The Founding Father's Real Reason for the Second Amendment
And remember the words of Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." See Video of Suzanna Gratia-Hupp’s Congressional Testimony: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For, below (u-tube HERE).
The Leaders Are Here... Palin, Cruz, Lee, Paul, Chaffetz....
T'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
Can You Really Still Believe That None of These People Would Have Done a Better Job???
Victory: Eric Holder Sent Letter To Rand Paul On Obama’s Authority To Target U.S. Citizens With Drones: ‘The Answer Is No’
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced during Thursday’s briefing that Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) this morning regarding the administration’s policy on drone strikes targeting Americans on U.S. soil. Holder’s letter stated definitively that the U.S. would not use “weaponized” drones to targets American citizens on domestic soil. Read Full Article HERE
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul announced Wednesday that he would filibuster any attempt by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring the Protect IP Act (PIPA) to a vote.
PIPA, the Senate version of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), is being sponsored by Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and pushed by Reid as a “job creator.”
The bills would ostensibly crack down on online copyright infringement, but critics contend that the legislation would also challenge free speech and the ability of large websites to function.
Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the sponsor of SOPA, announced Tuesday that the bill would continue to undergo markup in the House Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, in February.
An unprecedented online protest by companies opposed to the bills occurred Wednesday. Online encyclopedia Wikipedia, social news website Reddit and the classifieds site Craigslist all blocked their U.S. versions in protest and directed visitors to contact their elected officials.
“Both PIPA and SOPA give the federal government unprecedented and unconstitutional power to censor the Internet,” Paul said in a statement. “These bills enable the government to shut down websites that it deems guilty of violating copyright laws.”
Paul continued: “While we support copyright protections, we are also concerned about websites being shut down without their day in court, and making innocent third parties bear the costs of solving someone else’s problems.
“I will not sit idly by while PIPA and SOPA eliminate the constitutionally protected rights to due process and free speech. For these reasons, I have pledged to oppose, filibuster and do everything in my power to stop government censorship of the Internet,” Paul said.
For local newspaper for publishing as public notice:
PROCLAMATION, NOTICE, AND DEMAND
WHEREAS on December 31, 2011, theacting-president of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Inc. (U.S. Inc.) signed into law an abomination titled the “National Defense Authorization Act”, also known as the “NDAA” or “S-1867”; and
WHEREAS, according to the NDAA, the territories of these united states of America have been declared a battleground wherein the American people may now be arrested by the military forces of the U.S. Inc. and detained indefinitely without being charged with a crime, without the right to a phone call, without the right to legal counsel, and without the right to a fair hearing or a speedy trial; and
WHEREAS the NDAA specifies that detainees will be treated as enemy combatants and that the military resources of U.S. Inc., personnel, equipment and contractors, may be used on American soil, against the American people, in every city and neighborhood of this now declared “American battleground”; and
WHEREAS said detainees may be tortured, transported, and/or held in detention facilities anywhere in the world, for any length of time; and
WHEREAS Detainees may only be granted a military tribunal at the sole discretion of the military forces of the U.S. Inc.; and
WHEREAS the NDAA circumvents lawful due process in its entirety, violates the Constitution for these united states of America, violates Posse Comittatus, and repeals the Bill of Rights; and
WHEREAS the NDAA effectively creates Martial Law, and creates a Military Dictatorship under the control of the acting corporate president; and
WHEREAS the lawful jurisdiction of the U.S. Inc. does not extend beyond the 10 square miles known as the District of Columbia; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has repeatedly exceeded their lawful jurisdiction and encroached upon and into the several foreign sovereign states both by physical presence, legislative decree, and unlawful mandates; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has repeatedly exceeded the lawful jurisdiction and lawful authority authorized to the federal government by our lawful constitution and then violated the constitutional rights of all the foreign sovereign states and their sovereign Citizens with their acts of surveillance, searches, seizures, and arrests therein; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. having confiscated all the real money of the people of this country with the confiscation of the gold in 1934 and having made the use of counterfeit fiat currency produced by private bankers compulsory; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has allowed our money to be created by, and subsequently borrowed from, foreign private bankers without restraint and charged the interest promised to these private foreign bankers to the sovereign people of the many sovereign states without authorization by either the constitution or the sovereign people; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has brought onto our shores International Laws of Commerce, aka the U.C.C. code, and created a "legal" system with which to replace the rule of law, aka our constitutional law and the common law of the land in an effort to overthrow our lawful form of government; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has replaced all our lawful Article III judicial courts with Article I and II courts of summary judgment; and
WHEREAS the U.S. Inc. has made every effort to supplant the natural God given rights of the sovereign peoples of this nation with government granted "privileges" which are granted or removed at their whim and by their decree;
THEREFORE, WE, the sovereign people of these united states of America, FORMALLY DECLARE that the elected officials who signed this treasonous legislation have, by their deeds, created a state of war between the people of these united states and the corporation of THE UNITED STATES, Inc., which is based in the District of Columbia and is a foreign power in relation to the sovereign states and the sovereign people domiciled therein;
THEREFORE, WE, the sovereign people of these united states of America, FORMALLY DECLARE that those federal elected officials, acting as individuals and as a group, have repeatedly and consistently violated the supreme law of this land, have violated their oath of public office, and have, by their acts and deeds, declared war upon the people of this country.
