Saturday, July 3, 2010
#7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote." Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end
I'm not white, I'm not black, I'm not upper class, I'm not lower class, I'm not middle class, I'm not French, I'm not Irish, I'm not Asian, I'm not European, I'm not Hispanic, My children are not half Hispanic...They are and I am what I am, An American! And I'm not hyphenated!Additional reading: More my ideological viewpoints can be found here in the comments by Norm
This letter sent to Tennessee Senator Bill Frist from a retired border patrol agent, and it has more common sense than all the bull being spewed from the Senate, with the exception of a few sensible representatives.
Dear Senator Frist:
There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens.
#1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want US citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a US citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, instate tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying
#2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.
#3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.
#5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.
#6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The US accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.
#7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote." Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.
#8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the US. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the US from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the US to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the US stole California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written
for their school children.
into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?
#10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.
either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here? There will be a reckoning.
It will come in November of this year. We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.
David J. Stoddard
US Border Patrol (RET)
Please pass this letter on to everyone you know, including your senators and Congressmen. We must do something about this serious problem NOW!
Friday, July 2, 2010
New Bill Gives Obama ‘Kill Switch’ To Shut Down The Internet Government would have “absolute power” to seize control of the world wide web under Lieberman legislation
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The federal government would have “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under the terms of a new US Senate bill being pushed by Joe Lieberman, legislation which would hand President Obama a figurative “kill switch” to seize control of the world wide web in response to a Homeland Security directive.
Lieberman has been pushing for government regulation of the Internet for years under the guise of cybersecurity, but this new bill goes even further in handing emergency powers over to the feds which could be used to silence free speech under the pretext of a national emergency.
“The legislation says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines or software firms that the US Government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined,” reports ZDNet’s Declan McCullagh.
The 197-page bill (PDF) is entitled Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA.
Technology lobbying group TechAmerica warned that the legislation created “the potential for absolute power,” while the Center for Democracy and Technology worried that the bill’s emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit internet traffic on private systems.”
The bill has the vehement support of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who last year asked during a congressional hearing, “Would it had been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?” while fearmongering about cyber-terrorists preparing attacks.
The largest Internet-based corporations are seemingly happy with the bill, primarily because it contains language that will give them immunity from civil lawsuits and also reimburse them for any costs incurred if the Internet is shut down for a period of time.
“If there’s an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the President has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs’ lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the US Treasury will even pick up the private company’s tab,” writes McCullagh.
Tom Gann, McAfee’s vice president for government relations, described the bill as a “very important piece of legislation”.
As we have repeatedly warned for years, the federal government is desperate to seize control of the Internet because the establishment is petrified at the fact that alternative and independent media outlets are now eclipsing corporate media outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.
We witnessed another example of this on Monday when establishment Congressman Bob Etheridge was publicly shamed after he was shown on video assaulting two college students who asked him a question. Two kids with a flip cam and a You Tube account could very well have changed the course of a state election, another startling reminder of the power of the Internet and independent media, and why the establishment is desperate to take that power away.
The government has been searching for any avenue possible through which to regulate free speech on the Internet and strangle alternative media outlets, with the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers.
Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has already been passed globally, including in the UK, New Zealand and Australia.
We have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing government the power to control the Internet would only be the first step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government permission would be required simply to operate a website.
The Lieberman bill needs to be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum. Regulation of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Constitutional Myth-Busting: Separation of Church and State
Myth: The Constitution mandates the “separation of church and state.”
Truth: Neither the phrase “separation of church and state,” nor anything like it, appears in the Constitution.
