Committee staff poll Obama's corporate advisory councilBy David MorganWASHINGTON, April 26 (Reuters) - U.S. Republicans onThursday issued a politically
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Friday, April 27, 2012
Another great new page... like this!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/ Voting-Republican/ 219826964794316
Only one-third of Americans view the federal government with favorability according to a new survey from Pew. This is nearly half of the number, 64%, who had a favorable outlook of the federal government in the same 2002 survey. Do you view the federal government favorably? What do you think needs to change in Washington to improve Americans' perspectives of the federal government?
A decade ago, Americans felt similarly about their local, state and federal governments. No longer. Today, just one in three has a favorable view of the federal government — the lowest level in 15 years, according to a Pew survey. The majority of Americans remain satisfied with their local and state... 61 percent and 52 percent, respectively — but only 33 percent feel likewise about the federal government.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75666.html#ixzz1tHhzzel5
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75666.html#ixzz1tHhzzel5
The four-week moving average of new U.S. claims for unemployment benefits rose to its highest reading since January, according to the Labor Department. Employers added only 120,000 new jobs to their payrolls in March, the least since October. More people collecting unemployment benefits over the past four weeks is the latest signal of a slowing labor market recovery and means that even more Americans are out of work. LIKE this if you think the President needs to work with Congress to create a better environment for businesses to hire.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Why can't our military be treated like people too?
Don’t Speak – Says the U.S. Government to Military Personnel
July 3, 2009 in Uncategorized | by suffolkmcls
By Denise Ouellet
This past week, a Marine was cleared of charges that he mis-handled classified information by allowing it to pass to a civilian group and disobeyed orders by agreeing to an interview with a newspaper reporter. This case made me wonder exactly what the limitations are on free speech for people in the armed forces who hold classified information. Are they bound by secrecy forever and what else are they not allowed to say?
As it turns out, our active duty military personnel are barred from saying and doing a lot more than revealing classified information. For instance, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a punishable act for an active duty member of the military to make negative comments about the president, vice president, and other United States political officeholders such as the governors of any state. The text of this Article reads:
For active military members, the rule is over-bearing and limits not just public comments but prevents general outward expression of discontent. Albeit a few years old, this blog post examines whether military persons in Iraq are prevented from demonstrating discontent with the war.
It doesn’t end there. Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 specifically prohibits active duty members from a host of political activities ranging from running for office to simply attending an event that politically sways one way or another. Directive 1344 lists, fairly clearly exactly what a member can and cannot do. It includes several free speech violations including writing editorials to newspapers or preparing other communications that support or criticize a political figure. It seems outrageous that there are such significant, blanket rules that do not seem to serve a national interest equal to the activity they prevent.
The government justifies the limitations on free speech in the military as necessary to maintain civilian control of the military. In 1967, in United States v. Howe, the Military Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of a second lieutenant based in Texas that was observed carrying a sign with comments suggesting to end President Johnson’s term and found guilty of using contemptuous words against the President and conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. (See 17 United States Court of Military Appeals 165, 37 Court-Martial Reports 429 (1967)). The reasoning in this case hearkens back to the earliest laws of war in which the military had to be controlled by these types of laws to prevent a military coup. A 1974 Supreme Court decision, Parker v. Levy, (417 U.S. 733 (1974)), the Court used the following rationale from a U.S. Military Court of Appeals decision to justify the free speech restrictions:
This past week, a Marine was cleared of charges that he mis-handled classified information by allowing it to pass to a civilian group and disobeyed orders by agreeing to an interview with a newspaper reporter. This case made me wonder exactly what the limitations are on free speech for people in the armed forces who hold classified information. Are they bound by secrecy forever and what else are they not allowed to say?
As it turns out, our active duty military personnel are barred from saying and doing a lot more than revealing classified information. For instance, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a punishable act for an active duty member of the military to make negative comments about the president, vice president, and other United States political officeholders such as the governors of any state. The text of this Article reads:
“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Article 2 of the UCMJ requires retired members to abide by the UCMJ for life. This means that for their entire life, even after retiring from service, military persons can be punished for making a bad comment about the president. The limitations of this radical law are not clear. If an officer made a joke at a dinner party thirty years after leaving the military honorably, would it really make sense to punish him? This, unlike protecting classified information, doesn’t seem to advance any national interest, so why does no one protest this dramatic limitation on free speech? The only thing preventing radical occurrences like the dinner party mentioned above are other laws that make it impossible to bring a non-active duty member into a military court. Therefore, they can’t technically be punished for violating Article 2, but why should we leave the law on the books at all?For active military members, the rule is over-bearing and limits not just public comments but prevents general outward expression of discontent. Albeit a few years old, this blog post examines whether military persons in Iraq are prevented from demonstrating discontent with the war.
