Archive for August, 2009

Thank You David William Hedrick!!

August 24, 2009

 

David William Hedrick, a member of the silent majority, decided that he was not going to be silent anymore. So, he let U.S. Congressman Brian Baird have it.

Advertisements

Constitution Project

August 20, 2009

constitution

 

Do you believe the Constitution is the rule of law? Do you believe in the original intent of our founding fathers? Do you want to reform Congress? I’m not talking about reforming a Democratic Congress, but Congress.

If your answer is yes, we have to work together to make this happen. The goal in it’s entirety is to make all three branches of government respect and abide by the rule of law, know as the Constitution of the United States of America.

The most egregious of offenses against the Constitution is from Congress, so the focus will begin with the Legislative branch. It requires you to do some homework, because you have to know what you are talking about.

1. “We the people” need to read the Constitution. It is about four thousand, four hundred and forty (4440) words and will take less than an evening to do. Some may have to digest and research to understand what these wise men meant. Please try to understand it. The links below are an online Constitution and a pocket Constitution you can get free from The Heritage Foundation.
http://animal-farm.us/definitions/constitution
http://www.askheritage.org/Premium.aspx

Our main concern will be Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment.

2. Next, “We the people” must write to each of our Senators and our Representative to tell them that we have read the Constitution and we know what the “Powers of Congress” are and that we want them to abide by the “Powers of Congress” granted by the Constitution, and that anything not listed are reserved for the States and the people as addressed in the 10th Amendment. If they do not abide by the Constitution, they will be voted out of office.

If they do not know the “Powers of Congress”, a copy is attached, and they might spend some time reading and learning their duties. Most of these politicians know the Constitution, so this is really a poke at them.

This is to be sent to ALL of your Senators and Representative, Democratic and Republican. That would be a total of three letters, three emails, three faxes, and three phone calls. I would not suggest to send to politicians out of state, as they will look at addresses and usually only address letters from there district. That is not to say that if you have an address in another state, not to use it.

3. Below is a letter to send to your Reps and Senators. It is an example.

A. Please use the Representatives and Senators name.

B. This is an example letter. It will be more effective if you rewrite it in your own words.

C. This letter will be more effective if you send it United States Postal Service, and hand written. At least send it USPS if you don’t hand write it. I know some of you will not send a snail mail. Please do, it’s the most effective method. Please write the letter in your own words, PLEASE.

D. Send them an email. Please send a snail mail and an email, if possible. Also send a fax. Call them, but to read the letter will be too much for an intern to take time for.

D. Example letter:

<Start Letter>
————————————————-

Dear [Senator or Representative] [your Senators or Representatives name],

“We the People” are tired of what is going on in Washington D.C. “We the People” would like to see you do your real job in Congress, and not make up jobs to keep yourselves busy and waste our tax money, not to mention making unconstitutional law.

Your job in Congress is established in the Constitution under Article 1, Section 8. There are only 18 items listed. Just in case you didn’t know, or have forgotten they will be listed at the end of this letter.

Where is it in the Constitution that Health Care, and Cap and Trade are mentioned? For that matter, where is Social Security, global-warming research, welfare, mass transit, food stamps, minimum wage, Medicaid, Medicare, and unemployment insurance?

You can point to “general welfare” in Article 1, Section 8, to account for your unlimited power you think you possess, but if you knew your history of the United States and the Constitution, you would know that “general welfare” did not mean the welfare of the people. Here is the 1828 edition of Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, and how the word “welfare” was defined 40 years after it was written in the Constitution:

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

Welfare did not have the meaning then as it does today. In the Constitution the word “welfare” is used in the context of states. The “welfare of the United States” does not mean the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

Here are a few words from our founding fathers on “general welfare” to set you straight:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one….” — James Madison

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” –Thomas Jefferson

“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.” — President Grover Cleveland

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison

It is important that you know your history as well as the Constitution.

Please abide by these rules set forth by our Constitution of these Unites States of America or face removal from office next election.

Your Constituent,
[Your name]

P. S.
Here is your list of powers authorized to you by the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, and some more words from our founding fathers.

1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7. To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Under the Tenth Amendment: 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.

More words from our founding fathers:

“We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.” — Thomas Paine

“Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Ben Franklin

“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.” — James Madison

“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition. — Thomas Jefferson

“The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.” — James Madison

————————————————–
<End Letter>

E. Your Representative and Senators can be found at:
http://www.house.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/
Remember:
Snail mail,
Email,
Fax,
Call your Reps and Senators,
And go to town hall meetings and tea parties and bring this up.

3.

A. Send this message in it’s entirety in an email to all of your friends and relatives.

B. If you have a blog, post it on your blog and allow other bloggers to copy.

C. Post a link to your blog on all blog posts, forums and bulletin boards concerning the Constitution, inviting these bloggers to copy your post.

