WND Exclusive BORN IN THE USA?
Eligibility attorney Berg motivates crowd to ask, 'Where's birth certificate?'
By Drew Zahn
A rally today at the U.S. Capitol pulled no punches in declaring President Barack Obama an "imposter" and "fraud" who should resign before a constitutional crisis of his own making rips apart the nation.
The rally was called by Philip Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney who runs the ObamaCrimes.com website and was the first to sue over allegations Obama is constitutionally ineligible to occupy the Oval Office.
"The main thrust of the rally," Berg told WND, "was to get out the continuing message that Obama is a phony, a fraud, an imposter, and [his eligibility to serve as president] is the biggest hoax committed against the U.S. in 234 years."
Berg believes there is enough evidence, both hard and circumstantial, to justify an investigation into whether or not Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution to serve as president. Berg is looking for a court with "the guts" to demand Obama provide proof of his eligibility.
Berg told WND that though the crowd, which he estimated at a couple of hundred, was smaller than anticipated, he still considered the event a success – in part, because of what he hopes it will inspire.
"The feedback we received was that the attendees are going to go back and spread the word," he said. "Groups of six or so are planning to get together at intersections with signs that read, 'Where's the birth certificate?' At rush hour, those six people can get the message out to thousands."
Want to turn up the pressure to learn the facts? Get your signs and postcards asking for the president's birth certificate documentation from the Birth Certificate Store!
"I think it was successful to that degree," he continued. "It was a step in the right direction."
Berg told WND he isn't pushing for Obama's resignation out of some right-wing venom – he's a life-long Democrat – or racism or hatred, but out of dedication to preserving the U.S. Constitution and out of concern about what will happen to the country if Obama continues his presidency and is discovered ineligible years down the road.
"My goal is to have a peaceful revolution before something worse breaks out," Berg said. "The sooner the better."
He continued, "Obama is walking all over the Constitution, destroying the Constitution through holding office while ineligible, through a health-care plan that is clearly unconstitutional, and he has plans for more unconstitutional actions. I'm doing this because nothing is more important to the U.S. than its Constitution."
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
Berg's initial emergency appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court when Obama first took office, like those of a number of other attorneys, were not accepted by the panel. He has one case pending, and it is being prepared for presentation to the high court now.
It alleges that, based on Obama's status as a student in Indonesia and the complete absence of documentation that he ever returned to the U.S. as a citizen, it is unlikely he is a "natural born citizen" as the Constitution requires of the president. Obama was registered in school as an Indonesian Muslim by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro.
Berg's case alleges further that without documentation that Obama preserved or regained his U.S. citizenship after being registered as an Indonesian as a student at school, he may not even be a "naturalized" citizen.
"Therefore, his term as a U.S. senator was a fraud. His salary and benefits should be returned to the U.S.," he told WND.
He says that if it weren't for the U.S. media, Obama would already have been exposed and removed from office.
"The media gave him a free ride," he said.
"I'm hoping we can bring to the attention of the national media and the Congress the seriousness of this. The positive result I would like to see is that if the national media would cover this and Congress would pay attention, we could force Obama out of office," Berg said.
He said those who come to the rally are being asked to bring a copy of their own birth certificates. He described the assembly as a "Yes, We Can" event to empower the people to once again make determinations about their nation's future.
The problems with the issues Obama has addressed and the campaigns he's launched are important, Berg said.
"However, the most important issue is Obama not being 'constitutionally eligible' to be president," he said.
Berg's is not the only one who has challenged Obama's residency in the White House. A case is developing involving Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who has questioned the legitimacy of the orders in the U.S. military under a president whose eligibility is under question.
Another case being handled by California attorneys Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation and Orly Taitz is on behalf of another presidential candidate and challenges Obama's inclusion on the ballot.
Yet another claims Congress failed to perform its constitutional obligations to investigate Obama.
There's even been a series of discussions about impeachment.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
The Left Hates Free Speech - Juan at a Time
by Ted Nugent
National Public Radio's firing of commentator Juan Williams is yet another example of how political correctness has poisoned free speech.
Mr. Williams didn't say anything that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't say or agree with regarding genuine and well-founded concerns about Muslims on airplanes. Who doesn't know that Muslim voodoo loons have used or tried to use jets as a means to carry out mass murder and mayhem? It's the truth, comfortable or not.
Juan Williams, a clear and present left-leaning guy, has now been exposed to the progressive's anti-free speech grinder machine. Instead of rallying to his to defense as many on the Right and some on the Left have, I have a question for Mr. Williams: How do you like the Left now?
The liberal Left is a pack of vicious liars on a number of issues. While liberals claim to support free speech, it is the liberal Left who works overtime to shut down speech that is not in concert with their Socialist view of the world. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels would be proud of leftist goon squads, as they have taken their vicious ploy straight out of his goose-stepping propaganda playbook.