Those elected official trustees, in having signed to pass this unlawful act, have therefore willfully and intentionally acted with malice aforethought in conspiring to overthrow our lawful government and to declare the American people to be enemies of said corporation and they are therefore guilty of Conspiracy, and Breach of Trust as the elected trustees of our nation. They have violated their sworn duty to uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states of America, and are therefore guilty of TREASON AND SEDITION as evidenced by their signatures thereon.
BE IT KNOWN that the rights of the people do not come from any government nor do they come from the Constitution nor from the Bill of Rights. Those documents merely outline and set upon paper a portion of those rights which are the natural or God given rights of all peoples and which are unalienable by any government created by man upon this earth and have been found as such by the courts.
The constitution states very clearly that the only powers authorized to the federal government were those enumerated powers stated therein and ALL others remained with the several sovereign states or to the people themselves. Government derives its few just powers from the people themselves as they are the creator and the source for the creation of government. No creation can supplant its creator. Any attempt by any government to declare they are the "source" of the unalienable rights of the people is an attempt to declare they are God and is an effort to supplant our true creator.
You cannot legalize tyranny by passing an act. Nor do "we the people" recognize such criminal acts as lawful no matter who signs them.
CITE:
"Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice are in our laws and must be, in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice." Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff'd. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham's case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin's case
Be it further known that:
Article 6 paragraph 2 of the U.S. constitution:
This is known as the supremacy clause of the constitution. Basically what it says is: "This constitution, and the laws for these united states which shall be made pursuant thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united states shall be the supreme law of the land. The judges in every state shall be bound thereby. Anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary are not with standing in law. (no standing!)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) [ one of the leading cases in the history of the united states]
The opinion of the court was: "Anything that is in conflict with the constitution of the united states is null and void of law; clearly for a secondary law to come into conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come into conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. NO courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn't exist in law."
“...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....” [Chisholm v. Georgia (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 DALL (1793) pp471_472.]
Schlesinger v Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 US 208, 232-3. “We tend to overlook the basic political and legal reality that the people, not the bureaucracy, are sovereign. … Executives, lawmakers, and members of the Judiciary are inferior in the sense that they are in office only to carry out and execute the constitutional regime.” (as the people we gave them Sovereign powers, but in limited jurisdiction only, never over us. We have absolute sovereignty, they have limited sovereignty.
"'Sovereignty' means that the decree of sovereign makes law, and foreign courts cannot condemn influences persuading sovereign to make the decree." Moscow Fire Ins. Co. of Moscow, Russia v. Bank of New York & Trust Co., 294 N.Y.S. 648, 662, 161 Misc. 903. (any court other than your own is "foreign" to yours.)
"No man [or woman] in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it."
Butz v. Economou, 98 S. Ct. 2894 (1978); United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. at 220, 1 S. Ct. at 261 (1882)
(the "LAW" is not to be confused with Acts, statutes, codes, corporate policy, public policy, but rather the "common law and the supreme law of the land")
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "no state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it". See also In Re Sawyer, 124 U.S. 200 (188); U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S. Ct. 471, 66 L. Ed. 2d 392, 406 (1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L. Ed 257 (1821). (They take an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution...not war against it!)
The Constitution is a contract. It is a contract between the people and the government. WE THE PEOPLE decided the terms of that contract before we would allow the federal government to be created. It is WE THE PEOPLE who decide when the terms of that contract have been violated. No court, no justice, no magistrate, no official of that government has a higher nor more legitimate basis for determining the violation of that contract than the people who created it. The people decide and have final say. To accept that the government may decide how, when, or if they can violate OUR contract is to relinquish all power of the people to the state. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if the state can decide what is lawful under the contract (conflict of interest) that it will become self serving and devolve into absolute tyranny and despotism. The determination of what is or is not constitutional rests with the people not the state or their courts.
“To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head.” [Merrion et al., DBA Merrion & Bayless, et al. v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe et al. (1982) 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144_148]
The above case is important because all the purported adhesion contracts (commercial agreements) signed with federal and state governments including the social security card, the marriage license, the birth certificate, voters registration, all permits and applications, driver's license etc etc are all considered to be "unconditional contracts" with a promise to obey, perform, and be liable. What the above case demonstrates is that the state cannot claim that in signing such purported contracts that our constitutional rights can be considered waived, yet the states and federal government do so claim....unlawfully. Any such claim is void and without merit.
