Well the fascism insanity continues doesn’t it. A “pay czar” accountable only to the president with no Congressional oversight, we don’t know their salary, they don’t have to report on their spending and that’s the real purpose of “czars” isn’t it, to not be accountable and they’re appointed, not elected by the people. What is happening to “checks and balances”? In addition, this czar wants to impose “pay caps” not only on businesses that accepted TARP money, but those that didn’t as well, coming to all “public” companies in the financial sector. Where in the Constitution does the executive branch get this power over the private sector? Can you quote me the Article and section it’s in?
Obama’s Plan to Appoint Pay Czar Draws Fire
President Obama is expected to offer Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg a government job unlike any other in U.S. history: pay czar.
Obama is creating the position, formally known as special master for compensation, to institute his administration’s guidelines and limits on executive pay for companies that took bailout money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP. (And those that didn’t take TARP money I might add.)
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner made it clear Tuesday the government wants influence in what companies pay their top executives.
“We need to help encourage substantial reforms and compensation structures, particularly in the financial industry,” he said.
But the top House Republican, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, calls the whole idea of a pay czar “absolute lunacy.”
“I just can’t get over the fact that the American public is going to put up with this because at the end of the day, this is not the government’s business,” he told FOX News.
Other critics of the plan say it is going to hurt already ailing businesses because they won’t be able to woo top management.
“If you keep these kinds of limits on, you’re going to see a talent drain from some of these companies that really need the talent,” said government affairs consultant Peter Peyser of Blank Rome Government Relations.
And business lobbying groups are concerned that other companies that didn’t take any TARP money eventually may have their pay scales regulated, too.
“There is a tendency to over-regulate, and if they do so they will stifle the financial service industry,” said Scott Talbott, a lobbyist with Financial Services Roundtable, which advocates for large financial firms.
But supporters say businesses that took taxpayers dollars should not balk at limits on executive pay.
“They should be thankful that the government stepped in when the private sector would not step in to help their economic viability,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y.(yeah, that’s why a lot of the companies tried to immediately give the money back and the gov’t wouldn’t let them.)
Maloney said she doesn’t think the pay czar would regulate private businesses that didn’t take bailout funds. But that’s some of the mystery here. No one is really sure how far this position will go. The new guidelines are expected to be announced Wednesday.
William Cain told the audience that the Declaration of Independence says: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
Chicago Tax Day Tea Party – What CNN Did Not Show You Behind The Scenes – Reporter Owned 4/16/09
Here’s another article you might want to read, remember that DHS report on “right wing extremists?
This photo was taken at a Tea Party Tax Protest in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Note the Homeland Security logo on the police car.
Tea Parties: Tax Day Anger Becomes Everyday Anger
Herman Cain at Las Vegas Tea Party
The Obama Administration, the Democrats in Congress, the mainstream media and the flaming liberal media are attempting to downplay the organized anger expressed by hundreds of thousands of people on April 15 at Tax Day Tea Parties across the country.
The president issued a press release on tax day restating all the platitudes he has touted ever since he was running for president. As usual, his rhetoric does not match the agenda being steamrolled through Congress by his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
The Democratic National Committee issued a statement on Thursday, April 16,which acknowledged people’s frustrations and suggested that “what’s clear is that the overwhelming majority of folks support President Obama’s plan to get the economy back on track, and provide 95 percent of working families with tax relief, because they are not going to accept ‘more of the same’ as an answer.”
People not accepting “more of the same” is an accurate message of the tax day events, but overwhelmingly supporting President Obama’s plan is a joke.
Here are some of the signs at the Las Vegas tax day event where I attended:
“Stop the spending. Stop the bailouts. Stop the tyranny”
“Got change? Hide it before Obama taxes it!”
“The only thing wrong with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
Is that overwhelming support? And is the $8 a week for a single worker and $13 a week for a working couple tax relief? That’s the tax relief for 95 percent of working families the president and the Democrats are talking about.
And of course Speaker Pelosi weighed in with equally misleading statements when she said, “This tea party initiative is funded by the high end – we call it Astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s Astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.” Translated, let’s talk about class warfare.
I have warned readers in the past that when liberals disagree with a conservative, or when they are in denial of the facts, they change the subject. Casey Hendrickson of KXNT 840 AM out of Las Vegas appropriately calls this maneuver a WMD – a Weapon of Mass Distraction.
