You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘congress’ tag.
Just recently RAND Corporation, a research arm of the U. S. military, released a study titled A Stability Police Force For The United States: Justification And Creating U. S. Capabilities. In this research RAND concluded that this new force would be a hybrid between law enforcement and military. They would create this new force from within the U. S Marshal Service. Their role in the Marshal Service would be as stated in the study, “in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and investigations of organized criminal groups”. In the RAND study the size of the unit would be relatively small somewhere around the range of two-6,000 personnel. Yet after further reading the study we find out that this new unit could, as in their words, “could be increased by augmenting it with additional federal, state, or local police from the United States”. Wow, talk about big brother getting even bigger.
The powers that would be given to the Federal government, if this study were to become reality, would be overwhelming and unconstitutional. It is my understanding that for the most part of our country’s history (at least until President Theodore Roosevelt Supreme Court corrupted a time long understanding of State rights over Federal rights) as stated in Wikipedia, “…. Congress has limited powers granted in the Constitution, the Federal government does not have a general police power, as the states do. The exceptions are laws regarding Federal property and the military. On the other hand, Congress was granted by the New Deal Court a broad quasi-police authority from its power to regulate interstate commerce and raise and spend revenue.” So much for the 10th Amendment which basically guarantees the powers that were not granted to the federal government were therefore given to the states. Establishing a police force was never granted to the Federal Government. That power was considered best to be given to states and their local officials. In September 17, 1997 Congressman Ron Paul stated in his speech to the House Speaker in the House of Representatives in Congress over the recent broadening powers given to the Federal Government that,” Under the constitution, there was never meant to be a Federal police force. Even an FBI limited only to investigations was not accepted until this century.” It was the intentions of our founders to limit the power of government to create a more free society.
What, if anything, does the government or the Obama Administration, hope to achieve in creating such a powerful police? One can only be reminded about what Germany did before World War II. Tell me if this does not give you a moment of pause. First, in order to get Germany out of a financial depression, Hitler quickly past legislation that gave his government power to take over the banking system. Next, Hitler lead the government to take over most of Germany’s industrial industries in hopes to lessen the unemployment rate. Last, but not least, Hitler took over all police powers in the country and created the Gestapo. By doing this Hitler guaranteed his grasp over his country and the Nazi Party began its long, but failed, crusade in taking over the world. I hope that history does not repeat itself since it does cause quite a mess.
Articles:
RAND Corporation Blueprint for Militarized “Stability Police Force”
A Federal Police Force Is Unconstitutional
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_18s11.html
District 22 Congressional candidate Lieutenant Colonel West is on fire! His conviction, beliefs, and lack of teleprompter are quite impressive and inspirational. I wish he was more publicly recognized during the 2008 elections and that we could have more candidates like him.
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. – Ben Franklin
There are many types of people who we come across throughout life, most of those to my good fortune have been hard-working, good-natured individuals that are bent on doing right and making an honest living. But on occasion, especially in the recent years, I have met some who are perfectly happy living off of others, or as I use to know it, being freeloaders. I have heard many times over, “Why go get a job when welfare pays more?” Or, “I’m not going to look for a job until my unemployment is almost up because it pays better.” And of course other similar remarks have come about too.
This seems to be an epidemic in our country now. Gone is the “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” attitude. It has been replaced with the notion that the government owes you something, if not everything. That you are somehow entitled to things you have never even worked for or tried to achieve. We have become a nation of many who are far too dependent on government for their needs and too selfish to care about the freedoms they give up in place of an easy mediocre life. And so, when big government rears its head as “help” and “hope” they immediately leap onto the train without a thought as to where is it’s true destination.
