June 11, 2013 - Wow. Max Keiser is a madman financial expert with his own talks show, and he pulls no punches. He doesn't allow politeness to get in the way of bluntly expressing himself. In the June 11 episode of his "Keiser Report" show on Russia Today (RT), he lays into Barack Obama like no other talk show host you've heard. Watch the video below. Keiser accuses Obama of "supreme treasonous action." Obama has killed America, he said (he's referring, I'm sure, to the spirit in which American was founded). "Barack Obama got into bed with these guy who run PRISM." Keiser and co-host Stacy Herbert show a photo of Obama at a dinner meeting with the top dogs of Apple, Facebook, Google, Yahoo and others in February, 2011. You know, the key players at the key companies that make PRISM possible. (More below the video.)
"The last supper," Keiser says of that meeting. "An undertakers' convention. It's the moment when Barack Obama complicitly got in bed with these guys who run PRISM. That's the moment....this is when Barack Obama essentially took the Constitution and wiped his butt with it, and it's the moment of supreme treasonous action by the President of the United States. America is dead. 1776 to PRISM. Thanks, Barack, you killed the country."
"Thanks Barack, you killed America!"
As I said, Keiser does not mince his words. The only other guy on the talk show circuit who comes close to Keiser's red hot barbs is Dennis Miller, but Keiser's serrated edge leaves a bloodier wound.
Keiser is the kind of guy you either love or hate. Or both at once. "Some call Max Keiser a 'traitor'," said The Independent UK, "but America's most outrageous political pundit is about to become the most widely watched newscaster on the planet." It's not hard to understand why.
In the full June 11 show, Keiser and Stacy Herbert ask, "What is Boundless Informant, PRISM, Trans-Pacific Partnership, SOPA, PIPA and ACTA if not copyright prostitutes colluding and beating up the competition? Max also informs President Barack Obama that a food stamp is NOT a job" and much, much more. Keiser not only has a wicked tongue. He's a vicious tweeter, too. For example:
Max Keiser @maxkeiser New stamp in US will have a 'scratch and sniff' with bits of Obama's poop to give every American a chance to experience licking O's ass.
That's one of his milder tweets, actually. He gets rough, so approach @maxkeiser knowing there will be some salty language. But dammit, it's refreshing as hell to have a guy who says what we're all thinking actually say it. It would be beautiful if the mainstream media guys and gals in the US were even half as blunt as Mad Max.
Jan. 9, 2013 - "The president is going to act," Biden said to reporters before he met with gun violence victims and gun control advocate. "There are executives orders," said Biden, "there's executive action that can be taken."
Biden added, "We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
In other words, the Obama Regime will do as it damned pleases, legislative action be damned, representative government be damned, the Constitution be damned. The Imperial Presidency further advances itself.
Barack Obama is a racist. He has admitted it. He has demonstrated it. It is undeniable. Equal treatment for all? Not under Obama, nope. A "colorblind society?" Not if Obama can help it, and in fact he signed and executive order on July 26 that violates Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution (the "Equal Protection Clause") by establishing a government panel to promote “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”
The Executive Order, titled "White House Initiative On Educational Excellence For African Americans," begins with this bit of irony: "By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America...." It is ironic because Obama is not given any authority by the Constitution or any laws to violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. He has violated the very Constitution that he falsely claims gives him the authority to do so. (Can we have a collective "Huh?" please?)
“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Bader is a former official in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, and has sued and represented school districts and colleges in civil-rights cases. ~ Daily Caller
The Executive Order ends with as much irony as it begins with. Sec. 4. General Provisions (c) says, "This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations." As with the ironic beginning of the Order, there is no "applicable law" because the Order violates the Constitution, which is the supreme legal document.
If you can stand it, here's a video of Obama signing the racist executive order as reported by fellow racist, the Revolting Al Sharpton, complete with his usual bad grammar on MSNBC.
Rep. Paul Gosar, Arizona: Willing to compromise on the U.S. Constitution
July 12, 2012 - "What happens when a Republican Congressman tells Conservative Activists that fighting for the Constitution is a losing battle?" That's the question posed by Unite In Action, which posted this disturbing video to YouTube today. According to Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz, District 1), half of all Americans don't believe in the Constitution, and so that makes it not worth fight for if it means losing on other issues. Gosar was speaking as a panelist with other conservative activists (although one wonders how "conservative" Gosar really is if he's willing to compromise on the Constitution). Gosar is currently running for re-election.
"If all you're going to do is stand just for the Constitution and nothing less, you will lose," Gosar said. "We have to have the Constitution but a plan to get back."
"Why would they lose if they stood for the Constitution? Is it too far to go?" another panelist asked him.
"Because not everybody believes in the Constitution," Gosar said. "You have fifty percent of the people..." he was interrupted by KrisAnne Hall, Unite In Action's Director of Legal Affairs.
"You cannot abandon the Constitution," Hall said emphatically, and she continued to make a strong case for not backing down or compromising when it comes to the Constitution - as Rep. Gosar had just urged the group to do.
Gosar had local tea party support when he ran for Congress in 2010, and is now running in Arizona's 4th District after moving to Prescott. According to TriValleyCentral.com, "That leaves things wide open in the 1st District, where Democrats hold a slight numerical advantage over Republicans in the far-flung region that stretches from the north edge of Tucson through Pinal County, much of eastern Arizona and northern Arizona to the Utah border."
It would be surprising if Gosar gets the same level of enthusiastic support from tea party factions after this.
I would present more information about this but, oddly, there is nothing on the website of Unite In Action. Strangely, too, there is no information about when this event happened, where it was or even what the name of the event was. I tried to contact them, but their message function was not functioning properly at 3:14 p.m. CDT today.
Good news, more or less, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):
"In a landmark decision issued today [Dec. 14, 2010] in the criminal appeal of U.S. v. Warshak, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the government must have a search warrant before it can secretly seize and search emails stored by email service providers. Closely tracking arguments made by EFF in its amicus brief, the court found that email users have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in their stored email as they do in their phone calls and postal mail." Full article at EFF's website...
