Tag Archives: political party

John McCain On Sequestration: ‘The Worst Vote I Have Cast In Many Years’

By The Huffington Post News Editors

When the Obama administration and congressional Republican leadership crafted the policy of sequestration in the summer of 2011, the idea was relatively simple: Onerous budget cuts that affected the top priorities of each political party would never take place because it was in the interest of both parties to avert them.

A so-called super committee tasked with coming up with a large deficit and debt reduction proposal was supposed to dispatch with sequestration quickly. They failed. The House GOP conference passed its own bill, but it was too one-sided to pass. The end of 2012, the deadline at which sequestration would go into effect, was supposed to be another galvanizing event. But that too failed to spark action, save a short-term delay to continue talks. And eventually, this spring, sequestration was implemented.

Now, in retrospect, even the authors of sequestration concede that they oversold the willingness and ability of lawmakers to come together on a replacement. And in an interview with The New Republic, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) placed it among the biggest legislative regrets of his career.

Read More…
More on Budget Cuts

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

In India's Polarizing Election Of 2014, Twitter and Facebook Already Winners

By Saritha Rai, Contributor

Earlier this month, Gujarat chief minister and BJP’s prime ministerial contender Narendra Modi ousted Congress minister Shashi Tharoor as the Indian politician with the most followers on Twitter. Modi is closing in on 2 million followers while Tharoor, who had long-reigned as the most popular, trails just behind. Modi’s presumed rival for the prime ministerial post, the Congress’ Rahul Gandhi is conspicuous by his nonexistence on Twitter. Modi and Gandhi are going head-to-head on Facebook where their fan pages are garnering a multitude of “likes”. As India’s general election nears, the colorful political rallies and raucous sloganeering is yet to begin. But the digital face-off between political parties and their leaders has already reached a shrill extreme. The main Congress and BJP have set up what are dubbed ‘digital war rooms’ and mandated that leaders get active on Twitter. Each party is mobilizing thousands of impassioned supporters on social networks. Even the newly-launched Aam Admi Party (Hindi for common man’s political party) of anti-corruption crusader Arvind Kejriwal is vociferous on social media. With even more frenetic social media activity forecast in the coming months, India’s upcoming general election is giving an inadvertent, huge boost for Twitter and Facebook. “Politics, and indeed democracy, is moving from the old model of one-way political rhetoric sans any real participation to an increasingly voluble, energetic, fractious, interactive engagement on social media,” said Rajeev Chandrasekhar, an independent member of the Indian parliament, who formerly founded and then sold telecom operator BPL Mobile. “On social networks, politicians cannot hide from scrutiny and interactivity.” India has the third-largest base, after the United States and China, of internet users. In reality, the reach of the internet, and consequently social media, is limited, as its nearly 150 million users represent a fraction of the total population. Of these, however, two out of three users are said to access social networks daily. India is shaping up to be an important market for online advertising. Google currently leads in online revenues in India, followed by Facebook. India’s Twitter base, about 20 million users as per a study by the Internet and Mobile Association of India, is growing rapidly. Meanwhile Facebook said in a recent SEC filing that India and Brazil represent key growth regions in the first quarter of 2013 compared to the period a year ago. It reported 78 million monthly active users (MAUs) in India in the March quarter of 2013. India could boast of the world’s largest base of 277 million Facebook users by 2017. While social networks’ growth is slacking off in the West, populous countries such as Brazil, India and Russia offer plenty of growth room. Social media’s new relevance in Indian electoral politics is highlighted by the fact that the small population active on these networks is influential in urban constituencies. One study says that Facebook and Twitter could help decisively swing votes in 160 of India’s 543 parliamentary constituencies. That could be the change. In the past, India’s urban, educated voters have largely shied …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Royal Riches: What the Monarchy Costs Great Britain

By Eamon Murphy

Royal finances: what the monarchy costs Great Britain

Filed under: , ,

AP/Lefteris Pitarakis

Here’s a paradox about Great Britain. In many ways, it’s a more progressive country than the United States, its colonial offspring. It has a more generous welfare state (including national health care), a more progressive tax structure, and a third major political party to the left of Labour. Most workers are entitled to at least 28 paid days of vacation per year, and same-sex marriage will soon be legal throughout England and Wales.

And yet Great Britain maintains one of the most conservative institutions on the planet: a hereditary monarchy, something Americans would never countenance. This despite the fact that King Charles I lost two civil wars, leading to his own decapitation and the short-lived abolition of the monarchy, in the mid-17th century.

And though the royal family’s political significance has long since been reduced to the ceremonial, the Windsors still have a massive financial footprint. As sovereign, the Queen owns the Crown Estate, a property portfolio worth £8.1 billion ($12.4 billion) as of last month — the first time its value has exceeded £8 billion. It includes a lot of prime real estate — “large parts of London’s West End,” “15 retail parks in various towns and cities,” shopping centers, offices, agricultural lands, forests, and “most UK coastline,” according to the BBC — and 15 percent of its annual revenues is used to fund the monarchy. The rest goes to the Treasury.

As a result of the these assets’ recent performance, the Queen is getting a raise: the Sovereign Grant, as her cut of the Crown Estate’s revenues is called, is set to increase next year from £36.1 million to £37.89 million (more than $55 million) — a gain of 5 percent, and the second consecutive bump to her allowance.

“The Crown Estate as a whole dates from the time of the Norman Conquest,” explains the monarchy’s official website — more than 900 years ago — but the current arrangement came into effect in 1760. That was the year King George III — the intolerable tyrant of the Declaration of Independence — signed the revenues over to the Treasury, and in return, stopped having to pay for the civil government, the national debt, and his own personal debt. Those expenses were covered by something called the Civil List, funded by the Treasury and supplemented more recently by grants from other departments, until the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011. Buckingham Palace called the change “a modern, transparent and simpler way of funding the head of state,” but opponents of the monarchy are unconvinced. “Pegging royal funding to Crown Estate revenue makes no sense at all,” said the group Republic, which advocates replacing the Queen (or King) with an elected head of state. “The two are not related. Crown Estate revenue has always been there to provide funds for the government.”

<div …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

RNC Chairman Tempers Evangelicals’ Fears: ‘Our Party Believes That Marriage Is Between One Man and One Woman’ | Video | TheBlaze.com

By Dave Robbins

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has a message for conservative evangelicals who may fear that more liberal social policies are on the horizon within their political party of choice: Traditional marriage is still being touted and embraced by the GOP. Read More: RNC Chairman Tempers Evangelicals’ Fears: ‘Our Party Believes That Marriage Is Between […]

The post RNC Chairman Tempers Evangelicals’ Fears: ‘Our Party Believes That Marriage Is Between One Man and One Woman’ | Video | TheBlaze.com appeared first on Endtime Ministries | End Of The Age | Irvin Baxter.

…read more

Source: Endtime Ministries

Big Labor Finally Getting The Shaft From Democrat Politicians

By Doug Book

labor unions SC Big labor finally getting the shaft from Democrat politicians

It seems big labor is getting nervous about anticipated disastrous effects on the healthcare benefits of union membership by Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. So nervous are they in fact that James P. Hoffa and organized labor comrades Joseph Hansen and Don Taylor addressed their concerns in personal letter form to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, a clear break from the more conventional late night exchange of cash and instructions so common between labor kingpins and Democrat politicians.

“We can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members,” wrote the 3 union bosses to leaders of the political party to which organized labor donated some $800 million in 2008 and $700 million two years later. “Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it.” Though Hoffa didn’t specifically include “When we buy politicians, we expect ‘em to STAY bought,” the implication was clear enough.

Four years ago, there were no more vocal or committed supporters of Obama’s signature healthcare plan than organized labor. But now, Hoffa and the others are whining that “…the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.” Yet none of the damaging contents of the Affordable Care Act have changed during the past 4 years. So why is labor suddenly in a panic?

The ObamaCare employer mandate requiring that employers of over 50 full time (40 hour/week) workers provide healthcare or pay a stiff penalty is being met with a sudden influx of part time employees. In fact, part time hires are outpacing full time in 2013 by over 4-1, a complete reversal of employment figures for 2012. This destruction of the 40 hour week complained of by Hoffa means fewer dollars for employees and a black eye for unions paid to protect their interests.