Sixteen words in the Constitution address the relationship between government and religion. They are the first sixteen words of the First Amendment, which was ratified in 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. They say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
It has become commonplace to believe that those sixteen words mandate the “separation of church and state.” That belief runs contrary to the original meaning of the First Amendment, however, as demonstrated by the Founders themselves. Shortly after drafting the language of what would become the First Amendment, for instance, the first Congress asked President Washington to issue a proclamation for a day of prayer and thanksgiving. Washington complied, without any apparent reservation regarding the constitutionality of such a move. Washington issued another, similar proclamation a few years later, after the First Amendment had been ratified. Washington and the first Congress endorsed other official uses of religion, too, both before and after the ratification of the First Amendment: the federal government hired and paid chaplains for the military and for Congress, allowed Christian missionaries to help negotiate treaties with Indian tribes, required certain officials to take oaths “so help me God,” and set aside public land for religious uses.
Of course, a minority of the Founders held different views. One who favored greater separation was Thomas Jefferson, who was politically at odds with much of the New England clergy and did not like the extent to which Presidents Washington and Adams had entangled the government with religion. Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention and was not a member of the first Congress, which debated and drafted the First Amendment. Nevertheless, in 1802, shortly after he became president, he wrote a letter in which he declared, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that the act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.“ Jefferson’s phrase was not well-received when he wrote it. It lay dormant for decades, but in 1879, the U.S. Supreme Court cited it as an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. The Court did so again in 1947 and more frequently thereafter, thus transforming Jefferson’s after-the-fact, political advocacy into constitutional doctrine.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
From Airport To Home Without Ever Leaving Your Plane...aah, I mean car...or is it a plane...car, plane, whatever
The following from: The Register (UK)
Flying car gets helpful road-kit weight exemption from feds
With wings folded a Transition can be driven on roads at normal highway speeds. On reaching an airport - or a suitable bit of private land, with the owner's permission - it can extend the wings and make a normal rolling takeoff to cruise the skies at 115mph.
On landing, the usual hassles with finding hangar or tiedown space and getting a cab or hire car onward to one's destination don't apply. The Transition simply drives out of the aerodrome gate and parks wherever it's going - fitting in a standard size garage if one is available.
If bad weather should close in before the return journey - a constant worry for private pilots who don't possess instrument ratings - no matter. The Transition can simply drive home.
Handily, the plane-car was originally designed to fit within a weight limit of 1320 lb, meaning that it could qualify as a "light sport" aircraft. A US light sport pilot's licence is significantly easier and cheaper to get than a normal private ticket, requiring only 20 hours logged, and red tape is lessened.
However it seems that in fact it was proving very difficult to fit mandatory road-safety features such as crumple zones, airbags and a structural cage around the passenger compartment into the 1320lb weight limit. Sportingly, the FAA have now agreed that the Transition, uniquely, can have another 110lb of leeway and still count as a light-sport plane.
Terrafugia originally planned to commence deliveries of production aircraft last year, but in the event got only as far as test flights of a "proof of concept" prototype. This was mothballed after 28 flights, however, and the firm then said it would build a "beta prototype" which it now refers to as the "production prototype". Graphics of this - though not an actual airframe - are to be revealed at this summer's OshKosh air show.
The company hopes now to commence customer deliveries in "Q4 2011", and says that more than 70 aircraft have been ordered. The deposits are held in escrow, and thus will be refunded even if Terrafugia should go out of business or suffer some other disaster.
"The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount." ~ President Harry S Truman
By Norman E. Hooben - June 30, 2010
"The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don't think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child's mind the moral code under which we live.
The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days.
If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state." ~ Harry S Truman
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Originally posted at Sword-At-The-Ready last May the need to educate every American is of the utmost importance as the Obama clan moves further and further in the direction of a Marxist-Socialist dictatorship. All of the information you gather here should not be put on the back burner like a 'been-there/done-that' and then forgotten about. The alarming rate that Obama is moving forward with his agenda to subjugate all Americans should be your biggest worry of every hour of every day; for each day you don your complacent hat Obama tightens his Marxist-Muslim belt and one day you will wake up in a dhimmitude community subject to daily ridicule!
So you may not have heard of Donald Berwick but he should be included in the enemy list on par with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama for these people are truly enemies of the Republic of the United States of America.