The court's decision, says EFF, "is the only federal appellate decision currently on the books that squarely rules on this critically important privacy issue, an issue made all the more important by the fact that current federal law--in particular, the Stored Communications Act--allows the government to secretly obtain emails without a warrant in many situations."Yes, this is good news, I suppose, but before you pop a bottle of champagne in celebration, keep in mind that the government breaks its own laws frequently and all to often doesn't give a damn about what the Constitution says. Take a look at the quasi-fascist Obamacare, for example, which will require each of us - through the "individual mandate" - to purchase health insurance or pay a fine or, if you don't pay the fine, be imprisoned.
Also See:Court Ruling Grants Email the Cloak of Privacy Technewsworld.com
July 2, 2010 - The Democrat-dominated Chicago City Clowncil - excuse me, Council - today passed an ordinance that shows their utter and unanimous contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the Second Amendment. The Chicago Sun-Times reports today:Grumbling about a U.S. Supreme Court they say is out of touch with America’s cities, Chicago aldermen voted 45-0 today to approve a rushed-through compromise gun ban.... Within 100 days, anyone who wants to keep a gun in the city will have to register, get their training and pay the fees. Also within 100 days, any of the estimated 10,000 Chicagoans convicted of a gun offense will have to register at their local police station like sex offenders.In other words, the aldermen know that they have to live with the Second Amendment, but they'll be damned if they'll make it easy for citizens to actually excercise their right to own and bear arms. Which leads us to the main thrust of this post: Stupid things that aldermen said at today's council meeting (all quotes taken from the Sun-Times unless otherwise indicated):
Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th) said that law was written for militias and, “they guaranteed the right to carry around muskets not Uzis.”Uhm, Ald. Smith, are you serious? I've met you, I've spoken to you, and you didn't seem as stupid as that quote makes you sound. Can you show us where in the Constitution the word "musket" or "muskets" appears? Furthermore, can you show us any evidence that the authors of the Constitution meant "muskets only?" For that matter, show us where that is in the Federalist Papers, or in any other writings by any of the Founders. Do you really believe, for example, that the Founders meant long guns and not pistols, swords, knives, bludgeons, or any other kind of weapon?
“No Supreme Court judge could live in my community and come to the same conclusion they did a couple days ago,” said Ald. Sharon Denise Dixon (24th).As for Supreme Court judges living in the 24th Ward of Chicago and her presumption about their conclusion, well, the "judges" (justices) do live in Washington, D.C., a rough town in its own right. The same justices who ruled that D.C.'s handgun ban was unconstitutional in 2008.
After that ruling (Heller),"violent crime fell" in D.C., says the Richmond Times-Dispatch, "even faster in the District of Columbia than in the U.S. as a whole. In 2009 alone, the District's murder total dropped 25 percent, to the lowest level since 1967."Of course, geniuses like Mayor Daley and Ald. Dixon are immune to hard facts. They'd rather go with the typical liberal emotional argument, facts be damned. The D.C. ban first went into effect in 1976, and according to the Washington Post it was essentially ineffective - gun violence "continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times." Chicago's experience was virtually identical over the same period.
Alderman Dixon needs to get out and talk to her constituents more. Is she completely unaware of the high rate of gun violence in her ward? Does she think that the majority of those shooting are by law-abiding folks, or perhaps by criminally-minded people who possess the guns illegally and won't give a damn about this new ordinance?
“I find it hard to believe that the Supreme Court justices that voted to strike our handgun laws have spent any time in the communities that many of us represent,” Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) said. “There’s no way if they knew the violence our young people face every day that they could decide this was a reasonable course of action.”.Alderman Preckwinkle, see my remarks regarding Ald. Dixon's equally stupid remark, and know this: The violence that the American Revolutionaries faced everyday was worse than what your constituents see in the 4th Ward. Read the Federalist Papers. Stop believing the false myth that gun control reduces crime - it doesn't.
The reason for the Second Amendment was so that the citizenry could protect itself. Yes, they had a tyrannical government in mind, but I seriously doubt that John Adams would object to a little old lady blowing away one of your drug-crazed, murder-bent 4th Ward residents as he breaks through her apartment door. The Supreme Court upheld the letter of the Second Amendment, Ald. Preckwinkle. Go tell the elderly, the small females, and the shop owners in your ward that you believe they have no right to protect themselves against an amoral segment of society, created and perpetuated in large part by the decayed moral "values" of liberals such as yourself. Go on, tell them.
But Ald. Ed Burke (14th) retorted, “We can disagree with the Supreme Court all we want, but … this is the law and we’re going to have to follow it.”Burke's comment sounds reasonable at first, until you realize that he is saying that he disagrees with the Court's upholding of the U.S. Constitution. Why does Alderman Burke seem to resent having the Constitution applied equally to all Americans? He did redeem himself somewhat, however, when he said that he had to "confess that back in 1982, when I was chair of the police committee that perhaps I and so many others that voted in favor of this [handgun ban] ordinance exhibited too much ardor for the ban and we perhaps we should have been more sensitive to weighing the rights of legitimate citizens to have weapons." Well, that's nice, but notice Burke's elitist attitude in the "weighing of the rights" guaranteed by the Constitution.
Still, Burke seemed determine to make an ass of himself. He also uttered this stupidity:
“All the gang-bangers out there who have been convicted of gun offenses who think that they can flaunt this law, they’re going to be locked up,” Burke said. “Each day that you don’t register, it’s a separate offense. If you don’t register for 365 days, that’s 365 offenses.”Alderman Burke doesn't seem to understand that it's been primarily the bad guys who have committed gun offense. Does he not see the profound irony and simultaneous idiocy of his speaking about gang-bangers who have "been convicted of gun offenses," and are no longer imprisoned, and will - in his apparent opinion - have the opportunity to register for legal gun ownership? Does Ald. Burke favor allowing those who have been convicted for gun violence to be able to legally register - and own - a gun? His statement indicates so.
