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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power

Advertisements

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.

dependence

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

http://www.prisonplanet.com/prominent-russian-scientist-we-should-fear-a-deep-temperature-drop-not-catastrophic-global-warming.html

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=

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff, said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” I would have to say that President Obama, Democrats, and now one Rhino are certainly making sure they slip in every dirty little thing possible during the economic down turn of America. Way to take advantage of that crisis! The Democrats are now chomping at the bit to pass their health tax, er I mean, care reform bill as a bipartisan legislation now that as of today Rhino Republican, Sen. Olympia Snowe, said that she will vote for the legislation. This will make her the one and only Republican to support the Democrat’s proposal. Not really surprising as she only voted conservative 12% of the time in 2008.

This health care bill is just as much a load of filth as the other democrat propositions. It is, of course, government controlled, but the best part is that we will get to start paying for it as soon as President Obama signs even though it would not be fully implemented until the year 2013. This is cleverly disguised as a huge tax on private insurance companies. And it doesn’t require guineas to know this would make health insurance prices sky rocket even further, so in essence it is a hidden tax on everyone. The bill would also require those who are currently uninsured to purchase insurance.

On Fox News it was reported that, “The accounting firm study projects the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions in the bill would be in effect.” And also, “Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis concluded in the study commissioned by the insurance group.” Unfortunately, what those just starting out have to look forward to according to this study reported by Fox News is, “The study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.”

In the long run, by 2013 it will be so costly to have private insurance with this bill that those who are not among the wealthy would be forced to go with the government insurance. And for the people who can not pay for their government insurance, this will be a heavy burden on the country’s finances.  As stated on NewsMax.com,

“Expanding coverage to the uninsured is likely to lead to more health care spending, Elmendorf said. But other provisions, such as a tax on high-premium health care plans, could push spending down. “We simply have not done the analysis to net that out,” he said.”

With talk of a second “stimulus package”, the weakening of the dollar as a world currency,  and the irresponsibile aspirations of government health care, you can almost guarantee the deeper economic decline in the US. I am no mathematician, but I do know you can not spend your way out of dept,  sooner or later you will have to pay that which you owe. Unfortunately, that burden will primarily be on our future generations.  I also know you can’t bleed people dry with taxes when they are already suffering from rising costs of living. It is a recipe for disaster. Not to mention the penalties for not having insurance as I have reported on in my post titled, “Obama’s Promise For No New Taxes Was A Lie.” However, they claim they have made this portion of the bill “better” by exempting more people and lowering penalties for those who don’t comply with the requirement to purchase insurance. But isn’t this America? Shouldn’t we be free to purchase or not purchase insurance according to our desire? We are throwing away our freedoms little by little and giving them to the government to allow our country to turn more and more toward socialism and communism. This government dependence is creating an erosion of the American dream. And you can bet that the health tax (care) bill will only be the beginning.

UPDATE 2:54pm ET: Senate Finance Committee Vote 14-9, Snowe voted Yes.

If you live in Maine, I would be contacting Sen. Snowe. Here’s her info:

Phone: (202) 224-5344
Toll Free: (800) 432-1599
Fax: (202) 224-1946

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/13/health-care-reform-heads-key-vote/

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/healthcare_bill_senate/2009/10/13/271589.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125538009602681039.html

The new White House czars brought in by President Obama has been a hot topic the past several months. After all, Obama has brought in more czars in his thus far short presidency than President George W. Bush had in his entire 8 years, and the same goes for all the other past presidents as well. The term czar is not an official job related term in Washington, however it is what the White House uses to refer to those who are not voted on to be put into a government position.

The question from conservative news and talk radio icons along with the general public has been whether or not these czars are being put into place to create policy without the obligation to submit to congressional questioning. This is especially a troubling thought being as the mass majority of the people who are in these positions have disturbing past and current beliefs that are quite contrary to what most of the people of the US believe to be good for the country.

Given the rise in demand for answers to why so many czars are becoming part of the Obama Cabinet, the House and Senate became quickly aware of the way the people felt about the situation and started voicing their own concerns. This lead to the proposition of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing to explore the powers given to these White House officials which was regrettably shrugged off by the Obama Administration.

Of course, the majority of the one’s questioning the power and amount of authority given to the czars came from the GOP, which as always were mocked and unsupported. However, liberal Democrat senator Russell Feingold was the most out spoken of the Democrats about the role of the White House czars and was the one who called for the hearing. Unhappy with the answers from Obama so far, Feingold said, “It’s not good enough to simply say, ‘Well, George Bush did it too.” One would have thought, that since he is a liberal Democrat, that the Administration would have at least entertained his request.

After ignoring the hearing and refusing to even send a witness, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters, “”I would assume that Congress and Senator Feingold have more weighty topics to grapple with than — than something like this.” You know, really important stuff, kind of like that time they spent the ENTIRE day deciding how to punish Joe Wilson. This raises eyebrows even more as to the legality of the positions and authority that has been given in these government positions known as “czars.”

When Russell Feingold was asked how he felt about the White House decision about the hearing, he stated, “That’s unfortunate. It’s also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the executive branch.”

What is the Obama Administration hiding with their many White House czars? And to what extent can they create policy without congressional approval? Evidently, that is something that President Obama does not want us to find out.

Sources:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/06/white-house-shrugs-off-feingolds-czar-hearings/

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_obama_czars/2009/10/06/269206.html

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

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2009/10/03/jindal_says_republicans_should_offer_own_health_plan/

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

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2647

http://www.personalliberty.com/freedom-concerns/legislation-still-under-the-radar-would-devastate-u-s-gun-ownership-rights/

As if there were not enough reasons to oppose Obamacare in the first place, here comes yet another. Although President Obama openly denied it, the health care reform bill that is in proposition at this time would impose harsh taxes on those in all income brackets. But wait, didn’t Obama PROMISE no new taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.00 a year?

Well, if passed, the health care bill would require that EVERYONE either purchases health care coverage or face, what is to most, large fines for not doing so. In fact, in the Senate finance version of the health care bill, those who choose not to purchase health care insurance would have to pay up to $1900.00 in fines per year! Of course, they see this as additional revenue coming in at an estimate of up to $20 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

When President Obama was confronted about this on ABC’s “This Week” by George Stephanopoulos who suggested that fines levied for not complying with the mandate are a tax, he denied that it was any form of taxes. However, this is a lie, because it is even in the House and Senate written as a form of “taxes”.  As stated in NewsMax.com:

“One strong indicator: The mandate would become part of the Internal Revenue Code. Failing to pay the penalty would result in a misdemeanor crime punishable by a $25,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail. Also, both the House and the Senate versions of the bill refer to the mandate fines as a form of “taxes.”

As you can see, it is a tax. It is a tax on everyone, rich, poor, middle class, and everyone in between. The Democrats show themselves as being for “the working man” or “the little guy” but they are not. They will do what every is possible to gain more control and more money. So who does the President think he is fooling? Certainly not everyone. Not those of us who have bothered to look into the facts behind the Obama idol worshiping. I disagree with the statement made by News Max which said, “So Stephanopoulos was correct, and Obama was mistaken”. I do not think President Obama is an idiot. I think he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is new taxes, he just did not want to admit that he has lied yet again.

Even more disturbing, is if we ask if we should expect even MORE new taxes. Well, when Wall Street Journal asked if there would be any on those with an income of less than $250,000 per year, the answer they received from OMB director Orszag was, “We’re in the midst of putting together the 2011 budget, and we’ll have more to say about that later.”

Source:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/stealth_tax_obama/2009/10/01/267430.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125119686015756517.html

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

Posts By Category

Search Posts By Month