USA Today’s lead headline the day after the rallies read “Thousands rally at Tax Day Tea Parties”. Adding up the mostly understated news reports of crowd sizes in over 2,000 events around the country would suggest hundreds of thousandsis more accurate. But the liberals are not counting.
And a flaming liberal publication, People’s Weekly World Newspaper, claimed that “Tax Day Rallies cry ‘Tax the Rich!’”. What planet are they from?
I attended the Las Vegas tax day rally, which attracted 2,500 people, and I did not see one sign that said to tax anyone more. I did not see one sign that proclaimed overwhelming support for the “Obama Plan” of trying to spend our way out of this financial crisis. And I did not see one sign that said “socialism now”.
But I saw lots of signs that were clearly not in support of the Obama-Reid-Pelosi direction of the country. Lots and lots of those signs!
Mr. President, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi, the anger is directed at y’all! You have ignored the message and the people again.
It’s not just tax day anger anymore. It is now everyday anger.
The Obama administration is looking more and more like the Bush administration to me. The more things change, the more they stay the same. COPYRIGHT TREATY CLASSIFIED AS “NATIONAL SECURITY” ?
4th Amendment:
“
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
”
Copyright treaty is classified for ‘national security’.
Last September, the Bush administration defended the unusual secrecy over an anti-counterfeiting treaty being negotiated by the U.S. government, which some liberal groups worry could criminalize some peer-to-peer file sharing that infringes copyrights.
Now President Obama’s White House has tightened the cloak of government secrecy still further, saying in a letter this week that a discussion draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and related materials are “classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.”
The 1995 Executive Order 12958 allows material to be classified only if disclosure would do “damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.”
Jamie Love, director of the nonprofit group Knowledge Ecology International, filed the Freedom of Information Act request that resulted in this week’s denial from the White House. The denial letter (PDF) was sent to Love on Tuesday by Carmen Suro-Bredie, chief FOIA officer in the White House’s Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Love had written in his original request on January 31–submitted soon after Obama’s inauguration–that the documents “are being widely circulated to corporate lobbyists in Europe, Japan, and the U.S. There is no reason for them to be secret from the American public.”
The White House appears to be continuing the secretive policy of the Bush administration, which wrote to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (PDF) on January 16 that out of 806 pages related to the treaty, all but 10 were “classified in the interest of national security pursuant to Executive Order 12958.”
In one of his first acts as president, Obama signed a memo saying FOIA “should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure.”
Love’s group believes that the U.S. and Japan want the treaty to say that willful trademark and copyright infringement on a commercial scale must be subject to criminal sanctions, including infringement that has “no direct or indirect motivation of financial gain.”
A June 2008 memo (PDF) from the International Chamber of Commerce, signed by pro-copyright groups, says: “intellectual property theft is no less a crime than physical property theft. An effective ACTA should therefore establish clear and transparent standards for the calculation and imposition of effective criminal penalties for IP theft that…apply to both online and off-line IP transactions.” Similarly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for “criminal penalties for IP crimes, including online infringements.”
Last fall, two senators–Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Penn.)–known for their support of stringent intellectual property laws, expressed concern that the ACTA could be too far-reaching.
“It has been publicly reported that Mr. Obama as far back as 2006 had a relationship to a law firm that was coincidentally researching ways to get around the Article 2 requirements of the U.S. Constitution for service as president,” he said.
“This appears to be an ongoing attempt by Mr. Obama to obtain the presidency while avoiding and evading all questions on his eligibility,” he said.
BORN IN THE USA?
Keyes to appeal case on Obama’s eligibility
Lawyer says dismissal ‘eviscerates’ Constitution’s rules for president
A lawsuit filed on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, a candidate for president on California’s general election ballot last year, challenging President Obama’s eligibility to hold office under the requirements of the U.S. Constitution will be appealed, according to a lawyer working on the case.
Judge Michael P. Kenny said the secretary of state, who is responsible for election laws in the state, has no “duty” to demand proof of eligibility from candidates.
“The judge’s ruling in the case that only Congress and only on Jan. 6 of each year following a presidential election can object as to whether the nominee is eligible to serve as president of the United States is, in our opinion, completely wrong and eviscerates the [Constitutional] requirements for serving as president in the United States Constitution,” Kreep said.
“It has been publicly reported that Mr. Obama as far back as 2006 had a relationship to a law firm that was coincidentally researching ways to get around the Article 2 requirements of the U.S. Constitution for service as president,” he said.