Cartoon courtesy of Brett Noel
It is leftist goons who attempt to shout down conservative speakers, throw pies at conservative speakers and lobby colleges to not invite conservatives. Fuzzy-headed leftist ideologues try to convince Americans that conservatives are evil bigots, racists, homophobes, etc., who want to force grandma to eat dog food. All blatant lies, of course. Our singular goal is to crush Fedzilla which is fed and nurtured by leftists.
Playing politically correct games and lying are foundational platforms of the Left. That's because when the Left's programs and policies are exposed to the blinding light of objectivity and truth, Americans overwhelmingly reject them. Overt lying is the Left's only hope for achieving their goal of changing America into a Third World country.
NPR has long been a media manipulation tool of the Left and is funded in part by taxpayers. It is time taxpayers demand that their hard-earned tax dollars be cut out of the budget of NPR. I vote we give NPR's taxpayer dollars to the military to use to hunt down and exterminate more Muslim extremists.
Let NPR compete in the market place like other private-sector businesses. Maybe NPR will be able to fly a bit longer than the defunct left-wing radio Air America—or maybe not.
Gutting taxpayer dollars out of the budget of NPR should be one of the first things the GOP should do when they assume power in a matter of days. The GOP's action on this—or lack of action—will tell us much if they have learned anything from the growing anger on Main Street USA. Do your job, GOP, or Americans will vote you out in 2012.
Reasonable Americans know that political correctness is a euphemism for brain dead. It is based on feelings, not intellect, which is why the Socialists endorse and champion it. The Socialists use political correctness as a means to try and manipulate people into believing what their brains tell them is balderdash and bull dung. Celebrate and revere intellect. Reject insanity.
Never under any circumstances accept political correctness. Free speech is the heart and soul of our republic. To compromise free speech for soulless, baseless and erroneous feelings is anti-American and spits in the face of those who have sacrificed so much for us to be free.
Americans need to be more demonstrative and shoot back with the truth. We need to shine a spotlight of truth on the lies of the Left and political correctness at every opportunity. Be brave, bold and unapologetic, America.
Let's make crushing political correctness a national security priority. After what he has experienced, maybe Mr. Williams will help lead the charge. You up for the task or does the cat of political correctness got your tongue, Mr. Williams?
____
Rock legend Ted Nugent is noted for his conservative political views and his vocal pro-hunting and Second Amendment activism. His smash bestseller Ted, White & Blue: The Nugent Manifesto, is now available at www.amazon.com. Nugent also maintains the Official Ted Nugent Site at www.TedNugent.com.
National Public Radio's firing of commentator Juan Williams is yet another example of how political correctness has poisoned free speech.
Mr. Williams didn't say anything that the vast majority of Americans wouldn't say or agree with regarding genuine and well-founded concerns about Muslims on airplanes. Who doesn't know that Muslim voodoo loons have used or tried to use jets as a means to carry out mass murder and mayhem? It's the truth, comfortable or not.
Juan Williams, a clear and present left-leaning guy, has now been exposed to the progressive's anti-free speech grinder machine. Instead of rallying to his to defense as many on the Right and some on the Left have, I have a question for Mr. Williams: How do you like the Left now?
The liberal Left is a pack of vicious liars on a number of issues. While liberals claim to support free speech, it is the liberal Left who works overtime to shut down speech that is not in concert with their Socialist view of the world. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels would be proud of leftist goon squads, as they have taken their vicious ploy straight out of his goose-stepping propaganda playbook.
Cartoon courtesy of Brett Noel
It is leftist goons who attempt to shout down conservative speakers, throw pies at conservative speakers and lobby colleges to not invite conservatives. Fuzzy-headed leftist ideologues try to convince Americans that conservatives are evil bigots, racists, homophobes, etc., who want to force grandma to eat dog food. All blatant lies, of course. Our singular goal is to crush Fedzilla which is fed and nurtured by leftists.
Playing politically correct games and lying are foundational platforms of the Left. That's because when the Left's programs and policies are exposed to the blinding light of objectivity and truth, Americans overwhelmingly reject them. Overt lying is the Left's only hope for achieving their goal of changing America into a Third World country.
NPR has long been a media manipulation tool of the Left and is funded in part by taxpayers. It is time taxpayers demand that their hard-earned tax dollars be cut out of the budget of NPR. I vote we give NPR's taxpayer dollars to the military to use to hunt down and exterminate more Muslim extremists.
Let NPR compete in the market place like other private-sector businesses. Maybe NPR will be able to fly a bit longer than the defunct left-wing radio Air America—or maybe not.
Gutting taxpayer dollars out of the budget of NPR should be one of the first things the GOP should do when they assume power in a matter of days. The GOP's action on this—or lack of action—will tell us much if they have learned anything from the growing anger on Main Street USA. Do your job, GOP, or Americans will vote you out in 2012.
Reasonable Americans know that political correctness is a euphemism for brain dead. It is based on feelings, not intellect, which is why the Socialists endorse and champion it. The Socialists use political correctness as a means to try and manipulate people into believing what their brains tell them is balderdash and bull dung. Celebrate and revere intellect. Reject insanity.