But of greatest concern to labor bosses are the multi-employer or Taft Hartley health plans currently carried by some 22 million union members. Unions pride themselves on their ability to provide these Cadillac health plans to members at reasonable prices. (Employers of course pay the bulk of the tab.)

However, as ObamaCare requirements are certain to drive premium prices sky high, employers will counter by dropping the plans when unions contracts expire,  placing members in the individual, ObamaCare exchange market. Once placed in the ObamaCare market without insurance, employees will qualify for subsidies.

BUT, why join a union or maintain membership if one of the principle reasons–the long-term availability of first rate healthcare at very reasonable prices–no longer exists?! One of the biggest draws for joining a union is being taken away from big labor, and they do NOT like it!

So Hoffa and other labor bosses now want to have their cake and eat it too–they are demanding that members be permitted …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Spain protesters demand PM resign over scandal

Thousands of protesters have jammed downtown streets outside the Madrid headquarters of the ruling Popular Party to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy amid allegations he received payoffs from a slush fund before his party won elections in 2011.

The demonstration Thursday came after opposition leaders called for Rajoy to explain himself before Parliament or face a censure vote.

On Monday, Rajoy brushed off demands he should resign after text messages emerged showing him comforting a former political party treasurer under investigation over the slush fund and secret Swiss bank accounts. The treasurer has claimed Rajoy took under the counter payments, accusations denied by Rajoy.

The spectacle of alleged greed and corruption has enraged Spaniards hurting from austerity and sky high unemployment.

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox World News

NH woman gets 10 years in Rwanda fraud case

A New Hampshire woman who lied about her role in the 1994 Rwanda genocide has been sentenced to 10 years in prison, a fate her lawyers say is tantamount to a death sentence.

Rwanda native Beatrice Munyenyezi remained stoic as U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe sentenced her to the maximum prison time. She declined her right to address the court.

Munyenyezi, 43, was convicted in February of entering the United States and securing citizenship by lying about her role as a commander of one of the notorious roadblocks where Tutsis were singled out for slaughter. She also denied affiliation with any political party, despite her husband’s leadership role in the extremist Hutu militia party.

McAuliffe acknowledged she has led a crime-free and productive life since her arrival in New Hampshire in 1998 but said it was a life lived under false pretenses.

Federal prosecutors had sought the maximum prison sentence, saying she’s as guilty as if she wielded the machete herself.

During the 1994 genocide, at least 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in a campaign of mass murder orchestrated by Hutu extremists.

Munyenyezi’s lawyers say they will appeal her conviction to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals — a move that is expected to delay deportation proceedings.

Through two trials and the three years since her indictment in 2010, Munyenyezi has remained silent. She did not testify and declined an Associated Press request for an interview in the wake of her first trial ending a mistrial in 2012.

She has spent most of those three years in custody and apart from her three daughters, ages 18-20.

Her lawyers portrayed her as the victim of lies by Rwandan witnesses who never before implicated her through nearly two decades of investigations and trials — even when testifying against her husband and his mother before the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda.

Prosecutors maintained that she was a liar who “gamed” the immigration system to fraudulently obtain the “golden ticket” of citizenship. She swore on immigration and naturalization forms that she persecuted no one, had no affiliation with any political party and even cast herself as a victim of the genocide by saying family members “disappeared.”

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Cameron presses Myanmar leader on human rights

British Prime Minister David Cameron on Monday urged Myanmar President Thein Sein to defend human rights as the former junta general made his first official visit to London.

Cameron said he was particularly concerned by violence targeting members of Myanmar’s Rohingya Muslim minority in which hundreds of people have been killed.

Thein Sein is visiting London and Paris this week as Myanmar continues its return from international isolation in the wake of reforms brought in by the president since 2011.

Welcoming the Myanmar leader on the red carpet outside his 10 Downing Street office, Cameron said he was “very pleased” to see Thein Sein on his “historic visit”.

But Cameron, who last year became the first British prime minister to visit Myanmar, added: “As well as the continuation of your reform process, we are also very keen to see greater action in terms of promoting human rights and dealing with regional conflicts.

“We are particularly concerned about what has happened in Rakhine province and the Rohingya Muslims.”

Buddhist-Muslim clashes in the western state of Rakhine last year left about 200 people dead, mostly Rohingya Muslims who are denied citizenship by Myanmar.

Further clashes have erupted in recent months.

Around a dozen protesters gathered outside Downing Street during Thein Sein’s visit calling for action to protect the Rohingya.

But Cameron followed the international community’s line on the need for economic development in particular to support reform in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma.

“We believe there are many areas for Britain and your country to co-operate together, diplomatically, in terms of trade and investment, the aid and development relationship and also our growing links in terms of our militaries,” Cameron said.

The British premier did not specify what the military links were.

Since Thein Sein took the presidency two years ago, the ex-military man has freed hundreds of political prisoners and welcomed democracy champion Aung San Suu Kyi and her political party into parliament.

The European Union has ditched most sanctions except an arms embargo and readmitted Myanmar to its trade preference scheme.

The United States has also lifted most embargoes and foreign companies are now eager to enter the resource-rich nation, with its perceived frontier market of some 60 million potential consumers.

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox World News

Myanmar leader embarks on trip to London and Paris

President Thein Sein left Myanmar on Sunday for a visit to Britain and France, an official said, as the former junta general looks to build on support for his much-lauded reforms.

“The president left Yangon this morning to visit Britain and France,” a government official told AFP without giving further details of the visit, Thein Sein’s second trip to Europe in months.

Another official earlier said the trip would be from July 14 to 18.

Thein Sein visited several European countries in March — although not Britain or France — to bolster relations.

The former general has surprised the international community by overseeing sweeping reforms since taking the presidency in 2011.

Those changes include freeing hundreds of political prisoners and welcoming democracy champion Aung San Suu Kyi and her political party into parliament.

The European Union, which had already ditched most sanctions except an arms embargo, has readmitted Myanmar to its trade preference scheme, saying it wanted to support reform in the once-pariah state through economic development.

Washington has also lifted most embargoes and foreign companies are now eager to enter the resource-rich nation, with its perceived frontier market of some 60 million potential consumers.

Barack Obama paid a first-ever US presidential visit to Myanmar last November, and Thein Sein visited Washington in May.

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox World News

Weekly News & Politics Digest, December 4, 2012

  • Hanover • Hanover Approves 38 Percent Property-Tax Hike

    The borough says the money is needed to fund police and fire services.
    By CRAIG K. PASKOSKI
    The Evening Sun

    Despite a personal plea from state Rep. Dan Moul, the Hanover Borough Council Wednesday night approved a 38-percent property tax increase for next year and voted to advertise its proposed $30.2 million 2013 budget.

    The council voted, 8-1, to raise the real estate tax rate by 1.51 mills, setting the rate for next year at 5.50 mills. The increase would mean an additional $250.51 yearly in taxes for the owners of a $165,900 house, which is the average value of a home in the borough. Taxes for that house would increase from $661.94 per year to $912.45.

    Moul, who lives in Conewago Township, said he owns rental property in the borough and was concerned about his tenants. He questioned why the borough needed such a significant increase and said it would hurt those in the community who can least afford it.

    “Are your expenses going up 38 percent?” Moul questioned the council. “I find that extraordinarily hard to believe.

    “People are living hand to mouth. People that are lucky enough to have jobs are living paycheck to paycheck,” said the Republican lawmaker.

    Moul said the 38-percent increase, along with proposed water-rate hikes and higher taxes on the county level, would force him to raise rental rates.

    “We’ve got to pass that along to some of the poorest people in our community,” he said.

    Moul asked the council to table the increase in order to re-examine the budget “to see where we can trim some spending.”

    But Borough Manager Barb Krebs said the council
    had been over the budget many times and was at the point where an increase was unavoidable without cutting services. She pointed out it is the first time in nine years the borough will raise taxes.

    “The council did a good job of holding off raising taxes until this point,” Krebs said. “We cut every possible place we could cut. Unfortunately, we have to raise this year.”

    She said the borough avoided a tax increase in recent years by pulling money from other accounts, including its cash reserve fund. The borough used roughly half of its $2.6 million in reserve funds this year to balance the 2012 budget, Krebs said. Those funds are needed early in the year to meet payroll before taxes comes in to the borough.

