Jesters mace | Christian, Constitutionalist & Patriot WP.com site.
Tag Archive: congress
On Feb 7th, 2012 I posted CONGRESS IS TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT OF BEING A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN TO BE PRESIDENT!
Although I’ve made many references to the Constitutional requirement that both parents be U.S. citizens, at this juncture, I wasn’t able to locate that exact statement in the Constitution showing this in my postings. I know it’s there…somewhere. In any event I felt the need to repost the video on this subject before anymore damage is done to our gravely ill Republic:
Truth Watch
The controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed by the U.S. House by a vote of 288-127 (18 abstained), and headed to the Senate for a vote (possibly Friday, April 25th). Amendments were passed in secret.
CISPA will allow private companies to share the personal data of every U.S. citizen and resident (sometimes, incorrect data, as I recently discovered and the company refused to correct it), with the U.S. government, its law enforcement agencies, intelligence services, and over 600 other agencies.
Therefore, if you patronize Facebook, Twitter, Google, Verizon, et al, your personal information will be provided to the U.S. Government and law enforcement — for whatever purpose the agencies deem necessary, in violation of the Fourth Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights.
CISPA’s purpose is purportedly to prevent cyber-attacks or trace an attack back to its source. The explanation of CISPA’s necessity is that cyber-attacks are weapons in the virtual battlefield and could lead to actual war. Seriously?!?
CISPA also amends the National Security Act, allowing U.S. intelligence services to share classified information with anyone, even persons without a security clearance. An amendment to CISPA was proposed, allowing U.S. companies to retain their privacy policies, but was voted down. These promises made to you, including terms of service, will be unenforceable should the Senate ratify the Bill. Hope you kept a list of companies you do business with!
According to Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), these companies are “completely exonerated from any risk of liability.” Just like Monsanto! Eat our poison – you can’t sue us!
The Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment, of the U.S. Constitution, states:
‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’
‘Probable cause’ requires providing evidence of probable criminal activity before the law enforcement agency is allowed to search a citizen’s person, home, papers, and effects, specifying the area to be searched.
The Fourth Amendment does not protect against private companies mining for information about you for their own gain. It protects you against the U.S. government unlawfully accessing your data without a search warrant. CISPA, however, will allow the government to acquire all your personal data without a warrant, without probable cause, without your knowledge, and for free.
According to the privacy and civil liberties group, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF),
“As it stands, CISPA is dangerously vague, and should not allow for any expansion of government powers through a series of poorly worded definitions. If the drafters intend to give new powers to the government’s already extensive capacity to examine your private information, they should propose clear and specific language so we can have a real debate.”
Once information is acquired by the U.S. government, CISPA supposedly only allows the Government to use the information as it pertains to ‘cyber-security’, rather than ‘national security’. However, the poorly defined language in CISPA enables its misuse. As with Obamacare, once it is in effect, it will prove much more intrusive than those who voted in favor, misguidedly intend.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls CISPA ‘fatally flawed‘ and ‘extreme‘, stating, ”The core problem is that CISPA allows too much sensitive information to be shared with too many people in the first place, including the National Security Agency.”
I looked at the main stream media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN) to see how this is being reported and the results are as follows:
NBC: NOTHING!
SomeCBS headlines:
- As CISPA Cyber security Bill Passes House, Privacy Advocates Mobilize
- Internet Activists Draft Declaration of Internet Freedom
A sample of ABC headlines:
- House Passes Pro-Business Cybersecurity Bill
- CISPA: The controversy surrounding it and how it might affect you
CNN: (ONLY ONE!)
- Reddit co-founder urges tech leaders to fight CISPA
Has the United States Government conspired to undermine HIPAA and the Fourth Amendment? Yes!
Common sense tells us that health records cannot provide the Government with anything akin to cybersecurity ‘threat information’. This is a phishing expedition by the U.S. Government to gain access to your private, personal information. Not only does it violate the Fourth Amendment – it violates HIPAA – it violates U.S. citizens! Have they lost their minds?!?
No – there’s a purpose in the seeming madness. To enslave You!
—–
I wrote my Senator – will YOU?