Once again, as we have seen numerous times in the previous months, Washington is seeking to expand what it seems to be a generous arm to help the people by extending unemployment benefits by up to 20 weeks and also extending the home buyer tax credit. In a 98-0 vote, the Senate passed the $24 billion Worker, Homeownership and Business Assistance Act of 2009 plunging our nation further into unnecessary and unprecedented debt. Will this help the issue with job loss? No, it will only pay those who are unmotivated to stay that way for 20 more weeks at the expense of the taxpayers who are still working. Will it help the economy? No, it will make those who are working hold on to their money that much more knowing that tax increase is inevitable to pay for the multiple bailouts backed by insufficient funds.
All the while it may help few that really are trying desperately to find a job, but it is increasing national debt, enabling freeloaders, and allowing more government control of business. What is needed right now is less spending and less government to get America back on track. This is a bipartisan step in the wrong direction. And with the Obama administration crushing American’s faith in capitalism, ruining the U.S. dollar, implementing unnecessary programs, and pushing to pass more government take over, you can bet that the dependency on the government will only grow at an accelerated pace. It is ironic that those who are in majority at Washington right now are called Progressives because we as a country are clearly regressing. We are moving away from a free society and towards socialism.
Half of US kids will get food stamps, study says.
Pay attention to the response of the people being interviewed in line for stimulus money in this video.
With the Copenhagen convention just six weeks away and the signing of a historically catastrophic treaty looming in the future, the White House is taking no breaks in working on climate bills that compliment the goals of the Climate Change Treaty. The Senate and Obama administration are wanting to modernize the electrical grids, shift away from oil and coal, and work towards cutting America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20% over 2005 levels by 2020 and encourage the development of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power. Which will of course lead to a horrible economic hardship for America in itself. All in the name of a cause that doesn’t exist. And in the foot steps of a treaty that is focused on bringing about a new world government.
There has been talk of President Obama not attending the Copenhagen convention this December because he has his Nobel peace prize to accept. However, it is in the same vicinity and with the administration working so hard on bills that parallel the treaty itself I find it hard to believe that the President won’t be making a visit after his grand acceptance speech. After all, as a Nobel peace prize recipient, he has a duty to be part of the big Climate Change convention that will change the world forever.
Sources:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/27/obama-administration-environment-climate-change
https://unconstrainedtruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/climate-change-treaty-to-be-signed-to-compromise-us-sovereignty/ (My overview of the Copenhagen convention and Climate Change treaty)
And here is an eye opening article about the “criteria for success” in Copenhagen according to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who stated, “We need to step back from narrow national interest and engage in frank and constructive discussion in a spirit of global common cause.”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32721&Cr=climate+change&Cr1=
It is really getting old seeing the media, the Democrats, and even President Obama claim that the Republican party and Independent party have provided no alternative bills to health care. This could not be further from the truth. The parties other than Democrats have offered numerous bills and amendments only to have them left in committee or scrapped altogether because it does not follow the President’s and the Democrat’s agenda.
President Obama has not met with any GOP members since April of this year and has not looked at any legislation presented by GOP members at all. And he doesn’t intend to either. The reason I say this is because he makes this clear in the executive order he signed on April 8, 2009 which created the White House Office of Health Reform. In this document it states that one of this departments functions is to “integrate the President’s policy agenda concerning health reform across the Federal Government.” This tells me, that he had a concrete vision of what he wants included in health reform and wants it to be spread throughout the Federal Government to support that agenda. So why would he entertain any other ideas? He wouldn’t, he hasn’t, and he is not going to do so in the future. The speeches of how Obama wants bipartisanship is all for show and are completely empty.
On national television Obama has spoken lies saying that he would listen and embrace alternative solutions to the health care bill presented by Democrats, along with the claims of receiving nothing. Yet there have been over 800 amendments to health care presented by the GOP and 40 actual BILLS to health care.
How is it that the liberal media is just all out ignoring this? We have the ability to look on the government websites and investigate for ourselves what is being offered in our House and Senate. Yet, most of America seems to be content with just sitting on the couch and listening to the basic evening news tell them what is going on without even a thought of questioning their sources. Well, here is the hard work done for the most part for anyone who does not think that the “other side” is contributing to health care reform; you can find the bills here, click on “Read the RSC Proposals For Health Care Reform” to download the Microsoft Word document.
