Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Idiot and chief partisan appointed to Congressional "Super Debt Committee"

Talking points: "I believe this is, without question, the Tea Party downgrade." --Sen. John Kerry

Unfair and unbalanced: "The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual." --John Kerry, demanding that the Tea Party not be given the time of day

The above comments indicate that John Kerry is in actuality, an idiot. There is no more to be said about the issue. Unfortunately, Kerry is one of 3 Senate Democrats appointed to the "Super Debt Committee" charged with finding enough legitimate cuts in government spending to restore some sanity to that spending.
To make matters worse, one of the other 3 Senate appointees is Senator Patty Murray, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Guess just what her motivations will be? She will be attempting to raise money for the Democratic Senate candidates from the same lobbyists who will be trying to influence the "Super Debt Committee." Anybody see an ethical conflict there?
Hopefully the appointments of fiscal conservatives such as Pat Toomey and John Kyl will prevent too much damage from being done by this Constitutional abomination known as the "Super Debt Committee."

A Proposal of U.S. Constitutional Amendment for Monetary and Taxation Reform

By W. L. Andrews · Wednesday, August 10, 2011

The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

The Congress shall make No Debt for this Union, or the several States, lest the monies be appropriated for the common defense, or the exigencies of War declared by Congress.

Money IS, and ought, and Shall Be the Common Currency of Commerce, Trade, and Law; the Common Denominator of the Commons Property; One of the fixed - Standard of Weights and Measures, metes and bounds, of the Common Wealth of We The People of the United States of America, and- All, Each, and None, of the People - Own the Money coined and issued in our Name, our Full Faith and Credit. By denomination, the Money possessed of each Person is equal; having the same consistent regulated value thereof.

Each Person, and Citizen, or Inhabitant: Possesses Stewardship, as though they shall Own, and for their exclusive purpose until use, that Money having been obtained by neither force or fraud, which is upon their own Person, or is otherwise in their possession, or upon deposit in their own Name at any bona fide federal or State chartered financial institution. And any or all such Money shall Not be seized, lest due process as proscribed by the fourth, sixth, seventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth articles of amendment to this Constitution; shall have been adjudicated. And no Person upon sole reason of accumulative debt shall be deprived of life or liberty.

Each Person or Entity, within the federal jurisdiction, is subject to, the Legal Tender User Fee; to be used as federal revenue for Constitutional [enumerated powers] purpose. The Fee, of three percent, is assessed and collected from both the Buyer and the Seller equally, six per cent total per transaction, at the time and place of any recorded transaction which shall exceed two dollars; except upon transactions of Demand Accounts on deposit at any financial institution, and these others which shall be exempt: Sustenance, Tithe, Charity, Care, and Pension. Also, upon any transaction, which shall be final after periodic payment transfers with interest; the Fee will be assessed and collected only upon the amount of and at the time and place of each periodic transfer. Each of the several States, may assess and collect in like manner, a Legal Tender User Fee, not to exceed the federal collection of each like transaction, to be used as revenue for Constitutional purpose.

The federal government in all transactions, shall receive the Fee portion of Five and one Half per cent, and shall retain the Fee portion of one Half percent of such Money in private interest bearing Investments for present or later supplemental application to the Care and Pension of all Citizens: retired, disabled, and feeble. And the Seller in all transactions shall receive a collection stipend of one Half per cent and shall retain the Fee portion of such Money in like Investments for present or later supplemental application to the Care and Pension of all employees: retired. The federal government urges each Inhabitant to obtain like Investments, which shall be free of any Fee or other Tax, for present or later supplemental application to the Care and Pension of: themselves, their heirs or dependents.

The Congress shall appropriate annually, Money sufficient to pay the Interest service, and an amount equal to two per cent of the total Interest service to be paid upon the National Debt. The President shall annually propose to the House of Representatives such expenditures from the Treasury as - he may deem requisite and responsible for Constitutional purpose.

Congress shall have sole un-delegated power, to regulate the standard Measure of interest by Class, Collateral, or Period, and the calendar Measure of periodic payment intervals upon borrowed money; and by annual resolution shall have sole un-delegated power, to issue coin and currency as legal tender Money and regulate the consistent value thereof, and to affix the appropriations of money for expenditure from the Treasury.

The Coining and issuance of Money being essential to Commerce, Trade, and Law; by annual resolution, the House of Representatives by a majority simple plus three, shall have the sole un-delegated power to annually resolve the quantity of coinage and issuance of Money from the Treasury, to be used as federal revenue and appropriated to Constitutional purpose. The quantity to be issued based: upon growth of population- calculated as subsistence necessary for each new Inhabitant, the growth of economic productivity- calculated as additional gross domestic product, and the interest charged upon borrowed money within the federal jurisdiction- calculated as the current annual quantitative money amount of interest collected. Such coinage and Issuance shall not exceed a quantity necessary to equal these basis, and shall require the advise and consent of a majority simple of the Senate.