ALL amendments in the Bill of Rights are important to American citizens, NOT just the Second Amendment! They are NOT to be infringed upon and they are not amendable!
Yet, Congress continues to try to undo the Bill of Rights. Therefore, are we to assume a name change for the United States of America is coming soon?
Is Congress going to give authority over to the United Nations, as well?
The CISPA Bill passed by the House violates the Fourth Amendment and, if the Senate passes it, there will be lawsuits filed. If no one else does, I will!
Congress: Stop trying to undo the Bill of Rights!
We are NOT stupid and we know who is behind this! We will fight them and their ‘god’ tooth and nail, if need be.
The Guard’s violation of the Fourth Amendment in the Boston suburbs is disgusting and criminal! This is what the British did to the Colonies! Is this practice for the future? Not all Americans will be so willing to have the government barge into their homes with rifles drawn and no Search Warrant! The center of the country is not like the coasts. You know this.
Because I exercise my right to free speech, the government calls me a ‘terrorist’. I am an AMERICAN! I have rights that the government CANNOT take away no matter what ‘law’ Congress wants to squeak by or executive order Obama wants to pen to give himself power that is also un Constitutional. We will not observe them because they are in violation of our Constitution!
We are becoming GERMANY – and the USSR! This must STOP!
A Constituent,
Laurie Giesler
Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government?
Answer:
No, it’s the text of a wildy inaccurate chain email.
Markers that should have been red flags
- Republicans control only 14 state legislatures – The Attorney General of a State files lawsuits, not the Governor – State Legislatures call for a Convention, not the Governor – It takes 2/3 of the States to call the Convention, not 3/4 – The proposed amendment has nothing to do with the ficticious lawsuit – The email says “Send this to 20 friends”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Governors_of_35_states_have_filed_suit_against_the_Federal_Government
Received via e-mail 4-10-13
Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
This is an idea that we should address.
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that passed … in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever . The self-serving must stop.
If each person that receives this will forward it on to 5 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.
Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States …”
You are one of my 5.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES by ANDREA NOBLE
Law enforcement says gun restrictions are ineffective: Survey
A national survey of law enforcement shows officers believe many proposed gun control measures — including bans on assault weapons — will be ineffective at reducing violent crime and that legal gun ownership by private citizens would prove a better safeguard.
Among the findings of a survey by the industry website PoliceOne, which tallied responses from 15,000 verified active and retired law enforcement professionals, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership or accessibility, editor Doug Wyllie said.
SEE RELATED: Background checks brokered: Sens. Pat Toomey, Joe Manchin reach gun deal, report says
The survey found that 91.5 percent of respondents believe a federal ban on the manufacture or sale of semi-automatic weapons would have no effect or a negative effect on the reduction of violent crime. Though a national assault weapons ban is dead in the water, numerous states — including Maryland, Connecticut and New York — have adopted or enhanced their own bans.
The vast majority of officers also believe legally armed citizens are important in the reduction of crime rates.
“It’s my analysis that by and large law enforcement officers favor enforcement of current laws and enforcement against illegal guns,” Mr. Wyllie said. “They also favor responsible, armed citizens in the midst of other civilians out there to help protect innocents from harm.”
Release of the survey, conducted March 4-13, comes at a time politicians in Congress and around the country are pushing for stricter gun restrictions in the name of public safety. The Senate is scheduled Thursday to take up gun legislation that would expand the types of gun sales subject to background checks, and impose new penalties on gun traffickers and straw purchasers — those who buy guns to transfer them to people who can’t legally own them.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. addressed an audience of law enforcement officers from around the country at the White House in support of the administration’s gun control measures. But the survey results, issued Monday, indicate a strong undercurrent in the public safety community that is critical of additional gun restrictions.
When asked what would help most in preventing a large-scale public shooting, the majority of respondents, 28.8 percent, favor more permissive concealed-carry policies for civilians. The second most popular answer, with 19.6 percent, was that more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons would prevent a large-scale shooting, followed by 15.8 percent who believed more armed security would prevent such a tragedy.
