Thursday, May 31, 2007
Update
I just wanted to jot down a quick note to all my readers: I will post on here soon! This is the crunch time for me with school but I should have a bit more free time to write during the summer so stay tuned. I appreciate your patiance. While you wait for new posts, you may want to take the time to look through the archives on this site. There may very well be something here that you have not read/seen.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers
Here is an article I found on WorldNetDaily.com. I'm not into "Bush Bashing" however it is important to stay abreast of what is happening. If you want to check this out just check Here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.
It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.
The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
(Story continues below)
Corsi says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.
Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act, which requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."
A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.
But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says.
The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.
It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under Townsend's direction.
The White House declined to comment on the directive.
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.
It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.
The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
(Story continues below)
Corsi says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.
The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.
Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act, which requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."
A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.
But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says.
The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.
It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.
Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under Townsend's direction.
The White House declined to comment on the directive.
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Responding to Rudy
For those of you who watched the GOP debate a couple of days ago you saw the moment that is being heralded as a huge victory for New Yorker Rudy Guliani. This is an e-mail I recieved from Pat Buchanan's website. I know it's kind of long but please take the time to read it. If you don't have time to read the whole thing then just read Pat's article below.
From: Linda Muller
Date: 5/18/2007 1:37:05 AM
To: forthecause@list.forthecause.us
Subject: [FTC] PJB: But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?
Dear Brigade,
"It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate. Hearing Rep.
Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the
United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought
death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke
format and exploded..."
Brigade, right now, the GOP is contriving a plan to prevent Ron Paul
from participating in future Republican debates.
Read Pat's column below -- it's another grand slam!
Then, here's your assignment: RAISE - HOLY - HELL - !
The MI GOP state chairman, Saul Anuzis, is leading the charge against
Ron Paul. See email below from Buchanan Brigader, James Edwards with
info and also a reminder about what happened with MI in 2000 during the
Buchanan for President campaign.
Note, the MI GOP is getting hammered. They took off the contact page on
their website, so you need to call them!
http://www.migop.org
Telephone: 517.487.5413
Fax: 517.487.0090
And here are 2 petitions to sign in support of Ron [our thanks to
Brigader Bill Sisemore for sending them in].
http://www.petitionsource.com/signature.php?pid=2&index=0
and
http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/
Please send and post this entire email across the Net.
For the Cause, Linda
PS -- See latest video of Ron at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls
---------
But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.
Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment
of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that
brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani
broke format and exploded:
“That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through
the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking
Iraq. I don’t think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some
pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.
“I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what
he really meant by it.”
The applause for Rudy’s rebuke was thunderous – the sound bite of the
night and best moment of Rudy’s campaign.
After the debate, on Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes,” came one of those
delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman,
was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the
running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30
percent, the winner of the debate.
Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being
text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was
second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.
“I would ask the congressman to … tell us what he meant,” said Rudy.
A fair question and a crucial question.
When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were “over here because we are over
there,” he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He
was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.
Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahedeen whom we, in the
Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army
from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper
rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies
we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they
discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state?
Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of
what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S.
troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of
a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel’s persecution of the
Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring
war on us.
Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal
that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside
Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of
British-French imperial domination and humiliation.
Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror.
It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political
objective.
What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?
Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate
our freedom? Is it that simple?
Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.
Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a
bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab
and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and
greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is
unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?
Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed
the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years
vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that
the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right
are babbling in confession, “If I had only known then what I know now …”
Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence
against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in
the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after
Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, “You and I know that this continuous
putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten.”
Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled
history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler’s attack
on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand
what was done at Versailles – after the Germans laid down their arms
based on Wilson’s 14 Points. We do not excuse – but we must understand.
Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was
speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him
back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.
By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from
the beginning on Iraq.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [FTC] Ron Paul - Educating Rudy...
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:45:47 EDT
From: James1134@aol.com
To: lindamuller@buchanan.org
Linda:
I agree with you 110% and am in the same boat! It'll be an uphill
struggle (as it always is), but I, like you, have not been this excited
about a Presidential campaign since 2000!
Always good to hear from you, my friend.
God Bless,
James
www.thepoliticalcesspool.org
P.S. - Did you see what the Michigan GOP is up to? I'll include an
e-mail I sent out here below...
