Emailing: 1035

 

 

Emailing: 1035 VIEW SLIDE SHOW DOWNLOAD ALL This album has 1 photo and will be available on SkyDrive until 2/16/2011.

FW: Gabriel speaks out on full-body scanners

Reminder:  If you haven't already, I encourage you to go to www.actforamerica.org and sign up to receive the emails/newsletters from the organization.  They don't flood your inbox with mailings.  However, you will receive timely and pertinent information.

Visit our News page In WorldNetDaily interview, Brigitte Gabriel addresses controversy over full-body scanners and pat downs RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINES Expert: TSA scans would let al-Qaida duplicate 9/11 Brigitte Gabriel warns unless U.S. starts profiling, nation is vulnerable Posted: November 18, 2010 12:10 am Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2010 WorldNetDaily http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=229613 Brigitte Gabriel A terrorism expert says the invasive screening procedures demanded by the Obama-run Transportation Security Administration would do almost nothing to stop a determined terrorist because they already are experimenting with inserting explosives in a body cavity or even surgically implanting the destructive charges. The comments come from Brigitte Gabriel, who is the founder of Act! For America, a 150,000-strong group that works to warn Americans against the dangers of militant Islam and the Muslims who follow it. She also is a member of the board of advisers for the Intelligence Summit, and she lectures internationally on global terrorism. Join more than 17,000 others in a petition demanding action against the intrusive airport screening procedures implemented by Janet Napolitano and send a letter to Congress, President Obama and others telling them exactly what you think about the issue. The issue has hit a flashpoint in the last few days as newly installed TSA procedures demand that airline passengers submit to a full-body scanning machine that generates an essentially nude image of the passenger for TSA workers to see, or a full-body pat-down that includes what critics have called "groping" of private parts of the body. "These procedures are not effective at all with terrorists," Gabriel told WND in an interview today. "If a true terrorist wants to go blow up an airplane, these machines will not detect it." She said like drug dealers already have proven, substances hidden inside body cavities or even embedded surgically remain undetected by any or all of the TSA's procedures. "If al-Qaida is planning against the U.S. multiple attacks in a day, in multiple airplanes, it could duplicate 9/11," she told WND. "Al-Qaida is testing inserting breast implants, stuffing breast implants with explosives." She said a woman then could go into an airplane restroom and use a syringe similar to those used by diabetic patients to trigger an explosion that would disintegrate a modern jet. "This is what al-Qaida is resorting to, and they're exploring surgery for men," she warned. "They want to implant explosives inside the body. "Terrorists are conditioned and trained to blow themselves up, to become suicide bombers," she said. "They are ready to die to go to heaven to meet Allah." It was last February that the special intelligence report Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin documented the same circumstances Gabriel described. At that time, it was revealed in the special report that intelligence agents for Britain's MI5 service found that Muslim doctors trained at some of Britain's leading teaching hospitals had returned to their own countries to fit surgical implants filled with explosives. The report documented that women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida were known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery. The lethal explosives – usually PETN (pentaerythritol Tetrabitrate) – are inserted during the operation inside the plastic shapes. The breast is then sewn up. The report said similar surgery has been performed on male suicide bombers. In their cases, the explosives are inserted in the appendix area or in a buttock. Both are parts of the body that diabetics use to inject themselves with their prescribed drugs. The report at the time quoted Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, saying, "Properly inserted the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines. You would need to subject a suspect to a sophisticated X-ray. Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner." Experts confirmed in the report that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN when activated would blow "a considerable hole" in a jet airliner, guaranteeing a crash. Gabriel, who has addressed former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, members of Congress, the Joint Forces Staff College, the U.S. Special Operations Command, the FBI and members of the British Parliament, said the only accurate way to spot terrorists is to use the profiling techniques used in Israel, which despite being a major target for terrorism, has a substantially safe airline industry. "They know how to profile, ask the right questions. This is what it's going to take," she said. "We need to throw political correctness in the garbage where it belongs. This is the time for the public to rise up and demand public officials to come up with ways to identity the threats by name." Gabriel, who is author of the New York Times best-seller "Because they hate: A survivor of Islamic terror warns America," and "They Must Be Stopped: Why we must defeat radical Islam and how we can do it," was a news anchor for "World News," the Arabic evening news broadcast for Middle East Television seen throughout Israel, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. She covered the Israeli withdrawal from Central Lebanon, the Israeli Security Zone and the Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza. Her work was international in scope, bringing her in contact with world figures such as Margaret Thatcher, George H. Bush Sr., Itshak Rabin, Shimon Perez and Ariel Sharon. She moved to the U.S. in 1989 and founded a television production company that worked with "The Today Show," "Oprah," "Dr. Phil" and others. She told WND in Israel, terror experts are trained to watch for eye movements, breathing rates and other physical indicators that a "passenger" is more than just that. Even something as simple as a cologne or perfume can be an indicator, she said, because terrorists essentially are preparing themselves to enter heaven. Those factors can pinpoint a potential terrorist whether they are dark-skinned and named Mohammed or they are six-foot-tall, blue-eyed, blonde holders of American passports, she said. The current TSA demands "insult our intelligence," she said. "It's nothing more than window dressing. … The American public must come together and revolt against these procedures. The Obama administration has failed in identifying our problem. The administration is not paying attention to terrorism." She called out Obama even for his decisions to eradicate references such as "Islamic terrorist," "jihad" and "Islamic radicals" from the speech of the government. "How on earth can we win against the jihadists if we are afraid to identify them by name," she said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure. The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website. HOW CAN I TELL OTHERS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Send a personalized version of this message to your friends. HOW CAN I SUPPORT YOUR ORGANIZATION? Click here to give an online donation.