Millions of Americans do not want government run health care, and for a good reason. Talk to those already on state run health care or families in the military, there is nothing but a long list of complaints. This is what we would have to look forward to with the Democrats plan along with more taxes, more economic burdens, financial collapse, and much more. This includes insuring illegal immigrants, don’t believe it? Obama himself promised while visiting Mexico not long ago that he would push for amnesty, which would make illegals, illegal no more. For more information see my other posts on health care here.
Sources:
http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-8572.pdf
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14658
integrate the President’s policy agenda concerning health reform across
the Federal Government
With such a heavy focus on health care, the nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea, and the supposed severity of the H1N1 virus, there have been legislation bills slipped into the Senate and House with few taking notice in the media. Gun rights advocates, however, have kept a watchful eye on these bills and have been getting word out about the propositions at hand.
The more well known of the bills right now is H.R. 45, which not only would make it illegal to own a firearm if you do not provide a driver’s license and Social Security number, but also would require you to provide fingerprints to own a gun. In addition, H.R. 45 would demand that before purchasing a firearm you would have to submit to a physical and mental evaluation. This piece of legislation would expect guns be secured from access by children under age 18, and would empower law enforcement officers to come into your home to make sure that you are complying with the requirements.
Now, the less publicized gun control legislation that has been slipped under the radar is called S 1317. This would allow the attorney general the right to stop gun sales to anyone on the terror watch lists. Doesn’t sound too bad, huh? But wait, there is also H.R. 2647 that contains a companion clause to S 1317 that gives the attorney general the authority to determine who belongs on terrorist watch lists.
This would not be so alarming a few years back, but now the definition of a terrorist in the eyes of the Obama administration is much different than that of the Bush administration. It isn’t the Taliban, or car bombing extremists alone, no, it also includes what many believe to be patriots. Or, as has been said, right wingers, conservatives, anti-abortionists, religious “nuts”, gun rights advocates, those who oppose Obamacare, and more. Those who stand by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the law of the land are, in the new administration’s eyes, more dangerous than those mass murders that we have been fighting over seas for the last 7+ years.
Those of us who are “terrorists” in these times are in good company though. George Washington and the patriots known as the Sons of Liberty were viewed by Britain as rebels, or what patriots are being called today, terrorists. Had it not been for this organization, the United States of America, would likely remained under Britain’s tyrannical rule.
So, as history shows, it takes those willing to stand up for their rights to move a country in a good direction and to maintain freedom. Make sure your state’s representatives in the House and Senate know that you will not tolerate these gun restriction bills to be passed in any way, shape, or form. That if they support these pieces of legislation, that they will not be voted back into office.
Sources:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1317
This unofficial “czar” is one busy little bee since being approved to his office of administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Cass Sunstein has now drafted what is the equivalent to a new Fairness Doctrine. World Net Daily explains this “First Amendment New Deal”, “would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.” As we all know, the only lack in diversity exists on the side of the mainstream media not presenting any news that may conflict with the liberal or progressive agenda. So, this would undoubtedly be focused on what has been come to be known as conservative media.
But it is so far well disguised. Sunstein even has previously said, “It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech.” It is my opinion, that any restraints on media would prohibit the notion of free speech completely.
Given the wording of some of these documents like the Fairness Doctrine, and what Sunstein is calling his First Amendment New Deal, it can be misleading as to whether or not it would water down the information we are able to receive through the networks. One of the regulations, as reported by World Net Daily, says that “purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”
With Cass Sunstein’s radical past I find it hard to believe that all the regulations contained in the “First Amendment New Deal” is as meaningless as the one previously mentioned. I will be on the lookout for the remainder of the document so that I can see what else Mr. Sunstein has in store for our freedoms.
Resource:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109969
Marie
Matthew
Unconstrained Truth 