Tag Archives: Ronald Reagan

Raising the Minimum Wage Is Good for the Economy

By Gene Sperling, Alan Krueger

Today, low-wage workers and their advocates are gathering together as part of a national day of action for an increase in the minimum wage. Marking four years since the last increase, Americans across the country are making the case for why raising the minimum wage is good for workers and the economy.

Raising the minimum wage was also part of the economic vision that President Obama laid out in Galesburg, Illinois today, as he described what we need to do to support the middle class and those who are trying to join it. In his own words, “because no one who works full-time in America should have to live in poverty, I will keep making the case that we need to raise a minimum wage that in real terms is lower than it was when Ronald Reagan took office. “

Indeed, in his State of the Union earlier this year, President Obama called for bringing the minimum wage back up to the same value it had at the beginning of the Reagan Administration and for permanently indexing it to inflation, so it does not experience the same erosion in purchasing power that has happened over the past three decades. And he called for increasing the minimum wage received by workers who rely mostly on tips – which hasn’t been raised for over two decades.

read more

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House

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


Column: Playing politics with crisis is inevitable

Hours after the Boston Marathon bombings, President Barack Obama gave the standard presidential line following a tragedy: “On days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats — we are Americans, united in concern for our fellow citizens.”

And, as usual, Republicans and Democrats alike quickly ignored his don’t-politicize-this plea.

This was inevitable.

Our leaders always play politics after catastrophe, whether made by man or Mother Nature. The Newtown shootings and Superstorm Sandy. The financial crisis and Hurricane Katrina. Our history is filled with moments when something big happens and elected officials maneuver quickly to take advantage of the changing public mindset — or at least the more intense media spotlight — on a specific issue.

Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress leveraged public angst over the Depression and a worldwide war in the 1930s to enact the New Deal, overhauling financial systems, funding public works projects and creating Social Security. Some three decades later, Lyndon B. Johnson and his Democrats seized on social unrest to pass the Great Society, anti-poverty and civil rights measures, education and transportation initiatives, Medicare and Medicaid.

During the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and his GOP used the moment of sky-high inflation and a growing Soviet threat to win support for boosting the military, trimming government and cutting taxes. And, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Republican George W. Bush rallied a fearful America behind expanding the government‘s terrorist-tracking powers, streamlining intelligence gathering and toppling Saddam Hussein.

Most recently, when he took office amid the worst economic conditions in a generation, Obama saw an opportunity to advance an audacious agenda that included ending the costly war in Iraq, improving crumbling transportation arteries and overhauling the health care system. As his first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was fond of saying back then: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

A gray area exists in all cases.

To some people, politicians who press for new legislation after a tragedy are seizing the perfect time to make needed changes, using typically fleeting we-are-one moments to reach consensus on an issue that long had been languishing behind more pressing priorities or struggling to get the necessary votes. To other people, these politicians are exploiting a tragedy in a blatant attempt to enact their pet, partisan policies.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Maggie's Critics Each Owe her $3,000

