Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Related Posts:

• Romney Wins Florida, Gingrich Vows to Fight, Paul Wows in Nevada
• And He Went
• Ron Paul on the Rise in Iowa
• The Reagan Library Republican Debate Scorecard
• CPAC Wrap Up

Rick Perry, in his book Fed Up!, argues for the original intent of the Founding Fathers in guiding Supreme Court decisions: “Justice Charles Evans Hughes pointed out in a speech in 1907 (before joining the Supreme Court) that ‘we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.’ Hardly the obvious intent of the Founders, regrettably it is the way of things today. To whom may the people realistically appeal when the Court arrogantly chooses to hide behind the Constitution while it implements its own policy choices?” The answer is, as Perry writes, no one. The president is the only person who can protect Americans from overzealous Supreme Court justices.

Even Mitt Romney criticized Supreme Court justices who set policy from the bench: “The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling. Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary. Historically, the Court is where judges interpret the Constitution and apply the law. It should never be the place ‘where policy is made’, as Judge Sotomayor has said. Like any nominee, she deserves a fair and thorough hearing. What the American public deserves is a judge who will put the law above her own personal political philosophy.”

At a news conference following Justice David Souter’s retirement, the President Obama summed up his judicial philosophy: “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” President Obama has appointed two justices during his term: Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Each of these justices has accrued a record that is unimpressive in regards to protecting the American Constitution.

 In 2012, voters must decide for whom they will vote: someone who will support the Constitution of the United States as written, or someone who will not.

Related Posts:

• Raspberries and Duck Lips
• The Most Important Person in America
• D.C. Gun Laws Still Unconstitutional
• President Obama Chooses Illegal Immigrants Over Citizens
• Obama’s Assault Weapons Ban

“If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE the U.S. to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.”

Television and movie star Chuck Norris, a former chairman of the NRA’s Trigger the Vote campaign, wrote in Politico, “Not long ago, the gun control advocates Jim and Sarah Brady visited the White House. President Barack Obama reportedly told them that he was working on new gun control schemes ‘under the radar’.”

Norris continues, “For an administration with a secretive itch for gun control, the situation is ideal. They can let the United Nations do the dirty work of drafting onerous new restrictions on civilian firearms, then package them inside a treaty with legitimate measures to control true military armaments.”

Both Republican and Democrat senators have sent the president letters criticizing the Arms Trade Treaty. The senators of the president’s own party wrote, “We also oppose any inclusion of small arms, light weapons, ammunition or related materials that would make the Treaty overly broad and virtually unenforceable. Finally, the establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter.”

To sign the National Association for Gun Rights petition sponsored by Senator Paul, click here.

Related Posts:

• Obama and the UN: Grabbing Your Guns
• Obama’s Economy Just More Stimulus
• Osama bin Laden’s Favorite Czar
• Obama’s Assault Weapons Ban
• The Cracker Jack Prize

At Human Events, John Velleco writes that the U.N. deal, known as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT),

“ … will, at the very least, require gun owner registration and microstamping of ammunition.  And it will define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds so much as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license.

It would also likely include a ban on many semi-automatic firearms (i.e., the Clinton gun ban) and demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.”

Anyone believing such laws will have a positive effect should remember that, since the end of the Clinton Gun Ban in 2003, violent crime rates have fallen 9.8% and the murder rate has fallen 12.3%.

In response to a passage in the treaty that “recognizes” countries’ rights to govern their citizens’ ownership of firearms, Velleco observes, “Americans’ right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not it is ‘recognized’ by some U.N. committee.  The right enshrined in the Second Amendment predates our own Constitution, and does not need an international stamp of approval.” 

Thankfully, support of two-thirds of the Senate is needed to ratify a treaty, and the proportion of current membership that is pro second amendment precludes this treaty from becoming law. That being said, shame on President Obama and Secretary Clinton for giving credence to a process that might deny Americans their constitutional rights.

Related Posts:

• Obama Supports UN Registration and Confiscation Gun Treaty
• The Cracker Jack Prize
• Obama Pushes for Gun Control
• The Indecisive President
• How Does Prison Sound to You?

Fact: The Treasury Department will shortly detail a plan for paying the bills if the ceiling isn’t raised, preventing a technical default.

2)  Myth: The Republicans in the House won’t allow a vote on a “clean” bill to raise the debt ceiling. This myth was recently perpetuated by Elizabeth Drew at Politico and by Congressman Elijah Cummings in the video below.

Fact: The GOP already held a vote on a clean bill, and it was denied by both Republicans and Democrats.

3)  Myth: The debt ceiling deadlock is the Tea Party’s fault. Sen. John McCain mocked the Tea Party as “hobbits,” and House Speaker Boehner told GOP freshmen, “Get your ass[es] in line.”

Fact: McCain and Boehner are asking the Tea Party to continue business as usual, but the American people voted in 2010 for major change in the way business is done in Washington, D.C. The American people want reductions in the debt; 80% say any surpluses should be used to finance those reductions.