Never under any circumstances accept political correctness. Free speech is the heart and soul of our republic. To compromise free speech for soulless, baseless and erroneous feelings is anti-American and spits in the face of those who have sacrificed so much for us to be free.
Americans need to be more demonstrative and shoot back with the truth. We need to shine a spotlight of truth on the lies of the Left and political correctness at every opportunity. Be brave, bold and unapologetic, America.
Let's make crushing political correctness a national security priority. After what he has experienced, maybe Mr. Williams will help lead the charge. You up for the task or does the cat of political correctness got your tongue, Mr. Williams?
____
Rock legend Ted Nugent is noted for his conservative political views and his vocal pro-hunting and Second Amendment activism. His smash bestseller Ted, White & Blue: The Nugent Manifesto, is now available at www.amazon.com. Nugent also maintains the Official Ted Nugent Site at www.TedNugent.com.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Fighting the Progressive Takeover of State Courts
by Matt Arnold
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”—Abraham Lincoln
The demand for a return to constitutional limits on government power, exemplified by millions of citizens across the country joining in rallies, events, and civic groups loosely under the banner of the Tea Party movement, is not limited to the executive and legislative branches.
As more and more citizens have come to understand that “progressive” courts and judges have aided and abetted the growth of government power and the erosion of individual rights, they are pursuing the opportunity — and the right—to hold our judicial officeholders accountable at the ballot box.
In several states—most prominently, in Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado—the normally sleepy judicial elections are turning into some of the hottest issues on the ballot in this already critical election year.
Recently, the New York Times dedicated two lead editorials to attacking the right of citizens to vote out anti-constitutional state supreme court justices via the “retention vote” process (a simple yes/no, “should they stay or should they go” process that many states have adopted as an alternative to directly contested elections for judges). The NYT editorials, citing a legal academic, decried citizen exercise of the right to vote ‘NO’ as “extreme.”
It has long been an open secret that the “progressive” movement—unable to persuade the public with the substance of their arguments—has exploited the courts to advance their agenda. Unelected judges—particularly those at the highest level, the state supreme courts—have invented rights that don’t exist in law (in Iowa, the issue is court-invented rights to “gay marriage;” in Kansas, the issue is abortion) or serially violated constitutional rights that do exist in law—including the state constitution.
In Colorado, the incumbent majority has repeatedly violated the rights of Colorado voters to constrain the growth of government, particularly government power to tax and spend without approval. In 1992, Colorado voters approved a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment to the state constitution that secured the right of voters to have a say on tax increases. Yet not once in some 15 challenges and despite the clear language of the Constitution directing that its “preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government” has the Colorado Supreme Court upheld this section of the state constitution.
With an 0-15 record of upholding the Constitution, they’re the 2008 Detroit Lions of jurisprudence!
Over the last couple of years, the incumbent majority’s assaults on the Constitution have become increasingly bold. In 2009, they held that a massive property tax increase didn’t count as such by the semantic shenanigan of calling it a “rate freeze” (the notorious 2009 “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case).
As part of the same ruling, the court inserted language enabling the legislature to raise more taxes under the pretense of “eliminating tax credits or exemptions.” Any way you slice it, this is a “tax policy change … resulting in a net revenue gain” and therefore should be subject to voter approval under the Constitution. An earlier ruling likewise held that tax increases could be imposed under the guise of “fees”—once again circumventing that pesky constitutional requirement to ask first before taking people’s money.
Other constitutional violations perpetrated by the court include assaults on property rights (expanding the opportunity for governmental abuse of eminent domain), gun rights (a pending challenge before the Colorado Supreme Court seeks to overturn state law on concealed-carry permits), even overturning the death penalty for a convicted kidnapper/rapist/murderer because a pair of jurors were alleged to have quoted biblical passages in sentencing deliberations.
Even more importantly from a political and policy standpoint, the incumbent majority has usurped the political decision-making authority of the legislative branch in key areas. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that judges, not elected legislators or school boards, have the ultimate authority to decide what constitutes “appropriate” levels of funding for schools (the “Lobato” case). This decision not only grossly violates constitutional separation of powers, it is a looming fiscal train wreck.
On the political front, the Colorado Supreme Court in 2003 grabbed the power to draw up Colorado’s congressional districts from the legislature, where it belongs under clear constitutional language (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 44: “the General Assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts”). How did they accomplish this, despite clear constitutional limits?
Simple; they re-defined themselves as part of the General Assembly:
“In sum, the term ‘General Assembly’ in the first sentence of Article V, Section 44, broadly encompasses the legislative process, the voter initiative, and judicial redistricting. Regardless of which body creates the congressional districts, these districts are equally valid.”
In her dissent, then-Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis summed up the judicial power grab:
“With its holding today, the court significantly alters our form of government.”