GOP LEADER WANTS RON PAUL BANNED FROM FUTURE DEBATES
We normally try to keep from sending out more than one e-mail update a
week to our subscribers, unless a serious situation warrants the
additional announcement. However, I was infuriated by a news article I
read today that stated that the Republican Party Chairman in Michigan
was going to make a concerted effort to ban Ron Paul from participating
in any future GOP Presidential Debates. His reason for such rash and
Orwellian thinking? He doesn't like the Congressman's message.
Now, we may be a lot of things in The Political Cesspool, but we're
nothing if not the ardent defenders of our God-given right to the
freedoms of speech, expression and association. It's a shame many
leaders of the Republican Party don't feel the same as we do. Ron Paul
has already been the recipient of biased attacks from the establishment
media and despite winning the debates according to the opinion of
viewers polled by MSNBC and FOX, the conservative Texan might now find
himself barred from having the opportunity to espouse his viewpoint
altogether if some in the GOP have their way.
I don't know of any other group that is yet mounting a counter-offensive
to this madness, but if there aren't any, I'd like for our radio program
to begin the defense of Ron Paul's right to participate. Read the
article below and then read what we believe YOU can do to help
Congressman Paul... Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future
debates
5/16/2007, 7:07 p.m. ET
By JIM DAVENPORT
The Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said
Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential
debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the
Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.
Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition
among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more
debates. At a GOP candidates' debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks
from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us
because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years,"
Paul said.
Anuzis called the comments "off the wall and out of whack."
"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the
Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a
distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base
and he does not represent the party," Anuzis said during an RNC state
leadership meeting.
"Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of
whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful."
Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to
discourage inviting Paul.
Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, said the candidate "is
supporting the traditional GOP foreign policy. I think it's a shame when
people try to silence the traditional conservative Republican standpoint."
After the debate Tuesday, Paul said he didn't' expect his remarks to end
his campaign.
"The last time I got a message out about my position on the war it
boosted us up by tens of thousands and I didn't change my position,"
Paul said. "I think the American people are sick and tired of this war
and want it ended."
----
Folks, don't believe that this could never come to fruition. It may
seem like a long shot that Paul would be excluded from future debates,
but I've seen the Republican Party do worse. If memory serves, it was
in Michigan in 2000 that, due to Republican underhandedness, they denied
Pat Buchanan ballot access after he had met the requirements to be
included. Michigan was the only state in which Buchanan's name was not
featured as a candidate in the Presidential election.
In an effort to "ride to the sound of the guns" on behalf of Paul, we
are encouraging our listeners to call the Michigan Republican Party and
respectfully, but demandingly, insist that this sort of thought policing
has no place in a free society.
Again, the man behind the effort to remove Paul is Michigan State
Chairman Saul Anuzis. Below is the contact website as well as the
direct line to the Michigan GOP Office. Let's get on top of this folks!
Please forward this message to your mailing lists and post it onto
your blogs and websites.
CONTACT THE MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY IN SUPPORT OF
RON PAUL'S RIGHT TO DEBATE
http://www.migop.org/contact_us.asp (E-mail contact available at site)
Telephone: 517-487-5413
FAX: 517-487-0090
On to victory,
James Edwards
Host, The Political Cesspool Radio Program
From: Linda Muller
Date: 5/18/2007 1:37:05 AM
To: forthecause@list.forthecause.us
Subject: [FTC] PJB: But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?
Dear Brigade,
"It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate. Hearing Rep.
Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment of the
United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that brought
death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani broke
format and exploded..."
Brigade, right now, the GOP is contriving a plan to prevent Ron Paul
from participating in future Republican debates.
Read Pat's column below -- it's another grand slam!
Then, here's your assignment: RAISE - HOLY - HELL - !
The MI GOP state chairman, Saul Anuzis, is leading the charge against
Ron Paul. See email below from Buchanan Brigader, James Edwards with
info and also a reminder about what happened with MI in 2000 during the
Buchanan for President campaign.
Note, the MI GOP is getting hammered. They took off the contact page on
their website, so you need to call them!
http://www.migop.org
Telephone: 517.487.5413
Fax: 517.487.0090
And here are 2 petitions to sign in support of Ron [our thanks to
Brigader Bill Sisemore for sending them in].
http://www.petitionsource.com/signature.php?pid=2&index=0
and
http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/
Please send and post this entire email across the Net.