WHEREAS The United States Inc. and our elected official trustees, serving as directors of said corporation and pretending to serve the interests of the people in their corporate charade, have repeatedly violated the supreme law of this land, failed to uphold their sworn oath to uphold and defend it, and warred against it; and
WHEREAS they have refused to address numerous petitions of grievances expressed by the people for their blatant violations of our laws and the rights of the people; and
WHEREAS they now openly declare their intent to war against the peoples of these united states openly and forcefully, and
WHEREAS said acts are unconstitutional and thus ab initio (void at inception), we hereby call upon our state and local elected official trustees to act accordingly as follows:
All public servant trustees who have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states shall be held responsible for having read it and for understanding it. The excuse of not having read or understood that which you swore an oath to "uphold and defend" will not be accepted, as "ignorance of THE law is no excuse."
Regarding the personal liability of said official trustees for violations of constitutional rights.
NO IMMUNITY!
DO NOT CLAIM: "Well, we acted in good faith....or We had good faith reliance that you broke the law..."reasonable cause", and of course that means you can't sue us." THAT IS A LIE. See two cases; Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) and Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980)
Basically what these two cases say: "Where plain language of a statute supported by consistent judicial interpretation is strong, it is not necessary to look beyond the words of the statute."
Both cases were civil rights cases. "The right of action created by statute relating to deprivation under color of state law of a right secured by the constitution and the laws of the united states encompasses claims which are solely based on statutory violations of federal law, and applied to the claim that claimants had been deprived of their rights in some capacity, to which they were entitled.
The supreme court said; "You are deemed to be officers of the law; you are to advise us of the law; you can hardly claim that you were in good faith for willful deprivation of the law, and you certainly can't claim ignorance of the law, because a citizen out there on the street can't claim ignorance of the law. It makes the law look stupid if an officer of the court or some officer of government doesn't know the law and then they go ahead and abuse somebody's constitutional rights."
So, in matters of constitutional rights both these cases uphold one point: If you violate constitutional rights you do so at your own peril. Title 18 Sec 241, 242. says that; upon conviction you are subject to a $10,000.00 fine, 10 years in jail, or both, and if death results, life in prison. They are telling you "Don't violate somebody's constitutional rights." (that is per EACH right violated....)
Title 42 USC sec. 1983, 1985, &1986 clearly establishes the right to sue anybody that does that. There is NO judicial immunity for violating someone's constitutional rights.
Judges beware, you are deemed to know the law and swear to uphold it. You can hardly claim that you acted in good faith in willful deprivation of the law and you certainly can't claim ignorance of the law for it would make the law look stupid for a knowledgeable judge to claim ignorance of the law when a citizen on the street can make no such claim.
City and county law enforcement officers must refuse to obey unconstitutional mandates, acts, laws, or corporate policy operating under "color of law" and nullify the criminal violations of the supreme law of this land and refuse to allow federal corporate troops on the streets of our cities and counties. Willing county residents should be deputized by the constitutional county sheriff to serve as necessary to prevent foreign and hostile federal corporate troops entry therein at any time or for any reason.
State elected official trustees including the legislature, the governor, and the attorney general shall immediately act to refuse compliance, nullify, and prevent unconstitutional mandates by federal usurpers upon the state, the people of the state, or the presence of federal troops within its boundaries and create a state militia of willing state Citizens as outlined in the second amendment to assist in the prevention of federal corporate troops entering upon state territory outside the current military bases therein. No federal corporate military members or contractors operating under federal command shall appear upon the streets of the state in uniform or carrying firearms or weapons of any kind which might be used against the people; nor shall they appear in public in the capacity of federal troops as this shall be viewed as an act of open hostility against the people.
Any public servant trustee serving the people of this state who shall call for, or give approval for, the use of federal troops against the people within the borders of this state whether active duty, reserves, national guard, or mercenary contractors representing federal interests shall be deemed to have committed treason upon the people of this state and shall be held responsible by the people of this state and prosecuted to the fullest extent of THE law.
Be it noticed and declared that henceforth any actions taken to enforce unconstitutional mandates or decrees upon the sovereign peoples of these united states by any officer, official, or public servant trustee shall be deemed hostile, an act of warring upon the people, a breach of trust, a violation of oath, and will not be tolerated. Such actions will be responded to in kind by the people.
THIS IS NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST.
THIS IS NOTICE TO NULLIFY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT AND SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.