“This appears to be an ongoing attempt by Mr. Obama to obtain the presidency while avoiding and evading all questions on his eligibility,” he said.
President Obama
Kreep said the judge’s ruling leaves open the option for any candidate, resident or not, alive or not, to run for the office of president.
“California has a history of removing people from the ballot who are not qualified to run for president,” Kreep said. “The most famous case being Eldridge Cleaver.”
“It is incumbent upon us here at the USJF to continue this fight to learn the truth,” he said.
“If Mr. Obama is not constitutionally eligible to serve as president of the United States, then no act that he takes is, arguably, valid, the laws that he signs would not be valid, the protective orders that he signs would be null and void, and every act that he takes would be subject to legal challenge, both in courts of the United States of America, and in international courts, and that, therefore, it is important for the voters to know whether he, or any candidate for president in the future, is eligible to serve in that office,” the case explained.
The case documents previously explained that in 1968 the Peace and Freedom Party submitted the name of Eldridge Cleaver as a qualified candidate for president. But then-Secretary of State Frank Jordan “found that, according to Mr. Cleaver’s birth certificate, he was only 34 years old, one year shy of the 35 years of age needed to be on the ballot as a candidate for president.”
USJF explained that “using his administrative powers, Mr. Jordan removed Mr. Cleaver from the ballot. Mr. Cleaver unsuccessfully challenged this decision to the Supreme Court of the State of California, and, later, to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The USJF said similarly, in 1984, Peace and Freedom Party candidate Larry Holmes was removed from the ballot.
WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers. While his supporters cite an online version of a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
Keyes has been critical of judges’ refusal to listen to evidence in the disputes and suggestions that those who bring such allegations for review should be penalized..
“In the final analysis if the courts refuse to respect the Constitution, they are not the judges of their own action. The people must ultimately decide. Which is why I and others will use every outlet to inform them of the injustice being done not just to individuals but to the sovereign people as a whole,” Keyes said.
In a commentary on the dispute,Keyes wrote that the suggestion of sanctions against those who bring up the questions, already raised as an issue by Obama’s lawyers in his case, “confirms Obama’s ruthless determination to destroy anyone who continues to seek the information the Constitution requires.
“Why should they demand penalties against citizens who are simply seeking the enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land? It is simply because their persistence runs contrary to the will of a supposedly popular demagogue? This smacks of tyrannical arrogance. That Obama thus signals his intent to bring financial ruin on those who won’t accept his cover-up of the circumstances of his birth is a tactical escalation,” Keyes said.
“As one of the targets of this escalation, I need no more convincing proof of the ruthless disposition so far successfully masked by his empty rhetoric of hope and change. Obviously he means to offer hope only to those willing to surrender their most basic rights.To any who insist on questioning his actions, he offers the drastic change of ruin and destruction. So be it. We shall be among those who learn firsthand the meaning of the sacrifices made by the Founders of our free republic, as they pledged and gave up their lives, their fortunes and the world’s esteem,” Keyes said.
The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii, which the state’s procedures allowed at the time?
Well Democrats were highly critical of Bush signing his signing statements on several of bills. (which is unconstitution…the president can’t just say he’s not going to obey part of a law because he doesn’t like it…..he can veto the entire bill only)…..now Obama is doing it and do we hear an outcry?
Democrats often criticized the Bush White House for its use of the presidential signing statement, a means by which the president can reject provisions of a bill he deems unconstitutional without vetoing the entire legislation. Now the approach is back.
President Barack Obama, after signing into law a $410 billion budget bill on Wednesday, declared five provisions in the bill to be unconstitutional and non-binding, including one that would effectively restrict U.S. troop deployments under U.N. command and another aimed at preventing punishment of whistleblowers.
The Founding Fathers provided in Article III of the constitution the president’s remedy. Under Article III, should the president disagree with provisions of legislation passed by Congress, he can veto the legislation, thereby challenging Congress to muster a two-thirds super-majority in each House to override the president’s objections.
The move came two days after Mr. Obama ordered a review of his predecessor’s signing statements and said he would rein in the use of such declarations.
Obama issues signing statement on spending bill
WASHINGTON—Two days after criticizing his predecessor for issuing guidelines on how to put legislation into practice, President Barack Obama issued such a directive himself.
Out of public view Wednesday, Obama signed a $410 billion spending bill that includes billions for items known as earmarks, the targeted spending that lawmakers direct to projects in their districts. Obama promised during the presidential campaign to curb such spending.