For the Cause, Linda
PS -- See latest video of Ron at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls
---------
But Who Was Right – Rudy or Ron?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
It was the decisive moment of the South Carolina debate.
Hearing Rep. Ron Paul recite the reasons for Arab and Islamic resentment
of the United States, including 10 years of bombing and sanctions that
brought death to thousands of Iraqis after the Gulf War, Rudy Giuliani
broke format and exploded:
“That’s really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through
the attack of 9-11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking
Iraq. I don’t think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some
pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.
“I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us what
he really meant by it.”
The applause for Rudy’s rebuke was thunderous – the sound bite of the
night and best moment of Rudy’s campaign.
After the debate, on Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes,” came one of those
delicious moments on live television. As Michael Steele, GOP spokesman,
was saying that Paul should probably be cut out of future debates, the
running tally of votes by Fox News viewers was showing Ron Paul, with 30
percent, the winner of the debate.
Brother Hannity seemed startled and perplexed by the votes being
text-messaged in the thousands to Fox News saying Paul won, Romney was
second, Rudy third and McCain far down the track at 4 percent.
“I would ask the congressman to … tell us what he meant,” said Rudy.
A fair question and a crucial question.
When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were “over here because we are over
there,” he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He
was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.
Lest we forget, Osama bin Laden was among the mujahedeen whom we, in the
Reagan decade, were aiding when they were fighting to expel the Red Army
from Afghanistan. We sent them Stinger missiles, Spanish mortars, sniper
rifles. And they helped drive the Russians out.
What Ron Paul was addressing was the question of what turned the allies
we aided into haters of the United States. Was it the fact that they
discovered we have freedom of speech or separation of church and state?
Do they hate us because of who we are? Or do they hate us because of
what we do?
Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war in the 1990s said it was U.S.
troops on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, U.S. bombing and sanctions of
a crushed Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel’s persecution of the
Palestinians that were the reasons he and his mujahedeen were declaring
war on us.
Elsewhere, he has mentioned Sykes-Picot, the secret British-French deal
that double-crossed the Arabs who had fought for their freedom alongside
Lawrence of Arabia and were rewarded with a quarter century of
British-French imperial domination and humiliation.
Almost all agree that, horrible as 9-11 was, it was not anarchic terror.
It was political terror, done with a political motive and a political
objective.
What does Rudy Giuliani think the political motive was for 9-11?
Was it because we are good and they are evil? Is it because they hate
our freedom? Is it that simple?
Ron Paul says Osama bin Laden is delighted we invaded Iraq.
Does the man not have a point? The United States is now tied down in a
bloody guerrilla war in the Middle East and increasingly hated in Arab
and Islamic countries where we were once hugely admired as the first and
greatest of the anti-colonial nations. Does anyone think that Osama is
unhappy with what is happening to us in Iraq?
Of the 10 candidates on stage in South Carolina, Dr. Paul alone opposed
the war. He alone voted against the war. Have not the last five years
vindicated him, when two-thirds of the nation now agrees with him that
the war was a mistake, and journalists and politicians left and right
are babbling in confession, “If I had only known then what I know now …”
Rudy implied that Ron Paul was unpatriotic to suggest the violence
against us out of the Middle East may be in reaction to U.S. policy in
the Middle East. Was President Hoover unpatriotic when, the day after
Pearl Harbor, he wrote to friends, “You and I know that this continuous
putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bitten.”
Pearl Harbor came out of the blue, but it also came out of the troubled
history of U.S.-Japanese relations going back 40 years. Hitler’s attack
on Poland was naked aggression. But to understand it, we must understand
what was done at Versailles – after the Germans laid down their arms
based on Wilson’s 14 Points. We do not excuse – but we must understand.
Ron Paul is no TV debater. But up on that stage in Columbia, he was
speaking intolerable truths. Understandably, Republicans do not want him
back, telling the country how the party blundered into this misbegotten war.
By all means, throw out of the debate the only man who was right from
the beginning on Iraq.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [FTC] Ron Paul - Educating Rudy...
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 14:45:47 EDT
From: James1134@aol.com
To: lindamuller@buchanan.org
Linda:
I agree with you 110% and am in the same boat! It'll be an uphill
struggle (as it always is), but I, like you, have not been this excited
about a Presidential campaign since 2000!