Michael Gerson

None Dare Call It Desperation

WASHINGTON -- Following two years of poor economic performance and electoral repudiation, liberalism is casting around for narratives to explain its failure -- narratives that don't involve the admission of inadequacies in liberalism itself.This author refers to the BO/Dem philosophy as liberal but I prefer Progressive Socialists since that more accurately describes them.

For some, the solution is to lay the blame on President Obama. He hasn't been liberal enough. He can't communicate. "I cannot recall a president," says Robert Kuttner in the Huffington Post, "who generated so much excitement as a candidate but who turned out to be such a political dud as a chief executive." Obama is "fast becoming more albatross than ally."Here. I agree with his detractors.

This is an ideological movement at its most cynical, attempting to throw overboard its once-revered leader to avoid the taint of his problems.But it is time honored, normal Progressive Socialist Democrat methodology of the first order.

But there is an alternative narrative, developed by those who can't shake their reverence for Obama. If a president of this quality and insight has failed, it must be because his opponents are uniquely evil, coordinated and effective. The problem is not Obama but the ruthless conspiracy against him.Oh that this were actually true but, alas, the MSM and way too many politicians continue to excuse and support this anti-American poser.

So Matt Yglesias warns the White House to be prepared for "deliberate economic sabotage" from the GOP -- as though Chamber of Commerce SWAT teams, no doubt funded by foreigners, are preparing attacks on the electrical grid. Paul Krugman (a literate moron socialist incapable of truth) contends "Republicans want the economy to stay weak as long as there's a Democrat in the White House." Steve Benen explains, "We're talking about a major political party ... possibly undermining the strength of the country -- on purpose, in public, without apology or shame -- for no other reason than to give themselves a campaign advantage in 2012." Benen's posting was titled, "None Dare Call it Sabotage."Here the putz is referring to a once popular and still accurate book claiming Communists, Socialists, Progressives, and the UN were infiltrating our governments, media, and colleges - oh wait, that is exactly what has happened isn't it. Guess truth is painful to swallow.

So what is the proof of this charge? It seems to have something to do with Republicans criticizing quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve. And opposing federal spending. And, according to Benen, creating "massive economic uncertainty by vowing to gut the national health care system."Really! How and where have they been doing that? By opposing indebtedness and socialist programs?

One is tempted to respond that it is a trillion dollars in new debt, the prospect of higher taxes and a complicated, disruptive health reform law that have created "massive economic uncertainty." For the purposes of this argument, however, it is sufficient to say that all these economic policy debates have two sides.Yes, one positive and truthful and the other negative and, as usual, dishonest.

Yet this is precisely what the sabotage theorists must deny. They must assert that the case for liberal policies is so self-evident that all opposition is malevolent. But given the recent record of liberal economics, policies that seem self-evident to them now seem questionable to many. Objective conditions call for alternatives. And Republicans are advocating the conservative alternatives -- monetary restraint, lower spending, lower taxes -- they have embraced for 30 years.The greatest problem the GOP faces is that while the party might have verbalized and claimed fiscal responsibility, it has been infiltrated by socialist progressives who spent like drunken sailors whenever the opportunity arose. Monetary restraint must actually be adhered to if the party wants people to actually believe them. So far, that particular attribute has eluded the mainstream party and its leadership.