The Colorado Supreme Court recognizes no limits on its power. This majority has arrogated to itself the ultimate power to decide all questions—legislative, executive, or judicial. They believe their word to be literally “supreme”; the Constitution is what they say it is. When they rule from the bench—they really mean to RULE from the bench.
It is time for the voters of Colorado—indeed, for voters across the country—to reclaim our heritage:
Be a Citizen, not a subject.
Defend your constitutional rights—your freedom depends on it. Hold officials in ALL THREE BRANCHES of government accountable; this year, vote NO on unjust justices, and Clear The Bench, Colorado!
Matt Arnold is a Citizen (and a Citizen-Soldier, serving as a Captain in the Colorado Army National Guard) leading the state�s judicial accountability movement as founder and director of Clear The Bench Colorado.
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”—Abraham Lincoln
The demand for a return to constitutional limits on government power, exemplified by millions of citizens across the country joining in rallies, events, and civic groups loosely under the banner of the Tea Party movement, is not limited to the executive and legislative branches.
As more and more citizens have come to understand that “progressive” courts and judges have aided and abetted the growth of government power and the erosion of individual rights, they are pursuing the opportunity — and the right—to hold our judicial officeholders accountable at the ballot box.
In several states—most prominently, in Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado—the normally sleepy judicial elections are turning into some of the hottest issues on the ballot in this already critical election year.
Recently, the New York Times dedicated two lead editorials to attacking the right of citizens to vote out anti-constitutional state supreme court justices via the “retention vote” process (a simple yes/no, “should they stay or should they go” process that many states have adopted as an alternative to directly contested elections for judges). The NYT editorials, citing a legal academic, decried citizen exercise of the right to vote ‘NO’ as “extreme.”
It has long been an open secret that the “progressive” movement—unable to persuade the public with the substance of their arguments—has exploited the courts to advance their agenda. Unelected judges—particularly those at the highest level, the state supreme courts—have invented rights that don’t exist in law (in Iowa, the issue is court-invented rights to “gay marriage;” in Kansas, the issue is abortion) or serially violated constitutional rights that do exist in law—including the state constitution.
In Colorado, the incumbent majority has repeatedly violated the rights of Colorado voters to constrain the growth of government, particularly government power to tax and spend without approval. In 1992, Colorado voters approved a Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment to the state constitution that secured the right of voters to have a say on tax increases. Yet not once in some 15 challenges and despite the clear language of the Constitution directing that its “preferred interpretation shall reasonably restrain most the growth of government” has the Colorado Supreme Court upheld this section of the state constitution.
With an 0-15 record of upholding the Constitution, they’re the 2008 Detroit Lions of jurisprudence!
Over the last couple of years, the incumbent majority’s assaults on the Constitution have become increasingly bold. In 2009, they held that a massive property tax increase didn’t count as such by the semantic shenanigan of calling it a “rate freeze” (the notorious 2009 “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” case).
As part of the same ruling, the court inserted language enabling the legislature to raise more taxes under the pretense of “eliminating tax credits or exemptions.” Any way you slice it, this is a “tax policy change … resulting in a net revenue gain” and therefore should be subject to voter approval under the Constitution. An earlier ruling likewise held that tax increases could be imposed under the guise of “fees”—once again circumventing that pesky constitutional requirement to ask first before taking people’s money.
Other constitutional violations perpetrated by the court include assaults on property rights (expanding the opportunity for governmental abuse of eminent domain), gun rights (a pending challenge before the Colorado Supreme Court seeks to overturn state law on concealed-carry permits), even overturning the death penalty for a convicted kidnapper/rapist/murderer because a pair of jurors were alleged to have quoted biblical passages in sentencing deliberations.
Even more importantly from a political and policy standpoint, the incumbent majority has usurped the political decision-making authority of the legislative branch in key areas. Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that judges, not elected legislators or school boards, have the ultimate authority to decide what constitutes “appropriate” levels of funding for schools (the “Lobato” case). This decision not only grossly violates constitutional separation of powers, it is a looming fiscal train wreck.
On the political front, the Colorado Supreme Court in 2003 grabbed the power to draw up Colorado’s congressional districts from the legislature, where it belongs under clear constitutional language (Colorado Constitution Article V, Section 44: “the General Assembly shall divide the state into congressional districts”). How did they accomplish this, despite clear constitutional limits?
Simple; they re-defined themselves as part of the General Assembly:
“In sum, the term ‘General Assembly’ in the first sentence of Article V, Section 44, broadly encompasses the legislative process, the voter initiative, and judicial redistricting. Regardless of which body creates the congressional districts, these districts are equally valid.”
In her dissent, then-Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis summed up the judicial power grab:
“With its holding today, the court significantly alters our form of government.”
The Colorado Supreme Court recognizes no limits on its power. This majority has arrogated to itself the ultimate power to decide all questions—legislative, executive, or judicial. They believe their word to be literally “supreme”; the Constitution is what they say it is. When they rule from the bench—they really mean to RULE from the bench.
