Thursday, May 20, 2010

Roy Moore for Governor of Alabama

Bobby Allison Endorses Judge Roy Moore for Governor from Herd Records on Vimeo.

The former (and unrightfully ousted) Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is again running for Governor of Alabama. I don’t agree with everything he says (that Muslims should not be allowed to serve as U.S. Representatives), but I think he really belongs on the U.S. Supreme Court, if you ask me. He is a classic, uncompromising, traditional, religious-right conservative running on a states rights, moral values, and small government platform. If you don’t remember the “Ten Commandments Case” in which Judge Moore was removed from his judgeship for refusing to remove a religious display, you must see the video at the link below. Even if you remember it, but haven’t seen the clip of Moore’s testimony you should watch it.

http://www.moore2010.com/?page_id=439

The case against Moore was based on several faulty assumptions. First of all the First Amendment concerns only laws passed by Congress. Even if you consider the first amendment to be properly incorporated into the 14th *(thereby making applicable to the states), it still doesn’t apply in this case because NO LAW WAS PASSED. The ridiculousness of the broadness of interpretation of the Establishment Clause goes without saying as in all other such cases.

If Roy Moore gets elected, you will get one tough hombre who will not back down from a fight. You will get someone who will stand up for what is right.

*Good intentions notwithstanding, it is ridiculous to consider the 14th amendment as a legitimate part of our Constitution since the Union army forced the southern legislatures to ratify it at gunpoint and refused allow its representatives and senators to sit in Congress until they did. If the Southern states never legally seceded as Lincoln maintained, then this is a clear violation of Article V and several other parts of the Constitution. If they did legally secede, then the Congress and the President clearly had no Constitutional authority to force them back into the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore

http://www.moore2010.com

Joe Tegerdine for Congress


Joe Tegerdine is pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-states’ rights. He is obviously an average, concerned citizen bold enough to stand up for what he believes in and not a corrupted, career politician. He is a non-interventionalist when it comes to foreign policy:

Our interests, as Americans, must be paramount and guide our government when conducting business with foreign nations. The best way to protect our interests at home and abroad is to keep our military might and wealth within our borders. I believe THE TIME IS NOW to heed the counsel of George Washington when he stated, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.” People, “Here let us stop.” We must bring our military establishment home within the borders of the United States and its territories, secure our borders, be energy independent, and promote trade policy that will decrease and eventually eliminate the massive trade deficit. It is impossible for us to maintain our liberty, our American interests, with our military and economic wealth spread around the world. I do not subscribe to an isolationist or protectionist philosophy, but one of nonintervention and free trade.

Joe has my full endorsement for his bid for Congress in Mississippi’s 4th district. Click here to contribute to his campaign. Vote June 1, 2010.

http://www.joetegerdine.com

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Obama, Holder, Napolitano, Has Anyone Read the AZ Bill?

Hat tip to GeorgeKPatton, who asks in his YouTube channel video description for a similar video to the one embedded below, “Should (our) nation’s leaders read our laws?”

He continues, “Janet Napolitano tells John McCain (in testimony before a Senate committee that) she is aware of the AZ law but she had not read it. It's only 10 pages...
.
GeorgeKPatton adds, “3 days after AG Eric Holder admits to not reading law even though he has told everyone they’re gonna get harassed by police for no reason.”
.
Napolitano … came out against the law with talks of having it overturned and says she wouldn't have signed it. But just like AG Eric Holder, she has not read it,” stated GeorgeKPatton.

He concludes, “Our leaders are hanging the states out to dry.”