It is difficult to overstate how offensive elected Republicans find the sabotage accusation, which Obama himself has come very close to making. During the run-up to the midterm election, the president told a town hall meeting in Racine, Wis.: "Before I was even inaugurated, there were leaders on the other side of the aisle who got together and they made the calculation that if Obama fails, then we win." Of course, BO wasn't really talking about GOP here, he was referring to TEA party activists and his opponents - be sure and list me amongst them - who openly said they wanted his policies to fail. Some Republican leaders naturally took this as an attack on their motives. Was the president really contending that Republican representatives want their constituents to be unemployed in order to gain a political benefit for themselves? That was most assuredly implied. No charge from the campaign more effectively undermined the possibility of future cooperation. Except morality.

The sabotage accusation, once implicit, is now direct among panicked progressives. Part of the intention seems to be strategic -- to discourage Obama from considering Clintonian ideological triangulation. No centrist concessions, the argument goes, will appease Republicans who hate the president more than they love the country. So Obama should double down on liberalism, once again.
It is very bad political advice. It also indicates a movement losing contact with political reality. When an ideology stumbles, its adherents can always turn to alcohol -- or to conspiracy theories. It is easier to recover from alcohol. Conspiracy thinking is not only addictive, it is tiresome. It precludes the possibility of interesting policy debate or genuine disagreement -- how can you argue with a plot? Are you really paranoid if people are really out to get you? Anything that discredits BO no matter the source is going to be voiced as his every effort has been to undermine America and all that it stands for. If it is bad for BO, it is quite likely good for the nation. Interesting attitude, anyway.

In 1964, John Stormer, a sabotage theorist of the right, came out with the book "None Dare Call it Treason," which asked: "Is there a conspiratorial plan to destroy the United States into which foreign aid, planned inflation, distortion of treaty-making powers and disarmament all fit?" Stormer's progressive descendants are just as discrediting to the ideas they claim to serve.Sorry, Stormer has no progressive descendants as he would have figuratively drowned them aborning. What the author has done is to equate the truth Stormer posed (which has since been proven many times over) with the lies of the Progressive socialist communist democrat left and that shows he'd never bothered to read Stormer or is himself a closet progressive.

Standing up to BO is a high form of American Patriotism whether it is merely the GOP leaderships' vociferous opposition or voting for non-progressive socialist dems (what few there might be.) Palin may be a weak undereducated public voice but she at least has the public ear and is a constant reminder that there is another way. Her opposition serves the nation.


PL Booth, The Blue Eye View of MO

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

http://www.bib-arch.org/multimedia/who-wrote-bible-free-video.asp

John Hawkins

The 25 Best Quotes About Liberals

Now, for something completely different, here are the 25 best quotes about liberals. Enjoy!

25) Whenever I read liberals reporting about the goings- on of conservatives I always get the nature-documentary vibe. A liberal reporter puts on his or her Dian Fossey hat in order to attempt to write another installment of Conservatives in the Mist. I've followed this particular brand of reporting for years, it's almost a fetish of mine. Most attempts fail. Of these lesser varieties, there's fear ("Troglodytes!"), mockery ("Irrelevant troglodytes!"), condescension ("I had to explain to them they're troglodytes."), bewilderment ("Why don't they understand they're troglodytes?"), astonishment (Dear God, they're not all troglodytes!"), and a few combinations of all the above. -- Jonah Goldberg

24) There are no bad guys on the left. There are only people who've been driven to desperation by conservative evil. -- Allahpundit

23) Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago. -- Ann Coulter

22) Inside many liberals is a totalitarian screaming to get out. They don't like to have another point of view in the room that they don't squash and the way they try to squash it is by character assassination and name calling. -- David Horowitz

21) The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites. -- Ann Coulter

20) Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization. -- Evan Sayet

19) It was in the 1960s that the left convinced itself that there is something fascistic about patriotism and something perversely "patriotic" about running down America. Anti-Americanism -- a stand-in for hatred of Western civilization -- became the stuff of sophisticates and intellectuals as never before. Flag burners became the truest "patriots" because dissent -- not just from partisan politics, but the American project itself -- became the highest virtue. -- Jonah Goldberg

18) But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims -- always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups. -- Ann Coulter