And they all have their reasons but none worse than Obama who not only hates Americans, he hates the British and the Jews...he hates the Jews so much he's willing to meet with Ahmadinejad who wants to wipe Israel off the map! ~ Norman E. Hooben
The Best System is Ration-Based Single Payer – Donald Berwick, Obama Nomineee to CMS
We were warned. I have to laugh at the media dropping all over themselves to try and say that Obama’s SCOTUS nominee Kagan is some kind of ‘centrist’.
Obama is a Marxist. he appoints those and surrounds himself with nothing but radical Marxists. So Obama appoints a Knighted subject of Queen Elizabeth to dictate for us the same kind of system that has failed in Britain.
It’s a coup folks. Wake up.
Or one day you are going to find yourself where all citizens of a Marxist government end up: oppressed, enslaved in camps or dead in mass graves.
Berwick is a leading Ivy League academic and technocrat – he’s graduated from Harvard not once, but three times – and is the founder of a Cambridge-based think-tank, the Institute for Health Care Improvement. Yet the job of running CMS is hardly the same as running a small think tank or talking in broad terms about the nature of health care – CMS is essentially the world’s second largest insurance company after the United Kingdom’s NHS, covering over 98 million people and overseeing roughly $800 billion annually in taxpayer-funded health care expenditures.
Berwick is a great fan of the NHS, and worked as a consultant on the project under Tony Blair. Berwick will have the opportunity to apply the ideas he gained through that experience with the power of the CMS position, which means that his nomination holds massive ramifications for Medicare and Medicaid recipients, hospitals and doctors and, under Obama’s law, all Americans.
Berwick: Health Care Must Redistribute Wealth
Key to understanding Berwick’s views on the NHS is a speech he gave as part of a presentation offered two years ago, in which he shared his thoughts on the NHS and health care generally. You can watch the full speech here, which is excerpted above. The full video shows several lines from Berwick that are notable. He decries private sector solutions to health care problems, dismissing the “invisible hand of the market” as an “unaccountable system.” He also states:
“I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country.”
And more disturbingly, in the clip above:
“Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.”
Berwick’s Views on Why the US Should Be More Like the UK
Robert Goldberg, vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, writes on Berwick’s views expressed in 2008 at length in this piece at the American Spectator:
“Berwick complained the American health system runs in the ‘darkness of private enterprise,’ unlike Britain’s ‘politically accountable system.’ The NHS is ‘universal, accessible, excellent, and free at the point of care – a health system that is, at its core, like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous, and just’; America’s health system is ‘toxic,’ ‘fragmented,’ because of its dependence on consumer choice. He told his UK audience: ‘I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do.’”
But as Goldberg points out:
“It may not be joyous or just or configured correctly, but for nearly every disease, particularly cancer, stroke, and heart attacks, Americans live longer and healthier than the English because of better care.”
Indeed, the UK has a terrible record on heart attacks, cancer, and more. A recent piece in the Telegraph runs down the OECD numbers concerning Britain’s actual outcomes from the system Berwick supports so much:
“Britain also languishes near the bottom of the breast cancer league table, with a survival rate of 78.5 per cent. The OECD-wide average is 81.2 per cent. Heart attack victims in Britain are also more likely to die after entering hospital than in most other developed nations. Around 6.3 per cent of patients who have suffered a heart attack have passed away within 30 days of entering a British hospital – significantly higher than the 4.3 per cent average. The figures also show that British life expectancy is much lower than our nearest neighbours. Men in this country can expect to live to 79 years and six months, against 81 years in France. While the report’s authors identified some successes in British healthcare – we have among the best records in Europe for screening women for breast and cervical cancer – the survey indicates that Labour’s much-trumpeted NHS investment has failed to raise standards in key areas.”