It doesn’t end there. Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 specifically prohibits active duty members from a host of political activities ranging from running for office to simply attending an event that politically sways one way or another. Directive 1344 lists, fairly clearly exactly what a member can and cannot do. It includes several free speech violations including writing editorials to newspapers or preparing other communications that support or criticize a political figure. It seems outrageous that there are such significant, blanket rules that do not seem to serve a national interest equal to the activity they prevent.
The government justifies the limitations on free speech in the military as necessary to maintain civilian control of the military. In 1967, in United States v. Howe, the Military Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of a second lieutenant based in Texas that was observed carrying a sign with comments suggesting to end President Johnson’s term and found guilty of using contemptuous words against the President and conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. (See 17 United States Court of Military Appeals 165, 37 Court-Martial Reports 429 (1967)). The reasoning in this case hearkens back to the earliest laws of war in which the military had to be controlled by these types of laws to prevent a military coup. A 1974 Supreme Court decision, Parker v. Levy, (417 U.S. 733 (1974)), the Court used the following rationale from a U.S. Military Court of Appeals decision to justify the free speech restrictions:
“In the armed forces some restrictions exist for reasons that have no counterpart in the civilian community. Disrespectful and contemptuous speech, even advocacy of violent change, is tolerable in the civilian community, for it does not directly affect the capacity of the Government to discharge its responsibilities unless it both is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action. In military life, however, other considerations must be weighed. The armed forces depend on a command structure that at times must commit men to combat, not only hazarding their lives but ultimately involving the security of the Nation itself. Speech that is protected in the civil population may nonetheless undermine the effectiveness of response to command. If it does, it is constitutionally unprotected.”
There does not appear to be any balance in preserving the First Amendment rights of the members of our military. It appears that the national interest warrants an absolute ban on a limitless amount of speech that would otherwise be protected. It’s an area where the government has placed a bottle top on and no one seems to be trying to get out. With the prevalence of social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook, it’s only a matter of time before the military brings an action against a member to punish him/her for an inappropriate comment made while casually talking online. Maybe then light will be cast on this area of the law and we will be forced to reexamine the rights lost under these directives.Please "LIKE" to spread the word: Tea Partier and Marine Sgt. Gary Stein is being threatened with a discharge from the military for opposing President Obama on Facebook. Please defend him now at the link below. Thank you.
Impossible...
"Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing." - Adidas
Thursday, April 5, 2012
This is a community for like-minded, young conservative activists hoping to make a difference in the 2012 elections. http:// conservativesunder30.wordpress. com/
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
El Shaddai -
Genesis 17:1 says, “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.”
The phrase “I am the Almighty God” comes from the Hebrew phrase “El Shadday,” which the American vernacular has changed to the more commonly used “El Shaddai.”
The Hebrew #410 “El” is translated “God” or “god” 229 times in the KJV Bible and is the root for the more frequently used #430 “Elohiym” which is translated “God” or “god” 2,591 times in the Old Testament. “El” simply means the strong and mighty one.
The Hebrew #7706 “Shadday” is translated “Almighty” forty-eight times in the KJV Old Testament. “Shadday” is first used in this verse when the Lord reveals Himself to Abram as “Almighty God.”
The origin of the word “Shadday” is divided between two opinions. Strong’s Concordance says that #7706 “Shadday” comes from the Hebrew #7703 “shadad” and means all powerful, Almighty.
The Adam Clarke Commentary and the Dakes Bible both indicate that #7706 “Shadday” comes from the Hebrew “shadah” which means to shed and to pour out. They suggest that the phrase “El Shaddai” means, I am the God who pours out blessings, who gives them richly, abundantly, and continually.
This latter definition is more fitting to the context of Genesis 17:1, especially since the following verse’s talk about God cutting covenant with Abram and pouring into his life an abundance of blessings.