    Even with the tax increase, Krebs said, the borough will still need to dip into that reserve fund to make ends meet next year.

    With the tax hike, the borough expects to generate $5 million in real-estate taxes in 2013.

    That money, Krebs said, is specifically designated to cover police and fire services, which is projected to cost the borough $5.36 million.

    “Without raising the taxes, we’d have to cut services,” Krebs said.

    Driving the need for the increase is a $547,500 rise in health insurance costs, wages and pensions. The borough faces a 20-percent increase in insurance premiums and employee contracts call for a 3½-percent wage increase for firefighters, 3 percent for police personnel, public works and office employees, and a 2½-percent raise for water department workers.

    Moul questioned whether borough employees should be getting those raises since the consumer price index is rising only about 1 percent.

    Krebs said employees agreed to make concessions in their health benefits to slightly offset those premium increases.

    She also pointed out state funding for many items, such as the libraries, recycling and grants have been cut, while the borough is mandated to do a number of projects, including upgrades to the sewer lines and the wastewater treatment plant.

    “You, as a representative, know there are a lot of mandates out there,” Krebs said.

    Moul said he was concerned the increase was coming all at once.

    “It’s such a big jump at one time,” he said. “To raise this 38 percent in one shot could be devastating to them, people that live on the edge.”

    Councilwoman Heidi Hormel voted against the tax increase, saying she was not given enough information during budget meetings.

    “I know we need an increase. I feel I didn’t have enough information on it at our last finance meeting,” she said.

    The proposed budget will be available for public review at the borough office building, and council is scheduled to take a final vote at its Dec. 26 regular meeting.

    Statistics: Posted by Gary Triplett — Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:47 pm


  • Opinions • Re: Third Party

    Yes, indeed we were warned about political parties by our Founding Fathers. They were wise men, who created and organized a new government to the best of their abilities and with the realities of their time; still, they looked into the future and were able to anticipate difficulties that could possibly arise. One of these was the rise of powerful political parties.
    James Madison- “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction….. There is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.”

    John Adams- “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble opinion, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

    Benjamin Franklin- “And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters?”

    George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796- “However political parties may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

    These visionary men could well be describing today’s democrat and republican parties.

    Statistics: Posted by mreill01 — Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:32 am


  • Opinions • Re: Third Party

    Do we need Political Parties?
    Would our country be better off if we had no political parties- just individuals running for public office against each other?

    Interesting idea-however-it can spell the end of any kind of democracy.

    When military dictators come to power, such as the late President Zia ul Haq of Pakistan, they abolish political parties. In fact, a one party state such as Nazi Germany or the USSR is a no-party state.

    Gore Vidal famously said that ’the United States is a one party state with two right wings.’

    I was quite shocked when I was a student when my American exchange professor said that he never voted in US elections as he felt he was endorsing a system which never gave him any real choices at all.

    More crucially, compared to foreign governments, the US one is-according to European political scientists- much weaker than, say, European ones when it comes to withstanding pressure from big business.

    American political theorist, Chalmers Johnson, in his book ’Blowback’ takes the argument a step further by saying that the US arms industrial complex is so eager to promote itself, or weapons sales, that it will, in effect, work against the foreign policy interests of the United States and the State Department.

    Whether that is true or not, on a personal note, I spend my entire life in a classroom reading American literature, stories and poems, to English -and Turkish-children, and I am filled with something like despair at the dreadful political leadership in the US which is either irrelevant or just wrong-headed most of the time. Let me spare you the details save in this:

    All the peoples of the western nations are going to have to pay higher taxes whatever any politician may tell us. We are going to have to accept lower wages as well, and be a whole lot more efficient. There is no other way of competing with the sort of people who produce quality goods on salaries of $2,000 a year or less. Our military budgets are going to have to be chopped back. We are being invaded with cheap shampoo and toy tanks now. Real tanks won’t help much.

    You can’t always get what you want

    It’s not so much that we “need” them as that we get them whether we want them or not.

    Each party is a collection of diverse, slightly overlapping interests that agree to work together. It can lead to some irrelevant bedfellows (why are the gun-rights and pro-life people the same party? Why is same party for minimum wage hikes and legalized marijuana?) but there’s usually some logic to it.

    They’re stronger together then they are apart. “I’ll vote for your issues if you’ll vote for mine.” Usually they’re not really voting against their interest when voting for the other guy’s bill but might otherwise remain neutral on it, while the “other party” contains the guys who are opposed.

    Try this as a thought experiment: take your favorite party and disband it. The separate interest garoups will get massacred by the other party, and the old party will promptly re-form spontaneously.

    Once in a very rare while an extremely rich person will try to run without the aid of a party. It rarely works, and never at the Presidential level. And it never, ever, ever works for poor people. If we eliminated parties, only people who could afford all the infrastructure that parties currently provide (experienced media managers, volunteer coordinators, mailing lists, etc) would win.

    You can try banning the parties, but only by trampling on freedom of speech, freedom of association, and probably freedom of the press.

    Local elections are often nonpartisan, usually because there aren’t any long-term social and theoretical alignments to work out. But even there, politicians tend to band together and work for each other’s interests. And they’re not always nonpartisan, because they’re sometimes used to “groom” candidates for higher office.

    So parties end up being an inevitable fact of life. We can rail against it, but there’s not really anything we can do about it without costing even more freedom than we’d gain.

    In a word: Yes!

    A party is just an organization that helps individuals get elected. Every candidate has an organization. Even if we got rid of all the parties today, they’d appear in a blink of an eye. There are practical reasons for this.

    In the US, we have the most mature democracy on the planet. Thus we have two parties. In the beginning, there were a ton of parties. You needed a score card, and it still didn’t make sense. It was like every candidate was a unique individual, and you had no idea what their history really was.

    New-born democracies often start with a dozen parties. In the first few years, these get reduced in half, as the little parties merge with larger parties that share a lot of their positions. These mergers happen for the same reason they happen in business: greater numbers equal more foot soldiers and more power in elections and more money raising, and greater efficiency.

    The end of this party consolidation always comes when there are two parties in a democracy (one “party” in non-democracies). And these two parties tussle back and forth, each trying to claim their half, plus a little be more of the center, so they can win.

    Inevitably, in this process, a lot of ideas get left out, as the parties seek to position themselves with the greatest chance of winning the coveted center. So people get angry, and in hoping to push their ideas, they try, again and again, to build third parties. These almost never take hold. And even if they do well in one election, their share of the vote has always plummeted in the next election.

    So, if we outlawed the current parties, new parties would spring up out of the organizations of the next set of politicians. It’s a nice dream. It will never happen as long as we have a democracy, and as long as enough people think elections matter.

    I say no!

    My preference would be to have no parties at all. To be a candidate, you get the designated number of signatures on a petition and run in a national primary. Public funding at a moderately low rate is provided–no personal funds can be used. Then the top 4 get additional public funding to run in the election. The whole process takes 4 months and literally anyone can run. Do away with the unnecessary conventions and all the backroom deal making. Time for a major overhaul of our system that will get rid of the choking influence of the rich ruling class in this country.

    It’s a good question.

    There are certainly flaws in the dual party system and within each party. However I can’t help thinking of The Federalist Papers (I think that’s it. I’m pretty tired and the brain is firing slowly) in which there was some concern that this country would grow so large, with so many factions that there would be know method of balance and the sheer volume of different political movements would halt any progress. I would be concerned that with no parties to balance one another and consolidate efforts to enact laws and policies we might wind up stagnating with a whole lot of wonderful ideas but no real action in any direction. The flip side would be we would have a heck of a lot less, or at least smaller portions, of organized corruption.