Finally, Mayor Daley himself made another of his typically stupid statements. CNN quotes him as saying this:
"Either we enact new and reasonable handgun laws in Chicago to protect our residents -- as the council has done -- or we do nothing and risk greater gun violence in our streets and in our homes," Mayor Daley said.Mayor Daley is a deaf, dumb and blind imbecile insofar as gun ownership is concerned. Nevertheless, somebody should urge him to read the the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Washington Post pieces that are referenced above. Then he should watch this short video by Penn and Teller (contains strong language):
Ah, freedom. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban as being unconstitutional. Mayor Daley, whose own bodyguards are heavily armed, must be soiling his pants this morning. Now that Chicagoans can legally possess a defensive weapon to protect themselves from the criminals who were never hobbled by the handgun ban, we thought we'd help you find a place near you at which you can load up on the latest self-preservation technology. In other words, guns and ammo. Click the map and start shopping.
View Larger Map
Suppose you were a foreigner in Mexico, whether as a tourist or an immigrant. How would you be treated by Mexico? Not very well, amigo. In fact, you'd find yourself wishing you were an illegal immigrant from Mexico, suffering in the U.S. with welfare, court advocates, free ER visits, and more.
The Mexican Constitution begins with this pretty phrase in Chapter 1, Article 1: "Every person in the United Mexican States shall enjoy the guarantees granted by this Constitution, which cannot be restricted or suspended except in such cases and under such conditions as are herein provided." Ah, but there's the catch. One of the "cases" and "conditions" includes foreigners and being a non-Mexican.
Chapter 2, Article 32 says that "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable."
In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:
• Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
• Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
• Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
• Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
• Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
• Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
You can read an authoritative English translation of the Constitution of Mexico, published by the Organization of American States, on the Website of Illinois State University. Quotations in this document are from the OAS translation. Or you can go directly to the PDF of the Mexican constitution at the OAS website.
Oh, and by the way: As soon as the Federal Government of Mexico declares that all people with any European ancestry will leave Mexico and go back to Europe, I'll agree to giving Arizona, California and other territory won in 1848 back. Until then, Mexico, shut the hell up.
Congressman Phil Hare (D-Illinois) is a liar. He's also an idiot. He's a lying idiot, in fact, and the videos below prove it. On April 2, 2010 a video of Hare was posted (see it below), in which he was asked by a blogger about the constitutionality of the health care bill that was recently passed. "I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest," he said, "I care more about the people that are dying every day that don't have health care."
The video, and Hare's admission to violating his Constitutional oath, immediately got national attention. Hare has since put out his own video, which is a brief and very lame "explanation" of what he told the blogger. As in the blogger video, Hare lies in his own response.
What Hare and other Democrats do not seem to care about is the oath to uphold the Constitution, taken by every member of Congress, which does not allow exceptions to be made. Would Hare also favor unconstitutional legislation to completely ban automobiles because of "people that are dying every day" in car crashes? That would be unconstitutional, too, but it idiots like Hare could use the same excuse "about the people that are dying every day" for such a law. What Hare and his ilk have done, quite simply, is to take the law into their own hands like a bunch of vigilantes.
WGIL Radio reports: The congressman representing the Galesburg area is once again on YouTube; but this time, he's trying to clean up the potential damage created by the last time he was on YouTube. 17th District Congressman Phil Hare has posted a video to his own YouTube page where he again tries to explain what he said following a town hall meeting Thursday in Quincy. Bloggers and even some radio talk show hosts have claimed Hare said he doesn't care about the Constitution.
WGIL quoted Hare: "I said, and I quote, 'I am not worried about the Constitution on this,' meaning, the health care bill," Hare said. "I was not worried that the health care bill would be ruled unconstitutional. If it had been, I wouldn't have voted for a bill that I knew would be unconstitutional."
Hare, however, admitted to the blogger that he doesn't know how (or if) the health care bill fall within constitutional limits.
BLOGGER: Where in the Constitution does it give you - HARE: (interrupts) I don't know -. BLOGGER: - the authority to - HARE: - I don't know.
Congressman Hare has shown that he's willing to make exceptions to the Constitution for his favored bits of legislation. That's what he said. What other Constitutional exceptions is he - and other legislators - willing to make? Hare is like a drunk driver who gets ticketed for DUI, then tells the judge that he's really a law abiding citizen in most cases, but he's just not worried about how well he drives while boozed up.
February 18, 2010 - Yesterday, the Illinois Senate met in private to review a report on state finances. That's right, in private. A secret meeting to discuss the way your tax dollars are being managed - and mismanaged. The media and the public were actually barred from entering the Senate chambers. That's illegal as hell.
FOR ABOUT 90 MINUTES Wednesday, senators gathered behind closed doors to hear a presentation from researchers with the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures about state budgets and the national economy. Senate President John Cullerton and Minority Leader Christine Radogno defended closing the meeting, saying that senators would be more comfortable in the discussion if their questions and remarks were not subject to public scrutiny. Cullerton said this applied especially to senators involved in elections.
The SJR points out that the closed session is a violation of the Illinois Constitution. To say the least, it stinks and should rightly be viewed with suspicion.
At 10 a.m. Wednesday a respected research group, the Pew Center on the States, rolled out a report on severely unfunded pension obligations. One key finding: Illinois ranks dead-last nationally in the percentage of necessary money it has set aside to pay public employees' pensions.
At precisely that moment, the Illinois Senate was meeting — illegally, we suspect — in closed-door session to hear a presentation about state budget problems nationwide. "You know you're not invited," Senate President John Cullerton told Statehouse reporters — including the Tribune's Ray Long, who was denied entry by the sergeant-at-arms when he sought to follow Cullerton into the meeting room.
"Not invited," the man said! Perhaps John Cullerton hasn't read the state constitution, which mandates an open invitation to the press and public for meeting such as this.
Think long about that. Cullerton, D-Chicago, and every Democratic and Republican senator who played along, didn't think you — or the reporters who try to keep an eye on politicians for you — had any place in that room. The open-meetings provision of the Illinois Constitution be damned. And never mind that you pay for the salaries, staffs and offices of every lawmaker in attendance: Sorry, citizens, it's your money, not your business.
Today, two very important items come to my inbox from two important political figures: John Bambenek and Adam Andrzejewski. They write about the secrecy and dark chambers in which Illinois Democrats conduct the state's business in the legislature they control. But make no mistake: There were Republicans complicit in the secret meeting yesterday, too.