It is time for the voters of Colorado—indeed, for voters across the country—to reclaim our heritage:
Be a Citizen, not a subject.
Defend your constitutional rights—your freedom depends on it. Hold officials in ALL THREE BRANCHES of government accountable; this year, vote NO on unjust justices, and Clear The Bench, Colorado!
Matt Arnold is a Citizen (and a Citizen-Soldier, serving as a Captain in the Colorado Army National Guard) leading the state�s judicial accountability movement as founder and director of Clear The Bench Colorado.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
American Socialists Release Names of 70 Congressional Democrats in Their Ranks
by Jim Hoft
The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus. This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:
American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
The Socialist Party of America announced in their October 2009 newsletter that 70 Congressional democrats currently belong to their caucus. This admission was recently posted on Scribd.com:
American Socialist Voter–
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Christians and Government
by Rep. Louie Gohmert
Judge not lest ye be judged. Be ye kind. Be a good Samaritan. Turn the other cheek. Love one another. These are only a few of the scriptures that are so often mentioned by professing Christians who are asking to be disqualified from jury duty for religious reasons.
As a district judge in Texas, I was told by such people that they could not ever be on a jury and judge a case because they were Christians. That is what caused me to wrestle with the issue as a Christian judge. Now that I am a member of Congress, this way of thinking still persists simply because people have been mis-educated as to the nature of our United States government.
Yes, I do believe that all of the verses so often cited are absolutely accurate and true. But, they are intended for use by INDIVIDUALS seeking to humbly imitate “the divine author of our blessed religion,” as George Washington put it. In fact, he added that we must do so in order to have any chance at having a “happy nation.” Romans 13:1-4 discusses the government’s role. “If you do evil, be afraid,” because the government is God’s minister to punish evil.
It is anticipated that in an orderly society, there must be a government of some kind. A good government keeps its country protected, fighting when necessary to do so, while also punishing evil conduct, and not punishing good conduct.
In Matthew, Jesus himself said if a person says “Raca” he must answer to the courts. His point was ultimately about God judging the heart. Nonetheless, he anticipated that there should be crimes for which the perpetrator must answer to governmental authority in order for life to proceed in avoidance of anarchy. The Old Testament reveals that God was going to provide that orderliness in Israel through judges until the Israelites demanded a king like everyone else had.
No question, even before the American Revolution, there were efforts at creating a government of the people. The American model contemplated in 1776 was different. As the founders projected, they had within their grasp what philosophers had only dreamed of. They had a chance, an opportunity if they would seize it, to govern themselves. Sure, England had a parliament, but it also still had a very powerful, unelected king. Yes, Rome had a senate during its greatest days, but they had an undemocratic Caesar.
The American founders’ dreamed of a government in which the PEOPLE themselves were exclusively the government. The PEOPLE would hire and fire servant workers to carry out their will. The PEOPLE would be the masters, and the hired representatives would be the SERVANTS—call them “public servants” if you like, but that is what they are supposed to be.
There is a reason the Latin words, “Annuit Coeptis” are on the Great Seal of our country directly above the representation of the all-seeing eye of God. When the founders adopted the Great Seal, which is found on the back of one dollar bills, they were so excited with what prayer had wrought, they wanted the notation that: “He (God) has smiled on our undertaking.” That is what it means.
One of the founders’ proudest accomplishments was a government that had so many checks and balances that it would be difficult to overstep governing boundaries. Since they did not trust the hired help to restrict themselves in making laws only as directed by the people who hired them, they created not one body of representatives, but two.
The second body would not be merely be socially elite figures, but would have full power to stop the larger body from making laws it did not agree with. In fact, the second body, we know to be the Senate, would be SELECTED by the state governments to insure that the larger body didn’t go off on a tangent and pass laws that would take away the states’ authority which was ultimately protected in the 10th Amendment.
If a federal senator ever did try to take away a state’s rights, that senator could be, would be, hauled back to the state and replaced by someone who was not complicit in big federal government usurpation. The founders’ idea was to keep as much power locally as possible while still allowing enough power at the federal level to increase chances of protecting all the states from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Over the years, the method of selecting senators changed with the 17th Amendment, and the check on federal usurpation was gone. So the federal power jurisdiction exploded. There are some wonderful suggestions on how to get it back under control, but that is not the purpose in this article. The PEOPLE are still supposed to be the masters, and the elected representatives are supposed to be the servants.
Consider yourself as having started a major business, then you hire people to do a job at your business. Now picture those you hired not wanting to do the job for which you hired them, then hiring dozens more people and delegating to them their job and allowing them to make all the rules. Then those you have never met hire even more people with your money and they too do not produce anything.
Those newest people then are given the authority to tell everyone else what they can or cannot do. They begin bankrupting your business because you have more people delegating and regulating than you have producing. You would fire those original employees and get someone who would streamline the business and make it efficient and effective in doing what it was supposed to do—wouldn't you?
