13. Heavy progressive taxation.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fearing abuses of rights and the restoration of the Roman Catholic Church under the Catholic King James II (reigned 1685–1688), the English parliament deposed James. They invited his Protestant daughter and son-in-law to assume the throne, but imposed the 1689 Declaration of Rights on the King William III (reigned 1689–1702) and Queen Mary II (reigned 1689–1694) as a precondition to being crowned. However, Parliament was more concerned with protecting its own rights and privileges than those of individuals.
That as Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our divine and omnipotent Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be governed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence; and therefore that all Men shou'd enjoy the fullest Toleration in the Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the Magistrate, unless, under Colour of Religion, any Man disturb the Peace, the Happiness, or Safety of Society, or of Individuals. And that it is the mutual Duty of all, to practice Christian Forbearance, Love, and Charity towards Each other.
Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner or on any pretext infringed."
An armed citizenry was seen as a bulwark against tyranny. Moreover, Americans undoubtedly were familiar with British efforts to restrict gun ownership in England, Scotland, and particularly Ireland. Where did this idea come from? »
Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: . . . "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html Thomas Jefferson was a man of deep religious conviction — his conviction was that religion was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
http://churchstatelaw.com/historicalmaterials/8_8_5.asp Jefferson was writing to a Baptist Association who firmly believed in church autonomy. The ideas which lead to this oft-cited phrase came from a sermon given by Baptist Roger Williams, entitled "The Garden in the Wilderness," in which Williams explains that the purpose of civil government is to allow religion to flourish, not to be regulated. Thus, Jefferson's use of the phrase "a wall of separation" was an idiom with a particular meaning to the Baptists to whom the letter was addressed.
The "wall of separation" referred to limitations on federal power. In fact, the "act of the whole American people" is the ratification of the First Amendment. At the time of this letter, the Establishment Clause only applied to the federal government. The First Amendment did not create a wall of separation in any state jurisdiction. In fact, the Supreme Court in Everson correctly points out that many states continued various activities for nearly 50 years after the ratification of the First Amendment that would clearly have violated it had it applied to state actions. However, the Supreme Court incorrectly assumes that because the First Amendment now applies to the states, Jefferson's comments in this letter must also be read as if applicable to the states as well. This is inaccurate history. Thus, the Court's interpretation that Jefferson's "separation" statement was intended for the whole federal and state political system is misleading.
In addition, even if the "wall of separation" were meant to be applied to the states, what exactly did Jefferson mean? The Court suggests the phrase is absolute. According to the Court, "that wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve of the slightest breach." Everson, 330 U.S. at 18. Jefferson's actions as President of the United States are important guidelines in understanding what he meant by the "wall of separation." In 1803, one year after the Danbury letter, Jefferson made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, wherein he pledged money to build them a Roman Catholic Church and to support their priests — all from federal funds. Jefferson apparently saw no conflict between asking Congress to implement the treaty's provisions by appropriating funds, and the prohibition that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . ." In addition, Jefferson signed three extensions of "An act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen." This act granted free of charge titles to sections of land to the United Brethren. In addition to holding the land in trust for Indians who were already Christians, the United Brethren used resources derived from cultivating and leasing the land to send out missionaries to proselyte among the non-Christian Indians. Once again, had Jefferson been an absolutist, as the Everson Court suggests, he would have vetoed not one, but all three extensions of this act. Thus, the Danbury letter is significant because when taken out of context, it provides the foundation for an absolute separation of church and state. Not only was Jefferson referring to the federal government, but his activities while in office also indicate that he was not an absolutist.
Attacking the Electoral College is a favorite past time of liberal Democrats, so why are Republicans carrying their banner? They will try to baffle you with statistics, while telling you how this will bring candidates out of the urban centers and into the rural areas. When politicians tell you things, ask yourself: “how do they benefit if I believe it?” If their claims were true, the Democrats and the unions would be fighting this tooth and nail. Why then, are the Democrats on board with this?
It's because they know this will move us closer to a true democracy, where majority rules and can strip the rights from the minority with a simple vote. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself." This is very similar to the 17th Amendment, which established direct elections of United States Senators by popular vote. It is one step further from a republic and closer to a democracy. The 17th Amendment neutered states' rights and destroyed the balance of power between states and the federal government. You can certainly see where that got us: a federal government that walks all over the states.
Copyright © 2018 obama legacy - All Rights Reserved.