The deadlocks, corruption, back room dealing and bullying in Illinois' capitol are legendary, and the overwhelming majority of comes directly from the Democrat Party, which controls the Legislature by majority. Certain Republicans share the blame; more on that in the future.
FIGHTING THE SECRECY:The two important items below are press releases, if you will, but they are well written, informative and factual. The first item comes from John Bambenek, a conservative activist and author of the Put-Back Amendment. The second item is from Adam Andrzejewski, former GOP candidate for governor, who continues his activism.
JOHN BAMBENEK (emphasis added):
Something extraordinary happened yesterday. The Democrat-controlled State Senate led by Democrat John Cullerton discussed our state fiscal crisis. What was extraordinary about it is that they met in secret and locked out the press, the cameras and the public. You read that right, they dealt with state business (and likely their massive tax increase plans) in a backroom.
Despite our Constitution requiring the Senate to meet in the open and the intent of the Open Meetings Act to require it, they discussed the mess they caused and how they'll take more of our money behind closed doors. They have no shame.
[One] Democrat called it a "joint caucus" meeting, so he says it's okay. I could put on a black cape and run circles under the rotunda and call myself Batman, that doesn't make it true.
But Democrats like Cullerton get away with word games because they have complete power in the legislature. So does Mike Madigan, and that is the problem.
How do you deal with a problem like Mike Madigan?
In 2012, I plan to throw him a very pleasant retirement party. Here's how.
With some of the top minds in Illinois, we wrote the Put-Back Amendment to end the radical consolidation of power in Springfield. It enacts term limits of 8 years, legislative leaders are limited to 4 years.
All legislation must be made public for 7 days before a final vote. 25 legislators can force an up or down vote on any bill. No longer is it necessary to kiss Mike Madigan's ring to get good law considered. It ends gerrymandering by requiring maps be drawn on objective criteria with anyone (not just corrupt insiders) being able to participate in the map-drawing process. And it returns to 3-member districts with cumulative voting that we had before 1980.
What will it cost to have Mike Madigan's retirement party? Just 1 sheet of 15 signatures. If we want to end the culture of corruption and "secret" meetings in Springfield, it costs each of you one petition with 15 signatures in the next 7 days (Feb 26th).
If we get 500,000 signatures total by April, we will get this on the ballot. If the voters say yes, it becomes law.
Mike Madigan cannot stop this.
Learn more about the Put-Back Amendment and download petitions at http://www.putbackamendment.com/. Join the facebook page at: http://www.6acebook.com/putback
Together we can take back our state from the corrupt Chicago political machine, but its up to us. Can I count on you to get just 1 petition sheet filled and sent back? If so, I look forward to seeing you at Mike Madigan's retirement party in 2012!
Sincerely, John Bambenek Precinct Committeeman Champaign County
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/JohnBambenekTwitter: http://twitter.com/bambenek
P.S. The timing of this amendment is critical. If we don't get this on the ballot, Mike Madigan will control the redistricting process and I don't need to tell you how destructive that would be for our party and how legilsators like Rep. Aaron Schock could be forced into retirement. Act now, just 1 [one] sheet is all it takes.
Paid for by the Office of John Bambenek, 715 Erin Drive, Champaign, IL 61822. (217) 493 0760
ADAM ANDRZEJEWSI (emphasis added):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS RELEASE Contact: Basia Sikora
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 (630) 899-9191 Basia@adamforillinois.com
The Illinois Senate locks the citzens of Illinois out of public business.
“Legislature violates spirit of Open Meetings Act and letter of Illinois Constitution,” says Andrzejewski.
Adam Andrzejewski, Founder of good government organization For the Good of Illinois, and former Republican Gubernatorial candidate, is calling on the Illinois legislature to meet the standard they themselves have imposed.
“Today, the Illinois political class used the statehouse as their personal private meeting hall, abusing the state constitution, the open meetings act, and the spirit of open and transparent Government” stated Andrzejewski. “Illinois is at the juncture of political and financial crisis.”
For the first time in state history, the Illinois Senate met in private with the National Conference of State Legislatures under a new extra-legal meeting defined as a “joint caucus”. The Illinois Senate gathered discuss the severity of and solutions to the Illinois budget crisis, a topic that is negatively impacting every Illinois citizen and business. Senate Sergeant at Arms held order and barred entry to the press under threat of arrest.
“The people of Illinois pay for the lights, heat, building, and the salaries of the every state employee and legislator,” said Andrzejewski, “Yet the people of Illinois were locked out of the discussion.”
One wonders what the Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, would say about this event. The Attorney General’s website states;
“an open, honest and accountable government, the cornerstone of a democracy, can be achieved only through the free and open exchange of information between government and the public’.”
[On Wednesday, Feb. 17], Andrzejewski filed a “Request for Review" with the "Public Access Counselor" at the Attorney General’s office under the new transparency and Freedom of Information Act reform law signed last year in wake of former Governor Rod Blagojevich’s arrest. Andrzejewski called on Attorney General Lisa Madigan, to render an opinion as to the legality of “joint caucus” meetings of the Illinois Senate in regard to the circumvention of the people’s right to know under the Illinois Constitution or the Open Meetings Act.
"A Republic - If You Can Keep It"by Belanne PibalThose were the words of Benjamin Franklin upon being asked what kind of government the new nation had after the vote was taken to approve the Constitution. Yet, there is very little mention in the mainstream media these days about our republic. Schools for decades have taught that the USA is a democracy so maybe the media and so many of the adults who believe the same thing can be forgiven. However, it is imperative that Americans, as a nation know the difference between a democracy and a republic if we wish to keep our republic.
In a democracy, the majority rules. The majority can vote each other out of house, home and freedom. The majority can vote in sharia law if they want. In a democracy, individuals have very little recourse if they want to go against the will of the majority. That's one of the reasons our founding fathers declined to make this nation into a democracy. In the words of James Madison, "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."How many times have Americans been bombarded by the notion of spreading freedom and democracy to other nations? In reality, we can only spread one, because freedom is incompatible with democracy. You can have one or the other, but not both. If we could spread the American form of government abroad, that would be spreading freedom, but democracy?, no.