He also issued a “signing statement” in which he objected to provisions of the bill that he said the Justice Department had advised “raise constitutional concerns.” Among them are provisions that Obama said would “unduly interfere” with his authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments.
Another provision, Obama said, would limit his discretion to choose who performs specific functions in military missions.
On Monday, Obama ordered a review of former President George W. Bush’s guidelines for implementing bills passed by Congress — the signing statements.
Bush often issued statements when he signed bills, objecting to parts of the legislation. Critics said the statements often showed government officials how to get around a law if Bush disagreed with it on constitutional grounds.
“There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused,” Obama wrote Monday in a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies. “Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements.”
At the same time, however, Obama did not rule out issuing any signing statements, which have been used for centuries. Rather, he ordered his administration to work with Congress to inform lawmakers about concerns over legality before legislation ever reaches his desk. He also pledged to use caution and restraint when writing his own signing statements, and said he would rely on Justice Department guidance when doing so.
“With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities,” Obama pledged.
It’s good to open up this blog and see the action is still happening. I have been on the road for the past two weeks with my job and unable to post much, but I see that my friend Mike has been going strong! Thank you Mike, for carrying the porch torch. I will be posting again shortly, as my email is backed up with some great stuff…please keep reading us, I promise that we’re holding the line and looking out for you!
Contrary to what is heard in the media, there is overwhelming evidence that the warming we are experiencing is natural, with maybe a small amount contributed by man’s activities. Nor is there any scientific consensus. 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide is causing…catastrophic” warming.
If you were to ask ten people on the street if mankind’s activities are causing global warming, my guess is that a majority would say yes. In fact, a Gallup poll conducted July 23-26, 2007 found that 63% believed that global warming is caused mostly by human activities. But is this perception of global warming based on fact or just misguided opinion?
Mr. Gore and his colleagues at the IPCC maintain that there is an increase in global average temperatures, due to man-made intervention resulting in a “greenhouse effect.” They also say that natural phenomena, such as solar variation, combined with volcanoes, had little effect on global warming from pre-industrial times until 1950, and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.
These conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. However, there are many scientists, some who have served on the IPCC panel, who have voiced disagreement with many of the findings of the IPCC. One noted biologist and ecologist Dr. Michael Coffman, Executive Director of Environmental Perspectives, Inc. and CEO of Sovereignty International, said in his presentation, Global Warming or Global Governance, “The global warming climate change issue is so important that people on both sides of the issue, including policymakers should be fully informed before policy is actually formulated. Tragically, that’s not happening in the global warming issue.” Coffman further says that what is being proposed by Al Gore and his colleagues is that man is primarily causing a global warming effect, but there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary put forth by prominent scientists from around the world.
Three Republican Governors May Reject Stimulus Cash
Three Republican governors voiced concerns this week over acceptance of a dizzying conglomeration of bailout funding to their states from President Obama’s so-called stimulus bill, which includes a massive array of deadlines, mandates and consequences. Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina have all made it clear that they strongly disagree with the Obama plan to saddle taxpayers with an additional $1.2 trillion of federal loan debt and spending that has very little to do with stimulating the economy.
Staffers for all three governors confirmed to HUMAN EVENTS yesterday that their experts are now doing the job Democrats in Congress refused to do and refused to allow Republicans to do before the vote: they are reading the entire 1,100-page “stimulus” spending bill.
I spoke yesterday with Joel Sawyer, Sanford’s communications director. “We have staff going through this bill line by line to see exactly what is there,” Sawyer told me. “We are considering all of our options.” When asked if Sanford would consider giving the people of South Carolina a tax holiday or tax cuts to stimulate the economy with any of the funding, Sawyer said, “We would consider that if it proves legal and allowable. We’re not yet to the point of knowing if that’s an option.”
Sanford took a very public stance last November (“Don’t Bail Out My State“) suggesting a better solution than a bailout would be relief from the $425 million in unfunded federal government mandates South Carolina will have to pay this year. Sanford is seriously considering refusing to accept the funding and its myriad consequences stemming from the vast expansion of state welfare and health care programs with temporary federal dollars.
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) was furious at the possibility of missing out on his cut of the Democrat constituency pork payoffs at taxpayer expense, so he had inserted into the bill what folks inside the Beltway refer to as the “punish Mark Sanford amendment.” As reported in HUMAN EVENTS, this highly-questionable rider would allow for a state legislature to accept the federal funding should a governor reject it, thus overriding state laws and constitutions in manner that probably violates the U.S. Constitution. House Minority Leader John Boehner has requested the non-partisan Congressional Research Service assess the Constitutionality of that provision in the bill.