Congress shall Not increase rates or forms; either by percentile or quantity, of Fee, or Tax, or of the Measure of Interest charged upon borrowed Money whether by Class, Collateral, or Period, -lest passed by two thirds of the members of the House of Representatives and by two thirds of the members of the Senate in separate session, and a subsequent vote of three fifths of the State delegations of both Houses in Joint session, each delegation having One Vote; except no increase of Fee or Tax shall be passed for a Term longer than six years.

Talkradio, 2012 Candidates and Gun Laws

Talkradio, 2012 Candidates and Gun Laws

By John Longenecker · Wednesday, August 10, 2011

American Talkradio is an enormous success. It's secret is that it is in touch with the electorate where no one else is. This includes some segments of FOX News as much as Congress and 2012 Presidential Candidates.

What makes conservative talkradio succeed and liberal talkradio fail is in the light speed comparing of notes, and therefore the strong position to hear from listeners and to be in touch. Conservative, libertarian and independent hosts such as Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager and Dr. Laura are all good listeners and they resonate with listener values and with electorate life realities. This makes all the difference between elites and voters, movie stars and fans, recording artists and consumers, and others.

Talk show hosts are in a better position to live with the very same realities their listeners live with. Liberal hosts not only do not live with the realities of their listeners, but they also do not have to live with the consequences of their leftist policies. As one primary for instance, many liberal lawmakers are armed one way or another by carrying a loaded sidearm or hiring armed guards, and last year, California lawmakers had asked for latitude in concealed carry permits for themselves. Lawmakers have made California a second amendment hostile state while asking to be armed themselves. Is that out of touch, or what?

Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are two hosts who are just a little off when they talk about guns and regulation. I don't know if Bill O. has a concealed weapon permit, but we know that Hannity does. Lots of hosts and officials have a CCW, but they still miss a few things about the subject we have to live with here on the ground. Bureaucrats second-guessing the electorate.

First, the target of violence is the best first line of defense for self and for community. A target of violence has not only a right to self-defense, but also the legal authority to stop a crime in progress, and may use all reasonable force under the circumstances in the absence of police. The genius of concealed weapons is that thugs do not know who is armed and who is not, and this is a most redeeming societal safeguard when we are talking about violence and smaller government endeavors. Fight crime effectively and you can reduce the need for many bureaucracies which depend on violence to survive.

On this subject, so-called sensible regulation is enunciated by some hosts and some presidential candidates. Forty-nine states affirm the armed citizen and most states have no need for registration of guns. (They obviously believe that they -- as the government -- do not really need to know where the guns are after all.) For those values and societal safeguards to be cloned to work in states severely troubled by violence, there can be no such thing as sensible gun laws, and that means no such thing as reasonable regulation. For, the outcome is interference with the judgment and ability of the citizen to fight crime where it is fought best: at the scene of the crime, before it can be completed. “Regulation” interferes with the citizen's ability to carry where they like, carry what they like, and who may even carry.

You see, regulation interferes with the choices of America's most trusted citizens, and has no effect on America's most distrusted thugs. “Regulation” interferes with a woman's right to stop a rape in progress, a beating, or parent's ability to stop his child's abduction. Or, worse.

Oh, and one more thing about 'regulation': the second amendment is the lethal force which backs our sovereign authority as supreme. Any and all gun laws are a challenge to that authority and therefore reflect a very poor understanding of who is in fact the Sovereign under our system.

How many candidates can you count who will actually say that our authority is supreme in this country? I can think of three. The ability to stop a violent act is itself blocked by gun control, and this serves the bigger government, statist interests. Gun control needs to be repealed.

Lou Dobbs had me on his show to detail how the health of the second amendment is the primary indicator of the overall health of the nation. Lou Dobbs -- Mr. Independent -- understands the concept as one of independence. This is almost the entire point of the second amendment. Being independent of our public servants in personal safety greatly impeaches any other presumptions of purpose public servants want to propose in their immense transfer of wealth. Gun control facilitates such transfers of wealth.

Once you let servants believe you will delegate your personal safety to them, they understand rather clearly that you will delegate anything. Isn't this how we got to such a large government? Isn't this how they disrespect the people?

Talkradio plays an important role in self-rule. It broadcasts listener interaction unfiltered and is one of the best discovery processes of the electorate. With regard to the 2012 elections, the subject of the ubiquitous armed citizen as a peaceable means of reducing violent crime can mean smaller government, and not take as long as one might think. It will mean that candidates must stump on the promise of reducing the size of bureaucracies by the repeal of gun control as soon as possible.

Talkradio's success is that it is in touch with the electorate. Talkradio does not dictate to the listeners, it resonates with the listeners in values, integrity and purpose. It affirms our values as the Sovereign.

Wouldn't it be great if candidates were just as in touch with constituents? There's one way to find out.

John Longenecker shows the moral purpose and public interest between the ubiquitous armed citizen and the CPR-trained society in Even Safer Streets 2011 -- The Second Amendment as a Mainstream Value now available in paperback and digital formats.