By Paul Roderick Gregory, Contributor   England yesterday laid to rest former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with pomp and circumstances not seen since the Queen Mom’s funeral of 2002. Thatcher’s detractors turned their backs to her passing coffin, held signs “Rest in Shame,” and pushed the song “Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead” to the top of the charts. Margaret Thatcher’s enemies will never forgive her for breaking the unions’ stranglehold, for her support of budgetary discipline, her privatization of England’s decaying state companies, and for deregulation. Her detractors will not forgive her alliance with Ronald Reagan against the USSR’s evil empire. They will not forgive her support of the first war against Saddam Hussein. Thatcher’s detractors will never concede that she reversed England’s fifty years decline as the “sick man of Europe” and restored her country to the top ranks of world economic powers. When I began teaching comparative economics in 1970, I showed students that it was rare for countries to undergo dramatic changes in their relative economic position. The rise of Japan starting in the 1870s was one of the few exceptions of a rising economic power. England – at the turn of the 20th century the world’s richest economy — was the rare exception of a country in an economic tailspin relative to its neighbors. I taught a whole chapter about the “British disease” plagued by runaway unions, ineffective demand management, decaying state enterprises, and overregulation. The British disease was evident in the many anecdotes of British economic inefficiency, but it was even more apparent in the collapse of England’s relative economic position in Europe:  In 1950, Germany and France’s per capita GDPs were between two third and three quarters of England’s. When Thatcher became Prime Minister in 1979, Germany and France were between ten and fifteen percent richer than England.  In 1950, England was twice as affluent as Italy. By 1979, the two had essentially the same per capita income. The mighty England was reduced to being Italy! Notably, the Thatcher Revolution did not end with Thatcher.  Thatcherism convinced the Labor Party to become New Labor. New Labor, unlike Old Labor, could win elections, and it continued the policies of Thatcher. After forty years of Thatcher and New Labor policies, England is again more affluent than rivals France and Germany, and it has left Italy behind in the dust. Over England’s half century of “British Disease,” various labor and Tory governments sought cures. None succeeded until Thatcher. I would challenge any economist to come up with an answer for the cure of the British disease other than the Thatcher reforms.  Unless those who hate Mrs. Thatcher can come up with another reason for England’s recovery, they should admit that her policies have made them on average $3,000 better off each year based on the following calculation:   In 1979, Germany and France’s combined GDP per capita was 14 percent higher than the UK. Under the favorable assumption that a UK without Thatcher could have maintained that deficit, its current GDP

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/04/18/maggies-critics-each-owe-her-3000/

Margaret The Magnificent: We Desperately Need More Leaders Like Her

By Steve Forbes

Along with Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher was a giant of our era and, indeed, of history. These three leaders brought about the fall of Soviet communism and the resurgence of political and economic liberty around the world. Like Reagan, Thatcher was one of those rare individuals who were both a movement leader and an effective political leader. It?s one thing to have firm ideas, quite another to have the skills to bring them into being and for them to endure after you leave office.

From: http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/04/15/the-amazing-margaret-thatcher-we-desperately-need-more-leaders-like-her/

Former Sen. Lugar to be knighted by the British

Former Sen. Richard Lugar is being knighted on orders from the Queen of England, joining a select list of Americans to receive the distinction.

The Indiana Republican, who this year left the Senate after serving 36 years, will receive the rank of honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire during a ceremony at the British Embassy in Washington on Tuesday. The British Ambassador, Sir Peter Westmacott, is set to preside.

Since leaving the Senate, Lugar has taken on various roles, including leading the Richard G. Lugar Institute for Diplomacy and Congress with the German Marshall Fund. He also serves as a distinguished scholar and professor at the Indiana University School of Global and International Studies.

Lugar said he is deeply honored to be knighted. “I will focus my service on solving our most serious challenges in a spirit of cooperation between our countries,” he said in a statement Monday.

He said he was first inspired by Queen Elizabeth‘s leadership “when she received me as the young Rhodes Scholar in London, 58 years ago and asked me about Indiana.”

Lugar’s studies at Oxford University were his first outside of the United States. He went on to become one of the Senate’s foremost foreign policy experts, focusing much of his work on nuclear proliferation issues and relations with Europe. Along with former Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., Lugar crafted legislation that helped eliminate nuclear warheads in the former Soviet Union.

Lugar will not be known as “sir” Lugar — only royal subjects can carry that title. But few Americans have received honorary knighthood, including Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Lugar was defeated in a Republican primary in 2012, finishing his sixth term in office early this year. Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly won the race to replace him.

From: http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/national/~3/rZwhdEazrCA/

Video: Thatcher ‘death Party’ Turns Violent

By NewsEditor

Socialists, students, and anti-capitalists were joined by former miners for a demonstration in London’s Trafalgar Square on Saturday. Many Britons remain harshly critical of Prime Minster Margaret Thatcher’s polices, two decades after she left office. Contains brief strong language.

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/thatcher-death-party-turns-violent/

Rand Paul Did OK At Howard University

By capblack

Rand Paul 4 SC Rand Paul Did OK At Howard University

There was only one Jack Kemp. God knows we need his all-American appeal to conservative and urban audiences at a time when the GOP is attempting frenzied “minority outreach.”