SEE RELATED: Harry Reid sets stage for showdown gun vote in Senate, dares GOP to filibuster
Less than 1 percent of respondents believed that further restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition magazines would prevent a large-scale shooting.
When asked what impact a legally armed citizen could have had in a mass shooting such as the school shooting in Newtown, Conn. or movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., a whopping 80 percent believed casualties would have been reduced while another 6.2 percent thought casualties would have been avoided altogether.
As long as civilians were deemed psychologically and medically capable and did not have any felony convictions, 91.3 percent favored allowing civilians to carry concealed firearms.
The survey was publicized to more than 400,000 registered PoliceOne members and vetted to ensure responders worked in law enforcement, Mr. Wyllie said. While not scientifically conducted, the poll was an opportunity to give rank-and-file officers who Mr. Wyllie said might be dissuaded from speaking publicly on the gun control debate a way to “be seen on the issue.”
“There hasn’t been a venue from which everyday patrol officers and sergeants can chime in,” Mr. Wyllie said. More than half of respondents identified themselves as officers or sergeants, while two-thirds came from departments with 500 or fewer personnel and three-quarters said they were currently on the job.
The survey also revealed divergent thoughts on gun buyback programs, which gained renewed attention in the wake of the Newtown shooting. While police departments around the county have hosted gun buybacks, touted as a way to get dangerous weapons off the streets, 81.5 percent of respondents did not believe gun buybacks were effective in reducing gun violence.
The opinions expressed in the survey clearly don’t represent all of law enforcement.
After a recent White House gathering of police chiefs and sheriffs, Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger told The Associated Press that police chiefs are “very supportive of the assault weapons ban.” Maryland passed legislation last week that prohibits 45 guns under such a ban, limits handgun magazines to no more than 10 rounds and requires residents to obtain a license for a gun.
In Colorado, where gun control legislation was passed last month that prohibits the sale of ammunition magazines holding more than 15 rounds and requires background checks for all private gun sales, elected sheriffs and the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police are on different sides of the issue. The association spoke out in support of the legislation before its passage, while The Denver Post reported Tuesday that 37 of the state’s 62 elected sheriffs are preparing to sue in order to overturn the law.
The Major Cities Chiefs Association, a professional association of police executives representing the largest U.S. and Canadian cities, adopted a platform in January that supports an assault weapons ban and bills that prevent gun trafficking and record keeping of ammunition purchases.
Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey, president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the former chief of the District’s Metropolitan Police Department, recently acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press that not all law enforcement personnel agree on gun control priorities.
“You’re not going to get 100 percent of people to agree on anything as it relates to gun control, and we’re no different, but a majority of people in the room recognize that something needs to be done,” he said.
Related articles
-
PoliceOne’s Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers’ perspectives (policeone.com)
-
Survey of More Than 15,000 Cops Finds Most of Them Oppose More Gun Control (reason.com)
-
Police Poll: Majority Favors Armed Teachers in Schools and Expanded Concealed Carry Rights (guns.com)
-
Police Officer Gun Control Survey Belies Common “Wisdom” (excoplawstudent.wordpress.com)
-
Obama’s DOJ admits assault weapons ban won’t cut violence (theblaze.com)
-
DOJ: “Assault Weapons Not Major Contributor to Gun Crime” (godfatherpolitics.com)
-
Cops: Gun Control Won’t Work (thetruthaboutguns.com)
-
Police officers disagree with gun-control orthodoxy (conservativeread.com)
-
Colorado Sheriffs To Ignore New Gun Laws (personalliberty.com)
-
‘Secret arrests’ fear as police seek ban on naming suspects: Plan threatens to turn Britain into a ‘banana republic’ (dailymail.co.uk)
- http://sohereandnow.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/the-washington-times-by-andrea-noble/
Gold font my emphasis “X”
WND EXCLUSIVE
‘Monsanto Protection Act’ slipped into continuing resolution spending bill
With a rising global population and less arable land available for cultivation, scientists have been looking for ways to obtain more and better food supplies, and many believe that genetic engineering holds the key to solving the problem.
Now Congress has put its oar into the water, with a special provision that protects those companies producing genetically modified food from all sorts of liabilities.