All public official trustees are called upon to honor their sworn oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution for these united states or be recognized as an enemy of the people for having violated the trust and your sworn duty to the people and our constitution. Acts of warring upon the people will not be tolerated and the excuse of "following orders" shall not be accepted as an excuse for violating THE law of this land and your sworn oath to uphold it. The Nuremberg trials determined that following orders is not a valid excuse for violating the rights of the people and will not be seen as such in this country by the people herein.
cc’d to:
Alex Jones
county sheriff
county commissioner
mayor
state legislature
state representative
state senator
state attorney general
speaker of the house
governor
“He who trades liberty for security rarely gets (or deserves) either!” …Benjamin Franklin
News as we go into Independence Day. Rand Paul may filibuster the Senate until they debate the debt ceiling.
Tea Party favorite Sen. Rand Paul is planning a filibuster sometime next week to bring the debt ceiling negotiations to the Senate, the Huffington Post is reporting.
“We’ve not had one minute of debate about the debt ceiling in any committee,” the Kentucky Republican told C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” in a Sunday interview. He said after not having a budget or an appropriations bill in two years, he’s “part of the freshmen group in the Senate that’s saying, ‘No more.’”
So next week, he’ll take a stand: he’ll filibuster until negotiations about the debt ceiling take place on the floor of the Senate.
A group of conservative senators plan to present their own proposal to raise the debt limit, hand-in-hand with a balanced budget amendment.
Paul’s declaration of an impending filibuster comes after an attempt by a fellow Republican, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson. Last Tuesday, Johnson blocked all unanimous consent calls, the equivalent of halting any and all Senate business.
Filibuster deform is dead. The Democrats, campaigning on the mantel, yet again, of “reform,” have failed to get the votes to kill the filibuster. Ironically, it was the Democrats themselves who killed it. The big question is why.
Frankly, looking at the map for 2012, it isn’t too hard to figure out why. The Democrats are nervous about losing the Senate. A number of states are up for grabs. North Dakota looks like it will definitely switch to the GOP. Virginia is a strong possibility. Already, the GOP is in fine shape to hold its own.
With Republicans making advances and most likely going to pick up House seats due to redistricting, the Democrats’ willingness to scrap filibuster deform is a good early indicator that they are worried about 2012.
— Erick Erickson
Reid’s Rules Scheme Defeated in the Senate
01/28/2011
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-N.V.) relinquished his plans to drastically change the rules of the Senate in order to pass his liberal agenda with a smaller majority.
Reid’s effort to kill the filibuster, which is the minority’s right to effect legislation, went down in flames in the final rules changes on Thursday. “In the short term, this is a victory for conservatives. As part of the current minority party in the Senate, their rights will be preserved," said Marty Gold, a former Senate leadership aide who is now an attorney at Covington and Burling.
"In addition, extreme mechanisms that had been proposed to advance new rules and limit filibusters came to nothing in the end,” said Gold.
The rules voted on the floor were less important than the gentleman’s agreements made between Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Both agreed to never try again to use the nuclear option, which is to change the rules of the Senate with only 51 votes, instead of the established 67 vote margin. McConnell and Reid also agreed to use the filibuster and amendment tree procedural maneuvers less often in the future.
“What we need most in the Senate is a change in behavior in addition to this change in rules. We need to preserve the Senate as a forum for minority rights. We need to preserve the 60-vote requirement for major votes. That will force consensus. That will cause us to work together,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) on Thursday.
Alexander negotiated the bipartisan deal with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) at the behest of McConnell and Reid.
For the past month, Reid has been trying to change the rules of the Senate so that he could pass Democrat-supported bills with 51 votes instead of 60. The Democrat majority in the Senate went from 59-53 after the Republican wave in the midterm elections.
McConnell waged war against the Democrats’ attempted rules changes, to the point that Reid was forced to shut down the Senate for weeks to figure out how to proceed. By mid-January, Reid folded and agreed to bipartisan negotiations on any new rules.
Many believe that Reid conceded defeat because he realized the likelihood of the Republicans taking over the Senate in 2012. If Reid’s rules to trample the rights of the minority had gone into effect, the Democrats could be the ones who suffer the most in the long term.
“The rules compromise reached today will look like a half-measure to the liberal blogosphere,” said Gold. “But if Democrats go into the minority in two years, liberals will be happy for this day.”
The final rules changes which passed the Senate were crafted by bipartisan agreement and only moderately change the institution to end secret holds and waive the reading of amendments.
“Holds” give the power of one state, via one Senator, to stop a vote. The “secret hold” allowed for flexible negotiations behind closed doors to fix the Senator’s concerns without interest groups or other forces intervening. The resolution to end secret holds, which passed 92-4, states that a Senator must publicly disclose a notice of intent to object to any measure or matter.