    Statistics: Posted by Frank Jenkins — Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:42 am


  • Opinions • Re: Third Party

    The Nebraska Legislature is the supreme legislative body of the State of Nebraska, in the Great Plains region of the United States. The Legislature meets at the Nebraska State Capitol in the City of Lincoln, Lancaster County.
    Nebraska’s Legislature is unusual in that it is unicameral and nonpartisan. No other state in the U.S. has a single-chamber legislative body, although the legislatures of two U.S. territories—the Virgin Islands and Guam—are unicameral, as is the Council of the District of Columbia. At 49 members it is also the smallest state legislature (the next smallest is the 60-member bicameral Alaska Legislature).
    iframe

    Statistics: Posted by Frank Jenkins — Thu Nov 29, 2012 11:25 am


  • Opinions • A citizen of Guam

    I am an American citizen living on the island of Guam. Guam is a territory of the United States. I am a 57-year-old female, disabled by a stroke at the age of 41. Although we are American citizens, we cannot vote directly for the President of the United States, so we are not included in the popular vote. I feel this is wrong.

    I see a ridiculous amount of waste, inefficiency, and mis-management in our government; ridiculous amounts of money for simple items that are buried in wasteful government contracts.

    I don’t care about the party system or about term limits. I don’t care what party a candidate represents, I vote based upon their positions on the issues that are important to me. If a candidate is worthy, they can be elected as many times as the people choose. I do not like candidates who get elected and then do not do what they were elected to do.

    I really liked Ronald Reagan. I think the government is too big and complicated. I support going back to the basics and adhering more closely to the Constitution.

    I rely on social security disability. I get food stamps and I have medicare insurance. The food stamps and social security are insufficient to sustain me. Medicare insurance is good, and I am happy about that.

    Illegal aliens attempt to get onto the island of Guam often. They are mostly Filipinos and Chinese. The ports are closely watched; when the illegals are found, they are sent home without further expense or trouble. What bothers me the most about illegal immigration is that the resources of America go to take care of people who are not citizens when we have Americans in need right now. Besides that, the budget is a mess and we can’t afford it.

    Statistics: Posted by debbie — Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:03 pm


  • Opinions • Re: Third Party

    Were we not warned against political parties, by Thee founding father.

    Statistics: Posted by Jim — Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:36 pm


  • Opinions • Term Limits

    This is the opinion of an investment counselor who lives in Virginia, just outside of the District of Columbia. I am in favor of strict term limits in America. Two terms in the senate and one term in congress should be sufficient for an individual to serve the country to the best of their ability, and then return to private life as a citizen. Career politicians with life-long agendas and far-reaching power and influence would be a thing of the past; senators and congressmen would not become millionaires at the expense of the taxpayers; they would not become beltway-insiders who are out of touch with the people.
    I would like to see a single 6-year term for the presidency. This would give a sufficient term to be effective, while eliminating the time and expense of campaigning while in office.

    Statistics: Posted by concerned+1 — Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:13 am


  • Opinions • Re: Third Party

    In reading over the previous post, I am reminded of the words found within the Declaration of Independence, crafted by our Founding Fathers…
    ” that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Enough said.

    Statistics: Posted by mreill01 — Mon Nov 26, 2012 6:10 am


  • Opinions • Third Party

    The concept of a third party is interesting. Neither of the two existing parties can fix the problems of this country today; neither seems willing or able to clearly (and fearlessly) even identify the problems. They are stifled by political correctness and blinded by their affiliations. They are deaf to the voices of the people. After the 2012 Presidential election, it seems clear that today’s Republican Party in particular does not have the ability to re-brand itself as a party more acceptable to the electorate.
    Grass-roots conservatives are aware that they are taken for granted by the Republican Party and thereby ignored. Their core beliefs are trampled upon. As a result, many stayed home rather than vote in 2012. They have come to realize that the Republican Party does not represent them.
    A Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson is not the answer. That has been tried, and it failed. Rather than having a fringe group leader emerge and then have a small minority of voters coalesce around him/her, a viable third party platform must be formed, and then a leader chosen that best represents that platform. That way the issues come first, rather than the popular appeal of an articulate candidate who has no chance of winning. The platform of a true conservative party could probably be pulled from within the present Republican Party platform, and would consist of many planks not being used by the present party establishment.
    Interestingly, there are certainly also disgruntled Democrats, sick of the partisan bickering and gridlock in Washington, who can see that a possible workable new party is somewhere outside the two current major parties. The current party elites are ignoring them as well. Some of these might very well consider joining a new party (like the “Reagan Democrats”) if they were convinced the party heard them and would represent them.
    The chance of a successful third party developing into a force to be reckoned with is low, and I hold a skeptical realism as to its practicality. It would take millions of dollars, real independent leadership, and strong coalitions in all fifty states to be viable. But there are American voices that are crying out to be heard and are tired of being ignored while they are paying the salaries of those in office, and whose number seems to be increasing.

    Statistics: Posted by mreill01 — Mon Nov 26, 2012 5:45 am


  • What’s On Your Mind • Quote from a European Newspaper

    Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon. The Czechs suffered under the Soviet form of socialism and are quite qualified to recognize the Obama form of the same.

    “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”
    Prager Zeitungon

    Statistics: Posted by Frank Jenkins — Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:34 pm


  • What’s On Your Mind • What If We Fail? – Liberty

    Ronald Reagan speech at 1976 Republican Convention…what can we learn from this?Image

    If I could just take a moment; I had an assignment the other day. Someone asked me to write a letter for a time capsule that is going to be opened in Los Angeles a hundred years from now, on our Tricentennial.

    It sounded like an easy assignment. They suggested I write something about the problems and the issues today. I set out to do so, riding down the coast in an automobile, looking at the blue Pacific out on one side and the Santa Ynez Mountains on the other, and I couldn’t help but wonder if it was going to be that beautiful a hundred years from now as it was on that summer day.

    Then as I tried to write — let your own minds turn to that task. You are going to write for people a hundred years from now, who know all about us. We know nothing about them. We don’t know what kind of a world they will be living in.

    And suddenly I thought to myself if I write of the problems, they will be the domestic problems the President spoke of here tonight; the challenges confronting us, the erosion of freedom that has taken place under Democratic rule in this country, the invasion of private rights, the controls and restrictions on the vitality of the great free economy that we enjoy. These are our challenges that we must meet.

    And then again there is that challenge of which he spoke that we live in a world in which the great powers have poised and aimed at each other horrible missiles of destruction, nuclear weapons that can in a matter of minutes arrive at each other’s country and destroy, virtually, the civilized world we live in.

    And suddenly it dawned on me, those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired. They will know whether we met our challenge. Whether they have the freedoms that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here.

    Will they look back with appreciation and say, “Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom, who kept us now 100 years later free, who kept our world from nuclear destruction”?

    And if we failed, they probably won’t get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom, and they won’t be allowed to talk of that or read of it.

    This is our challenge; and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before, we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for.

    We must go forth from here united, determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory, Mr. President.

    Statistics: Posted by Gary Triplett — Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:07 pm


  • What’s On Your Mind • Ronald Reagan Thanksgiving Day Address 1985

    Ronald Reagan Thanksgiving Day Address 1985
    object

    This is what a REAL president sounds like when he offers Thanksgiving greetings to his fellow Americans: appreciation for the liberties we enjoy, for those who have fought to preserve them, and for the Father in heaven who has so greatly blessed us.

    Statistics: Posted by Gary Triplett — Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:44 pm


  • What’s On Your Mind • Thanksgiving Proclamation

    BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    A PROCLAMATION
    Thanksgiving Proclamation, November 15, 1985

    96

    Although the time and date of the first American thanksgiving observance may be uncertain, there is no question but that this treasured custom derives from our Judeo-Christian heritage. “Unto Thee, O God, do we give thanks,” the Psalmist sang, praising God not only for the “wondrous works” of His creation, but for loving guidance and deliverance from dangers.

    A band of settlers arriving in Maine in 1607 held a service of thanks for their safe journey, and twelve years later settlers in Virginia set aside a day of thanksgiving for their survival. In 1621 Governor William Bradford created the most famous of all such observances at Plymouth Colony when a bounteous harvest prompted him to proclaim a special day “to render thanksgiving to the Almighty God for all His blessings.” The Spaniards in California and the Dutch in New Amsterdam also held services to give public thanks to God.

    In 1777, during our War of Independence, the Continental Congress set aside a day for thanksgiving and praise for our victory at the battle of Saratoga. It was the first time all the colonies took part in such an event on the same day. The following year, upon news that France was coming to our aid, George Washington at Valley Forge prescribed a special day of thanksgiving. Later, as our first President, he responded to a Congressional petition by declaring Thursday, November 26, 1789, the first Thanksgiving Day of the United States of America.