So what is a republic? If democracy is so unstable and violent, what is a republic and why is it more desirable than a democracy? The Oxford American dictionary defines a republic as "A country in which the supreme power is held by the people or their elected representatives or by an elected or nominated president." That may sound the same as a democracy, but it is not.
In the case of America, it means that the people have approved a Constitution to define the powers of the government. This is one of the reasons why many Americans are upset about the president's speech to our children. The president is elected to serve America, not to turn our youngest Americans into government servants. In the debate to approve the Constitution in Pennsylvania, one of the delegates, Mr. Wilson stated that the supreme power of the uniquely American form of government resides in the people.
"The truth is, that, in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed, the superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitutions control in act, as well as right.
The consequence is, that the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."In a republic, we each have a personal responsibility to oversee and correct the government when it infringes on individual rights. In America, we are to do that by electing people of good character to office - regardless of their party affiliation. And "We the People" retain the right to change those legislators and even the Constitution itself. The supreme power of our government resides with the people, but not in such a way that the majority can run roughshod over the rights of the individual. That is the essential difference between a democracy and a republic. The question before Americans now is still "Can we keep it?"Belanne Pibal is a Liberty Features Syndicated WriterCool Hats & Shirts for Cool ConservativesLeave a Comment...Chicago News Bench RSS FeedWe're on Twitter...
Friend and activist John Bambenek is righteously upset, as are many of us in Illinois. His press release says it all:
News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 3, 2009
Contact: John Bambenek / jcb@illinoiscitizenscoalition.com
Illinois Citizen begins Petition Drive for Constitutional Amendment
The “Bambenek Put-back Amendment” is designed to radically restructure the General Assembly and decentralize power
CHAMPAIGN - Today Illinois citizen and activist John Bambenek began a petition drive to place a state constitutional amendment on the November 2010 general election ballot. Citing the frustration at the gridlock in Springfield and the chaos caused by massive cuts to social services spending, Bambenek believes that the time is right to reform the Legislature.
“We’ve had two very different governors now, and while Blagojevich was a significant problem, the dysfunction in Springfield remains under Quinn. The only consistent feature of our dysfunctional state government is the Legislature,” Bambenek said.
The amendment will fundamentally change the Legislature by converting it to a unicameral (or one chamber) body and return to three-member districts with cumulative voting (total of 177 members). Additionally, it will implement long ignored reforms such as reforming redistricting, implementing term limits of no more than four two-year terms, term limit legislative leaders to only one session (two years), end shell bills, require a seven-day public viewing period for all legislative, provide for any bill to get an up-or-down vote upon motion of at least 25 members and greatly reform the process for legislative pay raises.
“Now isn’t the time to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, it is time to decentralize power in the legislature. When one man can cause political and social chaos simply to bolster his daughter’s political prospects, something is very wrong.”
In explaining why he is taking the effort to circulate a petition to put the amendment on directly, Bambenek said, “The campaign contribution caps bills shows that we simply cannot trust the Legislature to reform itself. Regardless of what someone thinks about caps, “caps for everyone but Mike Madigan” is a radical power grab masquerading as reform. The framers of the Constitution put this right of citizens in our state constitution explicitly because the legislature cannot be trusted to right itself.”
The amendment will be called the “Bambenek Put-back Amendment” design to Put the voters Back in charge. If Bambenek is successful in gathering enough signatures (legal minimum of just less than 280,000), the amendment will be listed on the ballot and requires no General Assembly Action. It will pass upon 60% of the votes approving the question.
###
John Bambenek is a political activist, writer and co-founder of the Illinois Citizens Coalition (ICC), a political action committee created to inform and organize Illinois citizens to take more of an interest in state government. For more information visit the ICC website at www.yesforillinois.com.
Leave a Comment...See Our Online StoreChicago News Bench RSS FeedWe're on Twitter...
Comedic magicians Penn & Teller explain to their live audience why they love working in the United States of America. Thanks to friend Jan Gregory for bringing this to my attention.
The Posse Comitatus Act - Prohibits search, seizure, or arrest powers to US military personnel. Amended in 1981 under Public Law 97-86 to permit increased Department of Defense support of drug interdiction and other law enforcement activities. (Title 18, "Use of Army and Air Force as Posse Comitatus"- United States Code, Section 1385) DoD Dictionary of Military Terms, 2006
"We have got to teach black people to stop beating each other to pieces right in their own living rooms."- Dr. Carl C. Bell, M.D., F.A.P.A., FA.C.P. President & CEO Community Mental Health Center of Chicago
Federal troops to fight violence in the cities? Ah, that's a problem, as we'll see in a moment, but first, thanks to Gapers Block for alerting us to yet another piece of idiocy from Mary Mitchell. Writer and good friend Levois noted on GB that he "normally likes Mary Mitchell," but he doesn't always "think to check out her columns anymore. Not sure why, but this column from last month was pretty good."I usually avoid Mary Mitchell's column because she's a racist and an idiot who writes nonsense most of the time, as in the aforementioned article from March 31 (emphasis added):
Obviously, President Obama can't read the tons of mail he receives. But there's one letter floating around the White House that I hope he reads. That letter is from Edward G. Gardner, a prominent Chicago businessman and the founder of Black on Black Love, the city's pioneering anti-violence campaign. Gardner is asking Obama to send federal troops to urban areas that are now under siege by domestic terrorists fighting gang wars. Full Column, Chicago Sun-Times...Mr. Gardner lives in Chicago and is the founder of Soft Sheen Products. He has been very useful to Barack Obama's political career for many years. Soft Sheen (now called "Soft Sheen Carson") promotes "the Celebration of Black."
Ironically, his request to Barack Obama to send in the troops is due to the fact that black-on-black murder is out of control. Some celebration. (And by the way, try to imagine a Revlon "celebration of white.")Nowhere in Mitchell's column is the phrase "posse comitatus" mentioned. That's the problem. Mr. Gardner's proposal to use federal troops (i.e., Army, etc.) would be unconstitutional and violate United States Code, Section 1385. Mitchell should know this. After Hurricane Katrina, she and other race baiters screamed that President Bush was slow to act because he didn't rush federal troops to Louisiana. Bush offered; he phoned then-Governor Blanco and urged to her to allow him to send federal troops in to help keep the peace. Blanco refused.