Well, the truth is that we have NOT done that. Instead, we have continued to hire people to run our country who continue to hire others who have made the government such a behemoth that it has taken on a life of its own. Not only have we not fired and rehired better servants, most of us do not even show up to make such hiring decisions on what we call “voting day.”
Most of us do not show up at the meetings to create an orderly society through punishment of those who do evil, called jury duty. Most of us also do not push to have our co-owners hire good people by endorsing and urging that good servants be hired, called supporting good candidates. And most people certainly don't dirty their hands when they could do the job better than those they hire, called running for office.
That’s right. YOU are the government! You are God’s minister to punish evil and reward good conduct. But, too many Christians have refused the figurative “sword” or the power that in this great country, this little experiment in democracy as a republic, is supposed to be held by YOU. You are the one God has ordained to run the country, but you haven’t even participated. So your employee staff has far too many who do not do what they were hired to do. And that means, for your inactions and omissions as an employer, you are getting exactly the kind of government you deserve. That is the old adage: “Democracy insures people will be governed no better than they deserve.”
That is also why we have penalties for societal good things like marriage (the income tax “marriage penalty”) and for 45 years we have rewarded having children out of wedlock instead of helping incentivise such women to finish their education. It is why we have a death tax that says you were too successful so we must take 55% away and give to the government. It is why people have in the past been threatened with removal from low-rent government housing for saving too much money for a down payment on a home. We punish good behavior too often and reward potentially hurtful conduct. It is also why we passed a Wall Street bailout to reward uncontrolled and irresponsible greed. It is also why TARP has not already been repealed, since it would mean admitting that maybe those who voted for it, including Republican leaders, had made a mistake.
So, as unpleasant as it may be, far too many of the employers, We the PEOPLE, have been lazy and apathetic which has caused we the people to get what we deserve. But it is high time the people of this country started deserving better. It is time that the PEOPLE as rulers in this land started exercising the God-given power in this country by voting, by serving on jury duty, filling appointed positions when called upon, by supporting the best candidates, and even by running for office. It is high time that we gave God something to smile about again. Just be assured, we get what we deserve in America for a government, for better or worse.
_______
Louie Gohmert, a Republican, has represented the First Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2005.
Judge not lest ye be judged. Be ye kind. Be a good Samaritan. Turn the other cheek. Love one another. These are only a few of the scriptures that are so often mentioned by professing Christians who are asking to be disqualified from jury duty for religious reasons.
As a district judge in Texas, I was told by such people that they could not ever be on a jury and judge a case because they were Christians. That is what caused me to wrestle with the issue as a Christian judge. Now that I am a member of Congress, this way of thinking still persists simply because people have been mis-educated as to the nature of our United States government.
Yes, I do believe that all of the verses so often cited are absolutely accurate and true. But, they are intended for use by INDIVIDUALS seeking to humbly imitate “the divine author of our blessed religion,” as George Washington put it. In fact, he added that we must do so in order to have any chance at having a “happy nation.” Romans 13:1-4 discusses the government’s role. “If you do evil, be afraid,” because the government is God’s minister to punish evil.
It is anticipated that in an orderly society, there must be a government of some kind. A good government keeps its country protected, fighting when necessary to do so, while also punishing evil conduct, and not punishing good conduct.
In Matthew, Jesus himself said if a person says “Raca” he must answer to the courts. His point was ultimately about God judging the heart. Nonetheless, he anticipated that there should be crimes for which the perpetrator must answer to governmental authority in order for life to proceed in avoidance of anarchy. The Old Testament reveals that God was going to provide that orderliness in Israel through judges until the Israelites demanded a king like everyone else had.
No question, even before the American Revolution, there were efforts at creating a government of the people. The American model contemplated in 1776 was different. As the founders projected, they had within their grasp what philosophers had only dreamed of. They had a chance, an opportunity if they would seize it, to govern themselves. Sure, England had a parliament, but it also still had a very powerful, unelected king. Yes, Rome had a senate during its greatest days, but they had an undemocratic Caesar.
The American founders’ dreamed of a government in which the PEOPLE themselves were exclusively the government. The PEOPLE would hire and fire servant workers to carry out their will. The PEOPLE would be the masters, and the hired representatives would be the SERVANTS—call them “public servants” if you like, but that is what they are supposed to be.
There is a reason the Latin words, “Annuit Coeptis” are on the Great Seal of our country directly above the representation of the all-seeing eye of God. When the founders adopted the Great Seal, which is found on the back of one dollar bills, they were so excited with what prayer had wrought, they wanted the notation that: “He (God) has smiled on our undertaking.” That is what it means.
One of the founders’ proudest accomplishments was a government that had so many checks and balances that it would be difficult to overstep governing boundaries. Since they did not trust the hired help to restrict themselves in making laws only as directed by the people who hired them, they created not one body of representatives, but two.