    Although there were many state and national thanksgiving days proclaimed in the ensuing years, it was the tireless crusade of one woman, Sarah Josepha Hale, that finally led to the establishment of this beautiful feast as an annual nationwide observance. Her editorials so touched the heart of Abraham Lincoln that in 1863 – even in the midst of the civil War – he enjoined his countrymen to be mindful of their many blessings, cautioning them not to forget “the source from which they come,” that they are “the gracious gifts of the Most High God…” Who ought to be thanked “with one heart and one voice by the whole American People.”

    It is in that spirit that I now invite all Americans to take part again in this beautiful tradition with its roots deep in our history and deeper still in our hearts. We manifest our gratitude to God for the many blessings he has showered upon our land and upon its people.

    In this season of Thanksgiving we are grateful for our abundant harvests and the productivity of our industries; for the discoveries of our laboratories; for the researches of our scientists and scholars; for the achievements of our artists, musicians, writers, clergy, teachers, physicians, businessmen, engineers, public servants, farmers, mechanics, artisans, and workers of every sort whose honest toil of mind and body in a free land rewards them and their families and enriches our entire Nation.

    Let us thank God for our families, friends, and neighbors, and for the joy of this very festival we celebrate in His name. Let every house of worship in the land and every home and every heart be filled with the spirit of gratitude and praise and love on this Thanksgiving Day.

    NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, President of the United States of America, in the spirit and tradition of the Pilgrims, the Continental Congress, and past Presidents, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 28, 1985, as a day of national Thanksgiving. I call upon every citizen of this great Nation to gather together in homes and places of worship and offer prayers of praise and gratitude for the many blessings almighty God has bestowed upon our beloved country.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and tenth.

    RONALD REAGAN

    Statistics: Posted by Gary Triplett — Wed Nov 21, 2012 4:11 pm


  • Opinions • The Opinions of the People

    This is a troubled time in American history.

    The recent election revealed the changing face and values of the electorate, as well as stark and deep divisions among the people. Citizens everywhere are considering vital questions:

    Should we reform/abolish the current party system? Is a new political party a viable option?
    Does the Electoral College still work for America today?
    What about non-partisan re-districting?
    How should we adjust our policies with regard to immigration and our borders?
    How can we remain fiscally sound and work within budgetary restraints?
    Should America adopt term limits?
    Are the words in our founding documents still alive and inspirational? Should we be guided by them still today, or have they become irrelevant?

    Many people today fear that our rights are being eroded, and some even say our country is “broken”. Perhaps we, as caretakers of this nation, can heal the break by finding common ground amongst ourselves.

    This website has one purpose: to gather the opinions and suggestions of caring citizens, and then present them to our elected officials. Write as much or as little as you wish. Come back whenever you want to contribute. Above all, speak freely, whether you are….

    • Red or Blue
    • Left or Right
    • Tea Party or Occupy
    • 99% or 1%
    • Big government or Limited government
    • Employed or out-of-work
    • Young or Old

    For your convenience, included is a reference library containing documents important in the molding and defining of America.

    Subscribe to the We the People opinions forum and receive email alerts when opinions are added.
    To subscribe or unsubscribe, click HERE and scroll to the bottom of the page.

    iframe iframe

    iframe

    Statistics: Posted by mreill01 — Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:35 pm


  • Existing Laws – Amend or Repeal • National Emergencies Act – Amendment Draft #1

    Everything that affects our lives in this country is based upon law… the Constitution being the first. We have no government or country without law. We are fortunate enough to have a system of government that allows us to elect (or hire) representatives to “represent” us in the creation, amending or removal of the laws that we live by. Nothing is perfect in this system, but it should work well if the elected representatives truly represent the will of the people… not a few, but all people. The will of the people today are not always paramount in this representative process in favor of a political party bias. This is where it becomes necessary for the people to step in and become more actively involved in the process to insure the will of the people are done as priority to any political party affiliation. This being said, no one has a right to complain if they do not actively participate in the process.

    Afraid of what our country is becoming and the road it’s going down? Fear not, for we, the people, still retain full power and control of our nation and our destiny. The President, alone, ultimately has no power without Congress and Congress is supposed to be us, “We the People”. Only good can come from being an active, not passive, participant in what is “The Government of the People, by the People and for the People”!

    If no one registers, participates and unites here, nothing will change and we get what we deserve. Our job doesn’t stop by simply voting once every four years and then hope for the best. Will someone assist here or will this remain a blank slate and allow the above law remain intact? 5,000 or 5,000,000 people presenting a finished bill to Congress, as a petition, would be very difficult for Congress or the President to ignore. To ignore and not be representative of the people is what causes revolutions and civil wars.

    If some need extra incentives other than the love of our country…
    Wouldn’t it be a novel idea for a TV or radio talk show host to do more than talk, to “do” something additionally by sponsoring and promoting a bill. Certainly wouldn’t hurt ratings either. Talk, debate and controversy would be abundant in the process of completing a finished product.

    If someone has a better idea or a tool more specific to the purpose of gov.summit.net, then please let us… everyone know. Our country and freedom is at stake and is too important!

    Otherwise…

    Be an active participant in government!!! Please, register and do more than twitter or facebook. Actions speak MUCH louder than words. News and blog junkies or others that only complain are part of the problem by creating only noise to and distractions for the problem solvers and solution makers.

    Don’t know how this works, what to do or how to begin? Try, message or chat with anyone here and they will be glad to assist. All of the tools for research, collaboration and creation can be found here on this site. Don’t know law? You don’t need to. Your ideas and concepts are all that you need to express. It’s simple and people will listen. Easy, isn’t it? Try to have such an impact or impression, as an individual, with a phone call or letter to your congressman or senator!

    Statistics: Posted by Gary Triplett — Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:18 pm


  • Existing Laws – Amend or Repeal • 50 USC Chapter 35 – INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS

    The existing code:

    INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS

    50 USC Chapter 35 – INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY ECONOMIC POWERS

    50 USC § 1701 – Unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency; exercise of Presidential authorities
    (a) Any authority granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may be exercised to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.
    (b) The authorities granted to the President by section 1702 of this title may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared for purposes of this chapter and may not be exercised for any other purpose. Any exercise of such authorities to deal with any new threat shall be based on a new declaration of national emergency which must be with respect to such threat.

    50 USC § 1702 – Presidential authorities
    (a) In general
    (1) At the times and to the extent specified in section 1701 of this title, the President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—
    (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit—
    (i) any transactions in foreign exchange,
    (ii) transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments involve any interest of any foreign country or a national thereof,
    (iii) the importing or exporting of currency or securities,
    by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;
    (B) investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and. [1]
    (C) when the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals, confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States; and all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms directed by the President, in such agency or person as the President may designate from time to time, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe, such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes.
    (2) In exercising the authorities granted by paragraph (1), the President may require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in paragraph (1) either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of such paragraph. In any case in which a report by a person could be required under this paragraph, the President may require the production of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.
    (3) Compliance with any regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this chapter shall to the extent thereof be a full acquittance and discharge for all purposes of the obligation of the person making the same. No person shall be held liable in any court for or with respect to anything done or omitted in good faith in connection with the administration of, or pursuant to and in reliance on, this chapter, or any regulation, instruction, or direction issued under this chapter.
    (b) Exceptions to grant of authority
    The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly—
    (1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value;
    (2) donations, by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of articles, such as food, clothing, and medicine, intended to be used to relieve human suffering, except to the extent that the President determines that such donations
    (A) would seriously impair his ability to deal with any national emergency declared under section 1701 of this title,
    (B) are in response to coercion against the proposed recipient or donor, or
    (C) would endanger Armed Forces of the United States which are engaged in hostilities or are in a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances; or [2]
    (3) the importation from any country, or the exportation to any country, whether commercial or otherwise, regardless of format or medium of transmission, of any information or informational materials, including but not limited to, publications, films, posters, phonograph records, photographs, microfilms, microfiche, tapes, compact disks, CD ROMs, artworks, and news wire feeds. The exports exempted from regulation or prohibition by this paragraph do not include those which are otherwise controlled for export under section 2404 of the Appendix to this title, or under section 2405 of the Appendix to this title to the extent that such controls promote the nonproliferation or antiterrorism policies of the United States, or with respect to which acts are prohibited by chapter 37 of title 18; or
    (4) any transactions ordinarily incident to travel to or from any country, including importation of accompanied baggage for personal use, maintenance within any country including payment of living expenses and acquisition of goods or services for personal use, and arrangement or facilitation of such travel including nonscheduled air, sea, or land voyages.
    (c) Classified information
    In any judicial review of a determination made under this section, if the determination was based on classified information (as defined in section 1(a) of the Classified Information Procedures Act) such information may be submitted to the reviewing court ex parte and in camera. This subsection does not confer or imply any right to judicial review.