In Texas, Perry has decided to accept the funds while looking for wiggle room in ways he can spend the estimated $17 billion allotted to Texas. In a letter yesterday to President Obama, Perry gave formal notice that Texas will, in fact, accept the bailout funds while Perry staffers told me they continue to pore over the bill “line by line.”
Perry told the President in his letter he will “use the funds to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers” and that he “remains opposed to using the money to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing costs long after the federal dollars have dried up.”
I spoke with Jindal’s staffers in Louisiana yesterday who told me the governor’s experts are also plowing through the gargantuan bill “line by line” in an effort to assess the impact to Louisiana taxpayers.
“We’ll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it’s beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars,” Jindal told the New Orleans CBS affiliate.
Guidelines for the Bailout Money
The Office of Management and Budget yesterday released its “Initial Implementing Guidance” to agencies, states, contractors and grantees for disbursement of the funding. This “initial” document, in itself, is 62 pages of scintillating reading. This was my favorite part:
“When entering data in FPDS on any action (including modifications) funded by the Recovery Act, agencies must enter the Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) in the Description of Requirement field. The TAS code should be entered with TAS:: preceding the code and ::TAS following the code. The code itself should have spaces between the segments, i.e., Agency code (2 characters) would be entered followed by a space then the Account code (4 characters) followed by a space and then the Subaccount code (3 characters) which is optional and would only be included by those agencies utilizing this segment of the code.”
Who writes this stuff?
Connie Hair is a freelance writer, a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference.
After watching a program I think it was on the History channel praise Lincoln as the greatest president ever, I saw this Chuck Baldwin article and had to post it. Lincoln was not our greatest president! Our greatest president by far was George Washington and you don’t hear much about him anymore. I’m also including an audio clip from Feb. 16,2009 Derry Brownfield show about Lincoln. You may be surprised at some things he did during the war that weren’t Constitutional. I know I was! Derry refers to a particular Congressman Clement Laird Vallandigham <you may want to read up on him.
America just celebrated Presidents Day this past Monday. What first began as an observance for President George Washington has (since the 1980s) morphed into the generic “Presidents Day,” which is a politically correct celebration of mediocrity that forces our nation’s greatest President to be lumped together with incompetents such as Ulysses S. Grant, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter.
On the occasion of Presidents Day, a USA Today/Gallup poll asked the American people to select the greatest President. The top five Presidents, according to the Gallup poll, are (in order): Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and George Washington.
Can you believe it? George Washington was rated fifth. Fifth. With a vote total of only 9 percent, no less.
George Washington is positively the greatest American to ever live–bar none! It is no hyperbole to say that without Washington, there would be no United States of America. George Washington almost single-handedly kept a struggling colonial army (along with a fledgling nation, for that matter) together. Take away George Washington and there are no stories of Valley Forge, the crossing of the Delaware River, or Yorktown. Take away George Washington and there is no office of President of the United States. A lesser man (which would include almost everyone else in his generation) would doubtless have succumbed to the call of the multitude to institute a monarchy in America. A lesser man could not have delivered the greatest-of-all-Presidential-addresses that we find in his “Farewell Address.”
Washington’s Farewell Address became the guiding light and compass for American policy and philosophy for many generations. In fact, it is the abandonment of the principles of that address that is systematically destroying this country. Therefore, a return to the wisdom of that address would doubtless return our country to its former greatness.
There is only one “Father of His Country,” and it is George Washington. Yet, in the minds of today’s Americans, Washington is inferior to the likes of F.D.R. and Abraham Lincoln.
According to the current edition of Newsweek magazine, “We are all socialists now.” The article states, “The U.S. government has already–under a conservative Republican administration–effectively nationalized the banking and mortgage industries.” It continued, “Whether we want to admit it or not . . . the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.”
“Bush brought the Age of Reagan to a close; now Obama has gone further, reversing Bill Clinton’s end of big government.”
Unfortunately, Newsweek is dead right.
By the end of two G.W. Bush terms and one Obama term, the United States will resemble socialist France far more than the independent nation envisioned–and created–by George Washington. Yes, in a very real and practical sense, this really is Abraham Lincoln’s America.