One wonders how incompetent or how blinded by their socialist ideology this administration’s officials are. They are seemingly as inept, as they are dishonest. If his lackeys have not read the bill, I wonder, too, if the President has read it before advancing his misguided notions about the law in public.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

A Mini Super Tuesday 5/18/10

*** see these two sources here and here
.
.
Today's election could be a bellwether of the upcoming tremendously important election this fall. There are significant races in three states Arkansas, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. There are three important Senate races and one significant congressional race in Pennsylvania today.
.
If the incumbent or favorite listed in the first column of the table above loses in 2 or more of the four races above, then things bode well for conservatives in the fall election. Personally I would like to see both Sens. Lincoln and Specter soundly defeated as Democratic incumbents who voted ObamaCare against the will of the majority of Americans. I would like to see the two conservatives Rand Paul and Tim Burns win in Kentucky and Pennsylvania, respectively.
.
Column two outlines the favorites or incumbents in their respective races. The next column identifies their opponents. The fourth column indicates my choice in the election and the last column indicates one pollster prediction of who he thinks wins the election. At least two of the races are too close to call or predict.
.
It will certainly be an interesting evening ... A preview of things to come ...
.
If all four incumbents or favorites lose it will be Katy bar the door for the Demoncrates in November. They better start packing up there belongings and prepare to move back home at the end of the year.
.
Remember in November ... those members of Congress who voted for any or all of the Leftist, Socialist agenda of the current President and his comrades in harm in Congress, the Democratic leadership especially.

Late Night Takes – Oil & Salsa

Late Night Jokes


The Tonight Show With Jay Leno


Nancy Pelosi told Catholic leaders they need to support the Democratic version of immigration reform, and to preach it from the pulpit. She would have said more but she had to leave to attend a rally for the separation of church and state.

● President (Barry Soetoro aka Barack) Obama said he’s angry and frustrated with the oil spill in the Gulf and the oil companies behind it. He said he’s tired of all the finger-pointing then he blamed the Bush administration for everything.

These jokes are courtesy of NewsMax.com (Hat Tip!), which periodically sends out an email compilation of late night jokes, few of which are worth repeating … these two were the exception in the latest batch.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Have you read the AZ immigration law? AG Holder: No

Cartoon by Glenn Foden as found on Townhall.com 5/16/10


Hat tip to goes to Bob Parks of www.NewsBusters.com, who posted an article, "Does Holder Even Know What He's Talking About?" His posted included a link the embedded video below. Parks noted that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly publicly slammed the new Arizona immigration enforcement law, but admitted to Representative Ted Poe of Texas in a Congressional hearing last Thursday that he had not read the 10-page law.

Should Eric Holder be removed from office for incompetence? Clearly!
.

An illegal alien’s three wishes




T.D. sent me this illustrative modern day parable. It says much about the present state of affairs in America especially in regard to the problem of the illegal immigration invasion.

A beautiful fairy appeared one day to a destitute refugee outside an Arizona immigration office.

'Good man,' the fairy said, 'I've been sent here by President (Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack) Obama and told to grant you three wishes, since you just arrived in the United States with your wife and eight children.'

The man told the fairy. 'Well, where I come from we don't have good teeth, so I want new teeth, maybe a lot of gold in them.'
.

The fairy looked at the man's almost toothless grin and -- PING ! -- he had a brand new shining set of gold teeth in his mouth!

'What else?' asked the fairy, 'two more to go.'

The refugee claimant now got bolder. 'I need a big house with a three car garage in Annapolis on the water with eight bedrooms for my family and the rest of my relatives who still live in my country. I want to bring them all over here . ... . and -- PING ! -- in the distance there could be seen a beautiful mansion with a three car garage, a long driveway, a walkout patio with a BBQ in an upscale neighborhood overlooking the bay.

'One more wish', said the fairy, waving her wand.

'Yes, one more wish. I want to be like an American with American clothes instead of these torn clothes, and a baseball cap instead of this sombrero . And I want to have white skin like Americans . .. and -- PING ! -- The man was transformed, wearing worn out jeans, a Baltimore Orioles T-shirt and a baseball cap. He had his bad teeth back and the mansion had disappeared from the horizon.

'What happened to my new teeth?' he wailed. 'Where is my new house?'


THIS IS GOOD ... NO, ACTUALLY THIS IS VERY GOOD ...
.


The fairy said 'Tough crap, Amigo, now that you are a white American, you have to fend for yourself.'

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Who wrote these Books?