(I put “minority outreach” in quotes because involvement is more my cup of tea.)

That aside, Senator Rand Paul’s Howard University speech set the outreach march on steadier ground.

Instead of sounding like a Democrat with a removable “R,” he was himself, which is all American blacks (pro and con) should ask of him.

I don’t think I’m alone is saying I don’t need White folks adopting minstrel show phony drawls (see Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden), nor drop obvious applause lines based upon our religious or civil rights experience.

Just talk to us.

From the podium and during Q & A, he addressed his stance on issues like the Civil Rights Act that got him in hot water in the past.

One mistake I think Black folks make is demanding that those far removed from our community magically address us as if they’ve been lifelong insiders.

Rand Paul is obviously a White male libertarian and Republican US senator. Some of his conclusions on the GOP or icons like Ronald Reagan differ from those of the Black liberal mainstream.

That his conclusions differ from those of the Black liberal mainstream doesn’t necessarily make him a villain.

American Blacks of Paul’s generation should focus less on what happened in the past and more on what can be done now to distance ourselves from the limitations of yesteryear.

Rand Paul was born in the South three years ahead of me. We came of age in a region forced to confront its Apartheid by federal troops and legislative leveraging from the White Hosue and Capitol Hill.

A lot of Black liberals will charge that he doesn’t “get” Black folks. I wonder: does “Mt. Negro Dialect” Harry Reid “get” us any better?

I’d argue that Rand Paul’s decriminalization of what he calls “victimless drug crimes” alone has the potential to liberate several generations of Black men who chose drug-dealing as a profession.

That stance resonates far more with the Black liberal (and parts of the conservative) mainstream than with anti-drug hardliners like myself.

I consider crack, heroin, meth, and other chemical angels of slow motion death to be nothing less than satanic in their design and impact.

Drug decriminalization is a big libertarian coalition builder, and within it lies the glue for adding American Blacks who feel that the War on Drugs is racist.

This topic, along with libertarian aversion to intrusive policing and an aptly named “warfare state,” were rightly shared by Paul at Howard University– just like he does elsewhere.

I think he did ok during his Howard University speech, precisely because he remained himself and didn’t deviate from trademark philosophical positions.

I expect White folks to be themselves and not put on patronizing productions designed to pacify us.

Rand Paul did ok at Howard University and thus far is ok by me as someone offering the GOP political viagra if they’re willing to take it.

Donate/Stop Socialist Hate!

http://www.gofundme.com/197xk8

Remembering Margaret Thatcher

By Michael Reagan

Margaret Thatcher SC Remembering Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher, who served as prime minister of Britain from 1979 to 1990, is most famous for teaming up with my father Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II to peacefully end the Cold War and bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But at home, the “Iron Lady’s” intellect, political will, and love of freedom and capitalism also saved Britain from its long, slow death by socialism.

Prime Minister Thatcher freed up Britain’s economy by deregulating business, privatizing government-owned industries, and breaking the back of the powerful unions that were smothering her country to death.

Not that The New York Times can bring itself to give Lady Thatcher much credit for any of this in its coverage of her death from a stroke on Monday at age 87.

Paul Krugman, the pathetic Times’ in-house apologist for the serial failures of the Obama Economy, dug out some arcane data that he said raises doubts that Thatcher’s pro-capitalist policies actually did anything to turn around Britain’s economy.

Meanwhile, a so-called news article in the Times on Wednesday about the debate over Thatcher’s legacy in the British Parliament is the latest example of how the Paper of Record’s liberal bias is always at work.

Two Times writers — John F. Burns and Alan Cowell — said, “The Thatcher era is generally recalled as a time when a capitalist revolution crushed labor unions, decimated staid industries that had once formed the nation’s economic base, and inaugurated a period of robust economic growth that sanctified a generation’s acquisitiveness.”

No bias there, right?

I think Burns and Cowell spent more time describing what nasty things Thatcher’s left-wing critics in the Labor Party had to say about her than mentioning her triumphs.

But Lady Thatcher doesn’t need the support of The New York Times or Hollywood to make it into the history books. Her accomplishments on the world stage will speak for themselves forever.