The fact is that the UK system is designed for a very different population than ours, with a very different culture — one with far fewer guns, auto accidents, better diets, and fewer young people doing dangerous things. Yet America still has advantages in dealing with these key diseases. While there are many statistics to trumpet on this point, perhaps the best example is that American life expectancy at age 65 is actually higher than Britain.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is right out of central casting as a stereotypical example of America's "ruling class" — i.e., out of step with the great majority of Americans, but with a sense of entitlement to wield power in such a way as to make policy against our wishes because we are her inferiors.
Coincidental it is (or perhaps not, it doesn't matter) that on the eve of Kagan's confirmation hearings to become America's 112th Supreme Court Justice, the July-August issue of American Spectator magazine should include an article titled The Ruling Class. Written by Angelo M. Codevilla, the long essay (which hopefully at some point will become a full-length book) describes a power movement that tilts left in its politics, as well as toward a secularist culture that — in adding up its factions — commands a philosophical agreement from no more than one-third of the electorate.
Codevilla pinpoints all the requirements for advancement among the elite, including (but not confined to) "being in with the right people, giving signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs."
Also, a certain amount of corner-cutting is required, or a willingness "to accommodate the interests of [the ruling class's] senior members," in which case "he [or she] can move profitably among [the] establishment's parts."
Case in point
Then Codevilla cites a timely illustration:
"If for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can 'write' your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistants Ron Klain and Barack Obama. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim of paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was 'inadvertent,' and you can count on the Law School's dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that 'closes' the incident. Incidentally, Obama ends up as president and Kagan a justice of the Supreme Court."
So Codevilla's point is that "[n]ot one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up by being rewarded." Cute, no?
And so the beat goes on
This week, the next chapter in the script is being staged to play itself out as Elena Kagan (already rewarded with the powerful Solicitor General position) faces her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If confirmed, she will be able to occupy that lofty position for life — 40-50 years, who knows? She is unqualified for the job, for these reason —
1 — Elena Kagan has no background either as a judge or a trial lawyer. As Congressman Ted Poe — a former judge and currently a member of the House judiciary Committee — has pointed out, the Supreme Court is no place for on-the-job training.
2 — In her Princeton thesis, she expressed her dismay that,"[i]n our own times, a coherent socialist movement is nowhere to be found in the United States." Further, she contrasted capitalism's "golden past" with "socialism's greatness."
Law professor to the rescue?
3 — Dean Kagan effectively banned military recruiters from the Harvard campus just because of her personal pique on the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law regarding gays in the military. So because she doesn't like a law, we should deny our military the means to acquire the strength to protect us? As Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, put it, Senators "should question" Kagan's "flawed logic and anti-military attitude by signing an amicus brief challenging the Solomon Amendment." Donnelly noted that "the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the legislation which protects equal access for recruiters on college campuses, with a unanimous 8-0 vote. Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not agree with Kagan's anti-military views." Kagan trashed the military in time of war.
Bulletin to Kagan: When enemy/terrorist bombers threaten your safety or your life — call a Harvard law professor.
4 — As a legal adviser to President Clinton, Kagan advised him to veto legislation banning partial-birth abortion — a butcher procedure the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described as "infanticide." In so doing, she deliberately withheld from the president professionally authoritative information that partial birth abortion is never "the least risky, let alone the 'necessary' approach."
The First Amendment
5 — Elena Kagan is an enemy of free speech. In her current role as Solicitor General, she directed the effort to ban free speech on the part of entities desiring to issue pamphlets, posters, or internetosters, or internet postings backing or opposing candidates for public office during campaign seasons. The court rejected her argument 5-4. Now the Stalinist bullies on Capitol Hill are crafting legislation to undo it.
6 — The woman who aspires to a position where no one (in a public policy sense) can sass her back for the rest of her life also has spoken in Orwellian code language for shutting up those whose views she doesn't like. Her euphemism is "redistribution of speech."
The Second Amendment
Elena Kagan has all kinds of peeves with that pesky Constitution. She has no more respect for the Second Amendment than she has for the First.
7 — The Committee for Justice has painstakingly documented the nominee's hostility to gun owners' rights on a variety of issues wherein she comes down on the side of the tightest gun control every time.