Dakes says that the term “El Shaddai” means “the Breasted One” and pictures God as the Strong - Nourisher, the Strength - Giver, Satisfier, All-Bountiful, Supplier of the needs of His people.
It is also interesting to note that the Septuagint translates the word “shadday” with the Greek “pantokrator” “Almighty,” the “One who has His hand on everything.”
God has His hand on everything. But to experience this revelation of “El Shaddai,” the God who richly pours out blessings, there was something that God required from Abram.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Passing the Buffett Rule (among other things...)
This is what makes it wrong or at least one of the things. How will anybody have the incentive to better themselves if we are all categorized as being the same. If I have worked my fingers to the bone to get what I have, why would I want to give it to someone/something that does nothing for a living but suck the system dry?? They need to get out and find a job and do the same. I'm also tired of people saying there are no jobs. It may not be what you want to do,but it could sustain you until something better came along. The newspaper, internet, job fairs, people are looking for people to work. I think people don't want to work until their unemployment runs out. Therefore if people aren't looking for jobs, the unemployment rate and percentage rates are not factual. I could go on forever....
Red Tape, Hidden Taxes and Regulation
Business in the United States continues to struggle not only with the sluggish economy, but also the burdensome regulations imposed by the federal government. One study estimates put the total cost of federal regulation on business in the United States over $1 trillion. The staggering cost of regulation is a significant burden for American businesses, with small businesses bearing an especially heavy burden. The coming years will see a significant increase in regulation, as federal agencies write new regulations to implement ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial services reform legislation, as well major environmental regulations being pushed by the EPA. Regulatory reform is essential to ensure these regulations that do not impose costs that exceed their benefits. Cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, risk prioritization, and market-based incentives are fundamental components that should be included in any reform of the process. In a global marketplace, the United States cannot afford to hamper its economic growth with excessive and unnecessary regulations.
Business in the United States continues to struggle not only with the sluggish economy, but also the burdensome regulations imposed by the federal government. One study estimates put the total cost of federal regulation on business in the United States over $1 trillion. The staggering cost of regulation is a significant burden for American businesses, with small businesses bearing an especially heavy burden. The coming years will see a significant increase in regulation, as federal agencies write new regulations to implement ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial services reform legislation, as well major environmental regulations being pushed by the EPA. Regulatory reform is essential to ensure these regulations that do not impose costs that exceed their benefits. Cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, risk prioritization, and market-based incentives are fundamental components that should be included in any reform of the process. In a global marketplace, the United States cannot afford to hamper its economic growth with excessive and unnecessary regulations.
Fundamental Tax Reform
The overly complicated U.S. tax code creates an unnecessary burden upon all Americans, with an annual compliance cost estimated to be $365 billion. The 9 million plus word code is complex; unfair; inhibits saving, investment, and job creation; and imposes a heavy burden on families. At the same time, the tax code distorts investment decisions and reduces economic growth. The code is so complex because of the deductions, credits, and other preferences added to the tax code by special interest lobbyists. Because of these loopholes, taxpayers with similar incomes can pay vastly different amounts in taxes. This uneven treatment of taxpayers is fundamentally unfair and is at odds with the American value of equality under the law. The tax code must be replaced with a new code that is simple, low, flat, fair, and honest in order to promote economic growth while at the same time removing disparities in the tax code.
The overly complicated U.S. tax code creates an unnecessary burden upon all Americans, with an annual compliance cost estimated to be $365 billion. The 9 million plus word code is complex; unfair; inhibits saving, investment, and job creation; and imposes a heavy burden on families. At the same time, the tax code distorts investment decisions and reduces economic growth. The code is so complex because of the deductions, credits, and other preferences added to the tax code by special interest lobbyists. Because of these loopholes, taxpayers with similar incomes can pay vastly different amounts in taxes. This uneven treatment of taxpayers is fundamentally unfair and is at odds with the American value of equality under the law. The tax code must be replaced with a new code that is simple, low, flat, fair, and honest in order to promote economic growth while at the same time removing disparities in the tax code.