D. When you go to tea parties and town hall meeting, bring copies of the Constitution Project to pass out with your blog URL so they may copy it easily.

You can download a clean copy of the Constitution Project at:
http://animal-farm.us/holder/constitutionproject.txt

Please take the liberty to make changes if you can make this idea work better because this idea is not about me, but about the United States and our Constitution.

I was asked how can we get our Representative and Senators to abide by the Constitution. This is one way. Have your Tea Parties, and Town Hall meetings

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS FAILED

August 19, 2009

In July, the government posted a $180.68 billion monthly budget deficit, a record for July, marking only the third time in the past 30 years that the government ran a deficit for 11 months in a row.

 Buffett said a revived economy will not be able to generate enough revenues to bridge the gap between outlays and receipts, so changes in taxes and spending will be required.

 Politicians will not likely have the will to raise taxes or slow spending, so they may opt to quietly let inflation increase, a move that will “confiscate” wealth and allow the United States to evolve into a “banana republic economy”, he said.

 We can not allow this failed administration to take control of our health care!  In a revolutionary call to arms of sorts, a constitutional activist urges all American employees, retirees and self-employed individuals to stop paying federal income taxes and to help spread the word: “no answers, no taxes.”   Maybe we should say: “no taxes, no Obamacare!”


 

LIBERALS ARE UN-AMERICAN!

August 16, 2009

Why do we continue to allow these moonbats to call us “un-American”?? 

AND WE’RE UN-AMERICAN?? 

LIBERALS HATE AMERICA!

THE LEFTIST DISRESPECT & DOWNPLAY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AMERICAN DEATHS AT A 9/11 MEMORIAL AND YET THEY HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL US UN-AMERICAN??

 

CONSERVATIVES LOVE THIS COUNTRY AND HONOR THOSE WHO HAVE DIED FIGHTING TO PROTECT IT!

 

ANY COMMUNIST WHO FEELS ANGERED BY MY LOVE FOR THIS COUNTRY AND OUR TROOPS… CRY HERE… FLAG@WHITEHOUSE.GOV

The Second Revolution; not of Violence but Pressure!!

August 16, 2009

 

The number to the congressional switchboard is no longer in use… go figure..  Please call the White House at 202-456-1111!

FOR ALL THE LIBERAL CRACK HEAD MOONBATS… CLICK HERE TO TURN ME IN TO THE CEO OF THE UNION STATES OF AMERICA!!    flag@whitehouse.gov

I’VE BEEN TURNED IN OVER AND OVER!!  FREEDOM OF SPEECH STILL LIVES ON!

Meet Ezekiel Emanuel.. The Future of our Health Care!

August 16, 2009
obamacare3
 
Ezekiel J. Emanuel, 1996
 
Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy meet  is there a relationship between defects in our medical ethics and the reason the United States has repeatedly failed to enact universal health coverage?  I will begin to suggest an answer to this question by clarifying the locus of allocating decisions.  The allocation of health care resources can occur on three levels.  The social or, in the economist’s language, the macro level entails the proportion of the gross national product (GNP) allocated to health care.  The patient, or micro, level entails determining which individual patients will receive specific medical services; that is, whether Mrs. White should receive this available liver for transplantation.  Finally, there is an intermediate level called the service or medical level that entails determining what health care services will be guaranteed to each citizen.  These socially guaranteed services have been called “basic” or “essential” medical services or what the President’s Commission designated as “adequate health care.” Clearly, these three levels are connected.  A larger proportion of the GNP going to health care permits coverage of more services. Similarly, as demonstrated by the end-stage renal disease program, providing specific services to a wider range of patients causes upward pressure on the proportion of the GNP going to health care and/or reduces the range of services covered as part of basic medical services.  Despite these connections, these three levels are conceptually distinct.  The fundamental challenge to theories of distributive justice for health care is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially.  Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services.  Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multiple-tiered system.  Underlying the repeated failure of attempts to provide universal health care coverage in the United States is the failure to develop a principled mechanism for characterizing basic health services.  Americans fear that if society guarantees certain services as “basic,” the range of services guaranteed will expand to include all or almost all available services (except for cosmetic surgery and therapies not yet proven effective or proven ineffective).  So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services uncovered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services.  On this view, the reason the United States has failed to enact universal health coverage is not primarily political or economic; the real reason is ethical it is a failure to provide a philosophically defensible and practical mechanism to distinguish basic from discretionary health care services.  What is the reason for this failure of medical ethics?  There are two opposing explanations. One explanation points to the inherent limits of ethics.  Some philosophers, such as Amy Gutmann and Norman Daniels, argue that we lack sufficiently detailed ethical intuitions and principles to establish priorities among the vast array of health care services.  Every time we try to define basic services our intuitions “run out.”  As Gutmann once wrote: I suspect that no philosophical argument can provide us with a cogent principle by which we can draw a line within the enormous group of goods that can improve health or extend life prospects of individuals . . . The remaining question of establishing a precise level of priorities among health care and other goods is appropriately left to democratic decision making. 
 