Thursday, August 04, 2011

The Next American Revolution

from The Patriot Post by Mark Alexander

The Next American Revolution
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, August 4, 2011
What is the Authority for Rebellion?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

(PUBLISHER'S WARNING: The following essay may cause heartburn and knee-jerk reactions, especially in those who are predisposed to "give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety." But as Benjamin Franklin concluded, they "deserve neither liberty nor safety." For such feeble souls, Samuel Adams advised, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" For those who are not cast among that faint-hearted lot, please read on.)

I receive hundreds of messages every day from Patriots across the nation. For the last three years, one thematic question has emerged with ever-increasing frequency. To paraphrase that question: "What is the authority to rebel against the central government?"

That question is most often asked by those who have taken their oath of allegiance to our Constitution, particularly active duty, reserve and veteran military personnel. Typical is this note from a disabled combat Patriot this week: "Please clarify for me when my solemn oath1 to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND [his emphasis] domestic,' kicks in."

Such questions were once deemed too radical and discordant for consideration in civil discourse. However, as Rule of Law2 enshrined in our Constitution has been all but completely usurped by the rule of men through the Left's so-called living constitution3, the frequency and tenor of questions about the future of Essential Liberty for our once-great Republic is propelling them into mainstream debate.

The unfortunate ascension of Barack Hussein Obama4 and his socialist cadres5 had a silver lining: It revitalized the spirit of American Patriotism6 in tens of millions of our countrymen. The imminent threat to Liberty posed by Democratic Socialism7 is the catalyst driving this great awakening and it is spreading.

To the question of the authority to rebel against government, we turn to the Constitution's guiding document, our Declaration of Independence8. It clearly affirms the "unalienable rights" upon which our Constitution was instituted, and those rights supersede the authority of the Constitution itself as they are the inherent rights of man.

This authorizing language reads as follows: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

So, is it time for another American Revolution?

The answer to that question depends upon the answer to a more fundamental question: Is it too late to restore authority9 of our Constitution? Moreover, will the current dire circumstances result in a sunset or sunrise on Liberty10?

In my enthusiastic analysis, the degraded state of the union presents a great opportunity for restoration of Rule of Law, and this sunrise on Liberty is already in progress under the broad heading of the Tea Party11 movement. Further, having been in close proximity to revolutions on foreign soil, I am intimately aware that restoration (or revolution without shots fired) is a far more desirable path than the violent one -- not that the latter must ever be excluded as an option.

But behind every sunrise is a sunset. As Ronald Reagan12 warned thirty years ago, when the "Reagan Revolution" temporarily restored our nation's course toward Liberty, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States when men were free."

Make no mistake; there are formidable obstacles to the restoration of Liberty. The most daunting of these impediments is complacency, the result of either a false sense of comfort, institutionalized ignorance or both. Nonetheless, I still believe that the ballot box is a viable alternative to the bullet box at this juncture. Every effort to work within what remains of our Constitution's framework to restore its Rule of Law, as outlined in The Patriot Declaration13 must be exhausted.

If the 2012 election cycle does not provide sufficient momentum toward the goal of restored Liberty, there are substantial measures of civil disobedience that can ratchet up the pressure -- measures which will find support among true conservatives in both the House and Senate.

Either way, we face a long, uphill battle. It has taken many years to degrade Rule of Law, and it will take many years to fully restore it.

As for timing, Obama has already dropped a debt bomb14 on our economy, the goal of which is to "fundamentally transform the United States of America." The greatest systemic risk to Liberty that this act of economic violence poses is the destruction of free enterprise by way of taxation, regulation and insurmountable debt. U.S. debt has now surpassed 100 percent of our annual gross domestic product (economic output).

It should, of course, be the highest aspiration of every Patriot to restore our Constitution's Rule of Law, a fundamental principle of which is the separation of economy and state. But is there still time, and are we sufficiently resolute?

Leading the forces arrayed against us are the statist extremists, the "useful idiots15" on the Left who now vilify as "terrorists" those seeking to restore Rule of Law.

In a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting this week hosted by Veep Joe Biden, Demo Rep. Mike Doyle said of the recent budget negotiations, "We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money." Biden, to his everlasting shame, concurred: "They have acted like terrorists."

Biden, Doyle, and the Kool-Aid-drinking legions of the Left are formidable. But history shows that Barack Obama's model for prosperity16, is a blueprint for economic collapse, a model that is antithetical to prosperity17 and ultimately at odds with Liberty.

Patriots, we have an obligation to secure Liberty for our posterity, and in the words of John Adams, "Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives."

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison dated January 30, 1787: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. ... An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

Today, Tea Party "terrorists" should expect no such accommodation, as "honest republican governors" are few and far between.

That same year, Jefferson famously wrote more pointedly to John Adams's son-in-law, William Smith, "What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Short of the bullet box, it is my fervent prayer that on 6 November 2012, an unprecedented army of American Patriots will use the ballot box to further alter the course of our nation toward Liberty and Rule of Law.

That notwithstanding, American Patriots remain well aware of both the authority for rebellion and more importantly the obligation to overcome tyranny, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. There may come a time to fight18, and our Founders wisely extended to us the means for rebellion19. We also fully understand the cost outlined in its closing: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."

We do.