During the course of my travels as a truck driver, I meet all kinds of individuals. One such individual is Tom B., who has a very different view of the Bible than I do. As best as I could understand his position, I responded to his misinterpretation of who wrote the Pentateuch - (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) - which consists of the first five books of the Bible.
.
Tom claims that the five books were written by three different persons and one editor who put them together. I believe along with most Bible scholars, theologians, and historians that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.

Tom seems to indicate that the five books, “Show development of religion.” This implies that what is written is not of God with divine authority, but man’s supposition and with no more authority than anyone else’s writing. With Moses as the author, divine authority is established and not any development of religion, but a revelation of God, from God, about Himself. Furthermore, at the end of the book of Deuteronomy we read, “And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses whom the Lord knew face to face” (Deut. 34:10).

By claiming that anyone else other than Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible is to deny its divine authority. Jesus said, “If you do not believe Moses’ writing, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5:46, 47). You and your teacher are not only not believing Moses’ writing, but also not believing his authorship. How then will you believe what Jesus has said or that He even said what He did say?

In a written response to Tom, I asked him if he ever repented of his sin and invited Jesus into your heart. I recommended that he do so. The simple sample prayer that I suggested to him to pray is, “Lord Jesus Christ, forgive me of my sin and come into my heart”. Scripture says that whoever shall call on the name of the Lord he shall be saved, Romans 10:13; Joel 2:32.

Getting saved would help in understanding scripture. It also keeps one out of perdition, the Lake of Fire, eternal damnation, and separation from God.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

What is socialism? A couple of definitions.

Socialism is a word that has been bandied about the past two or three years. It is the essence of the change that the current President and his leftist administration is bringing to America. The progressives, liberals, Marxists, or socialists in government, in the administration, in the media all are adverse to that label. However, more and more people are beginning to see that that socialism is the president’s and the current Democrat Congressional leadership’s chief motivational principle underlying all of its agenda. It the reason that they are pushing cap and trade, global warming, the bailouts, comprehensive health care 'reform,’ and comprehensive financial 'reform, comprehensive immigration 'reform' et al.

I heard a program on Crosstalk America, a Christian talk show originally aired on Friday, May 14, 2010.

Bob Knight, who is with
Coral Ridge Ministries was being interviewed by host Vic Eliason. Knight commented, “Here is a good dictionary definition of it (socialism) that you’ll find in our (newly published) book, Ten Truths About Socialism.

Any of various economic and political theories advocating COLLECTIVE or GOVERNMENTAL ownership, administration of the means of production, and distribution of goods.


Knight goes on to add, ”A shorter definition was voiced by Frederick Bastiat in the classic book, A Treatise on Man’s Law, is:

Legalized plunder

Of that definition, Knight further states, "Which I happen to think is an apt way to describe socialism. If a thief comes up to yo and says, “I want your wallet, hand it over,” we consider that theft. But if the IRS does it, or the socialist authority in a socialist country, this is just considered ‘good government.’ I think because making the government the middleman doesn’t distort the fact you’re taking from some and giving it to others.”
.
In briefly researching Mr. Knight’s quote of Bastiat above, I found a more extensive excerpt of Bastiat’s definition from A Treatise on Man's Law, Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850):

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."

But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the Legislature. It is illogical - in fact, absurd - to assume otherwise.

There is great wisdom in Bastiat’s words about socialism when applied to the absolute need to contest the nomination of radical socialist Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here the President is trying to institutionalize his socialist agenda in the appointment of radical socialist for life – which could be 30 or 40 years. This would be very bad for America. It would be as bad as what the President and his comrades are doing to America now.

Friday, May 14, 2010

A one-term President!

“According to a new survey, only 39% of Americans would vote to re-elect President (Soetoro aka) Obama.

“Looks like the other 61% are still hoping for change."

- - - NewsBusted, Episode 5/14/10

NewsBusted is a conservative comedy webcast about the news of the day, uploaded every Tuesday and every Friday. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.