The rule to waive the reading of amendments, sponsored by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), ends the ability for a Senator to delay a vote by requiring an amendment be read aloud. The resolution, which passed 81-15, says that an amendment cannot be forced read aloud if the text of it is made available 72 hours in advance of the vote.
More importantly than what happened on the floor, McConnell and Reid made the gentleman's agreement about how the Senate would operate going forward.
“McConnell and Reid both forswore using the nuclear option,” said a source close to the negotiations. “McConnell said that if he’s the Leader in the next Congress, he will not use the same extraordinary means to ram new rules down the throats of the Democrats in retribution.”
Also, the two leaders agreed to not use two important procedural methods as often in order to preserve the great rights of the Senate: to amend and to debate.
McConnell agreed that the Republicans would use the filibuster less often in this Congress. To filibuster means to debate a bill without a time limit to prevent a vote on a bill. Cloture is the process of ending the filibuster, and under current rules adopted in 1975, takes 60 votes to pass. The minority uses the filibuster as a stalling tactic to have more power over debate and vote.
Reid wanted to change the rules so that bills would get voted on with only 51 votes, which would be a lot easier for him to get with 53 Democrats, than the 60 needed now.
In return, Reid agreed to be less active in filling up the amendment tree to block out all Republican amendments. The amendment tree refers to the process of putting amendments on a bill as it goes through the legislation process.
The Majority Leader has the power to add the maximum amount of amendments to the tree, which locks out any amendments by the minority party. Over the past two years, Reid has used his power to fill up the amendment tree drastically more often than had been done in the past.
“The Majority Leader used that power to cut off all amendments and debate 44 times. That’s more than the last 6 majority leaders combined,” said Sen. Alexander on the floor.
Reid agreed to not use up all the amendments, so that the Republicans can offer their alternatives to legislation.
Finally, McConnell and Reid agreed to lessen by one-third the number of presidential appointments which require Senate confirmation. Intending to lessen the backlog of high-level appointees, the final deal is expected to exempt approximately 400 political appointees from confirmation.
The appointee part of the agreement seems to be a victory for Reid because Democratic President Obama has more power to appoint without Senate approval. But Alexander sees it as a win for common sense.
“We confirm too many people. It is not necessary for us to confirm the PR officer for a minor department. There is no need for that,” said Alexander. “We need to be able to work on more important issues.”
Overall, the Republicans came out of this high-stakes political fight ahead because the minority party could have easily been trampled in the Senate.
I’d say the final victor is the American people, who keep the right to be heard, whether their Senator is in the majority or minority.
“What they have done...is create a window in which we have had a good, open discussion about the kind of place we want to work, the kind of Senate we hope would serve the American people the best,” said Alexander.
“And we have come to a consensus about a change in behavior, which I believe, in the end, will be more important than the change in the rules,” he said.
By: Miss Emily Miller is a senior editor of HUMAN EVENTS. Previously, she served as the Deputy Press Secretary at the U.S. Department of State and the Communications Director for the House Majority Whip. Miller also served as an Associate Producer at ABC News and started her career at NBC News. Follow her on Twitter and Facebook.
Waivers for Favors Michelle Malkin President Obama's storytellers recently launched a White House blog series... Read More
Sen. Joe Lieberman says he will back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s healthcare reform bill because of its inclusion of a “public option” — a devastating blow to the Obama administration’s hopes of unified Democratic support for a healthcare bill with a government-run insurance program. (Full Article)
We are getting closer and closer to “ObamaCare Day” Please keep up the pressure on your representatives and Senators. Stop ObamaCare, especially the Public Option. We all know by now if Obama, Pelosi and Reid are desperate to push something down our throats… It is BAD!!
ObamaCare: If At First You Don't Succeed: Lie, Lie Again Is Washington’s Motto
(And when you keep having to re-write, re-name and hide what you are doing… any thinking person knows it is all bad and all wrong!!)
Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama are scheming in secret on ObamaCare... they're essentially meeting behind closed doors to re-write it.
What's in this re-write? Who knows? But one thing is certain... your worst health care nightmares are about to come true... and soon.
That's not a rumor. It's an unfortunate fact. Patricia Murphy with Politics Daily writes: "[T]op White House officials are now meeting in the Capitol with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sens. Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Max Baucus of Montana, away from Republicans and the press...."
But it gets even worse.
Once the cat was out of the bag - in what may go down in history as one of the most surreal moments of American political history - Harry Reid and Max Baucus actually emerged from their proverbial smoke-filled room just long enough to reassure us that they're actually being open and transparent.
According to Jeffrey Young with The Hill: "Two senators at the forefront of healthcare reform went to great lengths Tuesday to brag about how open and transparent the legislative process has been. Then, they resumed prepping for another closed-door meeting."
