According to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House will vote on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, later this week. The legislation provides Puerto Rico a two stage voting process and makes some non-resident Puerto Ricans eligible to vote on Puerto Rican statehood. This legislation has rigged the process in favor of making Puerto Rico the 51st state, and is not a fair way to force statehood on a Commonwealth whose people may not want it. Furthermore, this may be an expensive proposition for the American people who are already on the hook for approximately $12.9 trillion in national debt.
This bill attempts to rig the voting process and denies the American people a real say on the issue of whether they want to allow Puerto Rico to be granted statehood. The fact of the matter is that Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood numerous times and this bill seems to have been written in a way to fast track statehood without a majority of Puerto Ricans favoring the idea. Furthermore, the people of the United States should be allowed a vote on whether they want to admit Puerto Rico as a new state. If the people of Puerto Rico can vote, the people of the United States should have a vote.
Read the rest here
Did anybody else see this coming!!! This is being voted on TODAY!!!
"So the left says it's not ok for police officers to confirm the immigrant status of individuals they stop, but they call out the riot squad for grandmothers congregating on sidewalks?"
The late Rep. John Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, has achieved his highest undeserved honor. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has decided to name the Navy's newest San Antonio Class amphibious transport-dock LPD 26 the USS John P. Murtha. This is a slap in the face to every service member who bridled when Murtha publicly accused Marines in Iraq of intentionally killing women and children in cold blood.
Murtha slandered eight Marines by denouncing them to the press as cold blooded killers before all the facts were known, and he clearly did so for political purposes. Later all eight of those Marines were acquitted, and John Murtha never apologized. Most Marines I know say that John Murtha forfeited any right to call himself a Marine after such a heinous act. And I agree.
Why couldn't THIS be our first black president! He's got more wisdom in his big toe than Obama and his entire cabinet!
Inhumanity, like humanity, is universal.
Many years ago, I was surprised to receive a letter from an old friend, saying that she had been told that I refused to see campus visitors from Africa.
At the time, I was so bogged down with work that I had agreed to see only one visitor to the Stanford campus — and it so happens that he was from Africa. He just happened to come along when I had a little breathing room from the work I was doing in my office.
I pointed out to my friend that whoever said what she heard might just as well have said that I refused to go sky-diving with blacks — which was true, because I refused to go sky-diving with anybody, whether black, white, Asian, or whatever.
Read the rest here.
The key Republican senator negotiating on the bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), threatened to abandon his work out of fury that Democratic leaders may take up immigration legislation before a global warming bill.
After hearing this, Sen. John Kerry said that, "regrettably," he would postpone the long-awaited unveiling of a comprehensive energy and climate bill that he had hoped to introduce Monday with Graham's support, the AP reported. He tried to assure environmentalists the delay was only temporary.
They're trying to cram this stuff down America's throat so fast that they are arguing over which should go down first!
Thanks to Old Jarhead for pointing this out!
Every time I make some passing reference in print to the tyrant Lincoln, as I did a few weeks ago, a fair number of readers insist on proving the dangers of letting unionized government functionaries “educate” our children.
I believe we can confidently presume most who rail “Such a bizarre and outlandish statement proves what dangerous wackos Suprynowicz and his conservative pals are!” (I’m a libertarian; I’ve never claimed to be a “conservative”) are government-school ex-inmates.
I dare say they have read no legitimate scholarship on “Honest Abe” since hearing him praised decades ago in a room smelling of poster paints and waxed sawdust floor-sweeping compound as a “strong leader who saved the nation and ended slavery” by a government employee with a vested interest in seeing the state continue to tax our parents (and now us) within an inch of our lives to fund today’s largest remaining American institution of compulsion, incarceration, and propaganda — the “public schools.”
(No, old Abe didn’t ride into town on a donkey, playing a Jew’s harp, and spring the innocent defendant by proving Ward Bond lied when he said it was “moon bright” the night of the killing. That was Hank Fonda, courtesy of the old Irish mythmaker, John Ford. The real Lincoln was a railroad lawyer, who had an interesting pre-war business relationship with one George B. McClellan, among others.)