Energy and Enviroment
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for some of the most costly regulations imposed on businesses and consumers. In the midst of an energy crisis, new exploration and the production of energy resources has almost completely stopped, our refining capacity is stretched to the limit, and our dependence of foreign energy sources is at a historical high. At the same time, the EPA has launched an expansive new regulatory regime that threatens to make electricity and fuel more expensive, while providing few, if any, benefits. Americans deserve common-sense energy policies that will increase competition, lower prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We are still many years away from finding alternatives to fossil fuels. The search for alternative energy sources should continue, but not at the expense of our current prosperity. Reliance on failed, big-government schemes to promote so-called “renewable” energy sources, and policies that do nothing to help increase production of traditional energy resources, are responsible for the uncertain state of America’s energy security. Americans deserve common-sense energy policies that will increase competition, lower prices, and ensure that the nation has a reliable supply of energy.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for some of the most costly regulations imposed on businesses and consumers. In the midst of an energy crisis, new exploration and the production of energy resources has almost completely stopped, our refining capacity is stretched to the limit, and our dependence of foreign energy sources is at a historical high. At the same time, the EPA has launched an expansive new regulatory regime that threatens to make electricity and fuel more expensive, while providing few, if any, benefits. Americans deserve common-sense energy policies that will increase competition, lower prices, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We are still many years away from finding alternatives to fossil fuels. The search for alternative energy sources should continue, but not at the expense of our current prosperity. Reliance on failed, big-government schemes to promote so-called “renewable” energy sources, and policies that do nothing to help increase production of traditional energy resources, are responsible for the uncertain state of America’s energy security. Americans deserve common-sense energy policies that will increase competition, lower prices, and ensure that the nation has a reliable supply of energy.
Health Care Reform
If so few Americans actually like ObamaCare, where did the support for it come from in the first place? Well, the problem of skyrocketing health care costs is very real. Unfortunately, the Republican Party establishment did not take the issue seriously during the presidency of George W. Bush, and then failed to offer a strong alternative to ObamaCare when it was first presented. Understandably, many Americans lost confidence in the Republican Party to solve the problem and offered their support for ObamaCare at the time, as it was the only game in town.
However, that’s no longer the case. Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. (R-GA) has presented an excellent “repeal and replace bill” called the Patient OPTION Act that includes many common-sense, market-based health care reforms to drive down costs and save taxpayer dollars.
The Tea Party has forced the Republican Party establishment to take on important issues such as health care reform, and as conservative alternatives to ObamaCare grow more and more prevalent, support for ObamaCare continues to dwindle. As people learn more about ObamaCare and are given a real choice, they’re moving away from President Obama’s plan in favor of patient-centered health care.
Still, ObamaCare is now written into law. How do we get rid of it, as things stand today?
There are only two ways to end ObamaCare. One is through the Supreme Court striking it down on constitutional grounds. The other is to repeal it through Congress.
The first method relies on sound legal arguments. FreedomWorks has contributed by filing an amicus brief detailing the law’s unconstitutionality. Furthermore, we have also created a petition to end ObamaCare that currently stands at more than two hundred thousand signatures. We delivered this petition to the Supreme Court, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) offices.
Unfortunately, we cannot put our full faith and confidence into this method. If even one nominally conservative justice gets cold feet at the idea of striking down part or all of a sitting president’s largest legislative accomplishment, ObamaCare will be upheld. If we’re lucky and the Court comes through for the 75% of Americans who believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, great. If not, then this method is no longer an option.
We may be feeling optimistic, but relying solely on the courts is a dangerous and risky game. Thankfully, there’s little reason to play it. As Americans, shouldn’t we rely on ourselves instead?
FreedomWorks believes that the best method to repeal ObamaCare is through our elected representatives in Congress. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already promised that if the Republicans keep the House and win a simple majority of the Senate, then the first bill sent to the president’s desk will repeal ObamaCare.
This is the battleground for conservatives in November. By all means, other issues are important and must be taken seriously. However, the health care industry counts for a fifth of our economy. Reversing the government takeover of health care and replacing it with market-based reforms aimed at lowering health care costs for all citizens must be our top priority.
Once again, it’s time for the grassroots of America to tell Washington with a clear, unified, and resolute voice: We do not support this unconstitutional and hideously expensive law. We must build upon our successes in 2010 and complete our conservative takeover of the Senate while maintaining control of the House.
It’s time for us to go to work. Let’s make this the last year of ObamaCare—and the first year of affordable, patient-centered health care.