See right panel of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2-3 minute comedy YouTube video.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Pat Sellers for Congress


If Pat Sellers upsets the incumbent Jim Gerlach in the race for Representative in Pennsylvania, it would be an awesome victory for both the fiscal and social conservatives.

Pat Sellers would “End the Fed” (the Federal Reserve, its banks, and its system of fiat currency). He opposes bailouts and all other give-aways, both corporate and private. He supports abolishing the income tax (and not replacing it with anything). He opposes preventative wars, military entanglements, and undeclared wars. He believes that it is time for all of our troops (not just those in Iraq and Afghanistan) to come home and to close our overseas military bases. On abortion and gay marriage he says:

We created our government to protect life and, clearly, life begins at conception. It should be legally so defined. The question then becomes how best to protect the unborn. Congress possesses the means to do so via Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to define the jurisdiction of federal courts. Accordingly, Congress could effectively overturn Roe vs. Wade by passing a resolution to disallow federal courts from hearing abortion cases. The states would then have power to pass laws against abortion.

I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. The federal government, however, has no Constitutional authority to legislate marriage.

We would be better off as a society if government at all levels got out of the business of licensing marriages. We should let our churches handle it. Non-believers could get a legal contract drawn up.

If government did not needlessly expand itself into the private lives of citizens, issues such as gay marriage would not be a problem for anyone.

Well articulated.

Jim Gerlach, on the other hand, has a voting record that indicates that he has to go. Gerlach voted yes on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. He voted yes on ENDA. He voted yes on Cash for Clunkers and the follow-up extra funding of it. He also voted for Nancy Pelosi’s wasteful Housing Foreclosure Assistance Program bill. He voted for the intrusive real ID act. He voted for Federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research 4 times.

Articles of Freedom, part 13



This is a series of posts concerning the works of the 2009 Continental Congress. Two weeks ago I wrote about Article 11 of the Articles of Freedom, which was about the public debt. Now I will continue with Article 12, the text of which follows my comments.

I basically agree with this article. Awesome analysis by Dr. Adler.

ARTICLE 12.

WAR POWERS AND ARTICLES 1 AND 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION

A. BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

WHEREAS, the Constitution for the United States of America clearly grants Congress the exclusive power, “to declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11); and

WHEREAS, Congress may not delegate this power under any circumstances unless the Constitution is amended (Article 5); and

WHEREAS, the Constitution also clearly declares that the President serves as a Commander-in-Chief only when called into service by Congress during times of invasion or rebellion (Art 2, §2, cl.1); and

WHEREAS, only Congress can initiate war and the President merely executes and administers it; and

WHEREAS, history has proven that war powers are invariably abused when left in the hands of one individual; and

WHEREAS, all war activities should be for the sole purpose of national defense (Art 1, §8, cl.1); and

WHEREAS, the Citizens of the several States and the United States of America have been subjected to a series of declared national emergencies beginning with Executive Order #1 issued by Abraham Lincoln on April 15, 1861 and reactivated by Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress in 1933; and

WHEREAS, these declared states of emergency, many of which have continued uninterrupted to this day, have given successive Presidents a multitude of autocratic powers; and

WHEREAS, Senate Report 93-549, War and Emergency Powers Act, 1973, 93 Congress, 1st Session states, in part:

“These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all- encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes

“Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens



“Over the course of at least the last 40 years, Presidents have had available an enormous-seemingly expanding and never-ending -range of emergency powers. Indeed, at their fullest extent and during the height of a crisis, these ‘prerogative’ powers appear to be virtually unlimited…Because Congress and the public are unaware of the extent of emergency powers, there has never been any notable congressional or public objection made to this state of affairs. Nor have the courts imposed significant limitations.” [emphasis added]; and

WHEREAS, the 1973 Senate report also expresses concern that in our current state of emergency, we could end up with a totalitarian state:

“If the President can create crimes by fiat and without congressional approval, our system is not much different from that of the Communists, which allegedly threaten our existence…The enormous scope of powers…is a time bomb.” [emphasis added]; and