17) Liberals have created, and the minority leadership has exploited, a community of dependent people, unaware of the true route to prosperity and happiness: self-reliance and self-investment. Instead, people are told that America is unjust, unfair, and full of disadvantages. They are told that their only hope is for government to fix their problems. What has happened is that generations of people have bought into this nonsense and as a result have remained hopelessly mired in poverty and despair -- because the promised solutions don't work. And they will never work -- they never have. -- Rush Limbaugh

16) One of the overriding points of Liberal Fascism is that all of the totalitarian "isms" of the left commit the fallacy of the category error. They all want the state to be something it cannot be. They passionately believe the government can love you, that the state can be your God or your church or your tribe or your parent or your village or all of these things at once. Conservatives occasionally make this mistake, libertarians never do, liberals almost always do. -- Jonah Goldberg

15) Given the religious nature and the emotional power of Leftist values, Jews and Christians on the Left often derive their values from the Left more than from their religion. -- Dennis Prager

14) When one becomes a liberal, he or she pretends to advocate tolerance, equality and peace, but hilariously, they're doing so for purely selfish reasons. It's the human equivalent of a puppy dog's face: an evolutionary tool designed to enhance survival, reproductive value and status. In short, liberalism is based on one central desire: to look cool in front of others in order to get love. Preaching tolerance makes you look cooler, than saying something like, "please lower my taxes" -- Greg Gutfeld

13) Stupidity is a luxury and you will find time and time and time and again that those who are overwhelmingly on the left are those who can afford to be. -- Evan Sayet

12) With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the world in terms of race and ethnicity. So do liberals! Indeed, liberals and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are neurotically obsessed with race. Conservatives champion a color-blind society. -- Ann Coulter

11) If the truth is boring, civilization is irksome. The constraints inherent in civilized living are frustrating in innumerable ways. Yet those with the vision of the anointed often see these constraints as only arbitrary impositions, things from which they--and we all--can be "liberated." The social disintegration which has followed in the wake of such liberation has seldom provoked any serious reconsideration of the whole set of assumptions--the vision--which led to such disasters. That vision is too well insulated from feedback. -- Thomas Sowell

10) Liberals claim to love gays when it allows them to vent their spleen at Republicans. But disagree with liberals and their first response is to call you gay. Liberals are gays' biggest champions on issues most gays couldn't care less about, like gay marriage or taxpayer funding of photos of men with bullwhips up their derrieres. But who has done more to out, embarrass, and destroy the lives of gay men who prefer to keep their orientation private than Democrats? Who is more intolerant of gays in the Republican Party than gays in the Democratic Party? -- Ann Coulter

9) End results that work that don't involve government threaten liberals. -- Rush Limbaugh

8) In their zeal for particular kinds of decisions to be made, those with the vision of the anointed seldom consider the nature of the process by which decisions are made. Often what they propose amounts to third-party decision making by people who pay no cost for being wrong--surely one of the least promising ways of reaching decisions satisfactory to those who must live with the consequences. -- Thomas Sowell

7) That is one reason "feelings" and "compassion" are two of the most often used liberal terms. "Character" is no longer a liberal word because it implies self-restraint. "Good and evil" are not liberal words either as they imply a moral standard beyond one's feelings. In assessing what position to take on moral or social questions, the liberal asks him or herself, "How do I feel about it?" or "How do I show the most compassion?" -- not "What is right?" or "What is wrong?" For the liberal, right and wrong are dismissed as unknowable, and every person chooses his or her own morality. -- Dennis Prager

6) In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume (1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted and (2) that this is the relevant comparison. The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but rather the total direct knowledge brought to bear though social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group. -- Thomas Sowell

5) Everyone moralizes. The suggestion that liberals aren't moralizers is so preposterous it makes it hard for me to take any of them seriously when they wax indignant about "moralizers." Almost every day, they tell us what is moral or immoral to think and to say about race, taxes, abortion — you name it. They explain it would be immoral for me to spend more of my own money on my own children when that money could be spent by government on other people's children. In short, they think moralizing is fine. They just want to have a monopoly on the franchise. -- Jonah Goldberg

4) If you can somehow force a liberal into a point- counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said -- unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder. -- Ann Coulter

3) My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order. The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it's founded on no judgment on anything. As a result, any faith that is seriously practiced or understood is a challenge to the politics that depend on constituencies that would rather not be told that their choices are bad and their lives are not virtuous. -- Hugh Hewitt