Always good to hear from you, my friend.
God Bless,
James
www.thepoliticalcesspool.org
P.S. - Did you see what the Michigan GOP is up to? I'll include an
e-mail I sent out here below...
GOP LEADER WANTS RON PAUL BANNED FROM FUTURE DEBATES
We normally try to keep from sending out more than one e-mail update a
week to our subscribers, unless a serious situation warrants the
additional announcement. However, I was infuriated by a news article I
read today that stated that the Republican Party Chairman in Michigan
was going to make a concerted effort to ban Ron Paul from participating
in any future GOP Presidential Debates. His reason for such rash and
Orwellian thinking? He doesn't like the Congressman's message.
Now, we may be a lot of things in The Political Cesspool, but we're
nothing if not the ardent defenders of our God-given right to the
freedoms of speech, expression and association. It's a shame many
leaders of the Republican Party don't feel the same as we do. Ron Paul
has already been the recipient of biased attacks from the establishment
media and despite winning the debates according to the opinion of
viewers polled by MSNBC and FOX, the conservative Texan might now find
himself barred from having the opportunity to espouse his viewpoint
altogether if some in the GOP have their way.
I don't know of any other group that is yet mounting a counter-offensive
to this madness, but if there aren't any, I'd like for our radio program
to begin the defense of Ron Paul's right to participate. Read the
article below and then read what we believe YOU can do to help
Congressman Paul... Michigan GOP leader wants Paul barred from future
debates
5/16/2007, 7:07 p.m. ET
By JIM DAVENPORT
The Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said
Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential
debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the
Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy.
Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition
among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more
debates. At a GOP candidates' debate Tuesday night, Paul drew attacks
from all sides, most forcefully from former New York Mayor Rudy
Giuliani, when he linked the terror attacks to U.S. bombings.
"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us
because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years,"
Paul said.
Anuzis called the comments "off the wall and out of whack."
"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the
Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a
distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base
and he does not represent the party," Anuzis said during an RNC state
leadership meeting.
"Given what he said last night it was just so off the wall and out of
whack that I think it was more detrimental than helpful."
Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to
discourage inviting Paul.
Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, said the candidate "is
supporting the traditional GOP foreign policy. I think it's a shame when
people try to silence the traditional conservative Republican standpoint."
After the debate Tuesday, Paul said he didn't' expect his remarks to end
his campaign.
"The last time I got a message out about my position on the war it
boosted us up by tens of thousands and I didn't change my position,"
Paul said. "I think the American people are sick and tired of this war
and want it ended."
----
Folks, don't believe that this could never come to fruition. It may
seem like a long shot that Paul would be excluded from future debates,
but I've seen the Republican Party do worse. If memory serves, it was
in Michigan in 2000 that, due to Republican underhandedness, they denied
Pat Buchanan ballot access after he had met the requirements to be
included. Michigan was the only state in which Buchanan's name was not
featured as a candidate in the Presidential election.
In an effort to "ride to the sound of the guns" on behalf of Paul, we
are encouraging our listeners to call the Michigan Republican Party and
respectfully, but demandingly, insist that this sort of thought policing
has no place in a free society.
Again, the man behind the effort to remove Paul is Michigan State
Chairman Saul Anuzis. Below is the contact website as well as the
direct line to the Michigan GOP Office. Let's get on top of this folks!
Please forward this message to your mailing lists and post it onto
your blogs and websites.
CONTACT THE MICHIGAN REPUBLICAN PARTY IN SUPPORT OF
RON PAUL'S RIGHT TO DEBATE
http://www.migop.org/contact_us.asp (E-mail contact available at site)
Telephone: 517-487-5413
FAX: 517-487-0090
On to victory,
James Edwards
Host, The Political Cesspool Radio Program
Monday, May 14, 2007
First-In-The-South GOP Debate
Ok, this is just a quick reminder that the First in the South GOP debate will be on FOX tomorrow night at 9:00 PM to 10:30 PM EST. I would encourage everyone to either watch it then or watch it on-line afterwards. These debates are a great way to learn who the candidates are and what they stand for. All ten candidates are scheduled to attend.
Federal Aid- Part 2: President Grover Cleveland
In the Introduction to this series, we looked at the Greensburg tornado and the use of Federal Aid. In Part 1 we examined the first of three historical examples of men arguing against the use of Federal Aid. This post is the second in that series.