More than any other single person, Abraham Lincoln shaped and formed modern America. It was Abraham Lincoln who was the first President to flagrantly and deliberately violate his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. His disregard and contempt for the Constitution cannot be overstated.
In order to “preserve the Union,” Lincoln destroyed the very principles upon which the Union was created. His audacity is without equal. For example, to prevent a possible vote of secession by the Maryland legislature, Lincoln ordered federal troops to seize and arrest the Maryland congressional delegation. And of course, he was more than willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of America’s finest and best to destroy Jefferson’s declaration that the states of our Union are “Free and Independent States.”
I invite all those pro-Lincoln apologists out there to seriously answer this question: Does an abusive husband who beats and batters his wife have the right to force her (at the point of gun) to remain married to him? (Even the God of the Bible, Who cast marriage in the most sacred terms, recognizes the right of lawful separation.) If you answer no, how can you continue to justify Abraham Lincoln’s actions? In a political and governmental sense, that is exactly what Lincoln did. Forced union, of any kind, is slavery. In the name of emancipating slaves, Lincoln enslaved an entire nation.
It was Abraham Lincoln who, for all intents and purposes, destroyed federalism and limited government in America. In fact, on December 15, 1866, renowned British historian, Lord Acton, wrote a letter to General Robert E. Lee. In the letter, Acton said, “I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”
It was Abraham Lincoln who first established the Nanny State, Big Government, Big Brother, etc. Everything that Big-Government Presidents such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama learned, they learned from Abraham Lincoln. That is why these men love to quote Lincoln so much.
What is appalling is the manner in which the American people (including professed conservatives and Christians) have allowed the politically correct propaganda machine to brainwash their reasoning. Conservatives and liberals, and Democrats and Republicans, now embrace Abraham Lincoln’s America. As Newsweek said, “We are all socialists now.”
Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.
Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.
Legislators in Tennessee submitted House Joint Resolution 108 (HJR0108) on February 18th. While it’s non-binding, some of the language is quite well put. Here’s the intro:
A RESOLUTION to affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to demand the federal government halt its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.
Halting the practice of assuming powers not enumerated is a great step. Rolling back all the previous unconstitutional legislation is also a must in the future.
Here’s the rest of the bill:
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 108
By Lynn
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as
follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and
WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that
specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
WHEREAS, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the
federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
WHEREAS, today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal
government; and
WHEREAS, many powers assumed by the federal government and federal mandates
are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v. United States,
112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and
regulatory processes of the states; and
WHEREAS, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now
pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution
of the United States; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED
SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE
CONCURRING, that we hereby affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to
the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. We also demand the federal
government to halt and reverse its practice of assuming powers and of imposing mandates
upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a committee of conference and correspondence be
appointed by the Speaker of the House and of the Senate, which shall have as its charge to
communicate the preceding resolution to the legislatures of the several states, to assure them
that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and to call for a joint working
group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and
to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted to
the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker and
the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to each member of Tennessee’s
Congressional delegation.
Minnesota Sovereignty resolution, HF997 introduced in the the Minnesota House of Representatives.
Marty Seifert of the Minnesota House of Representatives has introduced the Minnesota Sovereignty resolution, HF997. It is supported by 16 State Representatives.
The Minnesota State Legislature web page provides the following short description of the resolution: “Federal government memorialized to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States and affirming Minnesota’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”
House File 997 advises federal judges, Congress, and the Executive branch not to impose mandates on Minnesota and other states which are beyond the powers of the federal government.
Minnesota follows Texas as the latest state to declare sovereignty from the federal government.
Beyond the pro-Constitution Campaign For Liberty website and the Liberty Forest forum, the introduction of the resolution received virtually no media coverage.
As of February 17th, legislation to affirm State Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment has been introduced in the Texas House by representative Brandon Creighton. The bill number is HCR50 – and here’s a few excerpts: (h/t Conservative Pabulum)
Caption:
Affirming that the State of Texas claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution, serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates, and providing that certain federal legislation be prohibited or repealed.
All I can say is it’s about time! States are finally realizing that the federal government is trying to take over everything, which is the complete opposite of what the founding fathers meant to happen. Now some states are finally coming to their senses and trying to take back their state’s sovereignty.
In a version of this bill being considered in Washington state, they reference the authority of James Madison in The Federalist where he wrote:
“”The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”
The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. They believed most of this power should be with the states. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance.