If so few Americans actually like ObamaCare, where did the support for it come from in the first place? Well, the problem of skyrocketing health care costs is very real. Unfortunately, the Republican Party establishment did not take the issue seriously during the presidency of George W. Bush, and then failed to offer a strong alternative to ObamaCare when it was first presented. Understandably, many Americans lost confidence in the Republican Party to solve the problem and offered their support for ObamaCare at the time, as it was the only game in town.
However, that’s no longer the case. Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. (R-GA) has presented an excellent “repeal and replace bill” called the Patient OPTION Act that includes many common-sense, market-based health care reforms to drive down costs and save taxpayer dollars.
The Tea Party has forced the Republican Party establishment to take on important issues such as health care reform, and as conservative alternatives to ObamaCare grow more and more prevalent, support for ObamaCare continues to dwindle. As people learn more about ObamaCare and are given a real choice, they’re moving away from President Obama’s plan in favor of patient-centered health care.
Still, ObamaCare is now written into law. How do we get rid of it, as things stand today?
There are only two ways to end ObamaCare. One is through the Supreme Court striking it down on constitutional grounds. The other is to repeal it through Congress.
The first method relies on sound legal arguments. FreedomWorks has contributed by filing an amicus brief detailing the law’s unconstitutionality. Furthermore, we have also created a petition to end ObamaCare that currently stands at more than two hundred thousand signatures. We delivered this petition to the Supreme Court, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) offices.
Unfortunately, we cannot put our full faith and confidence into this method. If even one nominally conservative justice gets cold feet at the idea of striking down part or all of a sitting president’s largest legislative accomplishment, ObamaCare will be upheld. If we’re lucky and the Court comes through for the 75% of Americans who believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, great. If not, then this method is no longer an option.
We may be feeling optimistic, but relying solely on the courts is a dangerous and risky game. Thankfully, there’s little reason to play it. As Americans, shouldn’t we rely on ourselves instead?
FreedomWorks believes that the best method to repeal ObamaCare is through our elected representatives in Congress. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already promised that if the Republicans keep the House and win a simple majority of the Senate, then the first bill sent to the president’s desk will repeal ObamaCare.
This is the battleground for conservatives in November. By all means, other issues are important and must be taken seriously. However, the health care industry counts for a fifth of our economy. Reversing the government takeover of health care and replacing it with market-based reforms aimed at lowering health care costs for all citizens must be our top priority.
Once again, it’s time for the grassroots of America to tell Washington with a clear, unified, and resolute voice: We do not support this unconstitutional and hideously expensive law. We must build upon our successes in 2010 and complete our conservative takeover of the Senate while maintaining control of the House.
It’s time for us to go to work. Let’s make this the last year of ObamaCare—and the first year of affordable, patient-centered health care.
Budget and Spending
ObamaCare – the massive, 2,801-page, multi-trillion-dollar takeover of health care – is proving a disaster. In addition to actually increasing the cost of health care for families, the bill unconstitutionally mandates that every American purchase health insurance. Instead of real reforms to reduce the cost of health care and promote patient-centered care, the bill will burden families, kill jobs in America, bankrupt our country, and ruin the best health care system in the world. By creating new layers of bureaucracy between patients and their doctors, it could lead to government rationing of medical care. We must reverse the government takeover of health care and adopt a patient-centered approach.
ObamaCare – the massive, 2,801-page, multi-trillion-dollar takeover of health care – is proving a disaster. In addition to actually increasing the cost of health care for families, the bill unconstitutionally mandates that every American purchase health insurance. Instead of real reforms to reduce the cost of health care and promote patient-centered care, the bill will burden families, kill jobs in America, bankrupt our country, and ruin the best health care system in the world. By creating new layers of bureaucracy between patients and their doctors, it could lead to government rationing of medical care. We must reverse the government takeover of health care and adopt a patient-centered approach.
OBAMA
If Obama is re-elected this will represent the End of Limited Government. The Supreme Court will issue its verdict later this spring of course, but there’s no question that if the government can force you to do something simply because you exist and draw breath, then the American experiment in limited government is over and done with. Whether it’s the mandating of eating broccoli or buying insurance, a government that can make you do whatever it wants just ain’t in the American grain. I want our America back and if we don't wake up and make it happen this year, we will be in big trouble!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)