4)  Myth: The status quo is just fine. Congressman Elijah Cummings said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program that the crisis was “manufactured,” and that, “the easiest and best thing to do is what has been done over and over again without all this controversy.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Fact: The crisis was manufactured by doing the “easiest” thing over and over again for many years.

5)  Myth: Congress is running out of time.

Fact: This would appear not to be true. In a situation that would seem to demand all-hands-on-deck, the Senate over the last two weeks has made numerous confirmations, and appropriated money for such obscure purposes as “To require evidence of causal relationships for presumptions by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of service connection for diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents.” Meanwhile in the House, there have been 61 votes. This would not appear to be a Congress that is running out of time, but instead a Congress that is using its available time poorly.

Related Posts:

• 2012 Presidential Election Playbook Introduction
• The Tea Party’s Biggest Concern Is The Old Boy Republican Leadership
• Tea Party Must Prod New Congress
• Pledge to America
• Quotes from Election 2010: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Tim Pawlenty the Afghanistan hawk
While much of the GOP — including several of his 2012 opponents — inches toward supporting withdrawal from Afghanistan, Tim Pawlenty plants his flag on the pro-war right.

Tim Pawlenty Goes Full Metal Hawk in Foreign Policy Speech

Amory Lovins reports in WINNING THE OIL END GAME that the nearly 70-ton M1A2 Abrams battletank was designed on the assumption that fuel cost would be $1/gal with zero delivery cost. But even delivery cost by land to the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) costs $30/gallon and, under a worst-case scenario, can run to $600/gallon. On the battlefield, each tank must be trailed by several lumbering 5,000-gallon tankers. An armored division may use 20 or perhaps 40 times as many daily tons of fuel as it does munitions, or about 600,000 gallons/day. The Abrams averages about 0.5 mpg.

Related Posts:

• Jon Stewart on Ron Paul Media Blackout
• Slumping Into Summer
• Is Mullah Mohammad Omar Dead?
• First GOP Presidential Debate
• End America’s Foreign Oil Addiction

I pledge to urge my Senators and Member of the House of Representatives to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions have been met:

1. 1.       Cut – Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
2. 2.       Cap – Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
3. 3.       Balance – Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution — but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

To directly pursue the goals of the Cut Cap Balance pledge, Sen. Lee and his fellow Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch, introduced the Hatch-Lee Balanced Budget Amendment to Congress. If passed, the amendment would force Congress and the president to create a budget that neither exceeded the amount of revenue to be collected by the federal government, or 18% of GDP. The votes of a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress would be necessary spend more. Adding new taxes would require a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, and three-fifths would be needed to raise the debt ceiling. In a time of declared war or imminent and serious military conflict (as recognized by three-fifths of Congress), simple majorities in Congress would suffice. Courts would not be allowed to order new taxes or charges to balance the budget. Read the resolution here.

As you can see, the strict amendment protects America from budget deficits leading to debt. Sen. Lee said of the amendment proposal, “It forces Washington to balance its books with strict, enforceable fiscal restraints and will cut spending significantly and immediately to improve our economy and create jobs.”

 Sen. Lee has become one of Congress’s most ardent supporters of liberty. David Catanese reports that Mr. Lee has overtaken Sen. Jim DeMint as the go-to conservative kingmaker in the 2012 elections. Catanese writes, “Lee has already met personally with more than a half-dozen candidates, made endorsements in two Senate primaries and set up a pair of leadership political action committees to aid those who share his constitutionalist brand of conservatism.”

Sen. Lee was one of the first supporters of Ted Cruz, who is running for the Senate in Texas. Cruz was profiled recently on Richardcyoung.com in a piece titled Easily the Best Candidate in America. The endorsement from Sen. Mike Lee is a big positive for the candidate from Texas.

Sen. Lee’s excellent record of supporting liberty and freedom in the United States is spurring writers like W. James Antle, III to call Mike Lee the “Tea Party Titan.” Join Sen. Lee in taking the Cut Cap Balance pledge by signing here.

Related Posts:

• When Debt Comes Calling
• Easily the Best Candidate in America
• Republican Study Committee Pounces On Deficit
• Take the Knife to Government Spending
• Alaskans Ditch the Establishment

Paul Krugman is well read as a featured op-ed columnist for the New York Times. In a July 3 piece headed Corporate Cash Con, Krugman concluded, “What our economy needs is direct job creation by the government.” I wish I were making this up, but unfortunately this summation is exactly what Times/Krugman are subjecting readers to. I have run my own business for almost 35 years, advising small business owners (America’s jobs creators) and retired and soon-to-be-retired, conservative investors on protecting their life savings. With zero reservation and a lifetime of direct experience, I can assure all Times readers and anyone else exposed to the delusional Krugman reasoning that this prescription is nuts.