The Tenth Amendment
8 — Madame Kagan would force states to recognize "marriages" in other states even though a state's own policies are different — a backdoor effort to force same-sex marriage on the states whose voters — through ballot initiatives — have deemed otherwise. 31 states — mostly by ballot initiatives — have rejected same-sex marriage. Oh, those bothersome voters.
That adds the Tenth (state's rights) amendment to her list of pet peeves. But then if she doesn't respect the First and Second amendments in the Bill of Rights, why would we expect her to respect the Tenth?
Or any other part of the Constitution
9 — Speaking of which: As this column reported (see "Kagan: Disrespect for the Constitution?" — 5/24/10) Elena Kagan as Dean of Harvard Law downgraded the study of American constitutional law and upgraded international law. Do we see a pattern here?
10 — Her judicial hero is former Israeli Justice Aharon Barak, who has said judges should feel free to "give a statute new meaning" — i.e., legislate from the bench.
If the Kagan record concerns you, here is a list of Republican senators who need to hear from you. (Bond-Mo., Collins-Me., Graham-S.C., Lugar-Ind., Martinez-Fla., Snowe-Me., Voinovich-Oh., Brown, Mass.) These senators have either said they might vote for Kagan, voted to confirm her as Solicitor-General, or refused to make their views clear.
The list may not be complete, but was the best our research could produce. We need a solid Republican opposition so no one doubts who Elena Kagan is — an enthusiastic agent of the minority left-wing "ruling class" that presumes to force its will on the "country party" — Codevilla's term for those of us who (according to the elites) just don't know what's good for us.
© Wes Vernon
Related....from NJ Recall Now
By Devvy Kidd
The Outlaw Congress in Washington, DC continues to break the law everyday as if there is no U.S. Constitution. Both parties are guilty of driving this republic into financial ruin while talking out of both sides of their mouths. They will say anything for a vote as we've seen recently regarding Connecticut's Attorney General's race for the U.S. Senate.
US Senator Robert Menendez
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, looking to replace outgoing Sen. Christopher Dodd, lied about his military record. He didn't misspeak; he's a liar, plain and simple. Not a problem for the morally and ethically bankrupt Democratic Party: "Sen. Bob Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told reporters today that he and his committee are sticking by Richard Blumenthal, in the wake of the New York Times' report that the Democrat running for Connecticut Senate has exaggerated his military record.”
RECALLEighteen states of the Union allow recall at the state level. It's unfortunate more citizens in those states haven't taken advantage of removing corrupt officials, but in the larger states, it can require hundreds of thousands of signatures; in some cases a million or more. But, I always say if you want something bad enough, you'll go after it.
This November only 1/3rd of the illegal U.S. Senate is up for reelection. A group of fed up citizens in New Jersey have had it with Sen. Robert Menendez and want him gone. They also don't want to wait until 2012 to oust him - if even possible. A recall effort began with the petition process. A three judge panel (state appeals court) ruled March 16, 2010, that the petition process could move forward, but also stated: “But noting the absence of case law and precedent, it left the ultimate question of the constitutionality of the state's recall law and amendment to a higher court.”
This didn't sit well with Menendez, calling the effort a publicity stunt and issuing this rant: “This is an organization trying to undemocratically and unconstitutionally overturn an election in which more than 2 million New Jerseyans voted,” said Menendez, whose term expires in 2012. “My focus continues to be on job creation legislation and delivering a successful extension of my local property tax relief bill.”
The court also said this: "The court found existing New Jersey law and the state's constitution both allow U.S. senators to be recalled. For that reason, the appeals court said, the removal effort can proceed. "There are a host of genuine arguments and counterarguments that can be articulated and debated about whether or not the Federal Constitution would permit a United States Senator to be recalled by the voters under state law," the appellate judges said.
Which brings us to the meat of the issue. Long ago and far away, and like many others, I wrote that the effort to enact term limits on members of Congress would be shot down by the courts. It was in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v Thornton  - U.S. Supreme Court - Decided May 22, 1995.