Colonel John R. Brinkerhoff, US Army Retired explains that "posse comitatus doctrine comes from English common law. Posse comitatus means, literally, the 'force of the county'; the posse comitatus is that body of men above the age of 15 whom the sheriff may summon or raise to repress a riot or for other purposes." (Source) Brinkerhoff notes that posse commitatus, and U.S. Code, Section 1385, are often misunderstood. Posse comitatus, he notes, "does not prevent the President from using federal troops in riots or civil disorders. Federal troops were used for domestic operations more than 200 times in the two centuries from 1795 to 1995."Under the Constitution, a President cannot send federal troops to a state for purposes other than training or quelling riots, however, unless they are specifically invited by that state's governor. In addition, however, § 1385 of the US Code, "Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus," states that "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." (Source: Cornell University Law School, U.S. Code Collection)
Mary Mitchell ignores the U.S. Code. Instead of looking at federal law and its application in the case of punks killing people in cities, she tugs at our heartstrings with passages like these:
The number of CPS students who have been killed so far this year has surpassed the number of students killed in the previous school year.
"We are trying to let the president know we respect the full plate he has, but this is something that has not been addressed by the administration," Leak said.
What Gardner proposes is indeed controversial. But how many children have to die before we acknowledge that we are at war in our own country?
Perhaps Mr. Gardner and Ms. Mitchell should be more concerned with lousy parenting and an overall American culture that glorifies violence and thuggery. It would seem that they prefer a toxic "cure" to the disease of gangs, prostitution, and criminals to actually examining the cause of the disease. If fewer 14 year old black girls were giving birth to children in poverty, if more black parents would actually act like parents, if courts were not as lenient with violent offenders, if local police were not handcuffed by ACLU-inspired laws that make enforcement difficult, and if imbeciles like Mary Mitchell would stop diverting blame and proposing Band-Aids instead of the required regimen of curative measures, we wouldn't need requests for the president to send troops into our city streets.
Dr. Carl Bell, quoted at the top of this post, is a Chicago psychiatrist and former gang member. He once said the following to a Bible study class at Chicago's all-black Messiah-St. Bartholomew Church (emphasis added):
"If you have a loaded gun in your home, that gun is 118 times more likely to kill a family member or a friend than a burglar. But for every murder, there are 100 other acts of black-on-black violence—sexual molestations, rapes, robberies and physical assaults. And do you know what sends more black mothers to the emergency room than all the auto accidents, muggings and rapes combined? Husbands, that's who.We have got to teach black people to stop beating each other to pieces right in their own living rooms."Dr. Bell said those words in 1988. He still practices psychiatry and still works on violence issues. Those words still ring true.It is ironic as hell that the likes of Mary Mitchell scream about the local police when they get a bit heavy handed in dealing with murderous thugs. Yet there she is, giving support to Gardner's proposal of sending in the Army. Sure, fine, Mary, send in the cavalry. But don't write another whiny, heart-tugging column when you find that the US military cannot make bad parents good, cannot change the culture of violence-promoting rap music, or employ a velvet glove any better than the Chicago Police Department can. Federal troops would not be able to make black people stop beating each other to pieces right in their own living rooms.RELATED:Terrorism - Posse Comitatus: Caution is Necessary§ 1385. — Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus...Posse Comitatus (good links here)
Where's the outrage over black-on-black killings?In Philadelphia, a 'disturbing' black murder rate csmonitor.comSelf Destruction, Stop our black boys from killing one another ...When Brother Kills Brother - TIMECommieBama Hats and MoreChicago News Bench RSS FeedFollow ChiNewsBench on Twitter!
One of the most important editorials you will ever read appears in an April 21 post on GetLiberty.org. It discusses the fact that a growing number of states are standing up to Obama, reminding him that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government. A number of states have passed resolutions that demand Obama “cease and desist” his gargantuan government expansionism and also call to light a set of federal laws and regulations put into effect by Obama that violate the 10th Amendment - and can therefore be nullified by the states. In other words, governors around the country are telling the Obama Regime to stuff it.
Titled "The States Strike Back," the GetLiberty.org editorial discusses a quiet but growing louder revolution among state governors, of which few Americans are yet aware:Last week, Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) fired a warning shot across the federal government’s bow with his polite reminder that Texas could always secede from the Union. He also endorsed a resolution affirming the Tenth Amendment that has gained traction in several states, increasing the public momentum in favor of returning power to the states. Full Post...
Many Americans seem to forget that, unlike many nations, our is a federal government, not a national government. Or, at least, that's what the Constitution says. Liberals and Democrats have been attacking and chipping away at the federal structure in favor of a national one for many decades now.
Why? Simple. States rights allows a patchwork of laws across the nation. If you don't like the set of laws in your state or the culture they help create, you can move to another state where the political, legal and tax environments better suit you. That gives you choice. What the Democrats and Liberals do not like is your ability to choose, for that means they have less control over your lives. Getting rid of states rights only strengthens Washington's ability to dictate the rules.
Think Soviet Union: From Stalin's point of view, it would have made little sense to allow Ukraine or others of its slave nations the ability to tell Moscow to go screw itself. They paid dearly for the lack of that right. Stalin, from Moscow, ruled with an iron fist. That's the kind of situation the Founders of this nation wished to avoid by guaranteeing states rights. It is exactly the kind of situation, however, that the radical leftists of the Obama Regime drool over.
RELATED:
Texas Governor's Secession Talk Stirs FurorEleven States Declare Sovereignty Over Obama’s ActionStates Rights, One of the Causes of the Civil WarStates’ Rights Hypocrites Emerge Tenth Amendment CenterThe Hill Blog - States Rights Are Rapidly Eroding ...Ron Paul: Secession is American - Democratic UndergroundRepublicans have a better civil rights record than DemocratsCommieBama Hats and MoreChicago News Bench RSS FeedFollow ChiNewsBench on Twitter!
The gaul of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) to call protesters "despicable and shameful" is unparalleled. It hypocritical of her to diss folks - including many of her own constituents - for peacefully expressing dissatisfaction with their government (a right guaranteed by the Constitution), when Schakowsky herself has happily endured ugly demonstrations of her Leftist allies over the years.