WHEREAS, Congress has repeatedly violated its war powers through a long series of unconstitutional acts, resolutions and other actions, starting with the Emergency Banking Systems Act and the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1933, resulting in massive unconstitutional powers to the President; and

WHEREAS, the power to both declare and conduct war is thus in the hands of one man resulting in decades of unjust wars with enormous loss of life and expense while being propagandized as patriotism; and

WHEREAS, The Supreme Court in the Guantanamo line of cases (2008), acknowledged that the U.S. has been under War/Emergency Powers, (Military Commissions Act) depriving detainees of their Constitutional due process/habeas rights (the court preserved Judicial Review of the Constitutional Law claims, and effectively strengthened standing to state a claim in federal court); and

WHEREAS, Congress and past Presidents have persisted in violating this clause by unconstitutionally sending advisors, troops, and/or money, equipment, and other support to aid foreign nations in “wars”, conflicts, police actions, and covert activities, including, but not limited to, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Haiti, Kuwait, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan without a lawful congressional declaration of war as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; and

WHEREAS, Congress and the President have engaged in non-defensive military actions by committing U.S. troops in over 130 countries throughout the world, engaging us in foreign entanglements and fomenting animosity and reprisals; and

WHEREAS, Congress and the President have abused their power by committing U.S. troops to serve as mercenaries in foreign conflicts under the auspices of the United Nations.

THEREFORE,


B. REMEDIAL INSTRUCTION TO CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT

Never again engage the United States in any military conflict except for the common defense; the United States must never again engage in pre-emptive war.

C. ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CONGRESS

We demand Congress reclaim Its exclusive Constitutional Power to declare war:

1. Repeal all acts, executive orders, and resolutions pertaining to the delegation of any war powers to the President;

2. Cease to fund any and all pre-emptive or offensive military activities throughout the world within twelve months after receiving this document;

3. Comply with all of the war powers provisions in the Constitution as originally written and adopted, never again allowing any American troops to be committed for any reason except in accordance with the Constitution;

4. Impeach any President who initiates military activity without a lawful Congressional Declaration of War as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution;

5. Return jurisdiction of National Guard troops to their respective States; enabling the States to revitalize their own militias.

6. Repeal all Emergency Powers Acts and their associated provisions in federal code within a six-month period.

D. ADDITIONAL REMEDIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT

1. Cease and desist now and never again take any military action in any form without a lawful Congressional Declaration of War as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

2. Withdraw U.S. troops from all countries throughout the world within a period of twelve (12) months after receiving this instruction.

3. Instruct all military commanders and leaders to keep their Constitutional Oath of Office by refusing to execute any orders that may result in injury or loss of human life without a lawful Congressional Declaration of War as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution;

4. Instruct all officers and enlisted men to keep their Oaths, of Office and Enlistment, by refusing to obey any orders that may result in injury or loss of human life without a lawful Congressional Declaration of War as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. We also encourage officers and enlisted men to refuse orders to serve under a foreign or international power.

E. REMEDIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO EACH OF THE SEVERAL STATES

1. Instruct the U.S. Representatives and Senators to reclaim their exclusive constitutional power to declare war by:

a) Repealing all acts, executive orders, and resolutions pertaining to the delegation of any war or emergency powers to the President;

b) Ending the funding of any and all offensive or pre-emptive military activities throughout the world within twelve (12) months after being served with this document;

c) Complying fully and strictly with all of the war powers provisions in the Constitution as originally written and adopted, never again allowing any American troops to be committed for any reason except in accordance with the Constitution;

d) Impeaching any President who initiates military activity without a lawful Congressional Declaration of War as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution;

2. Immediately recall all National Guard troops and equipment;

3. Obey the Constitutional Oath of Office by refusing to commit any militia, equipment, or funds that may result in injury or loss of human life without a lawful Congressional Declaration of War as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution;

4. Protest any military action by the President in any form without a lawful Congressional Declaration of War as stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

F. RECOMMENDED CIVIC ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE

The Continental Congress 2009 recommends the Citizens of each State take the following actions to help resolve the unconstitutional activities of our elected officials:

