AIG Sent Some Bailout Money Overseas


Now your going to find out why Congress and others can’t find out where all that TARP money went to.


Bail out money landed in UAE, China and India: Congressman Kucinich

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio) said on the House floor Thursday that TARP bailout funds loaned to banks are ending up overseas. Citigroup has sent $8 billion to Dubai, Bank of America has sent $7 billion to China and JPMorgan Chase has sent $1 billion to India. “Banks are taking our tax dollars and they’re shipping them abroad,” Kucinich said. “It’s time that we started to take care of things at home. It’s time we started to ask the Treasury to keep track of these TARP funds.”

Speaking on the floor of the House of Representative, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, said the Department of Treasury has not been able to track the funds given to these banks under the Troubled Assets Relief Programme or TARP.

“As a result, we have seen that, of these funds that were supposed to go to help the US economy, USD 8 billion has gone through Citigroup to Dubai; USD 7 billion through Bank of America to China; USD 1 billion through JPMorgan Chase to India,” Kucinich said.

However, he did not provide much detail.
A seven term Democratic Congressman from Cleveland Ohio, Kucinich is the chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a member of Education and Labour Committee.

“The taxpayers of the United States have already paid USD 700 billion of their tax money into this bailout programme. We found out that the Department of Treasury doesn’t track the funds after they give them to the banks,” he said.

“It’s time that we started to ask the Treasury Department to keep track of these TARP funds and make sure that they’re intended for the purpose that the American people want them to be spent for, and that is revive our American economy,” he said


Attorney General Eric Holder Pushed Back by 65 Pro-gun Democrats


Pro-gun Dems push back at Holder on assault weapons ban

A Hill source sends over a letter from 65 pro-gun Democrats in Congress, led by Arkansas’ Mike Ross, aimed at convincing Attorney General Eric Holder that now is not the time to revive the Assault Weapons Ban — or as they call it, the “ban on ‘assault weapons.'”

Holder said last month that Obama would like to reinstate the Clinton-era ban.

“We were very concerned to see your recent remarks, ” wrote the members of Congress, largely representing conservative and rural districts, and made the case that the ban has been ineffective, and the danger of the guns overstated.

“Many of our constituents lawfully own and use these firearms and ammunition magazines that would be affected by a new ban,” they wrote, asking that the administration save its political capital for “real and serious problems.”

The Democrats warned that bringing back the ban would spur a “long and divisive fight” and “will only distract us from giving these more important issues the attention they deserve.”

Other signatories include North Carolina’s Heath Shuler and Alabama’s Artur Davis, an early and close Obama ally who is now running for governor there.

The full letter is here.

Read the article at and

Red Light Cameras to Check for Insurance

Comments Off on Red Light Cameras to Check for Insurance

On March 17th 2009, Gary Franchi, Managing Editor of Republic Magazine, was invited on the 24 hour Chicago Tribune owned CLTV News Network to discuss the addition of insurance verification to red light cameras. While on Garrard McClendon LIVE, a hard hitting call-in show that tackles the tough issues in Chicago politics, Gary slammed the Police State’s new technology and called for all Americans to stand up to tyranny. This new technology would give another $200,000,000 to the Chicago political machine and serve as testing ground for other cities. After testing is complete the technology will undoubtly grow to verify city stickers, unpaid parking tickets, your seat belt is buckled, wheel tax stickers and  then to check if you are on the Terrorist watch list? Where will it stop?

Republic Magazine and the efforts of Restore the Republic are growing so fast! If you want to see more of this type of coverage then Republic Magazine needs your financial support RIGHT NOW.

Stimulus Bill Hides Unconstitutional Provision (10th Amendment)

Comments Off on Stimulus Bill Hides Unconstitutional Provision (10th Amendment)

Here’s another example of federal government overstepping it’s Constitutional boundary. This article was written Feb,2009 before the stimulus bill was passed. But I think it’s good to know how the Constitution meant for things to be handled by the states……not overridden by federal government.

Stimulus Bill Hides Unconstitutional Provision (10th Amendment)

Human Events: Stimulus Bill Hides Unconstitutional Provision (10th Amendment)

Thanks to the efforts of bloggers like Dave Nelle, we became aware of the stimulus bill’s end-run game around the 10th Amendment. Today, after the Conference bill was finally released, reports that Democratic staffers put it into PDF format with the text inputted in predominantly graphical form, so as to virtually eliminate the ability to do searches!