Baucus actually had the audacity to tell the assembled reporters:
"I have not been involved in such an open and transparent process as this. I'm very, very proud that we have done it... it's so important to remind ourselves that no effort that I've been involved in and I don't think anyone else in the Senate's been involved with - certainly nothing with such significance and magnitude - has been so open and transparent as this. Totally open and transparent and I'm very proud of it."
Dodd picked up the thought and continued the sickening charade: "Let me pick up on the point that Sen. Baucus was making. The suggestion somehow that this is being done otherwise is just blatantly false and a distraction from [what] we need to be talking about."
And when they were finished... they excused themselves and went back to their back-room negotiations.
Feel like screaming yet? You should!! And you/we need to be screaming at Washington to STOP. Dump ObamaCare and start over or just let everything settle and begin bi-partisan real incremental changes next year. This is what really needs to happen!
Throughout the congressional halls and in the closed-door meetings Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, and other powerful Dems are trying to persuade moderate dems to accept the newly proposed bill and its highly controversial public option. The newest and perhaps the most hypocrical technique is telling all the dems to remember Ted Kennedy as they cast their vote on the government-run health care bill. For once, I actually agree with the progressives on this one. No, i don't agree with their immoral tactics, but I do believe that legislators should remember the late Senator as they cast their vote. By this, I mean that they should remember that he freely chose to use his own money to choose his own doctors, his own treatment, and his own preferred method of treatment. Ironically, if the Dems universal- single payer system prevails, which it eventually will if this bill passes (its a very slippery slope, and we know that is their intentions, from Obama down) this option will no longer be available to millions of Americans. Did Ted Kennedy, (a staunch proponent of universal healthcare) go to Cuba, Canada, or England for treatment, since they have such programs in place? No, of course not he chose the best health care system in the world, the United States of America. I pray that all Americans will always enjoy the opportunity to purchase their own healthcare.
And do not be fooled ObamaCare includes higher costs, worse medical care; especially for seniors… your parents, grandparents and someday you, loss of choice, public money for abortions, government control in your healthcare decisions including life and death which equals death panels, no matter what they call them, higher taxes, cuts in Medicare, more costs to the already overburdoned states through Medicaid, coverage of illegals, and it will add to the national debt.
Demand real insurance reform now!; Tort reform, lobbying reform, and portability are the only ways to do so... yet they are absent in EVERY bill thus far.
The republicans have been locked out of this process and now Olympia Snowe, the only Republican Senator who temporarily supported ObamaCare has dropped her support. Republicans have tried to meet with the White House and have been refused a meeting since April, even with the Senator and Congressman who are trained doctors.
Don’t buy the Dem’s and Obama’s lies. Remember when Obama promised he would meet with anyone who asked and go over the bill line by line… He won’t even allow anyone but his cheerleaders into a general HC meeting. The GOP has lots of suggestions. Here are few:
Those who have followed the progress of ObamaCare and signed petitions, attended town halls, picketed and contacted the WH, the Senate and Congress over and over are tired… but we are on the final stretch and cannot stop now. Enlist a friend or two or three and both step up and keep up the pressure!!!!
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and (202) 225-3121
There are 3 Cornerstones to the Obama’s (and his puppet master’s) Agenda: ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, Destroying the American Economy. Then… sign on to the United Nation’s Climate Treaty in Copenhagen, which cedes our sovereignty to the United Nations. The moment to stand-up, America, is NOW!!!
POSTED AT 9:30 AM ON AUGUST 19, 2009 BY ED MORRISSEY
The New York Times offers a strong hint that Democrats in the Senate will use the ‘budget reconciliation process' as a cover to move ObamaCare through the chamber to avoid a filibuster. The Democrats will “go it alone,” the headline reads, although the actual report makes the how of that rather ambiguous. And well it should, since the Democrats know — or should know — that to try reconciliation would be an invitation to a war that would bring Congress to a screeching halt:
Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed. …
The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
In fact, the article never mentions the word “reconciliation,” the process by which the Senate approves a ‘budget’ for the federal government. Under the rules of reconciliation, no cloture vote is needed, as the chamber has a Constitutional duty to produce a budget. Some Democrats have threatened this for months, notably Chuck Schumer, but the plan has a couple of big flaws. First, the Democrats have to convince the Senate parliamentarian, ostensibly non-partisan, to agree that the bill is primarily budgetary. No one in their right mind could honestly make that judgment about massive regulation of 15% of the American economy. They’re likely to get denied before they even get started.
However, if they do manage to get past that obstacle, the Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next year. Those unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedure may not realize that a great many steps get skipped by unanimous consent. Bill-reading is just one example. One Senator can force each and every bill to be read aloud at every appearance it makes on the Senate floor, including when they are sent to committee. For ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, one bill reading could take a week, keeping the Senate floor locked off from any other business.
