Silencing my freedom of speech is not for my greater good. I am fighting back.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Battles Looming Over First Amendment Rights | Homeland Security
Battles Looming Over First Amendment Rights | Homeland Security Silencing Republican and conservative voices, regulating the internet, favoring certain news organizations--these are the goals of the current administration. The DISCLOSE Act was just one weapon in the larger assault against free speech. Is our government intent on destroying the First Amendment? Or are they working towards these goals for the greater good?
What is Fascism?
Is Obama a Facist? | Editorial So are we now a fascist country or are we just headed in that direction? J.D. Longstreet has written a thoughtful and provocative article suggesting that we are already there and that it is up to the American people to change things in the next elections. The article gives a good explanation of fascism and what it means for our country.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Comments: Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan - Washington Times
Comments: Memo outlines backdoor 'amnesty' plan - Washington Times Well, now a memo has surfaced suggesting that the Obama administration is considering a plan to give what amounts to blanket amnesty to millions of illegals by executive order. The memo lists suggestions of how to implement help for illegals without having to go through congress. If this is the case, let's hope President Obama decides not to go with this because if he does he is in danger of seriously overreaching his presidential powers. Such action is likely unconstitutional and would not be allowed to stand. Furthermore, if he continues to circumvent Congress in matters of legislation and appointments it will make him unpopular even with the democratic members of Congress. It also increases the likelihood of impeachment proceedings. One wonders why he would even contemplate such a suicidal move. Sometimes it seems like he would rather be a dictator than a president. For the sake of America I hope he never considers this plan.
Now that the "secret" is out, how long do you think it will take for the Obama administration to issue a statement dismissing the whole thing? Wait for it...wait for it...
Thursday, July 29, 2010
SAVE Act and CLEAR Act Can Overturn Judge Bolton's Decision on Arizona Immigration Enforcement Law | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels
SAVE Act and CLEAR Act Can Overturn Judge Bolton's Decision on Arizona Immigration Enforcement Law | NumbersUSA - For Lower Immigration Levels Gee, what a concept. Just think, if the federal government had done its job in the first place by passing such acts as CLEAR and SAVE, Arizona would never have had to enact its controversial law, formerly known as SB1070. Who knew??
This is a great article explaining the implications of Judge Bolton's decision and what it will mean for Arizona and America. Although the most controversial items were blocked most of the law remains intact and will be enforced. And this isn't the final decision because the most controversial aspects will be reviewed to see if they are constitutional. The state of Arizona has also filed an appeal as of today. So things are still active on this front. The most important thing for all of us to do right now is contact our senators and congressmen and tell them to support the SAVE and CLEAR acts. Start now because the elections are just a few months away and a lot can happen between now and then so we need to keep up the pressure!! On the bright side, even though this seems a win for the other side right now the game is far from over. The reason they have not achieved their amnesty goals so far is because of all our hard work to keep it from happening. So let's stay strong and let's keep working towards real immigration reform!
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Talks Open on UN World Arms Treaty
EDITORIAL: U.N. threatens Second and First Amendments - Washington Times I have been receiving emails for over a year now from various gun groups warning about US support for a UN Arms Trade Treaty. Now that the talks have officially opened we are seeing this reported for the first time in the main stream media..
Quietly, without fanfare, the UN has been holding meetings behind closed doors for years to work on a global arms trade treaty which is projected to be ready by the year 2012. This treaty will be legally binding on every nation that signs it and will establish a form of global arms control and registry for everything from handguns to fighter jets. According to the Washington Times The Heritage Foundation thinks that some form of world gun registry will almost certainly be a part of this treaty. There will be many other provisions as well addressing such things as video game content and human trafficking. However, the potential for global gun control and a world registry is getting the most attention right now because it has such huge implications for our first and second amendment rights.
The push for a world arms treaty has actually been going on in the UN for quite sometime. The Bush administration narrowly stopped it a few years ago, believing that the issues addressed would be better solved by nations themselves. The Obama administration, backed by anti-gun and weapon groups, now supports the talks and wants to move forward towards a treaty. The Seattle Times article below makes a great case for global arms control and I'll admit that on the surface it sounds pretty good. The world is pretty dangerous now and I can't blame those who would want to do all they can to make it safer. In fact the article makes the arms treaty sound like such a good idea that if I didn't know better I would not only jump on the arms treaty bandwagon, I would drive it. But here are my concerns. Whatever our feelings about gun control, I think we Americans need to understand first and foremost that achieving it through global governance will not only directly assault our Constitutional rights but will also subject a huge chunk of our sovereignty to a world governing body, the UN. The fact that this particular governing body is notoriously corrupt, inefficient and ineffective gives me even greater cause for concern.