The U.S. Constitution makes specific reference to the length of time representatives and senators would serve between elections:
Art. 1, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Art. 1, Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
It doesn't specifically state a restriction as to how many terms a representative or senator can serve. Of course, back then, the framers could hardly imagine professional political prostitutes would stay in Congress 15, 20, 30 or more years. Rep. Charlie Rangel [D-NY] going into year 40. Sen. Roberty Byrd [D-WVA]: 51 years. Nutty Nancy Pelosi [D-CA]: 23 years. The utterly incompetent, Rep. Wally the Waffle Herger [R-CA]: 23 years. Bumbling Sen. Carl Levin [D-MI]: 31 years. Crook, Sen. Diane Feinstein: 18 years. Kill American jobs Congressman John Boehner [R-OH]: 19 years. Strom Thermond [SC] States Rights Democratic (1948–1954): Democratic (1923–1948, 1954–1964); Republican (1964–2003) stayed 47 years until he died. How absurd.
The non-ratified Seventeenth Amendment destroyed state sovereignty by removing the right of the state to representation in Congress and turning it over to voters to elect a U.S. Senator.
I raised this question in my presentation on the Seventeenth Amendment: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose, Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate....
“Since several states were out of session at the time of the vote, have they been deprived of equal Suffrage in the U.S. Senate because they did not participate in the ratification of this amendment? Is fraud (non ratification) enough to allow a state to declare it null and void in their state? No action taken on the ratification: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware. No record for Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington State.”
The framers of the Constitution wanted we the people to have representation in Congress; the U.S. House of Representatives became that body. They desired that the states would receive equal representation; that became the U.S. Senate. Otherwise, why have two bodies in Congress? If they were all to be elected, why not just one - the U.S. House of Representatives? The few and limited legislative areas for the Senate could have easily been rolled into one body if they were all to be elected. But, they weren't.
Senators appointed by the state legislatures is no small matter since the Senate ratified treaties (i.e., NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO, UN) which directly affect the states. Confirmation of cabinet members like the Department of Defense, which directly affects all states of the Union. Confirmation of federal judges and U.S. Supreme Court Justices, whose decisions have a direct impact on the states. That is why the Seventeenth Amendment is so egregious to the suffrage rights of the states of the Union. The state legislatures no longer had the right to appoint their representatives to go to Congress and recall a senator who voted against the interests of their state. Now it would be left to voters -- too many who have zero understanding of the cancers eating away at this country; they vote for a name they've seen on a sign or who their party tells them to vote for. Special interest voters who have no regard for the U.S. Constitution and illegals voting have contributed to the mess in which we find ourselves.
As we can see, there is also no specific mention of recall in those two sections of the Constitution. While I wished it otherwise, I believe a member of Congress cannot be recalled. It would require a constitutional amendment. There have been numerous attempts over the years, which I have covered in past columns; none successful. If memory serves me correctly, it has been due to lack of money to obtain the required number of signatures.
The term of service for representatives and senators was specific in the Constitution, but no cap was put on how many times they could serve or recall. As I understand the issue, the framers wanted uniformity: A set term between elections for all members of the House - two years. The Senate to serve six years. I believe this was done so there wouldn't be a hodge-podge from dozens of states.
But! There is a fly in the ointment so to speak. Recall what the court said in its decision to allow the petition process to proceed: "The court found existing New Jersey law and the state's constitution both allow U.S. senators to be recalled." This I did not know until I read about this particular recall, so I went and looked at the New Jersey State Constitution. I might add a very politically incorrect Constitution (1947): “We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”
Art. 1, Section 2(b) reads:
b. “The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections. Any such laws shall include a provision that a recall election shall be held upon petition of at least 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled. If legislation to implement this constitutional amendment is not enacted within one year of the adoption of the amendment, the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, implement the constitutional amendment, except that regulations adopted by the Secretary of State shall be superseded by any subsequent legislation consistent with this constitutional amendment governing recall elections. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.”