I’ll never forget meeting Lady Thatcher several times in London and in the United States. But my greatest memory of her occurred in 2004 when, despite being very ill, she attended my father’s funeral at the Reagan Library.

The morning after the funeral, as I was eating at the hotel with my family, I greeted Lady Thatcher when she came in for breakfast.

“Oh, Michael,” she said in that great accent of hers. “Think of how much we could have accomplished if your father had been elected in 1976, not 1980.”

Lady Thatcher,” I said with the greatest respect, “I think God chooses the time for many of the things that happen in the world. And 1976 wasn’t that time; 1980 in fact was.”

“Why would you say that?” she said.

“Simply because I look at 1976 and I say, ‘Where was Margaret Thatcher? Where was Pope John Paul II? Where was Lech Walesa and Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev?’ In 1976, none of you were in positions of power to do anything.

“But 1980 was the right time,” I said to Lady Thatcher.

“You were prime minister. Pope John Paul was pope. And you had

From: http://www.westernjournalism.com/remembering-margaret-thatcher/

Reagan, Thatcher Forged A Close, Lasting Bond

By Breaking News

WASHINGTON — Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, two self-assured and firm-speaking conservatives, joined forces in the early 1980s and drastically changed the economic and political landscapes in both of their countries.

Their calls for more-austere government and lower taxes still resonate with conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic. And their side-by-side standing up to Soviet communism is credited by those of all political stripes as hastening the end of the Cold War.

Thatcher died Monday in London of a stroke at 87.

The British prime minister and the American president had the kind of personal bond that is extremely rare at such high levels of power.

She was the first and last White House State Dinner guest during Reagan’s eight-year presidency. And when he died in 2004, at 93 after suffering for years with Alzheimer’s disease, a frail Thatcher attended his state funeral.

Read More at OfficialWire . By Tom Raum.

Photo Credit: LeStudio1.com- Bernard Bujold

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

The Amazing Margaret Thatcher: We Desperately Need More Leaders Like Her

By Steve Forbes, Forbes Staff

Along with Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher was a giant of our era and, indeed, of history. These three leaders brought about the fall of Soviet communism and the resurgence of political and economic liberty around the world.  Like Reagan, Thatcher was one of those rare individuals who was both a movement leader and an effective political leader.  It is one thing to have firm ideas, quite another to have the skills to bring them into being and for them to endure after you leave office.  The current economic crisis has put Margaret Thatcher’s ideas and ideals under siege even though this disaster resulted from ignoring her and Reagan’s fundamental free market principles. …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Iowa Republicans Struggle Against Disarray In Battle For Open Senate Seat

By The Huffington Post News Editors

DES MOINES, Iowa — It was a day Iowa Republicans had long dreamed of when their Democratic nemesis, Tom Harkin, announced he was retiring from the Senate. But that day was in January, and as the Midwest winter now gives way to spring, Republicans here find themselves in a surprising predicament – still trying to come up with someone to run for the job, and struggling to avoid becoming another example of the party’s disarray after its presidential defeat.

Ever since Harkin, who had held the office since Ronald Reagan was president, provided an opening for the GOP, the party has bounced between two options for the Senate seat:  candidates who could win but won’t run, and candidates who could run but, party officials fear, couldn’t win.   

Read More…
More on Video

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

Reactions to Margaret Thatcher's Death

By Kevin Spak The Iron Lady is dead , and reactions are pouring in from pundits around the planet. Here’s what people are saying: David Weigel at Slate is predicting a “gulf of difference between American coverage, in which Thatcher will be remembered as a glass ceiling-shattering pal of Ronald Reagan; and British coverage,… …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Newser – Home

Margaret Thatcher's Economic Legacy Contested

By The Associated Press

Filed under: , ,

Terry O’Neill, Getty Images

LONDON (AP) – Love her or loathe her, one thing’s beyond dispute: Margaret Thatcher transformed Britain.

The Iron Lady, who ruled for 11 remarkable years, imposed her will on a fractious, rundown nation – breaking the unions, triumphing in a far-off war, and selling off state industries at a record pace. She left behind a leaner government and more prosperous nation by the time a mutiny ousted her from No. 10 Downing Street.