Traditionally, Senators give each other the courtesy of unanimous consent to allow business to proceed at a normal pace. If the Democrats try to force ObamaCare through reconciliation, that unanimous consent will dissipate faster than an Obama expiration date. It won’t take the entire Republican caucus to gum up the works, either; it only takes a single objection to end unanimous consent, and the GOP has more than a couple of conservative firebrands who will gladly toss sand in the gears to stop Harry Reid from steamrolling them.
Democrats might think that this will gain them sympathy with the public, but not if they’re breaking rules to pass an increasingly unpopular and intrusive piece of legislation. It will create a firestorm of anger even worse than what we’ve seen in the townhalls thus far. They would be signing their way to minority status, especially in the House. They can kiss the rest of their agenda goodbye for the rest of this session, too, including cap-and-trade. Even budgeting will prove very difficult.
There’s a reason the Times didn’t mention reconciliation. It’s a bluff. Not even Harry Reid is this foolish… or is He???
The vice president can't complain if Republicans object to Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
Vice President Joe Biden is widely praised for the expertise he brings in helping Barack Obama choose a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Having served for three decades on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is considered an asset both for his relationships with committee members and his familiarity with the nuts and bolts of judicial nominations. So let's have a look at how the confirmation process actually fared under Mr. Biden's leadership.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Biden was present for the nomination and confirmation of every currently sitting Supreme Court justice except for John Paul Stevens. In 1986, the year before Mr. Biden took over as committee chairman, Antonin Scalia was approved by the Senate in a vote of 98-0. Then came Robert Bork and a presidential election.
Before Judge Bork's nomination, Mr. Biden had said he would support him. And why not? He was widely considered a dazzling legal mind and had even received (during his confirmation to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals) a rating of "exceptionally well-qualified" from the liberal-leaning American Bar Association. "Say the administration sends up Bork," Mr. Biden told the Philadelphia Inquirer in November 1986, "and, after our investigations, he looks a lot like Scalia. I'd have to vote for him, and if the [special-interest] groups tear me apart, that's the medicine I'll have to take."
But by the time of the actual nomination, Democrats were promising to play "hardball" with President Ronald Reagan's nominees and Mr. Biden was running for president. Mr. Biden's Democratic colleagues lined up against the nominee. They were led by Sen. Edward Kennedy, who demonized him with a monologue on "Robert Bork's America," which he promised would be "a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions." Liberal groups joined the chorus for Mr. Biden to recant his earlier support, which he did, helping to defeat Mr. Bork's nomination.
Back then the tactics were considered shocking. Warren Burger, the former chief justice, said he was "astonished" by the comments he'd read about a nominee he thought was one of the most qualified he'd seen in 50 years. If the Senate rejected Mr. Bork, he said, "then they shouldn't have confirmed me."
Just one year after the conservative Mr. Scalia's unanimous confirmation the winds had changed dramatically. The Senate had hitherto proceeded on the principle that it owed the president deference on his judicial selections. No longer.
"The framers clearly intended the Senate to serve as a check on the president and guarantee the independence of the judiciary," Mr. Biden said in August 1987 in defense of his newfound opposition to Judge Bork. "The Senate has an undisputed right to consider judicial philosophy." With that marker placed, the ultimate winner of the seat vacated by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell Jr. was a nominee nearly devoid of political philosophy -- Anthony Kennedy.
Mr. Biden's obstruction was further rewarded by the first President Bush. In attempting to dodge controversy, he gave liberals David Souter, whose appeal was enhanced by the fact that he had been a federal judge for less than a year and had almost no paper trail.
By the time Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings came around, Mr. Biden's modus operandi was well known. In his book, "My Grandfather's Son," Justice Thomas recalls that before the Anita Hill inquisition began, Mr. Biden called him and said "Judge, I know you don't believe me but if the allegations come up I will be your biggest defender." "He was right about one thing," Justice Thomas wrote, "I didn't believe him."
Under Mr. Biden's leadership, holding up nominations to the nation's appeals courts also became a routine exercise. In 1988, the Senate Judiciary Committee delayed 17 months before refusing to confirm law professor and scholar Bernard Siegan to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals because of his libertarian positions on economic issues. In 1992, Mr. Bush's nominee to the 11th Circuit, Edward Carnes, endured an eight-month delay and an attempted filibuster before finally being confirmed. By 1992, 64 judicial nominees were stuck in the senatorial muck waiting for the Judiciary Committee to give them a yea or nay.