Genetically modified foods are derived from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. When a gene from one organism is manipulated to change another organism, the result is a new, genetically modified organism. The organism is also sometimes called “transgenic,” because of the transfer of genes.
Many insects have been subject to gene-transfer research, due to their short life cycle and the relatively simple genome structure. The genome contains all of an organism’s genetic information. The word comes from the combination of the words “gene” and “chromosome.”
Gene transfer is also making its way into the commercial market. The GloFish is a patented genetically altered brand of red, green and orange fluorescent zebrafish. In 2003, the GloFish became the first genetically modified animal to become publicly available as a pet. The fish was quickly banned for sale in California.
The California Department of Fish and Game explained why it banned the fish:
“Moving a gene from one species to an entirely different species is an awesome display of human ingenuity and power over nature and should not be done for trivial purposes. … In instances where a transgenic organism can help feed the hungry, heal the sick or clean up the environment, the benefits may justify some level of risk. But creating a novelty pet is a frivolous use of this technology. No matter how low the risk is, there needs to be a public benefit that is higher than this. “
An increasing chorus of researchers believes that the benefits of genetically modified organisms do not justify the inherent risks.
Nowhere does the concern become more apparent than in genetically modified foods.
Foods have been modified for centuries, whether in yeast to make bread rise or using rennet to make cheese.
But today, genetically modified foods have short-cut the process to enhance or even eliminate particular characteristics in food. GMOs have been used to create crops that are resistant to infestations and are cheaper to produce – all by making a few changes in the plants’ DNA coding.
Plant geneticists can isolate the gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert the gene into a different plant, making it possible to grow the second, newly modified plant in areas that previously could not support agriculture.
GM techniques have also been utilized to transfer genes from plant organisms to non-plant organisms. The best known example of this is the use of the Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) into corn and other crops. 
B.t. is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. The bacterium has been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer.
Monsanto (Monsanto Company Inc.) has been in the forefront in GM technology. Monsanto has also been at the forefront of controversy about the perceived dangers of GM food productions.
The commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its Flavr Savr GM tomato. This version of tomatoes was engineered to delay its ripening time to optimize its “fresh off the farm” look in grocery stores. It was also the first GM food that was licensed for human consumption.
In 1997, in a move to expand its biotechnology and food science businesses, Monsanto bought the remaining shares of Calgene Inc. it did not already own for $240 million, acquiring the full ownership of the company. The move was part of Monsanto’s strategy of transforming itself from a chemical company into a life sciences company, with agricultural, food ingredient and pharmaceutical holdings.
Since then, its research on and production of GM foods have increased dramatically.
On its website, Monsanto boasts that more than 2 billion acres of farmland worldwide converted to GM crop production.
It also claims a “proven economic and environmental benefits, a solid record of safe use and promising products for our future.” The company also claims that “opponents of GM crops often describe them as ‘untested’ and ‘unsafe.’ This is simply untrue.”
That is a statement open to debate.
The Ohio State University Extension Center’s Family and Consumer Sciences Department has outlined some of the nutritional concerns of consuming GM Foods.
It rates the top concern as the risk of allergic reactions. It states that transference of allergens from one food protein to a GM modified food is extremely low and that in response to this concern, the FDA requires that each genetically modified organism be proven not to have incorporated an allergenic substance into it.
If that proof cannot be demonstrated, the FDA does not ban the GM food, it merely requires a label on the product to alert the consumer of its possible allergic reaction.
As to the fact that the FDA does not require clinical trials before approving a GM food, the agency gives the rationale that any GM modified protein in the food is digested the same as other foods and rendered harmless.
The FDA states that “the human body cells cannot discern whether a gene is from a ‘natural’ or genetically modified organism because they are completely unbound from the original plant.”
The FDA also notes that “clinical trials would be difficult to perform because 60-70 percent of food products in groceries are already genetically modified.”
“It would be extremely difficult to get a large enough control group (people who consume no GMOs) to conduct a valid study,” the agency says.