The second body would not be merely be socially elite figures, but would have full power to stop the larger body from making laws it did not agree with. In fact, the second body, we know to be the Senate, would be SELECTED by the state governments to insure that the larger body didn’t go off on a tangent and pass laws that would take away the states’ authority which was ultimately protected in the 10th Amendment.
If a federal senator ever did try to take away a state’s rights, that senator could be, would be, hauled back to the state and replaced by someone who was not complicit in big federal government usurpation. The founders’ idea was to keep as much power locally as possible while still allowing enough power at the federal level to increase chances of protecting all the states from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Over the years, the method of selecting senators changed with the 17th Amendment, and the check on federal usurpation was gone. So the federal power jurisdiction exploded. There are some wonderful suggestions on how to get it back under control, but that is not the purpose in this article. The PEOPLE are still supposed to be the masters, and the elected representatives are supposed to be the servants.
Consider yourself as having started a major business, then you hire people to do a job at your business. Now picture those you hired not wanting to do the job for which you hired them, then hiring dozens more people and delegating to them their job and allowing them to make all the rules. Then those you have never met hire even more people with your money and they too do not produce anything.
Those newest people then are given the authority to tell everyone else what they can or cannot do. They begin bankrupting your business because you have more people delegating and regulating than you have producing. You would fire those original employees and get someone who would streamline the business and make it efficient and effective in doing what it was supposed to do—wouldn't you?
Well, the truth is that we have NOT done that. Instead, we have continued to hire people to run our country who continue to hire others who have made the government such a behemoth that it has taken on a life of its own. Not only have we not fired and rehired better servants, most of us do not even show up to make such hiring decisions on what we call “voting day.”
Most of us do not show up at the meetings to create an orderly society through punishment of those who do evil, called jury duty. Most of us also do not push to have our co-owners hire good people by endorsing and urging that good servants be hired, called supporting good candidates. And most people certainly don't dirty their hands when they could do the job better than those they hire, called running for office.
That’s right. YOU are the government! You are God’s minister to punish evil and reward good conduct. But, too many Christians have refused the figurative “sword” or the power that in this great country, this little experiment in democracy as a republic, is supposed to be held by YOU. You are the one God has ordained to run the country, but you haven’t even participated. So your employee staff has far too many who do not do what they were hired to do. And that means, for your inactions and omissions as an employer, you are getting exactly the kind of government you deserve. That is the old adage: “Democracy insures people will be governed no better than they deserve.”
That is also why we have penalties for societal good things like marriage (the income tax “marriage penalty”) and for 45 years we have rewarded having children out of wedlock instead of helping incentivise such women to finish their education. It is why we have a death tax that says you were too successful so we must take 55% away and give to the government. It is why people have in the past been threatened with removal from low-rent government housing for saving too much money for a down payment on a home. We punish good behavior too often and reward potentially hurtful conduct. It is also why we passed a Wall Street bailout to reward uncontrolled and irresponsible greed. It is also why TARP has not already been repealed, since it would mean admitting that maybe those who voted for it, including Republican leaders, had made a mistake.
So, as unpleasant as it may be, far too many of the employers, We the PEOPLE, have been lazy and apathetic which has caused we the people to get what we deserve. But it is high time the people of this country started deserving better. It is time that the PEOPLE as rulers in this land started exercising the God-given power in this country by voting, by serving on jury duty, filling appointed positions when called upon, by supporting the best candidates, and even by running for office. It is high time that we gave God something to smile about again. Just be assured, we get what we deserve in America for a government, for better or worse.
_______
Louie Gohmert, a Republican, has represented the First Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2005.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Remove Iowa Supreme Court Judges
by Rep. Steve King
For too long we left the Iowa judicial branch to its own devices. Just like the rest of government, it has grown out of control without the blessing of Iowans or the watchful eye of voters.
With the judicial retention vote looming, the debate has shifted into two separate, but vitally important topics. First is the Varnum v. Brien (Same-sex marriage) opinion that highlighted the Iowa Supreme Court’s willful determination to legislate from the bench. The other question is: what to do about it.
Actually, the lawless decision in Varnum can only be debated as to how far-reaching and limitless the current court could rule if unchecked. When the Iowa Supreme Court justices claim omnipotent power to imagine and confer constitutional rights that “were at one time unimagined” [Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009). Page 15 of the opinion] it is time to remove them on that basis alone. It is obvious they feel empowered and will follow their whim in future decisions rather than the law. They have usurped the constitutional authority of the legislature and will do so at every notion until they are stopped by a vote of the people. To read their opinion brings one to the conclusion that these justices believe they have the authority to find the Constitution—unconstitutional.
On the matter of what the citizens of Iowa can do about their rogue judges, the retention vote is the only recourse. When judges usurp the letter of the Constitution and the Code of Iowa to suit their whim, they must be removed from office. The very fact that our Constitution calls for a retention vote on a general election ballot means the Constitutional intention is for the voters of Iowa to use their moral authority and judgment to check the runaway judicial branch.