One of the great tragedies of our time is that we have such a poor knowledge of the people and principles who have guided us in the past. I am as guilty of this as anyone and was very interested to find another, “Davy Crockett” in our 24th President: Grover Cleveland. He showed an exceptional understanding of the Federal Constitution and the prescribed role of government. During his first term in office, farmers in parts of Texas were suffering from a drought. Congress proposed a bill that would give a relatively modest $10,000 dollars to help buy seed for these farmers. On February 16, 1887, President Cleveland vetoed the bill with the following insightful message:
"It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution. Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people’s needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of unfortunate blight.
And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for the appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard this limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
One of the great tragedies of our time is that we have such a poor knowledge of the people and principles who have guided us in the past. I am as guilty of this as anyone and was very interested to find another, “Davy Crockett” in our 24th President: Grover Cleveland. He showed an exceptional understanding of the Federal Constitution and the prescribed role of government. During his first term in office, farmers in parts of Texas were suffering from a drought. Congress proposed a bill that would give a relatively modest $10,000 dollars to help buy seed for these farmers. On February 16, 1887, President Cleveland vetoed the bill with the following insightful message:
"It is represented that a long-continued and extensive drought has existed in certain portions of the State of Texas, resulting in a failure of crops and consequent distress and destitution. Though there has been some difference in statements concerning the extent of the people’s needs in the localities thus affected, there seems to be no doubt that there has existed a condition calling for relief; and I am willing to believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of unfortunate blight.
And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose. I can find no warrant for the appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard this limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
Congressional Page
As many of you know, I recently applied to be a Congressional Page over the summer in Washington D.C. I was nominated by my Congressman, Todd Tiarht, however I recently recieved a note informing me that I would not recieve the job. I just wanted to let everyone know that and thank you all for your prayers and support.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Ron Paul
If this doesn't convince you to vote for Ron Paul I don't know what will:) These are the kind of people that are opposed to him.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Federal Aid- Part 1: Davy Crockett
One story that is often told is of frontier Congressman Davy Crockett. The story below is taken from a pamplet put out by the Constituion Party called, "Not yours to Give!"
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet. Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks. There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again. Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People. I could not answer him, said Crockett. I was so fully convinced that he was right. I said to him, Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to under-stand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot. After finishing the story, Crockett said, Now sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.
In the early 1800’s Congress was considering a bill to appropriate tax dollars for the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in support of this bill. It seemed that everyone in the House favored it. The Speaker of the House was just about to put the question to a vote, when Davy Crockett, famous frontiersman and then Congressman from Tennessee, rose to his feet. Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity, but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Sir, this is no debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks. There was silence on the floor of the House as Crockett took his seat. When the bill was put to a vote, instead of passing unanimously as had been expected, it received only a few votes. The next day a friend approached Crockett and asked why he spoken against a bill for such a worthy cause. In reply, Crockett related the following story:
Just a few years before, he had voted to spend $20,000.00 of public money to help the victims of a terrible fire in Georgetown. When the legislative session was over, Crockett made a trip back home to do some campaigning for his re-election. In his travels he encountered one of his constituents, a man by the name of Horatio Bunce. Mr. Bunce bluntly informed Crockett, I voted for you the last time. I shall not vote for you again. Crockett, feeling he had served his constituents well, was stunned. He inquired as to what he had done to so offend Mr. Bunce. Bunce replied, You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. The Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000.00 to some sufferers by a fire. Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away public money in charity? No Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution. You have violated the Constitution in what I consider to be a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the People. I could not answer him, said Crockett. I was so fully convinced that he was right. I said to him, Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to under-stand the Constitution. If you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot. After finishing the story, Crockett said, Now sir, you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a weeks pay? There are in that House many very wealthy men, men who think nothing of spending a weeks pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of these same men made beautiful speeches upon the debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased, yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Federal Aid? Or Federal Threat?
Many of you have probably heard of the Greensburg Tornado. Just a few days ago a tornado ripped through this small Kansas town and leveled it completely. Of the 1,500 residents at least ten were killed and many others wounded. The causalities are only expected to rise. It is estimated that the town sustained between 95-100% damage. It is truly a disaster area.