Do yourself a favor. Open your own eyes to what unadulterated hogwash they fed you in the public schools, and how it’s twisted your understanding of American history and politics ever since. To expose just this one example, read at least one of the three books “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War,” by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, or Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s “Lincoln Unmasked” or “The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War,” all now available in paperback for about eleven bucks plus postage.
As local reader Nicholas Gausling wrote in, last week (in part):
“Besides Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s excellent book on the underlying causes and philosophy of the Civil War, entitled The Real Lincoln, the modern reader will be hard-pressed to find an honest, thorough historical analysis of Lincoln’s legacy. While mainstream scholars do occasionally mention some of the less-than-admirable actions of Lincoln — such as throwing most of the Maryland legislature into a military prison, trying to arrest Chief Justice Roger Taney because he embarrassed the Lincoln administration in a court ruling, or having the Secretary of State operate a secret police force to silence Lincoln’s critics — they typically do so in an attempt to defend his blatantly lawless acts.”
Mr. Gausling could also have mentioned arresting Chicago newspaper editors who criticized the tyrant’s policies; instituting an unconstitutional income tax and a constitutionally unauthorized and unprecedented draft (with an exemption for the rich!); telling the South they could keep their slaves if only they’d stay in the union (unless, of course, you think “Honest Abe” was lying about that); waiting years to finally “free” only those slaves inside the Confederacy while allowing union generals to retain in bondage black folk who were proving useful to harvest and export the cotton crop in union-conquered portions of Texas and Arkansas; happily endorsing the war crimes of Grant and Sherman as the former shelled the civilian populace of Vicksburg and the latter burned Atlanta … not to mention the simple fact that he invaded and conquered previously sovereign states which no one — including Young Mr. Lincoln himself — had previously believed lacked the right to secede, the very right that gave birth to The United States of America in 1776.
“But Lincoln ended slavery!” appears to be their last resort.
Chattel slavery was indeed ended on these shores by the Thirteenth Amendment in late 1865, months after Lincoln’s death. Though it had not been his stated goal, Lincoln’s war did hasten that outcome. Though the attempt by Congress to extend the right to keep and bear arms (a necessary precursor to full freedom) to the freedmen via the Fourteenth Amendment was not then nor ever has been fully successful. Just ask yourself how so many blacks could have been lynched and raped in the ensuing century if they’d been generally “allowed” to carry guns.
It’s April now. More than half of Americans just spent dozens of hours — or paid someone else to spend dozens of hours — detailing for the massive central government the names, ages, and Social Slave numbers of their children; how much they spent on medical care last year; how much they spent on housing last year; how many miles they traveled on business last year … things a slave would regularly reveal to his master, but which no free man in his right mind would ever disclose to hostile government agents with guns, who don’t even advise us of our Miranda right to “remain silent.”
Yes, America was freed of slavery. For 48 years, from 1865 to 1913.
The Lincoln-lovers hated the fact that the Supreme Court had ruled his income tax illegal, see. So they “fixed” it — all in memory of “the Great Emancipator.”
Was Lincoln a tyrant? The more relevant question is when we last had a president who did NOT practice tyranny by routinely violating his oath to protect and defend a Constitution of limited government.
It’s all well and good to say men like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan “meant well,” that they were “decent souls at heart,” that Reagan (especially) “never could have gotten a real reduction of government through the Congress,” that he “at least didn’t expand the intrusiveness of the federal government MUCH, compared to the rest of the gang.”
But a president who took office today and actually ordered the shutdown of every office and program created since 1912 and not specifically authorized by the Constitution (don’t give me any of your “general welfare” or “interstate commerce” guff) — in order to achieve the “budget annually balanced” that was cynically promised in the 1932 campaign platform of one Franklin Delano Roosevelt — would bring ululations from the shores of the Hudson and Potomac shrill enough to make your head spin, and probably find him or herself either impeached or shot within a fortnight.
“Land of Liberty,” indeed. The “Land of Liberty,” if not buried in a secret grave in Fort Marcy Park, is today on life support, with Barack Obama smiling as he prepares to plug its I.V. into wall suction.
And it mostly started with the tyrant Lincoln.