1. Encourage the people of each of the several States to become further educated and to build coalitions of like-minded people into groups with sufficient numbers to instruct their fellow citizens how to hold their public officials accountable;

2. Get to know your sheriff within your community and determine if he/she will hold public officials accountable to their Oath of Office; let them know that you are there to help them and support all lawful effort;

3. Work with fellow citizens within your county to form and conduct a lawful citizen’s Grand Jury which are paneled and conducted according to the State Constitution;

4. Participating in an unconstitutional war is militarism not patriotism. In the event of an undeclared war, we urge all citizens to avoid supporting or participating in the war in any way, including military service or weapons production. If just 10% of the population refused to fight, the undeclared war would be unlikely to ever happen. We the People are the ultimate check on a tyrannical government.


[1] Learn more about the subject matter of this Article. Read the WAR POWERS Clauses. Read the PETITION for Redress of Grievances Relating to the Application of the Armed Forces of the United States in Hostilities in Iraq Without a Congressional Declaration of War..

Additional resources for consideration: Petition to the Federal Court Regarding the Unconstitutional Bombing of Kosovo. Dismissed by the Court for “lack of standing.”

(from Articles of Freedom, the Works of the Continental Congress 2009)

Click here to see what's next.

The Ohio Project

Stop the the Obamacare mandate in Ohio before it starts! The Ohio Project is a petition circulating effort to get a nullification of the Obama mandate into Ohio's constitution. This proposed amendment would protect Ohioans from being forced to participate in the Obama plan, or any other healthcare plan hereafter. The language of the bill can be read at theohioproject.com. Instructions are given for petition circulators and signing locations are also given at the site. We need 600,000 signitures! There is not much time left!

Peg Luksik for U.S. Senate



While I endorse Mrs. Luksik for the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania and I admire her decision not to have an abortion despite the possibility that she would die as a result of the pregnancy, take the following article (Luksik: Toomey is no pro-lifer) with a grain of salt. Pat Toomey actually did vote against allowing funding for overseas military abortions here and here and for a bill disallowing funding for abortions by foreign organizations here. (But that last one is suspicious since mostly liberal democrats voted for it and conservative republicans voted against it. Maybe it was a substitute for something that would have been better.) He did, however, vote against an amendment to a bill which stated:

An amendment to prohibit any funds to be used by the FDA for the testing, development, or approval (including approval of production, manufacturing, or distribution) of any drug for the chemical inducement of abortion.

Toomey also voted against DHHS appropriations bills which had abortion and Planned Parenthood funding in them. (Actually very unusual for a Republican!) As for the 1998 comment, I can't confirm it. And a link is provided (politico.com) for the statement about confirming Sotomayor.
Another big issue which Luksik isn't talking about is that Toomey voted for the authorization to use military force in Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands including some children, which is not exactly a pro-life decision. Luksik sounds more non-interventionalist, but does not come right out and say that she would have voted against the war.

Luksik: Toomey is no pro-lifer

http://www.pa2010.com/2010/04/luksik-toomey-is-no-pro-lifer

Republican Peg Luksik this week called into question Pat Toomey’s pro-life credentials, taking perhaps her most direct swipe yet at the party’s front-running Senate candidate.

Luksik’s campaign seized on a voter guide issued by the anti-abortion group LifePAC of SouthWestern Pennsylvania, which included Toomey on its list of candidates who oppose abortion rights. Though Toomey has for several years now described himself as staunchly pro-life, he had a more libertarian-style, pro-choice image in the late 1990s. When seeking the party’s nomination for Congress in 1998, he told The Morning Call that while he was personally opposed to abortion, he also didn’t like to see government take that individual choice off the table.

“Abortions should be legal in all circumstances as long as the procedure is completed within the first trimester of pregnancy,” he told the newspaper in a 1998 questionnaire.