The reports from the government and government-sponsored studies, however, have not settled the matter. In his 2003 book, “Seeds of Deception,” author Jeffery Smith revealed that efforts to inform the public have been repressed. Smith said reliable science reports have been buried, and researchers that have warned about the dangers of GM foods have been maligned. The researchers, he said, have been threatened with funding cuts, and one researcher was fired for publishing his findings.
When eminent scientist Arpad Pusztai, Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, went public about his accidental discovery that genetically modified potatoes severely damage the immune system and organs of rats, he was suspended from the prestigious Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, where he had worked for 35 years. He was then silenced with threats of a lawsuit.
The resulting controversy became known as the Pusztai affair.
Because of the rising chorus of skeptics railing against GMOs, Monsanto is apparently taking no chances, protecting itself from any liability regarding its products.
As is frequently done in the world of “corporate welfare,” there was a small provision slipped into the HR 933 Senate Continuing Resolution spending bill. The provision (Sec. 735 shown on pp. 35-36 of the bill) essentially gives GM foods, of which Monsanto is the biggest player, a free pass from liability for any harm the crops may cause.
The rider, officially called the “Farmer Assurance Provision,” states that any company, primarily Monsanto, is beyond the reach of the judicial system. The courts cannot stop the “movement, planting, cultivation or introduction into commerce” of a GMO until a disposition of its safety is determined by the secretary of the agriculture “in a timely manner.” Why the paragraph was hidden in a 240-page appropriation bill has never been explained.
The provision is now commonly called the “Monsanto Protection Act.”
What also has not been explained is why President Obama has never fulfilled his 2007 campaign pledge to require labeling of GMO-derived products. The pledge seemed heartfelt, especially given Michelle Obama’s famous organic garden on the White House lawn and her public commitment to healthy eating choices.
Even after more than 250,000 people signed a petition opposing the provision after its passage, the White House has been silent on the issue.
Equally troubling is that Monsanto helped craft the language in the rider that protects it from liability.
Not all countries are embracing GMO as is the U.S.
In 2012, Russia suspended imports of Monsanto’s GMO corn after a French study linked the corn to cancer. In September 2012, France extended its temporary ban on Monsanto’s MON810 corn. MON810 is the same sweet corn sold in the U.S. for human consumption after it was quietly approved by the USDA.
Ireland has banned the growing of GMO crops for the last four years. Japan and Egypt have also banned the cultivation of GMO crops. In 2010, Switzerland extended a moratorium on genetically modified animals and plants, banning GMOs until November 2013.
Tasmania is getting ready to renew its moratorium on GMOs. Tasmania’s dairy farmers are warning that the ban could disadvantage their sector over the next few years, while Tasmania’s fruit growers have warned there will be consequences if the state’s blanket ban on genetically modified organisms is revoked. Besides the suspected risks inherent in GMOs, Lucy Gregg of Fruit Growers Tasmania says the state’s GMO-free status is vital to overseas marketing campaigns, particularly in Japan and Korea.
GM foods have been removed in Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Madeira, New Zealand, Peru, South Australia and Switzerland.
In the U.S., the cry to ban or at least label GM foods is growing.
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety,” charged that in the Senate’s “hidden backroom deal,” Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., “turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto.”
Mikulski is chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
“This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat majority in the Senate,” Kimbrell said in a statement to the International Business Times.
In the wake of the controversy surrounding the rider, many lawmakers are distancing themselves from the legislation. Many members of Congress who voted to approve the bill now say they were unaware the language existed. At a time in which bills such as Obamacare are rammed through a compliant Congress, this now seems to be a usual refrain.
Even though the provision will only live for the six months that the continuing funding measure is in effect, it sets a terrible precedent. The International Business Times notes “the message it sends is that corporations can get around consumer safety protections if they get Congress on their side.”