Four New Hampshire legislators introduced HCR-6 to re-invoke states rights enumerated in Jefferson’s and Madison’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolution is a clear shot across the bow of the New Leftist Administration in Washington DC, which is rushing to expand federal control over every aspect of American life, industry and enterprise.
Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty
Obama’s $1 trillion deficit-spending ’stimulus plan’ seen as last straw
NEW YORK – As the Obama administration attempts to push through Congress a nearly $1 trillion deficit spending plan that is weighted heavily toward advancing typically Democratic-supported social welfare programs, a rebellion against the growing dominance of federal control is beginning to spread at the state level.
Analysts expect that in addition, another 20 states may see similar measures introduced this year, including Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania.
“Congress is completely out of line spending trillions of dollars over the last 10 years putting the nation into a debt crisis like we’ve never seen before,” Brogdon said, arguing that the Obama stimulus plan is the last straw taxing state patience in the brewing sovereignty dispute.
“This particular 111th Congress is the biggest bunch of over-reachers and underachievers we’ve ever had in Congress,” he said.
“A sixth-grader should realize you can’t borrow money to pay off your debt, and that is the Obama administration’s answer for a stimulus package,” he added.
The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Tenth Amendment specifically provides, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Brogdon, the lead sponsor of the Oklahoma state senate version of the sovereignty bill, has been a strong opponent of extending the plan to build a four-football-fields-wide Trans-Texas Corridor parallel to Interstate-35 to Oklahoma, as WND reported.
Rollback federal authority
The various sovereignty measures moving through state legislatures are designed to reassert state authority through a rollback of federal authority under the powers enumerated in the Constitution, with the states assuming the governance of the non-enumerated powers, as required by the Tenth Amendment.
The state sovereignty measures, aimed largely at the perceived fiscal irresponsibility of Congress in the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, have gained momentum with the $1 trillion deficit-spending economic stimulus package the Obama administration is currently pushing through Congress.
Particularly disturbing to many state legislators are the increasing number of “unfunded mandates” that have proliferated in social welfare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, in which bills passed by Congress dictate policy to the states without providing funding.
In addition, the various state resolutions include discussion of a wide range of policy areas, including the regulation of firearms sales (Montana) and the demand to issue drivers licenses with technology to embed personal information under the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and the Real ID Act (Michigan).
Hawaii’s measure calls for a new state constitutional convention to return self-governance, a complaint that traces back to the days it was a U.S. territory, prior to achieving statehood in 1959.
“We are trying to send a message to the federal government that the states are trying to reclaim their sovereignty,” Republican Rep. Matt Shea, the lead sponsor of Washington’s sovereignty resolution told WND.
“State sovereignty has been eroded in so many areas, it’s hard to know where to start,” he said. “There are a ton of federal mandates imposed on states, for instance, on education spending and welfare spending.”
Shea said the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package moving through Congress is a “perfect example.”
“In the state of Washington, we have increased state spending 33 percent in the last three years and hired 6,000 new state employees, often using federal mandates as an excuse to grow state government,” he said. “We need to return government back down to the people, to keep government as close to the local people as possible.”
Shea is a private attorney who serves with the Alliance Defense Fund, a nationwide network of about 1,000 attorneys who work pro-bono. As a counter to the ACLU, the alliance seeks to protect and defend religious liberty, the sanctity of life and traditional family values.
Republican state Rep. Judy Burges, the primary sponsor of the sovereignty resolution in the Arizona House, told WND the federal government “has been trouncing on our constitutional rights.”
“The real turning point for me was the Real ID act, which involved both a violation of the Fourth Amendments rights against the illegal searches and seizures and the Tenth Amendment,” she said.
Burges told WND she is concerned that the overreaching of federal powers could lead to new legislation aimed at confiscating weapons from citizens or encoding ammunition.
“The Real ID Act was so broadly written that we are afraid that it involves the potential for “mission-creep,” that could easily involve confiscation of firearms and violations of the Second Amendment,” she said.
Burges said she has been surprised at the number of e-mails she has received in support of the sovereignty measure.
“We are a sovereign state in Arizona, not a branch of the federal government, and we need to be treated as such, she insisted.
![[DHS+Albuquerque,NM+tea+party.jpg]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6U04pXk3cJE/Se4cXlb-fSI/AAAAAAAAAVQ/yG4K5aFt7m8/s1600/DHS%2BAlbuquerque,NM%2Btea%2Bparty.jpg)
Steve Hilton
babybttrfly
Mike