By the time he was gearing up to challenge Senator Arlen Specter in the 2004 Republican primary, he had established a position more staunchly opposed to abortion. With the political focus this cycle largely on economic issues and the state’s conservative movement lined up firmly behind him, Toomey has rarely had to confront questions on social issues. But Luksik, a conservative activist who has struggled mightily to cut into Toomey’s considerable support as the presumptive GOP nominee, saw the LifePAC voter guide as a chance to bring the issue back to the surface.

In a letter to the organization’s president, shared with reporters on Monday, she expressed her disappointment. She noted that Toomey said he would have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, and recalled Toomey’s votes in congress to loosen a ban on federal funding for abortions overseas and against abstinence-only education.

“My history on the issue of the sanctity of life is unquestionable, while my opponent’s history should certainly be cause for concern,” Luksik wrote. “You are preparing to distribute tens of thousands of voter guides to your membership that give the illusion that there are two pro-life Republicans running for United States Senate. In fact, there is only one, and it is me.”

Toomey’s campaign declined to comment.

April 28, 2010 at 7:00 am

Dr. Dobson Endorses Rand Paul for the U.S. Senate!



Wondering who the "Senior members of the GOP" are who told Dr. Dobson misleading information about Rand Paul? It could be Bush, Cheney, Karl Rove, or maybe even Shawn Hannity! Who knows, but now you know not to trust the establishment of the Republican Party!

Click here to read more about Rand Paul on this blog.

Dodd's Bill is Worse than Obamacare

http://biggovernment.com/jberlau/2010/05/11/dodds-bank-bill-worse-than-obamacare-its-the-nationalization-stupid/

There are many bad things contained in Chris Dodd’s Restoring American Financial Stability Act,” the financial regulatory “reform” bill that after filibustering for three days — with the assistance of Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson — Republicans agreed to let come to the floor for amendment and debate.

Among its horrors are a massive new consumer agency with the power to track virtually every financial transaction to share with other big agencies like the IRS, onerous new restrictions on angel investors and venture capital that greatly delay funding promising startup firms, proxy access provisions that would federalize state incorporation laws and empower unions and other progressive shareholders to wage director campaigns at the company and other shareholders’ expense, and no attempted reform of the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the center of the financial mess.

But the most destructive portions of the bill — the one that would in my judgment go beyond even Obamacare in making the American free enterprise system unrecognizable — has been little discussed even by critics of this bill. To put it bluntly but absolutely accurately, this bill sets up a mechanism for the Treasury Secretary, the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to nationalize virtually any business they deem to be a threat to American “financial stability.”

I include myself among these critics not focusing on this issue and I apologize for not informing readers sooner, but I wanted to be sure the bill would do what I suspected it would do. Many of the bill provisions are interconnected, and what can seem like a mild measure by itself becomes lethal when combined with another sections. As Financial Timescolumnist Gillian Tett recently wrote: “Buried in [the bill’s] pages are numerous clauses and sub-clauses, many of which have been largely ignored until now (partly because they strike most non-financiers as pretty dull). Yet, the fine print could turn out to be crucial in the coming years.”

And after reading and rereading the “fine print” of this 1336-page piece of legislation (which will grow by hundreds more pages when amendments are added), it is clear that the bill’s “orderly liquidation authority” would facilitate outright government seizure of a wide variety of firms with very limited judicial review.

The first clue of what the bill would do in this regard comes from one of the bill’s architects. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, author of the similar financial bill that passed the House in December, has freely used the term “death panels” to describe the new powers the bills give the government over firms. In response to charges of “death panels“ in the health care bill, Frank responded that the panels were in the wrong bill. “Yes, we have death panels, but they got the death panels in the wrong bill,” Frank said on the House floor. “The death panels are in this bill.”

Defending against charges that the bills’ new mechanism to wind down firm will lead to taxpayer bailouts, Frankwrote in the Huffington Post that under this authority, “Shareholders are wiped out, unsecured creditors are out of luck, management and every employee that is not required to shut down the company is fired.” What Frank and other of the bills’ architects don’t say — not even in liberal venues like the Huffington Post — is that the bills also give the government these same powers to take over firms not seeking any kind of government aid.