These days he's pursuing his law degree and continually chaffs at being surrounded every day by leftist ideologues who, for the most part are a pack of educated idiots.
In his own words, here's a confrontation he just had with a fellow law student:
Well, I decided to record a transcript of the "che shirt conversation" for antiquity.
These are the words to the best of my knowledge. Things get a bit hazy when I start mentally preparing for a fistfight... my blood starts pumping, my neck swells up, and my brain goes on auto pilot.
I was riding the elevator down a couple of floors. It's packed. There's this guy who is the antithesis of me: black, fancy baseball cap with a perfectly flat brim canted to one side, and the stickers still on it. He was also wearing a brand new "Che shirt" with che in blazing bright red. He also had a matching shiny new Che necklace.
So here I am, the opposite: scruffy, dirty ol combat boots, and a hat with a don't tread on me gadsden flag that I sewed on myself.
It was so crowded in there I couldn't really say anything. I gave him the death stare usually only reserved for terrorists or serial child molester types. It was enough to where he "felt it" and eventually made eye contact with me before exiting.
So I sat there in all my classes mulling about it all day, how had I not been a pussy, I should have confronted him about it even crammed in there amongst all those people packed in the elevator.
Well, I had finally forgotten about it, and was walking out the doors into the parking lot.....he was walking in. I almost didn't notice, but when it registered... I saw RED.
I did an about-face and chased him down...
"Hey man, what's up with that shirt?"
"Oh, you like it?"
"No, I F*cking Hate it!"
[his face soured as if I were the vet and I just told him that his puppy had cancer]
"Oh, well, man, [backpeddling] he's just a cultural icon. You got to get over that Cuban revolution thing."
"It's hard for me to get over a dirty socialist mass murderer."
"You heard me."
"Well...See you on the battlefield..."
With my closing line I gave an upward head nod, implying "you may leave now". Tail between his legs, he quickly rounded the corner.
There was no fistfight, but I got dibbs on that one if someday ever comes.
When someone can't explain why they voted for Democrats, give them this list.
They can then pick a reason.
10. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
9. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
8. I voted Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
7. I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
5. I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
4. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.
3. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.
2. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
1. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass it's unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
This strikes me as absolutely hilarious!
Because it very clearly illustrates so many aspects of the ever-burgeoning police state that once was the “land of the free”: bureaucratic bungling, overbearing cops, the driver’s license as the supreme form of national ID, and the powerful surveillance system now being used NOT to track down terrorists, but to harangue everyday citizens. And the supreme irony of this story: Congressman Bobby C. Scott (D-Va.) is the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security!
I called his office this morning and left a polite, but pointed, voice mail asking him to consider how he is helping to craft a police state where once freedom reigned.
1. SWAT team comes to the house
2. Home owner is arrested for a whole plethora of weapons violations
3. One after the other the charges are dropped until only two remain – and it’s only a matter of time before those are dropped as well
4. Home owner with NO PREVIOUS RECORD WHATSOEVER remains in jail without bail.
Go over to Pro Libertate and read about this travesty of justice happening in the state where the American Revolution began (over the issue of guns!)
By the way, the state motto there is "By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty"
After the "progressive" spokespersons at MSNBC and elsewhere labeled the Tea Party movement "Teabaggers," dismissing their opposition to socialism as deviant sexual practice, many began to wonder what equally deviant term could be applied in retaliation to the "progressives." Suggestions made at the People's Cube later turned up on Breitbart's Big Hollywood. But the "culinary" term didn't catch on, apparently because proponents of individual liberties are largely ignorant of collectivist sexual practices.
That may change with the latest Fistgate scandal, which exposed Obama's Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jenning's proclivity to teach young children such non-conventional sexual techniques as fisting.
It's obvious, isn't it, that the progressives' other name is and always has been FISTERS! The science is settled. The debate is over.
As an added bonus, it explains what all the fists on the progressive posters really mean. Every time you raise a fist at a rally for this or that burning issue, remember that the issue is not the issue: FISTING is the issue!
What do we want? Fisting! When do we want it? Now!
It's for the children!