    50 USC § 1703 – Consultation and reports
    (a) Consultation with Congress
    The President, in every possible instance, shall consult with the Congress before exercising any of the authorities granted by this chapter and shall consult regularly with the Congress so long as such authorities are exercised.
    (b) Report to Congress upon exercise of Presidential authorities
    Whenever the President exercises any of the authorities granted by this chapter, he shall immediately transmit to the Congress a report specifying—
    (1) the circumstances which necessitate such exercise of authority;
    (2) why the President believes those circumstances constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States;
    (3) the authorities to be exercised and the actions to be taken in the exercise of those authorities to deal with those circumstances;
    (4) why the President believes such actions are necessary to deal with those circumstances; and
    (5) any foreign countries with respect to which such actions are to be taken and why such actions are to be taken with respect to those countries.
    (c) Periodic follow-up reports
    At least once during each succeeding six-month period after transmitting a report pursuant to subsection (b) of this section with respect to an exercise of authorities under this chapter, the President shall report to the Congress with respect to the actions taken, since the last such report, in the exercise of such authorities, and with respect to any changes which have occurred concerning any information previously furnished pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (b) of this section.
    (d) Supplemental requirements
    The requirements of this section are supplemental to those contained in title IV of the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1641].

    50 USC § 1704 – Authority to issue regulations
    The President may issue such regulations, including regulations prescribing definitions, as may be necessary for the exercise of the authorities granted by this chapter.

    50 USC § 1705 – Penalties
    (a) Unlawful acts
    It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under this chapter.
    (b) Civil penalty
    A civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of—
    (1) $250,000; or
    (2) an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.
    (c) Criminal penalty
    A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

    50 USC § 1706 – Savings provisions
    (a) Termination of national emergencies pursuant to National Emergencies Act
    (1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, notwithstanding the termination pursuant to the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.] of a national emergency declared for purposes of this chapter, any authorities granted by this chapter, which are exercised on the date of such termination on the basis of such national emergency to prohibit transactions involving property in which a foreign country or national thereof has any interest, may continue to be so exercised to prohibit transactions involving that property if the President determines that the continuation of such prohibition with respect to that property is necessary on account of claims involving such country or its nationals.
    (2) Notwithstanding the termination of the authorities described in section 101(b) of this Act, any such authorities, which are exercised with respect to a country on the date of such termination to prohibit transactions involving any property in which such country or any national thereof has any interest, may continue to be exercised to prohibit transactions involving that property if the President determines that the continuation of such prohibition with respect to that property is necessary on account of claims involving such country or its nationals.
    (b) Congressional termination of national emergencies by concurrent resolution
    The authorities described in subsection (a)(1) of this section may not continue to be exercised under this section if the national emergency is terminated by the Congress by concurrent resolution pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act [50 U.S.C. 1622] and if the Congress specifies in such concurrent resolution that such authorities may not continue to be exercised under this section.
    (c) Supplemental savings provisions; supersedure of inconsistent provisions
    (1) The provisions of this section are supplemental to the savings provisions of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 101 (a) [50 U.S.C. 1601 (a)(1), (2), (3)] and of paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 202 (a) [50 U.S.C. 1622 (a)(A), (B), and (C)] of the National Emergencies Act.
    (2) The provisions of this section supersede the termination provisions of section 101 (a) [50 U.S.C. 1601 (a)] and of title II [50 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.] of the National Emergencies Act to the extent that the provisions of this section are inconsistent with these provisions.
    (d) Periodic reports to Congress
    If the President uses the authority of this section to continue prohibitions on transactions involving foreign property interests, he shall report to the Congress every six months on the use of such authority.

    50 USC § 1707 – Multinational economic embargoes against governments in armed conflict with the United States
    (a) Policy on the establishment of embargoes
    It is the policy of the United States, that upon the use of the Armed Forces of the United States to engage in hostilities against any foreign country, the President shall, as appropriate—
    (1) seek the establishment of a multinational economic embargo against such country; and
    (2) seek the seizure of its foreign financial assets.
    (b) Reports to Congress
    Not later than 20 days after the first day of the engagement of the United States in hostilities described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, if the armed conflict has continued for 14 days, submit to Congress a report setting forth—
    (1) the specific steps the United States has taken and will continue to take to establish a multinational economic embargo and to initiate financial asset seizure pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; and
    (2) any foreign sources of trade or revenue that directly or indirectly support the ability of the adversarial government to sustain a military conflict against the United States.

    Statistics: Posted by Gary Triplett — Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:33 pm


  • Existing Laws – Amend or Repeal • Proposed Amendment of Presidential Executive Order

    The existing code

    National Emergencies Act

    50 USC § 1601 – Termination of existing declared emergencies
    (a) All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on September 14, 1976, are terminated two years from September 14, 1976. Such termination shall not affect—
    (1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
    (2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or
    (3) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.
    (b) For the purpose of this section, the words “any national emergency in effect” means a general declaration of emergency made by the President.

    SUBCHAPTER II—DECLARATIONS OF FUTURE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES (§§ 1621–1622)
    50 USC § 1621 – Declaration of national emergency by President; publication in Federal Register; effect on other laws; superseding legislation
    (a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.
    (b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be exercised during a national emergency shall be effective and remain in effect
    (1) only when the President (in accordance with subsection (a) of this section), specifically declares a national emergency, and
    (2) only in accordance with this chapter. No law enacted after September 14, 1976, shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so in specific terms, referring to this subchapter, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this subchapter.
    50 USC § 1622 – National emergencies
    (a) Termination methods
    Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter shall terminate if—
    (1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or
    (2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency.
    Any national emergency declared by the President shall be terminated on the date specified in any joint resolution referred to in clause (1) or on the date specified in a proclamation by the President terminating the emergency as provided in clause (2) of this subsection, whichever date is earlier, and any powers or authorities exercised by reason of said emergency shall cease to be exercised after such specified date, except that such termination shall not affect—
    (A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
    (B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or
    (C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.
    (b) Termination review of national emergencies by Congress
    Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.
    (c) Joint resolution; referral to Congressional committees; conference committee in event of disagreement; filing of report; termination procedure deemed part of rules of House and Senate
    (1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.
    (2) Any joint resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
    (3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.
    (4) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such joint resolution within six calendar days after the day on which managers on the part of the Senate and the House have been appointed. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed in the House in which such report is filed first. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within forty-eight hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.
    (5) Paragraphs (1)–(4) of this subsection, subsection (b) of this section, and section 1651 (b) of this title are enacted by Congress—
    (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in the House in the case of resolutions described by this subsection; and they supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
    (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
    (d) Automatic termination of national emergency; continuation notice from President to Congress; publication in Federal Register
    Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.

    50 USC Chapter 34, Subchapter III – EXERCISE OF EMERGENCY POWERS AND AUTHORITIES
    When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

    50 USC Chapter 34, Subchapter IV – ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF PRESIDENT

    (a) Maintenance of file and index of Presidential orders, rules and regulations during national emergency
    When the President declares a national emergency, or Congress declares war, the President shall be responsible for maintaining a file and index of all significant orders of the President, including Executive orders and proclamations, and each Executive agency shall maintain a file and index of all rules and regulations, issued during such emergency or war issued pursuant to such declarations.
    (b) Presidential orders, rules and regulations; transmittal to Congress
    All such significant orders of the President, including Executive orders, and such rules and regulations shall be transmitted to the Congress promptly under means to assure confidentiality where appropriate.
    (c) Expenditures during national emergency; Presidential reports to Congress
    When the President declares a national emergency or Congress declares war, the President shall transmit to Congress, within ninety days after the end of each six-month period after such declaration, a report on the total expenditures incurred by the United States Government during such six-month period which are directly attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by such declaration. Not later than ninety days after the termination of each such emergency or war, the President shall transmit a final report on all such expenditures.