Another concern is countries and regimes that already give guns, money and other weapons to terrorists. Who really thinks such countries will abide by a mere treaty? I don't believe for one minute that this treaty will be effective because people and nations always find ways to break the rules. What the treaty will do is cause weapons to be taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens and placed in the hands of criminals, terrorists and countries who want to destroy us. People and nations the world over will lose the right to defend themselves. .
One final thought. Americans must decide whether or not the Constitution and our national sovereignty are still important to us because we are at the point now where we must fight for them like never before. For the first time we have an administration that is all too willing to solve problems by weakening us as a nation and subjecting us to world rule. We have to decide if we want to solve problems as a strong nation or as weak member of a world body. If this treaty comes to pass we will have one final stand we can take as a nation. For the treaty to be legal the Senate must ratify it. If we do not want this treaty, now is the time to start flooding our senators' offices with emails, phone calls and letters demanding they not ratify it. Otherwise world government is just a step away.
Related Articles by Zemanta
Quietly, without fanfare, the UN has been holding meetings behind closed doors for years to work on a global arms trade treaty which is projected to be ready by the year 2012. This treaty will be legally binding on every nation that signs it and will establish a form of global arms control and registry for everything from handguns to fighter jets. According to the Washington Times The Heritage Foundation thinks that some form of world gun registry will almost certainly be a part of this treaty. There will be many other provisions as well addressing such things as video game content and human trafficking. However, the potential for global gun control and a world registry is getting the most attention right now because it has such huge implications for our first and second amendment rights.
The push for a world arms treaty has actually been going on in the UN for quite sometime. The Bush administration narrowly stopped it a few years ago, believing that the issues addressed would be better solved by nations themselves. The Obama administration, backed by anti-gun and weapon groups, now supports the talks and wants to move forward towards a treaty. The Seattle Times article below makes a great case for global arms control and I'll admit that on the surface it sounds pretty good. The world is pretty dangerous now and I can't blame those who would want to do all they can to make it safer. In fact the article makes the arms treaty sound like such a good idea that if I didn't know better I would not only jump on the arms treaty bandwagon, I would drive it. But here are my concerns. Whatever our feelings about gun control, I think we Americans need to understand first and foremost that achieving it through global governance will not only directly assault our Constitutional rights but will also subject a huge chunk of our sovereignty to a world governing body, the UN. The fact that this particular governing body is notoriously corrupt, inefficient and ineffective gives me even greater cause for concern.
Another concern is countries and regimes that already give guns, money and other weapons to terrorists. Who really thinks such countries will abide by a mere treaty? I don't believe for one minute that this treaty will be effective because people and nations always find ways to break the rules. What the treaty will do is cause weapons to be taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens and placed in the hands of criminals, terrorists and countries who want to destroy us. People and nations the world over will lose the right to defend themselves. .
One final thought. Americans must decide whether or not the Constitution and our national sovereignty are still important to us because we are at the point now where we must fight for them like never before. For the first time we have an administration that is all too willing to solve problems by weakening us as a nation and subjecting us to world rule. We have to decide if we want to solve problems as a strong nation or as weak member of a world body. If this treaty comes to pass we will have one final stand we can take as a nation. For the treaty to be legal the Senate must ratify it. If we do not want this treaty, now is the time to start flooding our senators' offices with emails, phone calls and letters demanding they not ratify it. Otherwise world government is just a step away.
Related Articles by Zemanta
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Reid to Netroots: "We're Going To Have a Public Option"
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Reid to Netroots: "We're Going To Have a Public Option" Mr Reid says "it's just a matter of when." Hmm...you mean when it is repealed?
Besides Mr Reid have you looked at what is happening in Britain now? They are decentralizing their "romantic" health care system and giving physicians more control. They believe this will cut costs and save money. So it seems we are a little behind the times trying to push our country towards a public plan don't you think? Hmmm...maybe you don't think.
Britain Plans to Decentralize National Health Care - NYTimes.com
Britain Plans to Decentralize National Health Care - NYTimes.com Well well it appears that the US is not the only country massively reorganizing its health care system. Britian is looking to decentralize its health care system in an effort to save money. It seems we are a little behind the times in our efforts to go for a public plan. How long will it take us to figure out what the Brits have already learned--that it costs too much?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)