I will bet that many will answer that they got a refund. Or in some manner they will refer to their end-of-year, balance-the-books payment or refund transaction. Even the folks who are aware that they pay taxes all year long and merely balance payments (withholding) against the total due, oftentimes will NOT know their total tax liability. Ahh the sneaky beauty of the payroll tax withholding system! Out of sight – out of mind. Just like the Imperial Federal Gubmint wants it.
Try it. Start asking around. But first – ask yourself. Do YOU know how much you paid last year?
For the record, my tax return (for a family of three), reflects taxes due for 2009 roughly equal to the total income of 2.5 families (of three each) living at the poverty level.
By God I have done MY share – and then some!
Here's a teaser. But DO read the whole thing. Liberals will be enraged. All others will be impressed at the truth of it.
Ninety percent of the people in the world would love to be poor in America. America is one of the few places in the world where a quasi-literate woman can decide to raise her children alone without benefit of a wage-earning husband, and be rewarded by her government for this brilliant decision — despite the greatly enhanced risk her sons will grow up to be felons — with a subsidized home that has central heating, indoor plumbing, and a color television, all courtesy of money looted from total strangers by our wise and powerful government. Is America full of starving waifs? In fact, we have an epidemic of childhood obesity.
What has historically distinguished conservative (or what used to be called "classical liberal") political thought from that of leftists is that conservatives remember their mistakes and consequently can learn from them. Conservatism adapts its ideology to contrary evidence; liberalism reinterprets contrary evidence to fit its ideology.
For example, our Founders crafted our Constitution using the failed Articles of Confederation as both inspiration and object lesson.
In contrast, no matter how many times statism fails, the left mystically assures itself -- and us -- that "this time" it will work, somehow.
Please read the whole thing. It's more than worth your time.
Imagine your telephone ringing in the middle of the night. The caller informs you that he is a police officer. He wants to "get you the help and appropriate resources you need." But wait, you have not asked for any help, don't need any help, and certainly don't want this "help" in the middle of the night.
But this offer of "help" and "appropriate resources" is an offer you can't refuse. You see, your home is surrounded by SWAT teams from multiple jurisdictions. There are men in helmets with machine guns everywhere. Snipers are aiming at your home. You are told to come outside. You are promised you won't be arrested, handcuffed or removed from your property. You are told your possessions will not be confiscated. The friendly paramilitary troops outside your house just want to chat with you.
Any rational person would recognize the danger in refusing the orders of dozens of heavily armed cops.
You leave your home and immediately you are handcuffed at gunpoint and taken to a mental hospital for a "psychological evaluation." The police enter your home without a warrant, without permission, without probable cause and confiscate your firearms.
You have NOT been "arrested" so you have no right to an attorney. You have no right to remain silent. You are subjected to a "hold." You can be held for up to 180 days. You can be medicated against your will. Your crime? The lawful and state-approved purchase of firearms.
None of this is fiction or speculation. It happened to an Oregonian on March 8th. This is the new face of "gun control" in the age of Obama. Buy a gun, go to a mental hospital.
Read the rest of this frightening true story!
That's the background. Now go to Pro Libertate and read the entire thing! It's bound to make all those "law & order" types really proud.
Yes sir... I sure do love a US president that knows how to grovel before foreign leaders. Just makes me plumb proud.
Edited to add: This is NOT a bow in the sense of honoring someone. That sort of polite bow would require that both persons remain in eye contact. What you see here is a bow of subservience.
They're everywhere. While other species have dwindled to the point of becoming tourist attractions or sinecures for Endangered Species bureaucrats, this worthless creature has proliferated like mammalian kudzu, infesting the highways, byways and my ways of America.
It is, of course, the Chronicus Do-gooderus. It infests the cities, towns and villages of the land, performing no useful function whatsoever, not even occupying a valuable place in the food chain, where it could serve as nourishment for some superior animal or insect species. It makes an utter nuisance of itself everywhere it goes, without even having the cosmetic virtue of being as cute as a racoon or as majestic as a rose-consuming doe.
The most pernicious problem lies precisely in its undistinguished appearance. Do-gooderus Noxious looks exactly like its benign cousin Normalus Minditsownbusinessus. The only difference lies in the behavior patterns of these two deceptively similar species.