Further, it can now be confirmed that the stimulus bill has the following unconstitutional provision (link to bill; on pages 490-91):

SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR — Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: 1) the State request and use funds provided by this Act , and; 2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.

(b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE — If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.

This provision –– apparently aimed at conservative governors such as South Carolina’s Mark Sanford who does not want the federal money — would overturn state laws and constitutions, intervening directly in the state’s government to give the legislature the power to overturn a government’s decision.

This provision probably violates the US Constitution, a matter which will be of no concern to Congressional Democrats.

This act — to strong-arm state governments and a governor’s ability to control the state budget — is Chicago-style bipartisanship.

It is paragraph (b) that is at issue. Paragraph (a) could be construed as perfectly reasonable for the federal government; the feds have the power to create mandates for the States and use money to enforce those mandates (to a certain degree). However, nowhere in the Constitution is it said that the federal government has the power or authority to circumvent the Executive branch at the State level.

Let’s take a look at paragraph (b) again, shall we?

(b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE — If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State. [emphasis mine]

Can you point me to any State in the Union that allows for passage of any bill or resolution in the Legislative branch at the State level that allows for the federal government to take the place of the State’s Executive in the case where a State’s Executive doesn’t agree with what the State’s Legislative says?

Why in the world would anyone want to have the federal government act as every State’s Executive, by proxy?

According to the 10th Amendment, States are sovereign legal entities that collectively comprise a Union out of which the federal government is created, current bills and resolutions reasserting such notwithstanding. As such, the federal government has no power or authority to be able to legally bypass the Governor on any issue. That’s treading on a State’s authority, power and right to determine it’s own policies per the Constitution.

Furthermore, it would be equally unconstitutional in my view for State Legislatures to agree to this provision in the bill, as they would effectively be overruling their respective Executive, which, by definition, would violate Article 4, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence. [emphasis mine]

These arguments have already been laid out per US v. NJ, and I see this provision rearing its head in the direction of the Supreme Court yet again.

You can read this article at

Thomas Jefferson on State’s Rights

Comments Off on Thomas Jefferson on State’s Rights

This article is for those that don’t fully understand the Constitution and it’s limitations on the federal government. We are not a democracy….we are a republic and there is a difference. With all the state sovernighty resolutions going around I thought it might be a good educational tool to see what Thomas Jefferson said about it.  He isn’t the only one I could use for this article. I thought he’d be a good one to use because of some of the false info given out about him by the likes of the History channel among others.

Here’s what James Madison said in the Federalist Papers #45

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite……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, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”

Jefferson’s Arguments for Nullification and Limited Government

by Gennady Stolyarov II

The doctrine of nullification, i.e., the idea that states have the right to unilaterally render void an act of the federal government that they perceive to be contrary to the Constitution, finds its origins in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, most notably his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, written to protest the Federalist Congress’s passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions claim that the U. S. Constitution was a compact among the several states-whereby the states delegated certain limited powers to the U.S. government; any undelegated power exercised by the U. S. government is thus void.

Furthermore, the general government is not the final and authoritative judge of its own powers, since that would make the government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers-but rather the parties to the contract, the states, have each an equal right to judge for themselves whether the Constitution has been violated as well as “the mode and measure of redress”-since there is no common judge of such matters among them.

Thus, every state can of its own authority nullify within its territory “all assumptions of power by others”-i.e., all perceived violations of the Constitution by the federal government.

The Kentucky Resolution uses the Tenth Amendment to justify a strict construction of the general government’s powers; any powers not expressly delegated to the U. S. government remain the province of the states or the people, and any exercise of those powers by the general government is void and can be struck down by the states on that basis.

Furthermore, Jefferson warns against construing the “necessary and proper” clause so broadly as to justify the assumption of undelegated powers by the general government; the intent of the clause was to only enable the execution of limited powers, not to indefinitely extend the general government’s scope. Otherwise, this part of the Constitution would be used “to destroy the whole residue of that instrument.”

Jefferson counsels the states to be vigilant against violations of the Constitutions and not hesitant to strike down unconstitutional measures by Congress or the President; he writes that “free government is founded in jealously and not in confidence” and therefore urges that “no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

In other words, the states should not trust federal officials with non-constitutional powers simply because those particular federal officials might be trusted to use those powers benevolently; this kind of “confidence of man” leads to the destruction of free government.

Gennady Stolyarov II is an independent philosophical essayist, composer, amateur mathematician, contributor to, editor-in-chief of The Rational Argumentator and The Progress of Liberty, and a high-ranking content producer on Associated Content..

Read at Tenth Amendment