Section 203 of Title II of the bill empowers the Secretary of Treasury, with a two-thirds vote from the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to take into government “receivership” any “financial company” whose failure he determines “would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States. “

Once the Treasury Secretary puts the company into “receivership” of the FDIC, the government may — under Section 210 — “take over the assets of and operate the covered financial company with all of the powers of the members or shareholders, the directors, and the officers of the covered financial company, and conduct all business of the covered financial company,” “perform all functions of the covered financial company, in the name of the covered financial company,” and “ provide for the exercise of any function by any member or stockholder, director, or officer of any covered financial com1pany for which the Corporation has been appointed as receiver under this title.”

The ostensible “purpose” of this “orderly liquidation authority,” as stated in Section 204, is to “provide the necessary authority to liquidate failing financial companies that pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States.” Yet the funny (or not-so-funny) thing is that firms don’t really have to be “failing” to be taken over.

The Treasury Secretary can seize, under Section 203, any firm “in default” or “in danger of default.” And it’s clear that this “danger of default” does not need to be an immediate danger. The word “likely” appears many times in this section’s listing the criteria of a firm that can be taken over. A company can be in danger of default if “the assets of the financial company are, or are likely to be, less than its obligations to creditors and others; or the financial company is, or is likely to be, unable to pay its obligations [emphasis added].” The word “likely” itself is never defined, so up to the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve to make that determination.

Pretty dramatic new powers, huh? But, of course, most businesses won’t have to worry because this just affects “financial companies” like investment banks, right? Not exactly. “Financial company” is defined very broadly in Title II, as in other sections of the bill.

Recall that for purposes of Federal Reserve regulation and paying assessments for bailout of failed firms (though now after the failure, rather than through the $50 billion bailout fund that Dodd agreed to get rid of after to GOP mini-filibuster, a slight improvement), a “nonblank financial company” is defined as a firm “substantially engaged in activities in the United States that are financial in nature.” (See my previous piece, “The Obama-Dodd-Frank-Everything’s-A-Bank-Bill.”)

Also, last week orthodontists visited Capitol Hill because they were concerned that they would be subject to the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection if they offer installment plans for their patients to pay for braces. Dodd denied this, but a Bloomberg story pointed that the bill’s language grants jurisdiction to the bureau over any business that is “engaged significantly in offering or providing consumer financial products or services,” and the term “significantly” isn’t defined.

Similarly, under the definitions Title II, a “nonbank financial company” supervised by the Federal Reserve would be subject to the “orderly liquidation authority.” So if the Treasury Secretary and the Federal Reserve decide that a manufacturer, retailer, or even an orthodontics practice “would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States,” they have the authority to send it to what Frank calls the “death panel.”

The authors of this bill still, however, are still left with one pesky problem: the courts. There’s always the possibility that some “backward” judges might actually take the Constitution seriously and see such a government seizure as a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, the limitation of the federal government’s power in the 10th Amendment, or numerous other constitutional provisions that protect contracts and property rights and separate America from Argentina and Venezuela.

To try to prevent constitutional and other challenges , Section 202 of the bill creates a three-judge “orderly liquidation authority panel” in the federal bankruptcy courts to rubber-stamp the government‘s actions. This court would have just 24 hours to review a government seizure and could only stop it if it found “substantial evidence” the seizure was justified. As Heritage Foundation regulatory scholar James Gattuso recently put it, this means “that the seizure must be upheld if the government produces any evidence in favor of its action.”

The bill even sharply curtails Supreme Court review to attempt to block constitutional challenges. “Review by the Supreme Court under this subparagraph, shall be limited to whether the determination of the Secretary that the covered financial company is in default or in danger of default is supported by substantial evidence,” says the bill on page 117.

Sen. Mark Warner, who was substantially involved in drafting the bill, said during a speech that “resolution should only be used as a last resort.” For those interested in freedom and true financial stability, stopping this bill’s creation of a resolution/nationalization authority — a power that should not to be given to the Obama administration or any administration regardless of party — should be the last resort