This is a grass roots, non-partisan blog for those interested in learning more about how to protect your constitutional rights and freedoms. Tea Partiers welcome. Do, do come to tea!
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Is Obama closing GOP leaning car dealers?
The way I see it we have two huge problems here. The first is that apparently only Republican-leaning car dealerships are being closed. At least that is what it looks like at this point, as democratic-leaning car dealerships are staying open. The transparency as to why this is the case is noticably lacking. Chicago style politics at work?
The second, and even more enormous, problem is that of the fifth amendment violation. The fifth amendment states "no person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Forcing dealerships to close and then sell their assets to companies the government chooses to stay open is just plain wrong. It is time for us all to wake up and recognize that this is a direct, flagrant violation of Constitutional fifth amendment rights! Our forefathers would have called it tyranny! If you own a dealership that is about to be closed, consider a lawsuit to fight for your rights. The rest of us need to contact our reps immediately and demand an investigation.
We can't just lay down and let this happen. We have to fight for our rights! Stay vigilant and keep up the pressure!
Update on Recovery Act Lobbying Rules: New Limits on Special Interest Influence
Tea Party, Kernersville, NC
White House Will Cut Off Criticism of Porkulus
Saturday, May 30, 2009
White House Moves to Restrict Criticism of Stimulus Projects
Although I agree with Mr Tapscott that this is a key passage, I found another key, and maybe even more ominous, passage in Mr Eisen's blog as well. Mr Eisen states that "following the OMB's review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interest and more focused on merits-based decision making." First of all, what exactly do they mean by merits-based decision making? Where are the parameters for the decision making process? Who exactly will make the decision? What rules should petitioners follow to make sure their requests are in compliance? There are no answers to these questions in Mr Eisen's blog, leaving one to assume that either they have critera written down somewhere that they have no intention of ever revealing or that they will simply do whatever Mr Obama wants at the time. Either way it is dangerous. Carter Wood from Shopfloor writes in his update to this article that "the restrictions are ambiguous enough that a lobbyist or other petitioner won't be sure how to fully comply. So if someone runs afoul of White House officials, a phone call to a news outlet or a friendly prosecutor can punish the offender. Ambiguous rules plus capricious application equals negative rule of law." A dangerous, slippery slope indeed.
To me this is a classic example of how tyranny starts, in subtle ways and in areas small enough not to be noticed right away. The rules and policies are ambiguous on purpose, usually written in broad pretty language so as to distract people from seeing their true intent. This government is counting on us not paying attention to what is really going on. We must stay aware and vigilant because once tyranny starts it spreads quickly. It is up to us to recognize it and stop it. Read the article, and then contact your reps to insist for an accounting of the administration's merit decision making process concerning stimulus projects.
Monday, May 25, 2009
The Protest of a Patriot
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Obama Plans June 6th Health Care Kickoff
Memphis Tea Party
Saturday, May 23, 2009
US Debt Clock
Friday, May 22, 2009
Cap and Trade Bill Passes House Committee
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Axelrod Compares Prejean to a Dog
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Obama Calls For Understanding in Notre Dame Speech
Obamas Lived Beyond Their Means
Biden Carries Heavy Debt
Saturday, May 16, 2009
California prototype for Obama's Policies?
Obama's Socialized Health Care Plan
Friday, May 15, 2009
Obama's Health Care Rationing
Health Care For All
What Price Health Care?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
We Can't Afford A Public Health Plan
Islam on Campus
Immigration Issues
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Are The Elderly Cost Effective?
Ed Meese: Constitution, High Court At Risk Under Obama
Health Care Costs--The Numbers Don't Add Up
Democratic Edge Quietly Rusting?
Greatest Cover Up in American History?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Greg Ball for Congress--New York
Keep up the good work!
9/11 aerial photos
Sunday, May 10, 2009
2 Trillion in Health Care Savings!
Should the Pope Apologize to Muslims?
What You Can Do About "Hate Crimes" Legislation
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97238
Want to try to make a difference? Want to forget about having a Big Mac meal for a day or those couple of Starbuck's coffees? Then check out the link above and consider sending ALL our US Senators a letter asking for them to vote against the current Hate Crimes (S.909) legislation. You will notice that this legislation establishes “special status” for crimes against a protected class – essentially making them out to be different from any crime against a group that is not defined in the legislation. This not only makes crimes against those of us who do not fit into the defined group less “criminal” but creates unique and stiffer penalties for crimes against these protected classes.