It hypocritical for another reason, too: Schakowsky's husband, Robert Creamer, is a convicted felon. He's out on parole. He was convicted for fraud (check kiting). Schakowsky happily trots him out to political fundraisers and events, so proud of her hubby criminal. Apparently, Schakowsky does not consider writing bad checks and tax evasion to be either despicable or shameful.
Ah, but get a bunch of people who are unhappy with bloating government, irresponsible spending and forced redistribution of everyone's money and Schakowsky calls them "despicable" and "shameful." WTF is wrong with felon-lover Schakowsky?
Like Hitler and Stalin before him, Barack Obama recognizes the value of
a legion of glassy-eyed useful idiotsfollowing his every order
H.R. 1388 passed today, 31 March 2009. Obama will sign it. Get ready to goose step, America. This will create, among other nightmares, Obama's "civilian security corps."
As ALG News mentioned last week, Rep. Virginia Foxx's (R-NC) amendment banning so-called “volunteer” organizations from using taxpayer funds to political purposes was stripped from its parent bill in the Senate, and replaced by an amendment allowing those organizations to skirt the law and continue lobbying. This week, the House will approve the Senate version, and President Obama will no doubt sign it shortly thereafter.
So starts Isaac MacMillen's excellent analysis of the grotesque expansion of Americorps and the ominous shadow cast by the about-to-be-law create by the "Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act," formerly called "Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act" (GIVE Act). The title of the post, "The Rise of ObamaCorps," pretty much sums it up.
It was brilliantly sneaky of the Congress bastards to rename it, debate and vote on amendments in the middle of the night, rename amendments, and do a number of other tricks to make tracking the progress of H.R. 1388 difficult for you and me. They wanted it that way.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, six-time Socialist Party candidate for president
Thomas said that in a 1948 interview during one of his six presidential campaigns. Perhaps he had a crystal ball.
Like Hitler and Stalin before him, Barack Obama recognizes the value of a legion of glassy eyed propaganized drones following his every order. Except for all of the government takeover action currently going on (i.e., the virtual nationalization of General Motors), and the desire to take away our guns, and the desire to suppress free speech (i.e., the resurrection in some form of the Fairness Doctrine), and a slew of other quasi-fascist-totalitarian actions and measures, I am not prepared to compare Barack Obama to genocidal dictators.
After all, Obama hasn't started a program of genocide that we're aware of. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were natives of the nations they ruled and ruined (Germany and Russia, respectively). Hitler was Austrian. Stalin was born in Gori, Georgia. Barack Obama was born in Kenya, as admitted to by a Kenyan diplomat Peter Ogaga. But no, I'm not saying that Barack Obama is exactly like Hitler or Stalin. Only in a few very important ways.
Lest you think I'm exaggerating that stuff about glassy-eyed drones mindlessly following orders from Obama, consider these excerpts:
Obama "walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere," George Clooney gushed to Charlie Rose.... "I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make [Obama’s] pathway clear,” Halle Berry recently told the Philadelphia Daily News, “I’ll do whatever he says.” (Does Michelle know about this?).... Last summer, San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford wrote that "Many spiritually advanced people I know … identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who … can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet."(Source)
Lest you still think I'm a totally insane rightwing paranoid lunatic, read the following from the The Dartmouth, the student newspaper at Dartmouth College and the campus’s only daily. It's the oldest college paper in the US and is completely student-run and independent of Dartmouth College. I've added my own emphasis to this excerpt, from a column in The Dartmouth in late February, 2008:
Mr. Obama’s program — soon to be dubbed “ObamaCorps” — would essentially obligate economically disadvantaged students to serve America in return for $4,000 each year. His costly proposal, however, welcomes all non-graduated U.S. citizens who study full-time, not only the financially insecure. Therefore, relatively wealthy students could — offsetting tuition costs — effectively use ObamaCorps resources to finance the ultimate spring break. Countless undergraduates would spend the tuition credit not on education but on scuba diving in the Java Sea. Those less intrigued by tsunamis, volcanoes and spawning billfish might bank the $16,000 over the course of four years. Full Column at The Dartmouth...
The Dartmouth also noted this (again, emphasis added):
For unspecified reasons, Obama has not yet announced how many hours per week participants might serve. For the typical Dartmouth student, finding time would be tough. “We will definitely use our education to contribute to the future of America. Why should the U.S. government force students to serve?” one ‘08 female asked when I raised the issue of compulsory service. “Even Bosnia doesn’t do that anymore…do they?” she continued. While ObamaCorps would not mandate military service, the program’s philosophical foundation appears to disregard infamous American individualism.
Of course it does. In fact, it seeks to destroy it. Individualism threatens any dictator - or wannabe dictators. The masses thinking for themselves? Can't have that, it's dangerous. The Dartmouth ended their column with the question, "Are we ready for pseudo-compulsory service?"
Gene Healy comments on that nicely today (31 March 2009) at NetRightNation:
But America’s very existence repudiates the idea that we’re hard-wired for leader-worship. We became a nation by throwing off a king, and our Founders gave us a Constitution that’s based on the notion that all men are flawed and none should be trusted with too much power.
Americans, of all people, should recognize how bizarre and dangerous it is to fawn over professional politicians. Full post...
Healy writes a good piece but I think he misses a hard reality of modern America. In 1776, the people were not yet brainwashed by mass media political advertising, constantly barraged by a Left-leaning mass media, and were more rugged in both their lifestyles and outlook. Tens of thousands of Americans, loyal to the British king, fled to Canada rather than fight. Thousands more, who hated the king, also fled to Canada for similar reasons of self preservation.
The fact is that today, in a nation that fawns over amateur singers on shows such as "American Idol," millions have no problem transferring their willingness to fawn from entertainment figures to professional politicians. Since television, professional politicians have, in many cases, become entertainers. Even so, Healy's point is well taken, for not all American Idol fans are willing to follow an Obama off the cliff. Too many, however, are.
So, no, we're not all "ready for pseudo-compulsory service," and this raises an interesting question: Will ObamaCorps allow conscientious objectors to be exempted from service?