However, judges do not want to acknowledge that fact. They encourage rubber-stamp acquiescence from the citizens they want to rule. Some days ago, Judge Robert B. Hanson, the creator of Iowa’s same-sex marriage status, revealed the political nature of our current judicial system when he called opponents of his ruling “misguided.” He continued to characterize a ‘no’ vote on judicial retention as “an abuse of the system.” The U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Iowa were both designed so that, if any branch of government gets out of hand, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
Elitism and judicial arrogance are on full display. They have for so long controlled their own hierarchy and culture that they openly consider our constitutionally granted right to vote our conscience and judgment as “an abuse of the system.”
Heretofore, judges have wrapped themselves in the cloak of jurisprudence. The average Iowan believes that judges carefully and scholarly study the Constitution, the statutes, and case law, then render a decision that is the objective result of jurisprudence. Some do. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told me that when he is unhappy with the effect of a decision he has made, he is confident that he has made the right legal decision. Not so with activist judges. They match their personal, political and policy preference with their conclusion, and then rationalize using creative and convoluted legal jujitsu to work backwards into their opinion. This is the stuff of Iowa’s judge made same-sex marriage policy.
Iowa law says that marriage is only between “a male and a female” [Iowa Code section 595.2(1)]. No judge can be allowed to remain on the bench who would turn thousands of years of law and human history on its head by discovering rights that “were at one time unimagined” in our Constitution. If Iowans read the decision, Varnum v. Brien, as I have, they will realize that their only recourse is to vote “NO” on all three Iowa Supreme Court judges who are on the back side of the ballot. I will vote “NO” on all three judges because it’s my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and because it’s time to put the control of all three branches of government back in the hands of the people.
______
Rep. King was elected to Iowa's 5th District in 2002. He sits on the House Judiciary Committee and its Constitution and Immigration subcommittees.
For too long we left the Iowa judicial branch to its own devices. Just like the rest of government, it has grown out of control without the blessing of Iowans or the watchful eye of voters.
With the judicial retention vote looming, the debate has shifted into two separate, but vitally important topics. First is the Varnum v. Brien (Same-sex marriage) opinion that highlighted the Iowa Supreme Court’s willful determination to legislate from the bench. The other question is: what to do about it.
Actually, the lawless decision in Varnum can only be debated as to how far-reaching and limitless the current court could rule if unchecked. When the Iowa Supreme Court justices claim omnipotent power to imagine and confer constitutional rights that “were at one time unimagined” [Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009). Page 15 of the opinion] it is time to remove them on that basis alone. It is obvious they feel empowered and will follow their whim in future decisions rather than the law. They have usurped the constitutional authority of the legislature and will do so at every notion until they are stopped by a vote of the people. To read their opinion brings one to the conclusion that these justices believe they have the authority to find the Constitution—unconstitutional.
On the matter of what the citizens of Iowa can do about their rogue judges, the retention vote is the only recourse. When judges usurp the letter of the Constitution and the Code of Iowa to suit their whim, they must be removed from office. The very fact that our Constitution calls for a retention vote on a general election ballot means the Constitutional intention is for the voters of Iowa to use their moral authority and judgment to check the runaway judicial branch.
However, judges do not want to acknowledge that fact. They encourage rubber-stamp acquiescence from the citizens they want to rule. Some days ago, Judge Robert B. Hanson, the creator of Iowa’s same-sex marriage status, revealed the political nature of our current judicial system when he called opponents of his ruling “misguided.” He continued to characterize a ‘no’ vote on judicial retention as “an abuse of the system.” The U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Iowa were both designed so that, if any branch of government gets out of hand, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
Elitism and judicial arrogance are on full display. They have for so long controlled their own hierarchy and culture that they openly consider our constitutionally granted right to vote our conscience and judgment as “an abuse of the system.”
Heretofore, judges have wrapped themselves in the cloak of jurisprudence. The average Iowan believes that judges carefully and scholarly study the Constitution, the statutes, and case law, then render a decision that is the objective result of jurisprudence. Some do. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told me that when he is unhappy with the effect of a decision he has made, he is confident that he has made the right legal decision. Not so with activist judges. They match their personal, political and policy preference with their conclusion, and then rationalize using creative and convoluted legal jujitsu to work backwards into their opinion. This is the stuff of Iowa’s judge made same-sex marriage policy.
Iowa law says that marriage is only between “a male and a female” [Iowa Code section 595.2(1)]. No judge can be allowed to remain on the bench who would turn thousands of years of law and human history on its head by discovering rights that “were at one time unimagined” in our Constitution. If Iowans read the decision, Varnum v. Brien, as I have, they will realize that their only recourse is to vote “NO” on all three Iowa Supreme Court judges who are on the back side of the ballot. I will vote “NO” on all three judges because it’s my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and because it’s time to put the control of all three branches of government back in the hands of the people.
______
Rep. King was elected to Iowa's 5th District in 2002. He sits on the House Judiciary Committee and its Constitution and Immigration subcommittees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)