I am certain that if you are beaten by a person breaking into your house, you want them prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If you are a homosexual or transgender, that penalty is likely greater than that of the aforementioned victim. It is therefore discriminatory and goes against the very constitution we presume we are bound under.
In addition, Section 7 of the Hate Crimes Acts definition indicates both real and PERCEIVED offenses as being defined in the crime against a person who is under this protected class. Perception simply is not an empirical way to define a crime. You are perceiving my writing as you read this at the moment! And I dare say that each of the people reading have very different perceptions of this legislation and of my commentary. Would you want that view established in a court of law when you are being judged by that perception?
Read the arguments of the Republicans in the House as you consider your own actions:
· Rep. Virginia Foxx (R, NC) said HR 1913 will open a new category of “thought crimes” in America, moving us “down a slippery slope” to loss of freedom. She said such has happened under hate laws in Canada and Europe.
· Rep. Trent Franks (R, AZ) warned HR 1913 will end equality in America, giving special rights to federally favored groups such as homosexuals.
· Rep. Roy Blount (R, MO) echoed Foxx’s admonition that hate laws have taken away free speech in Canada and Europe.
· Rep. Steve King (R, IA) repeated the warning of his amendment in Judiciary last week, saying pedophiles and many other deviants will obtain special rights and protection under HR 1913.
· Rep. Mary Fallin (R, OK) referenced loss of free speech in Canada and Great Britain but also how the “Philly 11″ Christians were persecuted under Pennsylvania’s hate law.
· Rep. Foxx returned, saying a federal hate law would preempt the 10th Amendment which delegates most law enforcement to the states. She said the claim that Matt Sheppard was murdered because he was a homosexual was a “hoax;” he was killed, she said as the victim of a robbery.
· Rep. Louie Gohmert (R, TX) charged HR 1913 will divide America into groups of more favored versus less. He again cited USC Title 18, Section 2a, the foundation of HR 1913, which says anyone who through speech “induces” commission of a violent hate crime “will be tried as a principal” alongside the active offender. He said there is no “epidemic” of hate in America.
· Rep. King cited the American Psychiatric Association which lists 547 different kinds of paraphilia, or sexual deviancies. King said all of these would merit special federal protection under the class “sexual orientation” enshrined in HR 1913.
· Rep. Foxx testified, “This bill itself will spread fear and intimidation.” She was referring primarily to Christian/conservative critics of homosexuality, Islam, illegal immigrants, etc. Such critics from the pulpit or airwaves would be increasingly silenced under the hate law’s chill on free speech.
· Rep. Hastings (D, FL), a proponent of the hate bill, brazenly agreed that HR 1913 would give a galaxy of sexual perverts special protection. He said that under hate bill protection they will not “live in fear because of who they are.”
· One particularly striking argument was made by Rep. Randy Forbes (R, VA). He said if Miss California had slapped the homosexual judge who derided her on the stage (and across the internet) under HR 1913 she could be indicted as a “violent hate criminal,” facing a possible 10 years in prison. But, Forbes said, if the homosexual judge had slapped her, she would have had no special protection under HR 1913. His act would have been simple assault, a misdemeanor.
· The testimony of Rep. Todd Akins (R, MO) was also unique. He said HR 1913 would actually increase hate in America. He said the American people, including young people, recognizing that they are now second-class citizens, with homosexuals receiving special federal rights, can only resent (hate?) those who have rights and privileges above them. He also said that with the legal system already backed up, the federal hate law will create havoc within our legal system, requiring judges to also become “psychologists,” divining motives of offenders.
· Rep. Mike Pence (R, IN) said the FBI statistics show that, far from hate crimes increasing, they have steadily declined over the past 10 years. There is also no evidence that states are lax in hate law enforcement.
· Democrat testimony concluded with a special entry, followed by CSPAN camera, of Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA). He pooh-poohed the arrest of the Philly 11 Christians in 2004, saying that, although it was unjust, Republicans were irresponsible in not pointing out that the Christians were acquitted. Fortunately, Rep. Gohmert had the last word, indicating that the very fact that persons can and have been arrested for speech under state laws has a chilling effect on free speech. Gohmert tried to send the hate bill back to Judiciary for amendments but was overridden.
It is now time for all who love freedom to turn their full attention to defeat of the hate bill in the Senate, where Sen. Edward Kennedy just yesterday introduced his federal hate bill, S. 909, which is certain to be moving rapidly to a vote.