Thatcher’s spokesman, Tim Bell, said the former prime minister died from a stroke Monday morning at the Ritz hotel in London. Flags were flown at half-staff at Buckingham Palace, Parliament and Downing Street for the 87 year old. Queen Elizabeth II authorized Thatcher to have a ceremonial funeral – a step short of a state funeral – to be held at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London with military honors.

Prime Minister David Cameron cut short a trip to Madrid and Paris to return to Britain following news ofThatcher’s death, and his office confirmed that Thatcher would be cremated following the ceremonial funeral. It did not provide further details, saying only the arrangements were in line with the wishes ofThatcher’s family.

For admirers, Thatcher was a savior who rescued Britain from ruin and laid the groundwork for an extraordinary economic renaissance. For critics, she was a heartless tyrant who ushered in an era of greed that kicked the weak out onto the streets and let the rich become filthy rich.

“Let us not kid ourselves, she was a very divisive figure,” said Bernard Ingham, Thatcher’s press secretary for her entire term. “She was a real toughie. She was a patriot with a great love for this country, and she raised the standing of Britain abroad.”

Thatcher was the first – and still only – female prime minister in Britain’s history. But she often found feminists tiresome and was not above using her handbag as a prop to underline her swagger and power. A grocer’s daughter, she rose to the top of Britain’s snobbish hierarchy the hard way, and envisioned a classless society that rewarded hard work and determination.

She was a trailblazer who at first believed trailblazing impossible: Thatcher told the Liverpool Daily Post in 1974 that she did not think a woman would serve as party leader or prime minister during her lifetime.

But once in power, she never showed an ounce of doubt.

Thatcher could be intimidating to those working for her: British diplomats sighed with relief on her first official visit to Washington, D.C., as prime minister to find that she was relaxed enough to enjoy a glass of whiskey and a half-glass of wine during an embassy lunch, according to official documents.

Like her close friend and political ally Ronald Reagan, Thatcher seemed motivated by an unshakable belief that free markets would build a better country …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

Reagan's Daughter Makes Bold Claim

Renew Our Founding Principles

By Michael Reagan

Billions of Christians around the world celebrated Easter last Sunday, but not our media.

Once again, the holiest day of the Christian year slipped under their godless radar.

I saw Easter pop up in the news a only few times last weekend, but the stories had nothing to do with God or religion or the importance to Christianity of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Easter “news” was Easter egg hunts. ABC and USA Today covered the 135th annual White House Easter Egg Roll like it was a nuclear arms treaty.

At an Easter egg hunt in Seattle, things turned bloody when two mothers got in a nasty fight after one pushed the other’s child. And the big Easter story out of Minnesota was that an egg hunt had to take place in the snow.

Meanwhile, on Easter Sunday morning, ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos did its part to desecrate the holy day.

The show’s panel discussion on religion included an atheist who had complained three months ago that President Obama was wrong to speak of Jesus Christ at the memorial service for those killed in Newtown, Conn.

Marking Easter Day without mentioning its importance to Christians reminded me of something my father Ronald Reagan once said: “If we cease to be one nation under God, we’ll be a nation gone under.”

My father understood that the whole planet closely watches the actions of the United States. We’re seen by the rest of the world as a godly nation.

If we’re not leading the way, if we’re not serving as a good role model for the rest of the countries in the world, then who will? Russia? China?

If you don’t believe the world is watching us, here’s a little story about a man I met on the plains of Kenya.

I was staying at the Mara Safari Club when one of the Maasai warriors who worked there came up to me.

“Are you Ronald Reagan’s son?” he asked.

“Yes,” I said.

“I’ve seen you on TV on Larry King,” he explained.

I looked around me at the empty savannah and thought, “How in the world did he see me on CNN here in the middle of Africa?”

“You’re the Christian,” the Maasai man said.

“Yes.”

“You have a brother, Ron.”

“Yes.”

“He’s an atheist, isn’t he?”

“Yes.”

“I’ve seen him too on Larry King.”