    50 USC Chapter 34, Subchapter V – APPLICATION TO POWERS AND AUTHORITIES OF OTHER PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ACTIONS TAKEN THEREUNDER

    (a) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities conferred thereby, and actions taken thereunder:
    (1) Chapters 1 to 11 of title 40 and division C (except sections 3302, 3307(e), 3501(b), 3509, 3906, 4710, and 4711) of subtitle I of title 41;
    (2) Section 3727(a)–(e)(1) of title 31;
    (3) Section 6305 of title 41;
    (4) Public Law 85–804 (Act of Aug. 28, 1958, 72 Stat. 972; 50 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.);
    (5) Section 2304 (a)(1) [1] of title 10; [2]
    (b) Each committee of the House of Representatives and the Senate having jurisdiction with respect to any provision of law referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall make a complete study and investigation concerning that provision of law and make a report, including any recommendations and proposed revisions such committee may have, to its respective House of Congress within two hundred and seventy days after September 14, 1976.

    Statistics: Posted by Gary Triplett — Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:15 pm


  • Commentary • Electoral College – Defined

    The Electoral College is the institution that officially elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years.
    iframe

    Statistics: Posted by Gary Triplett — Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:44 am


  • Commentary • Presidential Executive Order – USCode TITLE 50

    Executive Orders And Laws relating to National Emergencies Laws
    United States Code TITLE 50 – WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
    CHAPTER 34 – NATIONAL EMERGENCIES

    SUBCHAPTER I – TERMINATING EXISTING DECLARED EMERGENCIES

    Section 1601. Termination of existing declared emergencies

    (a) All powers and authorities possessed by the President, any other officer or employee of the Federal Government, or any executive agency, as defined in section 105 of title 5, as a result of the existence of any declaration of national emergency in effect on September 14, 1976, are terminated two years from September 14, 1976. Such termination shall not affect –

    (1) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
    (2) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or
    (3) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.

    (b) For the purpose of this section, the words “any national emergency in effect” means a general declaration of emergency made by the President.

    SUBCHAPTER II – DECLARATIONS OF FUTURE NATIONAL EMERGENCIES

    Section1621. Declaration of national emergency by President; publication in Federal Register; effect on other laws; superseding legislation

    (a) With respect to Acts of Congress authorizing the exercise, during the period of a national emergency, of any special or extraordinary power, the President is authorized to declare such national emergency. Such proclamation shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.

    (b) Any provisions of law conferring powers and authorities to be exercised during a national emergency shall be effective and remain in effect

    (1) only when the President (in accordance with subsection (a) of this section), specifically declares a national emergency, and

    (2) only in accordance with this chapter. No law enacted after September 14, 1976, shall supersede this subchapter unless it does so in specific terms, referring to this subchapter, and declaring that the new law supersedes the provisions of this subchapter.

    Section1622. National emergencies

    (a) Termination methods
    Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter shall terminate if –

    (1) there is enacted into law a joint resolution terminating the emergency; or

    (2) the President issues a proclamation terminating the emergency. Any national emergency declared by the President shall be terminated on the date specified in any joint resolution referred to in clause (1) or on the date specified in a proclamation by the President terminating the emergency as provided in clause (2) of this subsection, whichever date is earlier, and any powers or authorities exercised by reason of said emergency shall cease to be exercised after such specified date, except that such termination shall not affect –

    (A) any action taken or proceeding pending not finally concluded or determined on such date;
    (B) any action or proceeding based on any act committed prior to such date; or
    (C) any rights or duties that matured or penalties that were incurred prior to such date.

    (b) Termination review of national emergencies by Congress
    Not later than six months after a national emergency is declared, and not later than the end of each six-month period thereafter that such emergency continues, each House of Congress shall meet to consider a vote on a joint resolution to determine whether that emergency shall be terminated.

    (c) Joint resolution; referral to Congressional committees; conference committee in event of disagreement; filing of report; termination procedure deemed part of rules of House and Senate

    (1) A joint resolution to terminate a national emergency declared by the President shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be. One such joint resolution shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee, unless such House shall otherwise determine by the yeas and nays.

    (2) Any joint resolution so reported shall become the pending business of the House in question (in the case of the Senate the time for debate shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents) and shall be voted on within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

    (3) Such a joint resolution passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committee of the other House and shall be reported out by such committee together with its recommendations within fifteen calendar days after the day on which such resolution is referred to such committee and shall thereupon become the pending business of such House and shall be voted upon within three calendar days after the day on which such resolution is reported, unless such House shall otherwise determine by yeas and nays.

    (4) In the case of any disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with respect to a joint resolution passed by both Houses, conferees shall be promptly appointed and the committee of conference shall make and file a report with respect to such joint resolution within six calendar days after the day on which managers on the part of the Senate and the House have been appointed. Notwithstanding any rule in either House concerning the printing of conference reports or concerning any delay in the consideration of such reports, such report shall be acted on by both Houses not later than six calendar days after the conference report is filed in the House in which such report is filed first. In the event the conferees are unable to agree within forty-eight hours, they shall report back to their respective Houses in disagreement.

    (5) Paragraphs (1)-(4) of this subsection, subsection (b) of this section, and section 1651(b) of this title are enacted by Congress –

    (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such they are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in the House in the case of resolutions described by this subsection; and they supersede other rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and

    (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

    (d) Automatic termination of national emergency; continuation notice from President to Congress; publication in Federal Register Any national emergency declared by the President in accordance with this subchapter, and not otherwise previously terminated, shall terminate on the anniversary of the declaration of that emergency if, within the ninety-day period prior to each anniversary date, the President does not publish in the Federal Register and transmit to the Congress a notice stating that such emergency is to continue in effect after such anniversary.

    SUBCHAPTER III – EXERCISE OF EMERGENCY POWERS AND AUTHORITIES

    Section 1631. Declaration of national emergency by Executive order; authority; publication in Federal Register; transmittal to Congress

    When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

    SUBCHAPTER IV – ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF PRESIDENT

    Section1641. Accountability and reporting requirements of President

    (a) Maintenance of file and index of Presidential orders, rules and regulations during national emergency

    When the President declares a national emergency, or Congress declares war, the President shall be responsible for maintaining a file and index of all significant orders of the President, including Executive orders and proclamations, and each Executive agency shall maintain a file and index of all rules and regulations, issued during such emergency or war issued pursuant to such declarations.

    (b) Presidential orders, rules and regulations; transmittal to Congress

    All such significant orders of the President, including Executive orders, and such rules and regulations shall be transmitted to the Congress promptly under means to assure confidentiality where appropriate.

    (c) Expenditures during national emergency; Presidential reports to Congress

    When the President declares a national emergency or Congress declares war, the President shall transmit to Congress, within ninety days after the end of each six-month period after such declaration, a report on the total expenditures incurred by the United States Government during such six-month period which are directly attributable to the exercise of powers and authorities conferred by such declaration. Not later than ninety days after the termination of each such emergency or war, the President shall transmit a final report on all such expenditures.

    Statistics: Posted by Gary Triplett — Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:23 am


We the People

This is a troubled time in American history.

The recent election revealed the changing face and values of the electorate, as well as stark and deep divisions among the people. Citizens everywhere are considering vital questions:

  • Should we reform/abolish the current party system? Is a new political party a viable option?We the People
  • Does the Electoral College still work for America today?
  • Would non-partisan re-districting help create better balance at election time?
  • How should we adjust our policies with regard to immigration and our borders?
  • How can we become fiscally sound and remain within budgetary restraints?
  • As America re-examines the 2nd Amendment, how can we best preserve our gun/militia rights as written and intended by our Founding Fathers? Are we capable of keeping passion and anger from deciding this issue?
  • Should America adopt term limits?
  • Are the words in our founding documents still alive and inspirational? Should we be guided by them still today, or have they become irrelevant?