As I was reading the Wichita Eagle today I saw an article by Pat Roberts, the junior Republican senator from Kansas. Here is a quote from that article:
“After touring the devastation, I went east to visit with the victims of the killer tornado at shelters in Haviland, 10 miles away. We spent an hour sharing shock, grief and prayer. The last person I visited with, an elderly gentleman who only had the clothes on his back, sat staring into nothingness, sitting on a cot. He simply looked at me and said, “Senator, thanks for coming; I just don’t know how I will get my life and home back.” That is when I decided we had to cut the red tape that usually is involved in getting a federal disaster declaration and critical assistance to local officials and to homeless residents.”
He goes on to tell of calling the President and receiving the federal disaster aid he and the other Kansas representatives had requested. Most people, including many of my readers probably applaud his decision and concern. It’s also true that most people, including many of my readers are going to be upset and confused when I say this: I could not disagree with that decision more. Allow me to explain.
There are a number of things that keep me from supporting this decision, the lack of Constitutional authorization, the support of government intervention, and the ineffectiveness of federal aid are all things that could be discussed. While most people today support the use of federal funds in disaster situations there is a strong historical precedent against government intervention. Over the next couple of posts I want to look at some historical and Constitutional arguments against the administration of Federal aid and welfare.
As I was reading the Wichita Eagle today I saw an article by Pat Roberts, the junior Republican senator from Kansas. Here is a quote from that article:
“After touring the devastation, I went east to visit with the victims of the killer tornado at shelters in Haviland, 10 miles away. We spent an hour sharing shock, grief and prayer. The last person I visited with, an elderly gentleman who only had the clothes on his back, sat staring into nothingness, sitting on a cot. He simply looked at me and said, “Senator, thanks for coming; I just don’t know how I will get my life and home back.” That is when I decided we had to cut the red tape that usually is involved in getting a federal disaster declaration and critical assistance to local officials and to homeless residents.”
He goes on to tell of calling the President and receiving the federal disaster aid he and the other Kansas representatives had requested. Most people, including many of my readers probably applaud his decision and concern. It’s also true that most people, including many of my readers are going to be upset and confused when I say this: I could not disagree with that decision more. Allow me to explain.
There are a number of things that keep me from supporting this decision, the lack of Constitutional authorization, the support of government intervention, and the ineffectiveness of federal aid are all things that could be discussed. While most people today support the use of federal funds in disaster situations there is a strong historical precedent against government intervention. Over the next couple of posts I want to look at some historical and Constitutional arguments against the administration of Federal aid and welfare.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Press Release
Here is a press release I received from Ron Paul's campaign:
May 08, 2007
Press Release
Ron Paul Builds Momentum
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of “The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success.
Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul:
* Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC
* Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report
* Won an ABCNews.com online debate poll with 84%
* Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%
* Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to the reputable Technorati.com
* Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video
* Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com
* Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul
* Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!
* Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com
"These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government."
May 08, 2007
Press Release
Ron Paul Builds Momentum
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 2007
ARLINGTON, VA – Congressman Ron Paul's support has soared since the first Republican presidential debate. Conservative commentator John McLaughlin, host of “The McLaughlin Group," cited Ron Paul as having given "the best performance of the debate." In fact, the Paul campaign's apparent strength has many other pundits scrambling to explain it. Paul campaign officials offer the following examples of the candidate's rising success.
Since the debate on May 3, Ron Paul:
* Handily won two post-debate polls posted by event sponsor MSNBC
* Placed a close third (18%) in a post-debate poll on the conservative Drudge Report
* Won an ABCNews.com online debate poll with 84%
* Won a C-SPAN online GOP candidate poll with 69%
* Became the third most-mentioned person in the blogosphere, beating out Paris Hilton, according to the reputable Technorati.com
* Produced a YouTube.com video that was ranked the 8th most popular overall video, and the most-viewed political video
* Was featured, by popular demand, on the front of Digg.com
* Generated so many bulletin posts on MySpace.com that the site owner News Corp. blocked all additional posts about Dr. Paul
* Became a "most searched" term on Google and Yahoo!
* Saw a quadrupling of daily visitors to RonPaul2008.com
"These figures speak for themselves," said campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Ron Paul has quickly become a strong contender for the GOP nomination because of his powerful message of freedom and limited government."
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