2) The charge is often made against the intelligentsia and other members of the anointed that their theories and the policies based on them lack common sense. But the very commonness of common sense makes it unlikely to have any appeal to the anointed. How can they be wiser and nobler than everyone else while agreeing with everyone else? -- Thomas Sowell

1) To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil. -- Charles Krauthammer

Contact Me

Signature powered by WiseStamp 

New book about Airport Security

 New book about Airport Security

A Constitutional Convention is on the horizon

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. - Hosea 4:6 [Covenant Wisdom]

Defending Our Constitution

Dr. Bill Smith: The following email has been making the rounds as a ruse to take America off track and to open our Constitution to a complete makeover. Having served 22 years in the military, I took an oath as a commissioned office that I stand by today: ". . . that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Thus, I must speak out against this populace treat to stir up emotions with the intent to destroy our Constitution.

While I "may" agree with the intent of the identified constitution amendment mentioned in the email, the real danger lies in the proposed idea of a Constitutional Convention.

First The Bogus Email:
This keeps appearing with more states signing on! We are on our way! A Constitutional Convention is on the horizon. . . . Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention . . . .

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform .... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.

I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed. There is talk out there that the "government" doesn't care what the people think. That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me. Think about this . . . .

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months and 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure. . . .

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ..."

The above email is designed to mislead people. It is meant to lead them to believe that they could call for a Constitutional Convention which would make only this one constitutional change. Then we would have this amendment to the Constitution which would keep those rascals in Congress in line and we would all be better off. The progressives, a lot of liberals, and radical groups would love readers to believe this. Why? Because it is not true and they have an agenda. This is highly important to remember. The left always has an agenda and it is always destructive.

If a Constitutional Convention were legally convened, its delegates would have absolute authority without oversight by anyone outside of the convention. The delegates would create a new Constitution to replace the present Constitution. Do you believe that such a Constitution would be as well founded and as wise as the one creased by our reasoned founders? Most likely, we would cease to be a Republic. Note these words in the email, "incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me." Those words are pandering to emotions without the email explaining the ultimate outcome. It wants you to start thinking about a Constitutional Convention. There are other emails and venues promoting the same idea.

To reiterate, a Constitutional Convention would have no legal oversight and could eliminate or modify any or all of the bill of rights. They could eliminate those "nasty "NOTs" which presently limit the authority of the Federal government and establishes boundaries to their interfering with our lives. Also, new rights or restrictions on citizens could be established. While laws can and have placed restrictions on American citizens, they presently can be challenged under the present Constitution in court or repealed by Congress. The Constitution was meant to stand the test of time until the United States of America ceased to be Republic. Are we ready to surrender our Republic?

A PROPOSED change can be done through petition and without the convention which would have extensive authority. IF YOU ONLY WANT ONE CHANGE< petition for that change or write your elected officials and demand they change the law. Sufficient letters really will cause the desired change.

The Convention could add all kinds of new populace elements. I have heard students at a local university (and they all vote) claim that every person should be guaranteed a free college education. Also consider that there are a lot of people out there who believe that your property should be open to their use. And, on it goes. A convention could include all sorts of ideas that would NOT require individual ratification but would carry with the whole body; there is little our radical left would like more than this opportunity.

Most likely, one major change would be changing the process of electing a president by eliminating the Electoral College. If this ever happens, it means that the major cities and a few states would solely determine who would be president. FLYOVER country containing fewer people but more land would be disenfranchised entirely. Consider that the majority of those who are on welfare and other subsidies reside in these cities and states. Thus, they would only elect a President who was supportive of more government handouts and funding their programs with other people's money. Already a significant problem.There is already a movement which advocates that state legislatures agree to join together with other states and to cast their electoral votes according to the popular vote outside their state and not according to the vote within their state. Our forefathers provided the Electoral College to give each state balanced representation in electing a president.

After a Constitutional Convention, we could even find ourselves with another form of government, maybe a Parliamentary form or a government with less checks and balances. The present concept of three branches of government (Congress, the Court System, and the Executive Branch) could all be eliminated. Our unique Constitution and our present system of government could be wiped out without recourse. We could wind up with unrestricted government and no bill of rights. An unrestricted government could be unleashed to drag us further into socialism or a dictatorship. The new Constitution could even recognize Sharia law or International law. Want to be ruled by the dictates of some petty UN official?