Now, we have a different dog fight. I am on the side of recall, but I don't believe using the Tenth Amendment is going to win the day for this argument, but I could be wrong. I've also been trying since 1993 to get one state to challenge the non ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. A lot of time and misery could have gone away. In any event, the New Jersey Supreme Court will take arguments on May 25, 2010.
Just one update: "The state of New Jersey has apparently decided it will not join the appeal to stop the Tea Party effort to recall Menendez:
"While the State's position on federal constitutionality remains the same ... it is mindful that the Appellate Division correctly pointed out that a condition precedent to any recall election--obtaining the signatures of approximately 1.3 million registered voters within 320 days--may never come to pass. Repeatedly invoking principles of judicial restraint, the Appellate Division stated that "[t]here is, and there will be, no necessity for our courts to resolve this difficult constitutional issue if the (plaintiff) Committee's petition drive fails to collect the necessary, approximately 1,300,000 signatures. The State will not seek to overturn this exercise of judicial prudence and restraint."
The outcome of this case will have a profound impact. While I would like to see all 100 current U.S. Senators tossed out of office, I still believe the original intent of the framers was to see that both the people and the states were represented in Congress. That is why there is a House (for we the people) and Senate (for the states). However, since few care that the Seventeenth Amendment wasn't ratified by enough states, and not a single state seems to care about their right to representation in Congress, right now it is up to the courts.
It is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in my humble opinion, would be a tragedy considering one of the justices, Sonia Sotomayer, should have been indicted for being a willing participant in a cover-up in concealing assets as part of a judicially run and tolerated bankruptcy fraud scheme. She also lied on the required documentation submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. She later corrected her lies. That judicially unqualified justice (qualified because of her ethnicity and female plumbing) should have been indicted long ago. The Democrats are determined to get another miserably unqualified (except for being a liberal, activist female) candidate, Elena Kagan, confirmed and on the bench. The Republicans will do their usual and cave as they did with Sotomayer.
Which brings to mind: "At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486
Devvy Kidd authored The Booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty: 2 million copies distributed. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Visit Devvy's website at: http://www.devvy.com/. You can also sign up for her free email alerts. Devvy's radio show broadcasts Mon-Friday: for details go to Devvy's site. http://www.renseradio.com/listen.htm
“Millions of us in New Jersey are distraught with the runaway bureaucracy and taxes in New Jersey. A hundred million of us, nationally, are outraged at the runaway Senate and House of Representatives in Washington. We want to hold Senator Robert Menendez accountable for his role in the theft of American liberty, and in spending our nation into joblessness and ruin. We want him to answer for his many tax-and-spend votes right now - not in a few years.
...below are listed just a few of Senator Menendez’s votes that the Committee doesn’t believe are authorized under the Constitution:
• Voted not to notify parents of minors who get out of state abortions
• Voted for partial birth abortion
• Voted for human cloning
• Voted that tax money should pay for contraception
• Voted for healthcare to pay for abortions
• Voted to send federal funds to “sanctuary cities”
• Voted not to declare English as the official US language
• Voted not to build the fence along the Mexican border
• Voted not to send the National Guard to protect our southern border
• Voted to give illegal aliens social security
• Voted to give permanent residence to “undocumented workers”
• Voted not to enforce immigration laws
• Voted to confiscate firearms
• Voted to give the children of illegal aliens college tuition money
• Voted to keep the marriage penalty tax
• Voted to continue TARP funds
• Voted to increase national public debt
• Voted to develop a “global” strategy to eliminate poverty
• Voted to protect the rights of terrorists
• Voted to apply the Geneva Convention to terrorists
• Voted for government-run healthcare
Sunday, June 27, 2010
"If ever a time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." ~ Samuel Adams
"If ever a time should come when we need a great congressman that time is now upon us." All the experience you need in a congressman is that which is manifested by a true patriot such as Rick Barber. ~ Norman E. Hooben