What America needs is a return to the federal republic form of central government espoused by Thomas Jefferson, in which the federal government, Congress and the president would be confined to the specific activities enumerated in Article I Section. 8. and Article II Section. 2. of the Constitution. In such a constitutionally correct setting, the federal government would be dramatically smaller than what it is today with a weak presidency, as is the case in Switzerland, and most ideally a part-time Congress featuring legislators who agree to run for only a single term. The majority of today’s Washington-based departments would be dissolved, with designated duties turned over to the states. Social services would be the concern of individual states, to include reformed Medicare and Medicaid. Social Security would be privatized. Total government outlays, in such a constitutionally correct environment, would plummet, allowing a long overdue scrapping of the tax code. No more corporate income tax. No more tax on savings. A modest, everyone-pays-a-share, individual income tax filed on a one-page form would emerge. An equally modest national sales tax with—once again—everyone paying a fair share would also emerge.

The word modest is a cornerstone of a new tax scheme, as the federal government in the future would be but a shadow of the current constitutional violator. The need for accountants would rapidly disappear, and lawyers would be in increasingly light demand. An overhaul of the legal system would put an end to class action lawsuits and punitive damages. Federal court activities would be greatly diminished, with state courts appropriately taking over. A new, national right to work law in combination with a reformed tax and legal system would quickly combine to make newly energized American businesses the model of the world. The job creation engine run by America’s small business owners would switch into overdrive.

America’s military would concentrate 100% on defending American soil. We would no longer attempt to project U.S. military power abroad. There would be no need to engage in the massive projection charade that, for over 100 years, has been the province of America’s military/industrial complex. America’s economic might, its new hard currency status (the Fed would be history), and its well-promoted homeland military power would combine to produce an economic/military presence unmatched in the world.

Such an eminently sensible, constitutionally correct American federal republic could be the basis of a Tea Party revolt. There are obviously many losers in such a revamped American system. It has taken since 1913 to assemble America’s Jabba the Hut bureaucracy. It is, in 2012, time to start an orderly dismantling.

Related Posts:

• Slappin’ Around the Dwarfs
• Charles Koch Throws Down the Gauntlet
• Gimmicks vs Reality
• Deficit Largest Since WWII
• State of the Union: The Same Old Song

Ted Nugent, rock n’ roller and author, recently took the time to imagine what Thomas Jefferson would be thinking of the political situation on July 4, 2011. Nugent

In another ode to freedom on July 4^th, Thomas Sowell writes, “The American Revolution was not simply a rebellion against the king of England, it was a rebellion against being ruled by kings in general.” Sowell goes on to write about the exceptional American Constitution and how “to this very day, elites[…]— and they include many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs — find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.”

The distortion of the mission and power of government at the federal level has led to vast overspending, borrowing, and taxation. The government and the Federal Reserve have gone to great lengths to hide the pain that will be caused by the repayment of this debt. As Pat Buchanan writes, “One Chinese economist is already accusing us of defaulting, as the Fed’s flooding of the world with dollars has seen the dollar lose 10 percent of its value against other currencies in the last year. Holding $1 trillion in U.S. debt, China has watched the purchasing power of that U.S. paper plummet. Understandably, Beijing fears that if we ever pay back all they have lent us, it will be in U.S. dollars of far lesser value.”

The administration has trotted out the “tax the rich” mantra common among liberals looking to incite class warfare before an election. Thomas Sowell says in another piece that this has already been tried and found to fail. He writes of the Coolidge administration:

The first time this political battle was fought, during the Coolidge administration, the tax-cutters won. The data show that “the rich” supplied less tax revenue to the government when the top income tax rate was 73 percent in 1921 than they supplied after the income tax rate was reduced to 24 percent in 1925.
       
Because high tax rates can easily be avoided, both then and now, “the rich” were much less affected by high tax rates than was the economy and the people who were looking for jobs. After the Coolidge tax cuts, the increased economic activity led to unemployment rates that ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent.

Mario Loyola concurs in his piece, The Folly of Soaking the Rich, in which he writes, “As a result of lower tax rates on the top income earners, not only do they pay a much larger share of all taxes, but they pay much more taxes total — and revenue to the government has increased. This is because lowering taxes on the rich creates more rich people and richer rich people. The federal government gets much more revenue if you impose a 40 percent tax on a large number of very wealthy millionaires than if you impose a 70 percent tax on a small number of less wealthy millionaires.” The evidence supporting the superiority of small government is provided by Art Laffer and Ford Scudder, quoted in Loyola’s piece:“In the year Ronald Reagan took office (1981) the top 1% of income earners as reflected by the Adjusted Gross Income of all tax filers paid 17.58 % of all federal income taxes. Twenty-five years later, in 2005 the top 1% paid 39.8% of all income taxes, representing a greater than doubling of the share of tax payments made by this group.”

Related Posts:

• Unalienable Rights are a Foreign Concept to Elena Kagan
• The Power of Ron Paul’s Message
• The Salvation of America’s Economy
• Happy Independence Day!
• America’s Sad and Dangerous Decline