Many people today fear that our rights are being eroded, and some even say our country is “broken”. Perhaps we, as caretakers of this nation, can heal the break by finding common ground amongst ourselves.

This website has one purpose: to gather the opinions and suggestions of caring citizens, and then present them to our elected officials. Write as much or as little as you wish. Come back whenever you want to contribute. Above all, speak freely, whether you are….

  • Red or Blue
  • Left or Right
  • Tea Party or Occupy
  • 99% or 1%
  • Big government or Limited government
  • Employed or out-of-work
  • Young or Old

we want your input.

Rights group: Myanmar unrest is 'ethnic cleansing'

A leading international rights group is accusing authorities in Myanmar, including senior Buddhist monks, of organizing a “campaign of ethnic cleansing” against the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority.

Human Rights Watch on Monday described a series of bloody attacks last year that killed hundreds of people and forced 125,000 from their homes as crimes against humanity that the government of President Thein Sein has yet to punish.

The New York-based group says ethnic Rakhine nationalists from a powerful political party in western Rakhine state, along with senior Buddhist monks, encouraged coordinated attacks on Muslim neighborhoods.

The rights group says that while state security forces sometimes intervened to protect fleeing Muslims, more often they either stood idly by or participated directly in atrocities.

A Rakhine state government spokesman denied the allegations.

From: http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/world/~3/yk9QDntXnos/

Iraqis see some irregularities in provincial vote

Iraqi election monitors on Sunday reported multiple irregularities in the country’s first provincial vote since U.S. troops left, but were unclear as to whether results would be affected.

In an initial report, two non-governmental organizations, Shams and Tamoz, said over 300 irregularities had been recorded by the seven thousand monitors they had sent across Iraq to cover Saturday’s polls.

The vote was a key test of Iraq‘s short experience with democratic elections because it was the first one run since the U.S. withdrawal in December 2011. Allegations of vote fixing are not uncommon following elections in the country.

In one instance, Hoger Jato of Shams said some security force members had helped specific campaigns while on duty, with some advising voters at polling centers on who to support. Elsewhere, electoral commission employees reportedly failed to check the identities of voters, allowing them to cast ballots on behalf others.

Announcing the report at a news conference in Baghdad, the NGOs did not say whether the irregularities were widespread enough to significantly affect the election‘s outcome.

The reports came as Iraqis began counting votes, unloading hundreds of ballot boxes from trucks and tallying the figures in the heavily guarded counting centers. Employees of the country’s independent electoral commission went through the ballots under supervision of political party representatives.

Votes are first manually sorted before being entered into a computerized system. Final results are expected in several days.

Despite widespread violence in the run-up to the election that left at least 14 candidates dead, Saturday’s voting was mostly peaceful. A few mortar shells and small bombs struck near polling centers, wounding at least six people.

The turnout stood at 51 percent, the same as at the last provincial elections in 2009. When some eligible voters complained they did not find their names on the voting rolls, the election commission blamed them for not updating their information.

Hours after closing the polls, the U.N. Special Representative, Martin Kobler, praised the vote as well-organized and peaceful.

“Credible elections are critical to the country’s stability,” Kobler said in a statement.

The voting took place in 12 of Iraq‘s 18 provinces. Voting was not

From: http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/world/~3/w8TwBjJLgoI/

Iraqis counting votes from provincial elections

Iraqis have begun counting votes from the first provincial elections since the last U.S. troops withdrew in December 2011.

Hundreds of ballot boxes stood in counting centers Sunday. Employees of Iraq‘s independent electoral commission went through the ballot sheets under supervision of political party representatives.

Final results are expected in several days. Voting was mostly peaceful, despite widespread violence in the run-up.

Turnout in Saturday’s elections stood at 51 percent. Some eligible voters said they did not find their names in the voting rolls.

The voting took place in 12 of Iraq‘s 18 provinces. Elections were delayed in two provinces because of unstable security conditions, and the country’s three-province northern autonomy region was not included.

Thousands of candidates from 50 electoral blocs were vying for 378 seats on provincial councils.

From: http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/world/~3/uEi4wVn5Ots/

Gosnell Trial Proves Massive Media Malpractice

By David Fiorazo

Master Bedroom SC1 Master Bedroom latest victim of PC police

Doesn’t it matter to pro-abortion Americans that medical research proves and doctors testify that viable babies suffer tremendous pain when their necks or spinal cords are slit?

Did you ever think the media in America would get to the point where details, facts, and news about one of the most horrific killing sprees in recent history would be covered-up, minimized, or omitted altogether?

Here are just a few of the disturbing facts about Gosnell and his killing clinic:

· The remains of 45 babies were found by authorities at the Philly clinic.

· Gosnell preyed mostly on poor and minority women.

· Flea-ridden cats defecated freely, including in procedure rooms.

· One 41 year-old victim of a botched abortion, Karnamaya Mongar, died because the clinic was so crammed with junk that it took paramedics 20 minutes just to find their way out.

· Gosnell collected baby feet in jars.

The murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell has cemented forever the fact that the pro-choice media has chosen ideology and politics over journalism and doing their job.

By now, most Americans have witnessed the media’s blatant disregard for the truth. Many liberals in the media even admit they didn’t want to report on the Gosnell horror story because they felt it would hinder progress for abortion rights. It’s been well established, documented, and proven that the majority of both local and elite media have a liberal, progressive worldview.

This is not exactly a newsflash. Earlier this year, I began a series on media bias and began with research showing their complete lack of fair reporting on the abortion issue:

Approximately 83% of Americans feel that abortion should have some restrictions placed on it by law, but only 3% of media elites do. Translation: the media often believe or support the exact opposite of the majority of citizens to whom they report the news.

We should now take it a step further and look at the primary reasons for their bias. Journalism’s first obligation is to tell the truth, and its first loyalty is to citizens. The fact is, the media is not interested in the whole truth if it doesn’t fit their narrative; and their loyalty and allegiance is to their political party, not to the people they supposedly serve and inform.

Most mainstream media outlets are operated by pro-choice liberals, and a so-called ‘journalist’ is surrounded by coworkers loyal to the left. In addition, most would rather obey their liberal bosses instead of report the news fairly and honestly.

As children progress though government-controlled public schools, most get plenty of indoctrination from teachers who are loyal to their union, the government, and the Democratic Party. Naturally, kids end up repeating liberal talking points, even if they don’t know why they believe what they say they believe.

Due to heavy influence and pressure from peers, culture, and those in authority, most of these young people end up supporting abortion. For those who choose journalism and go to college, they receive one-sided instruction from progressive professors. As a

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/gosnell-trial-proves-massive-media-malpractice/

Democrats Link Boston Bombing To Sequestration

By Breaking News

Donkey SC Democrats Link Boston Bombing to Sequestration

This is what it looks like when an entire political party becomes absolutely psychotic. The Democrats now respond to virtually every news event by trying to work it into their grand sequestration passion play – an overwrought dramatic production in which a tiny reduction in the rate of government growth becomes magically responsible for everything wrong with the world. They still can’t accept their failure to sell this garbage to the American people, and they sense this failure damaged Barack Obama, so they’ll never stop trying to push it on us. Ancient dinosaurs who have squatted in safe House and Senate seats for decades are thus reduced to squalling children, hoping that if they keep screaming long and loud enough, an exasperated public will finally give in and admit there’s no way to cut $45 billion out of $3.7 trillion in government spending without jeopardizing life as we know it.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) let the effort to link the Democrats’ “Sequester Terror” narrative to… the Boston Marathon bombings. From Politico:

With the Boston Marathon bombings less than 24 hours old, some on Capitol Hill are beginning to say the attack shows why Congress should’ve stopped automatic spending cuts from taking hold in March.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), speaking to reporters Tuesday morning, said the bombings are “clearly another place where it demonstrates why having the ability to address security concerns is important.”

Hoyer added: “I think there are multiple reasons for ensuring that we invest in our security both domestic and international security. That we invest in the education of our children, that we invest in growing jobs in America and don’t pursue any irrational policy of cutting the highest priorities and the lowest priorities by essentially the same percentage.”

Read more at humanevents.com . By John Hayward.

Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey Creative Commons

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/democrats-link-boston-bombing-to-sequestration/