In the matter of a military draft, the matter of conscientious objection is easily understood: The objector has a religious or moral problem with killing, even in the defense of his nation, children and neighbors. The objector believes that killing is wrong in any circumstance. That's easy to understand, even if you don't agree with it. However, on what moral grounds could one "conscientiously" object to in the case of ObamaCorps?
The answer to that is the same answer that somebody in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia should have given - before it was too late.
Obama’s Plan for ‘Brown Shirts’ - Mandatory National Service - The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a plan to set up a new “volunteer corps” and consider whether “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people” should be developed. The legislation also refers to “uniforms” that would be worn by the “volunteers” and the “need” for a “public service academy, a 4-year institution” to “focus on training” future “public sector leaders.” The training, apparently, would occur at “campuses.”
Obama Volunteer Bill Prohibits “Religious Instruction” - The Bill was introduced to the floor of the House of Representatives where both Republicans and Democrats voted 321-105 in favor. Next it goes to the Senate for a vote and then on to President Obama. This bill’s title is called “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education” (GIVE). It forms what some are calling “Obama’s Youth Brigade.” Obama’s plan is require anyone receiving school loans and others to serve at least three months as part of the brigade. His goal is one million youth! This has serious Nazi Germany overtones to it...
--- Original Post ---
We've been screaming aboutH.R. 1388 (the GIVE Act)and how it will help form a national youth corps reminiscent of the Hitler Youth. Paranoid? Me? Read the following, then tell me if you don't feeling a bit paranoid. We are being enslaved goose step by goose step, becoming entrapped in the kind of "soft tyranny" that De Toqueville warned us about.
I got an ominous email this morning from a trusted source:It passed last night in the Senate.... all Obama has to do is sign now... and he will..... There are so many others left to fight.... This is so bad.... They are trying to pass a bill removing the limit on the number of terms the president can serve now.... [She refers to H.J. Res. 5: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President. See GovTrack for full info. This would repeal the 22nd Amendment.]
I emailed back and asked where she was getting her info:
Directly from the senate/house sites.... plus tons of political friends.... I am neck deep in this stuff, and I have decided that I am not going down without a fight.... I will keep you as updated as possible.... This is getting really bad....
Keep reading. This is getting really bad indeed.
H.R. 1388 has a creative title:The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act. 321 representatives of the people voted approval for this legislation which, among many other things, strikes a blow to the rights of people to mount any protests against legislation.
Listen closely, it outlaws the right to mount protests against proposed legislation. (Source)To all of you Democrats and Liberals out there: You loved to remind us that "dissent is patriotic," and I agree with that wholeheartedly. So where are now that the US Congress, with Obama's urging, has just stepped closer to completely removing your right to dissent?
Kurt Nimmo explains:
On March 18, Rep. George Miller, a Democrat from California, tacked an amendment on H.R. 1388, entitled “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act,” or GIVE (to government), Obama’s plan to require mandatory service for all able young people. Miller’s amendment will “prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing,” according to GovTrack.us, a site that tracks Congress. Full Post...
Your precious Obama Change? Here's your "change," folks: Anti-union, anti-free speech, the crushing of civil rights, all accomplished within Obama's first 100 days. In eight years, Bush never managed such a feat, despite all of the lunatic, unfounded fears of the Left. Obama is goose stepping us into a socialist tyranny.
You still think that's paranoia? In the video here, Obama says"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Ho-lee-shyt. More from Nimmo:
In other words, Obama’s “volunteer corps” act, passed by the House with a 321-105 margin and requiring the government to develop a plan for indentured servitude, would deny millions of people their right to oppose and organize against government legistation under the First Amendment.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air notes today that this is not a uniquely Democrat initiative:Again, in fairness, this is neither new nor particular to Democrats. Misguided politicians from both parties have argued for some sort of national service that would encompass a military draft and options for civilian service as substitutes for it. Most of these came shortly after the end of the draft in the early 1970s. Lately, though, the idea seems to come more from Democrats, who used to oppose the notion of compulsory service on grounds of individual liberty. Barack Obama talked about a “civilian national security force” during the campaign, but retreated when he received criticism for it. Variations of this idea have floated around for months, including the creation of an infrastructure labor force that would displace businesses in public-works projects and so on. Full Post...
Fair enough, but Morrissey reminds us of the danger:Republicans have an opportunity to stand for individual liberty and the limitation of government control over the lives of young people across the nation by opposing GIVE’s new study and all talk of compulsory service. Ask college-age students how they feel about taking two years out of their post-educational lives to dig ditches and build bridges not because they want to do it, but because it will become illegal to refuse. I suspect they will start Google-mapping the best routes to Canada — or stop voting for the people proposing to enslave them.
Back to Nimmo:GIVE ...will conscript millions of young people, put them in uniforms and send them packing to 4-year “public service” academies where they will be indoctrinated and trained to become “public sector leaders.”
Michelle Malkin's column today points out the creepiness of the GIVE act (emphasis added):
Especially troublesome to parents’ groups concerned about compulsory volunteerism requirements is a provision in the House version, directing Congress to explore “whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”Those who have watched AmeriCorps from its inception are all-too-familiar with how government voluntarism programs have been used for propaganda and political purposes. AmeriCorps “volunteers” have been put to work lobbying against the voter-approved three-strikes anti-crime initiative in California and protesting Republican political events while working for the already heavily-tax-subsidized liberal advocacy group ACORN.Full column...
If, after reading all of this, you're still not feeling creeped out and just bit paranoid, you can go back to sleep. But you might not like the nightmare you wake up to, comrade.
No catch, nothing to buy, no tricks.
Just a free copy of the US Constitution,
courtesy of The Heritage Foundation.
The Posse Comitatus Act - Prohibits search, seizure, or arrest powers to US military personnel. Amended in 1981 under Public Law 97-86 to permit increased Department of Defense support of drug interdiction and other law enforcement activities. (Title 18, "Use of Army and Air Force as Posse Comitatus" - United States Code, Section 1385) DoD Dictionary of Military Terms, 2006
President & CEO Community Mental Health Center of Chicago 
Thomas 