Then the Maasai man asked me if I talked to my brother, Ron.

“Not often.” I said.

“The next time you talk to him,” the Maasai said, “tell him that there’s a Maasai warrior that prays for him every single day in Africa.”

As a Christian, and someone who was not praying for my brother and sisters every day at that time, I suddenly felt about an inch tall. Because of that encounter, I do pray for them now.

People wonder why the country is in the turmoil it is. Yet our godless media give us no moral principles to live by and nothing of eternal value to hang on to or reach for.

If you do strive for something spiritual or publicly express your faith in God and his …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Video: Obama, What A Guy!

By Gabor Zolna

He is going to give up 5% of his salary; what a guy! He is a complete joke, and him giving up 5% of his salary when everything that he does is paid for is insane!

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Paul Krugman: Here’s The Real Problem With California

By The Huffington Post News Editors

Modern movement conservatism, which transformed the G.O.P. from the moderate party of Dwight Eisenhower into the radical right-wing organization we see today, was largely born in California. The Golden State, even more than the South, created today’s religious conservatism; it elected Ronald Reagan governor; it’s where the tax revolt of the 1970s began.

Read More…

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post

Republicans Need To Be Republicans Again

By Allan Erickson

Republican Elephant 2 SC Republicans need to be Republicans again

Weak, mealy-mouthed, spongy politicians make people sick.  We have respect for someone who sticks to his guns, even if we disagree with him. We despise people with whom we might agree when they start compromising, back-pedaling, and double-talking just to pander for votes, a disgusting display of craven selfishness.

Starting with Abraham Lincoln, Republicans used to stand tall and stand for the right, especially when the majority stood opposed.  Most people in America could have cared less about slavery way back when.  Others supported it.  It was a courageous minority that brought the matter to the table and pushed it to a head.  The Republican Party was founded to stop slavery, and it was Republicans who were largely responsible for the success of civil rights legislation passed in the 60s.

That’s what conservatives used to do as people most interested in the right, people willing to fight for the right.

General Dwight Eisenhower showed the right stuff when he warned of the dangers of the military industrial complex. Teddy Roosevelt took a stand against monopolies and for preservation of wilderness and resources.  Ronald Reagan held to traditional values, promoted Americanism, sought limited government according to the Constitution, helped expand liberty at home and abroad, and never blinked in the face of the evil empire.

Republicans used to keep faith with the Founders, with Revolutionary fervor. They once refused to compromise on core values, showing real integrity, engendering respect and trust, proving their leadership credentials, and encouraging loyalty and support.

Not so much today.  Compromising on principle, too many have fallen to the level of carpetbaggers and carnival barkers.

This one capitulates on same-sex marriage.  That one endorses murdering babies in the womb.  The other one calls the Constitution a living document subject to the whims of ‘interpretation,’ allowing for increased judicial activism and bureaucratic despotism, limited government be damned.  Still another talks blanket amnesty just to beg for votes on his knees.

And then party leadership falls on its sword issuing an ‘autopsy,’ urging Republicans to be more like Democrats if they want to win elections.

BS.

If Republicans want to win elections, they must differentiate even more from Democrats, truly taking on the special interests that choke our government.

If Republicans want to win elections, they must preach Americanism and mean it, passionately renewing faith with the Founders.

If Republicans want to win elections, they need to show young people they consistently care about morality, social issues, the family, national defense, and economic growth.

If Republicans want to win elections, they must articulate real solutions to poverty and discrimination instead of using them as wedge issues to demonize the opposition just like the opposition.

If Republicans want to win elections, they need to boldly prove that their policies enhance economic freedom, self-government, and limited government and that those policies are proven successful and therefore worthy of support.

If Republicans want to win elections, they need to stop being weak and cowardly, cut all the double talk, and fight for what’s right, ignoring polls and focus groups.

If Republicans want to win elections, they must fight like hell …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Liz Cheney: Republicans, Get Over The 2012 Loss–and Start To Fight Back

By The Huffington Post News Editors

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well-taught lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don’t do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

Ronald Reagan, March 30, 1961

Read More…
More on Ronald Reagan

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Huffington Post