While Normalus Minditsownbusinessus can be found at home, at work or at play, tending its own gardens, raising its own children, plinking with its very own firearms and surfing the Web sites of its very own choice, its cousin Do-gooderus is always seen:
* Frantically determining that everything is 1) immoral, 2) unsafe, 4) unenlightened, 5) not "beautified" enough, 6) insufficiently centrally planned 7) insufficiently taxed, 8) insufficiently protected, 9) insufficiently restricted 10) insufficiently regulated, 11) insufficiently managed, or 12) otherwise not precisely up to the Do-gooderus' specifications;
* Proclaiming that whatever's annoying it at the moment is the MOST serious crisis that has EVER afflicted the 1) children, 2) environment, 3) women, 4) obscure desert jumping fleas or 5) Generally Sensitive Human Beings;
* Proving that at least 300,000,000 Americans are 1) homeless, 1a) overbuilding, 2) killed each year by firearms, 3) starving, 3a) obese, 4) bulemic, 5) racist, 6) oppressed, 6a) oppressive, 7) anti-government, 8) addicted, 8a) apathetic, 9) abused, 9a) abusive, 10) practicing habits of which the Do-gooderus does not approve, or 11) not paying sufficient attention to the Do-gooderus' opinions, in which case a Presidential Order, er, Directive, er, Edict, whatever they're calling them this week, is necessary to MAKE THEM BEHAVE, DAMNIT!!!!!
Be sure to read the rest... It's hilarious - AND accurate!
And if you haven’t heard about Will Grigg, then you should be reading his columns regularly as well over at Pro Libertate.
My views on the police are already on record here, here and here. And be sure to watch the educational videos I've posted here.
Here's the question asked in my September 2000 column titled "It's Time To Part Company": "If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?"
The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upsmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.
I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.
You say, "Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?" Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.
James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."
Americans who wish to live free have several options. We can submit to those who have constitutional contempt and want to run our lives. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights. We can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. Some independence movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden; Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally.
The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another? My preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.
Two months later, my parents discovered they no longer owned their own farm.
The Commissar, who'd become strangely subdued, even polite, appeared to have nothing to do with this. Neither was there a mob of chanting war veterans rattling at my parents' gates.
Dad had gone to see an estate agent about selling the backpackers' lodge. 'Are you sure you own the land?' said the estate agent. Dad laughed. 'I bought it. I've lived there for 16 years.'
The estate agent leaned forward and spoke in a low, serious tone, like a doctor about to inform a patient of a terminal illness. 'I'm not sure how to tell you this, Mr Rogers, but in August 2005 the government passed an amendment cancelling the title deeds on all existing farms.'
Is this what we're in for here in Obongo's America? Just a little wealth re-distribution? All in the name of fairness eh?
29. Mar, 2010 Written by: Derek J. Sheriff
HB 2307, The Arizona Firearms Freedom Act, has just passed the senate with a vote of 22-8!
The proposed legislation confronts the position taken by most members of Congress that the “Commerce Clause”, found in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, gives them nearly unlimited power to regulate anything which even remotely affects interstate commerce. This bill challenges that claim, by exempting guns manufactured in Arizona from federal regulation, as long as they are stamped “Made in Arizona” and do not leave the state.
The legislative findings contained in this bill assert Arizona’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and the people’s unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment. They also emphasize the fact that when Arizona entered the union in 1912, its people did so as part of a contract between the state and the people of Arizona and the United States.
It is very likely that this Firearms Freedom bill will be signed by Governor Brewer into law. This will add Arizona to the list of states like Montana, Tennessee, South Dakota, Wyoming and Utah that are arresting the evil of Congressional Commerce Clause Abuse.
Consider Argentina. In 1914, it was one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and its living standard exceeded that of Western Europe until the late 1950s. Then President Juan Peron squandered his nation's prosperity by introducing a host of redistributionist economic and regulatory policies, nationalizing utilities and foreign investments, and pumping up the national debt. What followed was three decades of political instability, growing dependency, and economic stagnation