Ask yourself, "Why do liberals love the idea of a "constitutional convention?" Did you notice the line in the email, "I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.." This could be a line right out of the progressive's playbook. The hidden agenda of the email was not to promote the amendment but to encourage people to move toward a constitutional convention. A place where others espousing goodwill will have the opportunity to argue away the current Republic, the protection of our rights and freedoms, and the checks and balances that our forefathers gave us.

Consider the warning of Benjamin Franklin. His words were spoken at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. "A lady asked Dr. Franklin, Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic, replied the Doctor, if you can keep it." [Notes by Dr. James McHenry, a Maryland's delegates to the Convention; first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, p. 618.]

There exists a need for documented arguments / responses on this and other subjects relative to the Constitution. People need access to "right minded" information so that they can make sound decisions and fend off with confidence bogus ideas and communications designed to entrap citizens who are angry with the actions and behavior of their government. Threats like those identified above should be addressed in position papers by think tanks like The Heritage Foundation and The Curtis Coleman Institute for Constitutional Policy.

However, each of us bears a responsibility to educate ourselves. Listening to friends and discussing issues within groups may be interesting, but, it can also lead to "group think" when not grounded in truth and facts. A good starting place is for citizens to read the source documents of our founding fathers and the various debates and changes over the last 223 years since the close of the Constitutional Convention.

In 2012, we will celebrate 225 years of our present Constitution. We will also participate in the pivotal 2012 elections. Please commit now to reading the U.S. Constitution. Then, consider reading your state's constitution.. Let's not chance false ideas of rewriting the U.S. Constitution. Let us hold our elected officials accountable to the Constitution that they swore to uphold.
[The Heritage Foundation has Free Pocket Constitutions.]
If there must be changes made, use the petition method, collect signatures, and start at the state level. If you can get it passed in your state, then if may be possible nationwide.
-------------

Contact Me

Signature powered by WiseStamp 

But there is no socialism envolved

NewsBusters: UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'

"A leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, '[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.'"

 

FW: Intresting View

Alas, I cannot find sources for this so neither confirm nor deny the subject matter. However, one could hope some or all of this true. I also believe BO , his czars, etc. are violating the constitution and OBamacare is wrong, wrong headed, and likely illegal. Of course, the Progressive socialists masquerading as Democrats want OBCare. THey need control of more o f the economy to get their ideas into play. If the Supremes intervene then all BO has managed may turned around. If it is proved he is not a legitimate citizen, everything he has signed goes for nought and is reversed. Go supremes! 

Our New Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble   All we can do is hope this is true and it happens fast!!! Finally! The Supreme Court is listening!!! Hooray! Our New Dictator May Be In Deep Trouble... Chief Justice John Roberts,  U.S. Supreme Court.  According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack down of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.  Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.  Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government. Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.  The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, 'when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.' As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government.  Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years. Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on.   And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.' Apparently, the Court has had enough. The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven.  A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration.  Such a thing would be long overdue. First, there is Obama Care, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something.  And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim.  The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the Obama Care world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.' Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President.  The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue.  This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in  Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in  Hawaii .  And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court.  Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this Administration, not even during the Nixon years.  Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration. In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of  Arizona .  That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens. And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party.  The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls. A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies. This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS LIST!!! =

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3258 - Release Date: 11/15/10 07:34:00

FW: "B-b-b-but it's his fault...he started it"

When the people lost sight of the very simple fact that socialists always lie rather than ever tell the truth because they are afraid of the truth, then they began to not only allow the communists and socialists to come into the open, they began to believe the lies the socialists tell. Fact: big labor and the Democrat party are entirely controlled by communists and socialists. Their greatest wish is to destroy American freedom and remake us into a socialists utopia which means a country entirely run by bureaucrats of the ruling socialist party, in our case DEMOCRATS. Fight back. Never vote for another incumbent. Resist all socialism in every form. Write and/or call your representatives regularly. And remember, the Blue Dog Democrats are still DOGS and Democrats therefore no more american nor conservative than the party they serve. NO democrat serves the nation, only their progressive socialshit controlled party.

 

 

"B-b-b-but it's his fault...he started it." The Washington  Post babbled again about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.  Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.  So once more, a short civics lesson.   Budgets do not come from the White House.  They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. And where was Barack Obama during this time?  He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.  Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:    (below)   If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.  That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.  After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that Congress includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.    If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, Obama is saying,"I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then I have voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th, 2009." There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!     This is your opportunity to make a change. Stay focused, connected, informed, and inspired.