The Senate obstructionism that began with Reagan's nominees thus became a game of political revenge as each new batch of nominees was made to suffer at the hands of one party for the treatment its nominees had received in the last round. Republicans blocked some of President Bill Clinton's nominees, including briefly, Sonia Sotomayor, the Second Circuit judge said to be on Mr. Obama's short list to replace Mr. Souter. Unable to bottle up Miguel Estrada in committee in 2003, Democrats filibustered him on the floor of the Senate. Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) held up as many as four judicial nominations for years in retribution for Republicans blocking Mr. Clinton's nomination of Helene White (she was confirmed for the Sixth Circuit last year). And so on.
The effect of this game has been toxic not only for the nominees but for the courts. Many circuits have suffered judicial emergencies, defined as vacancies on courts overwhelmed by their caseloads, or vacancies languishing more than 18 months on busy circuits. Some stood open longer. The Bush administration's 2006 appointment of Peter Keisler to fill the D.C. Circuit seat vacated by John Roberts was left to expire, unfilled, at the end of the administration.
True, Supreme Court nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito were confirmed -- but without the support of then Sens. Joe Biden or Barack Obama. Mr. Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58-42, the second narrowest margin in Senate history (after Clarence Thomas). Even Chief Justice Roberts's margin of 78-22 was contentious in historical terms. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 93-3, Sandra Day O'Connor 99-0, John Paul Stevens 98-0, and David Souter 90-9.
What is in store for Mr. Obama's nominees remains to be seen. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he isn't inclined to the filibuster even if it is an option and most expect the president's Supreme Court choice will be confirmed.
As a matter of judicial philosophy, however, Mr. Obama has said he wants a nominee who "understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book." If that is considered by opponents as grounds for rejection Joe Biden will know where they're coming from.
By COLLIN LEVY - Ms. Levy is a senior editorial writer at the Journal, based in Washington.
thecommunists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
Then they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
Then they came for the trade unionists, I did not protest; I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, I did not protest; I was a Protestant.
Then they came for the Jews, I did not speak out; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Election 2014 - What Is Really At Stake
Help Stop Voter Fraud!! Stand for the Constitution and God
Time to remember that: "We Surround Them", not the other way!
Stand Up Against Voter Fraud... Demand Re-Counts and Verification Until It is Right!! A Little Ink Goes a Long Way Toward Honesty... 1 Person 1 Vote... No More Mickey Mouse or Dead People Voting
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about IT! --Albert Einstein
Call Congress Today and Tell Them To Vote Against Cap and Trade
The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality -- Dante Alighieri / Often Quoted by Mark Twain
Thanks for calling the Congressional switchboard. Keep up the pressure: "NO on Cap and Trade"!!! "NO Vote on Obamacare", NO on another Stimulus Bill, NO to the never ending parade of "Power Grab Bills", and ABSOLUTELY NO on the Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen!!
"No" on Cap and Trade and "No" on Government Controlled Healthcare!!! And Keep up the good fight! Keep up the Pressure on both the House and Senate! These are 2-fights the American People cannot afford to lose!!!
If you choose not to go this route… call and fax your Senator and as many of them on the list yourself, but don’t sit idly by!!
United States Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121
We apologize in advance for any Videos or links that are not functioning in these or other older posts. Internet information... like 'true' history in our student's textbooks are under constant attack by the Progressive Movement and even more so under the present administration. Try to save what you can to your own computer.
"...there comes a time, ladies and gentlemen, when ideology can cause death. I am so tired, so tired, of zealots, primarily on the left, putting their insane personal agendas above the safety of fellow Americans. Do you think the brave soldiers and Marines operating in dangerous areas right now want [unreleased photos of alleged abuse of prisoners] all over al-Jazeera and the terror websites? So let's look out for the military, OK? Nancy Pelosi has an obligation to get the loons in her party under control. If the Speaker can't do that, she doesn't deserve her position." ... Bill O'Reilly
Updated:If you'd like to contact Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, here's the contact information that you'll need.
![Rand Paul - Filibuster_thumb[1]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5EdQ-VFrOq8_KTSQMO9ScwtGhAevJQvoT0S1j-QLnWBZxPsEw0Q6-9PnqFdlVznR289jF3gGBDvm03YUDjje7K1xRGppHK2jcXCXosRTKq7IV-lRim5J3uFr0__isKy2sgtqnKPQ6GY7G/s1600-h/Rand%252520Paul%252520-%252520Filibuster_thumb%25255B1%25255D%25255B6%25255D.jpg "Rand Paul - Filibuster_thumb[1]")
Victory: Eric Holder Sent Letter To Rand Paul On Obama’s Authority To Target U.S. Citizens With Drones: ‘The Answer Is No’
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-N.V.) relinquished his plans to drastically change the rules of the Senate in order to pass his liberal agenda with a smaller majority.