Taken at face value, this moral skepticism is extremely dangerous; it suggests that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services.  It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed. The second explanation holds that the problem with defining basic health services is not a general lapse of ethics, but a specific lapse of liberal political philosophy that informs our political discourse, including the allocation of health care resources. The problem is that priorities among health care services can be established only by invoking a conception of the good, but this is not possible within the frame work of liberal political philosophy.  Liberalism divides moral issues into three spheres: the political, social, and domestic.  It then holds that within the political sphere, laws and policies cannot be justified by appeals to the good.  To justify laws by appealing to the good would violate the principle of neutrality and be coercive, imposing one conception of the good on citizens who do not necessarily affirm that conception of the good.  But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities among health care services and define basic medical services.  This is Dan Callahan’s view with which I agree: . .. there can be no full discussion of equality in health care without an equally full discussion of the substantive goods and goals that medicine and health care should pursue … Unless there can be a discussion of the goals of medicine in the future as rich as that of justice and health has been, the latter problem will simply not admit of any meaningful solution.  Fortunately, many, including many liberals, have come to view as mistaken a liberalism with such a strong principle of neutrality and avoidance of public discussion of the good.  Some think the change a result of the critique provided by communitarianism; others see it as a clarification of basic liberal philosophy.  Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to create an overlap between liberalism and communitarianism.  This overlap inspires hope for making progress on the just allocation of health care resources.  This refined view distinguishes issues within the political sphere into four types: issues related to constitutional rights and liberties;  issues related to opportunities, including health care and education; issues related to the distribution of wealth such as tax policies; and other political matters that may not be matters of justice but are matters of the common good, such as environmental policies and defense policies.  While there still may be disagreement about the need for a neutral justification for rights and liberties, there is consensus between communitarians and liberals that policies regarding opportunities, wealth, and matters of the common good can only be justified by appeal to a particular conception of the good.  As Rawls has put it: Public reason does not apply to all political questions but only to those involving what we may call “constitutional essentials.” More expansively, Brian Barry has written: Examples of issues that fall outside [the principle of neutrality include] two distinct kinds of items.  One set of items (tax and property laws) contains matters that are in principle within the realm of “justice as fairness” but are subject to reasonable disagreement about the implications of justice … The other set… contains issues that in the nature of the case cannot be resolved without giving priority to one conception of the good over others . . . There is no room for a complaint of discrimination simply on the ground that the policy by its nature suits those with one conception of the good more than it suits those with some different one.  This is unavoidable.  Thus, it seems there is a growing agreement between liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of justice and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources–can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good.  We may go even further. Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues.  Communitarians endorse civic republicanism and a growing number of liberals endorse some version of deliberative democracy.  Both envision a need for citizens who are independent and responsibile and for public forums that present citizens with opportunities to enter into public deliberations on social policies.  This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources.  Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic.  Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.  An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.  A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsycho- logical services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.  Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services. Perhaps using this progress in political philosophy we can begin to address Dan’s challenge, begin to discuss the goods and goals of medicine.
 
 
 
OH MY GOD, WELCOME TO OBAMACARE!  IT’S TIME TO ORDER THE BACK UP GENERATOR FOR GRANDMA! 

A Letter from Former Procter & Gamble Executive Lou Pritchett

August 13, 2009

                         AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
 
 Dear President Obama:
 
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
 
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
 
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
 
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
 
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
 
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.
 
You scare me because you lack humility & ‘class’, always blaming others.
 
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

 

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘ crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector..

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

 You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett   

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise.  Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits.  Keep it going.  All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.  It’s happening right now.  

 

      

When The Giant Wakes; The Revolution Begins..

August 11, 2009

 

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine

Americans have the right to attend town hall meetings without being labeled “un-American”.  Pelosi, I thought it was a right under the 1st Amendment to peaceably assemble and petition?  Pelosi, it is you that is “un-American”.

 

THE FACE OF SOCIALISM

August 4, 2009

thejoker

 

Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson had a few things to say about this picture:  

“Depicting the president as demonic and a socialist goes beyond political spoofery, it is mean-spirited and dangerous.”

“We have issued a public challenge to the person or group that put up the poster to come forth and publicly tell why they have used this offensive depiction to ridicule President Obama.”

Earl Ofari Hutchinson wasn’t upset at all when the moonbats posted the same picture of President George W Bush!!  What comes around; goes around! 

We The People 1 – Socialist Moonbats 0!