“Furthermore, it sets a precedent that suggests that court challenges are a privilege, not a right.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/congress-takes-sneaky-action-on-your-food/#lmTlmIjCwyPSwotZ.99
Posted with excellent comments from Townhall Cartoons – Another case of the frying pan calling the kettle black…
By Robert Ariail – April 02, 2013
William Eardley · Top Commenter
Ariael, you disingenous twit, Mark B Jimenel, Bobby Lee Rush, Bolley “Bo” Johnson, Roger L. Green, Gloria Davis, Elliot Spitzer, Jesse Jackson Jr., Jesse Jackson, Sr., James McGreever, Robert Torricelli, Sandy Berger, and the DNC. All convicted of felonies, all Democrats, and you try to imply the real criminals are the NRA. It is the caliber of the official and the morally founded principles he follows not the morally bankrupt doctrine of the Democratic Party.
Mike Dean · Top Commenter
As a supporter of the Constitution, and a gun owner, I have given the NRA permission to speak on my behalf before Congress on issues that matter to me. When they support certain candidates, they do so with money that I VOLUTARILY gave to them. Unlike, say, Planned Parenthood. Who gets a large chunk of their funds from the government. (i.e. tax dollars taken from me AGAINST MY WILL) Who then channels much of it back to the leftist politicians that kiss their a**. See the difference, Mr Ariail?
Michael Oulie · Top Commenter · Longwood University
I am really stoked about America Rising, the new Republican opposition research group. Can you believe it’ll be the first one republicans have ever had? The democrats have had them for years, many of them. You know what this means, right? It means that these complacent democrats, having never been put under that level of scrutiny before, are going to be caught with their pants down and wallets out. Get out your popcorn folks, this is going to be fun.
William Couch · Top Commenter · Apache Junction, Arizona
IF THEY HAD DONE A BACKGROUND CHECK ON THE TRAILER TRASH, HE WOULD PROBABLY BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW! Lets see, SS ID FRAUD, lying on his Illinois bar exam, HE is not a lawyer! Neither is Michelle, lost her license to insurance fraud. NUFF SAID!
Marians Musings · School Of Life
Among the people who are waking up to the fact that disarming us puts us completely at the mercy of politicians with their own agenda to control us completely are American blacks. Watch this most excellent video of them telling it like it is: http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded.
They’ll never give up; neither can we. ( I broke the petition link)
Creating a path to citizenship for millions of people in America was never going to be easy, but now the House is showing us why.
In a committee hearing last week, some representatives signaled that they will likely oppose that critical portion of reform.
But we have the opinion of the country on our side. President Obama has continued to call for commonsense reforms, and business and labor leaders have been coming together to support our framework.
Most importantly, more than 30,000 supporters have already signed our petition calling for commonsense reform.
Add your name to the petition today, before the Senate’s first hearing on immigration reform.
If we keep building momentum, I know we can make the most of this opportunity.
Thanks for your support,
Chuck Schumer
JOEFORAMERICA.COM – Pushback
Pushback
Posted by Pilgrim on Apr 18, 2013 in Politics
— Winston Churchill
— Margaret Thatcher
One word that sums up a takeaway from these two excellent quotes – Pushback. The tired old Republican establishment doesn’t get this concept because they are listening to the political consultant class. Fortunately there are some elected Republicans in the 113th Congress who do get it. We are deluding ourselves if we think that somehow we can call or write to the establishment politicians and get them to change their ways. It’s not gonna happen. The hard but necessary challenge is to recruit more conservatives to run for the House and Senate and kick the Old Guard out to pasture. It takes a lot of time and effort, but there already has been some victories. We now have 6 conservative senators and 43 conservative representatives in their 40′s that have a brain. The conservative senators are the more impressive because they have a bigger microphone than the representatives.
You can’t win the argument unless you fight and challenge the premises of your political opponents. It’s capitulation to accept the left’s narrative that more laws, government bureaucracies, and regulatory controls are needed. Sen. Rand Paul recently wrote a piece with pushback on this premise.
It seems at times that members of the general public understand pushback better than our elected members to Congress, but it was heartwarming to see 12 of the 16 Republicans who voted with the left in the Senate to proceed to creating more gun laws come out and vote against the gun law amendments. Listed below are all of the Republican senators who are in their 40′s. Not all of the Republican representatives in their 40′s are listed because some by their votes have failed to be sufficiently conservative.
Cross-posted at Unified Patriots
http://joeforamerica.com/2013/04/pushback/
Rate this: