I can not support Delaware's HB95. While I believe any manditory helmet laws and seat belt laws are unconstitutional. I can't support this bill on the technicality of the wording inside the Bill. The SYNOPSIS of this bill states that it
"eliminates the requirement that a person must have a safety helmet in their possession while operating or riding on a motorcycle".
This may sound like something that is good for liberty riders. However this is not the problem I have with the wording.
This bill does not change the age requirement in Title 21 of the Delaware Code; from a person "up to 19 years of age being told they "must wear a safety helmet while operating or riding on a motorcycle"."
bold texted is the wording that I have a problem with!!!
Delaware citizens at the age of 17 (with their parents consent) is permitted to join the military and die for the government. But that same government says you must be 19 before you get to choose whether or not to wear a lid.
The Bill should be worded to "Repeal" Title 21 and the Section related to this bad law-Title 21, Repeal it and not amend it.. Then amend the repeal to reflect individuals who are 17 with the parents consent or over age 18 years of age
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO MOTORCYCLES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE:
Section 1. Amend §4185(b), Title 21 of the Delaware Code by deleting the language “shall have in that person's possession a safety helmet approved by the Secretary of Safety and Homeland Security (hereinafter “Secretary”) through the Office of Highway Safety and” as it appears in subsection (b).
I understand the reason for the sponsors of HB 95 for introducing this Bill, at this time. Motorcyclists have been fighting for their right of choice for over 30 years and this wording is all wrong. For a true Liberty Rider to agree to.
It isn't about voters having liberty to choose at all. If so, it would have included repealing the manditory seatbelt law as well!
So, what is this bill actually about?
It is a political maneuver from the so called Two Party System who have not done their jobs correctly in serving the People!
This bill is about putting a breadcrumb on the table of a starving family (motorcyclists) to buy these political tricks, making motorcyclists believe the Two party's seated in the State General Assembly is doing something for people. And suggesting that a little is better than nothing at all.
This is to get motorcyclists votes in the upcoming elections. All for a bill that is actually no better than the current law that is already on the books.
HB 95 should not be needed at all. Instead of it reading "This bill eliminates the requirement that a person must have a safety helmet in their possession while operating or riding on a motorcycle. This bill does not change the ...requirement in Title 21 of the Delaware Code that a person up to 19 years of age must wear a safety helmet while operating or riding on a motorcycle.":
A New Bill should be drafted instead that reads:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
146th GENERAL ASSEMBLY
HOUSE BILL NO. 95
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 21 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO MOTORCYCLES.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE:
Section 1. Repeal §4185(b), Title 21 of the Delaware Code, the language “shall have in that person's possession a safety helmet approved by the Secretary of Safety and Homeland Security (hereinafter “Secretary”) through the Office of Highway Safety and” as it appears in subsection (b).
Amend §4185 with the language (b) every person up to 18 years of age, or up to 17 with the parents or guardians consent, operating or riding on a motorcycle shall wear eye protection and a motorcycle helmet approved by the Secretary of Safety and Homeland Security (hereinafter "Secretary") through the Office of Highway Safety by the Secretary
SYNOPSIS
This bill repeals the requirement that a person must have a safety helmet in their possession while operating or riding on a motorcycle. This bill amends the requirement in Title 21 of the Delaware Code that a person up to 18 years of age or 17 with the parents or guardians consent must wear a safety helmet while operating or riding on a motorcycle.
The biggest problem with this bill is the age requirements
You only have to be 17 with the parents consent to enlist and die for the government, Yet the government says you have to be 19 before you are allowed decide whether or not to wear a a lid if this bill were to be passed!!!!
Repeal §4185(b) and amend the Bill to reflect under the age of 18-
Change the wording in this bill to reflect this matter.Otherwise I can't support the Bill.
The reason for this process I urge is due to the General Assembly showing in good faith they seek to provide liberty to those who are voting age.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Constitution Question; Amendent II
The Constitutional Question: Does the rights protected by the Second Amendment include Citizens owning Fully Automatic Firearms?
By Earl Lofland
April 13, 2011
On April 12, at 4:30 AM the South Carolina Militia mustered Cadets from the Citadel also known as South Carolina Military Academy, who launched an attack upon Ft Sumter with cannon fire lasting for 32 hours, until the commander; US Army Maj. Robert Anderson surrendered the fort to South Carolina, marking the beginning of the “War Between the States”. Many school books teach the War was about freeing Slaves. Yet there are many more issues that were involved besides just the topic of slavery among the several States in the Union, dating as far back as 1798.
If you ask people today where the first shots were fired that started the War, and who fired the first shots, an alarming amount of people answer with the Federal government fired the first shots on April 12. And some believe the first battle was the Battle of Gettysburg. Disturbingly because many people were uninterested in American history in school, almost two centuries have passed, where States have had to endure a standing army, that has lead up to people today growing so accustomed to a standing federal military force. They rally around at celebrations waving flags; shouting slogans, and wearing logos saying: “Support the Troops”. However, when you look at the reason the Second Amendment was created the threat of a standing army was one of the most dangerous concerns the people of the States seen as threat to either diluting or ultimately eliminating their individual liberty. In 1798 Congress and the President, John Adams first began to take these dangerous steps - an encroachment of the rights of the people of each State, when the Union Congress passed, and President Adams signed into law; the Alien Seditions Act, leading to Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison retaliating with the Kentucky Virginia Resolutions, later to be known as the ‘Principles of 98’ or the “Nullification Crisis”.
The Citadel Bulldogs as they are known today. From the city of what used to be known as Charles Town South Carolina, (today known as Charleston, SC) were among the members of that States militia. After Major Anderson surrendered the fort to the Citadel and State of South Carolina's militia on April 13, 1861, the Union Army was then permitted to leave the fort without the threat of being harmed or captured. Outraged by South Carolina's arrogance and the embarrassment of the Union Army being physically removed from the State, Republican President Mr. Lincoln ordered the Secretary of War, Mr. Simon Cameron to muster 3 regiments from each of the States in the Union of States in retaliation against the seven states who were now called seditionists, for deciding to separate themselves from an overpowering and unbalanced government, that since 1798 had continuously encroached upon the rights of the people of the States . Five days later; on April 17, 1861, Virginia also voted and seceded from the Union.
In a Letter to the Secretary of War the Governor of Virginia wrote:
Executive Department, Richmond, Va., April 15, 1861. Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War: Sir: I have received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time I have received your communications mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia "the quota assigned in a table," which you append, "to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged." In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object - an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 - will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.
– Respectfully, John Letcher
In the following weeks Maryland and 6 other states voted on secession where Just before April 29, The Secretary of War ordered the US Army to go into Maryland to detain each member of the Maryland General Assembly who would vote in favor of secession. This was an further encroachment on States rights. Which prevented the people of Maryland from leaving the Union as it was known would happen if all the member s of Maryland’s state Convention had been permitted to vote.
The principles of nullification was originally accepted in 1814 by the Hartford Convention of New Englanders as well as many in the south, who recognized the Kentucky Virginia Resolutions as a protection against federal encroachments on their rights, and remained a point of contention; eventually leading to the crisis that erupted in 1832 with the Unions passage of The Tariff of 1832. Despite pleas from Southern representatives, who failed to moderate the protective barriers erected in earlier legislation, South Carolina called a state convention that passed a decision to nullify both, the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 within their borders, and threatened to secede if the federal government attempted to collect those tariff duties. This struggle between the business owners and people of the several States which formed a Union in 1787 went back and forth until 1860 when the predominantly agricultural states finally were threatened by seeing their economy collapse under the unbalanced tariffs which were leveraged to appease the industrial northern states business owners from paying an equal share in the operations of the central government. Robert Hayne (of Webster-Hayne Debate fame) resigned from the Senate to run for governor of South Carolina, and John C. Calhoun resigned as vice president, to take Mr. Hayne’s seat in the Senate. Both men spearheaded the nullification drive. Making the issue a real possibility of secession and the very threat of war was now seen.
President Jackson immediately offered his thought on this matter, that nullification was tantamount to treason, following the same path that occurred in 1798 with the passage of the Alien Seditions Act, ordering the dispatch of naval ships to the Charleston harbor and began deploying US military to Fort Sumter and other federal fortifications. This outraged the people of many States, reminding them of a similar action which occurred not but 70 years prior- leading up to the States forming a union and ultimately Declaring war against Great Britain and the English Army. The Unions Congress supported President Jackson however and passed a Force Bill in early 1833 authorizing Jackson to use a standing army to enforce the tariff measures. A standing army continued to occupy the States up until the outbreak of the War in 1861. US Forces were continuously marching against the will of the people of the States just as what occurred during the 1700's with the King of England and the British Army.
Meanwhile Henry Clay again took up his role as the Great Compromiser. On the same day the Force Bill passed, he secured passage of the Tariff of 1833. This latter measure provided for the gradual reduction of the tariff over 10 years down to the level which had existed in 1816. This compromise was acceptable to Calhoun who was not yet successful finding other states to support nullification. President Jackson signed both measures. South Carolina repealed its nullification measure, but then nullified the Force Bill and Mr. Jackson ignored this action. Though the issue died down, the outrage of a standing army and the other problems related to tariffs did not entirely go away, where they gradually morphed into the principles of States Decisions of nullification eventually leading to the secession of seven Southern states and the formation of the Confederacy.
In 1861, just one month before Mr. Lincoln took over the WH the SenatePassed the Morrill Tariff only possible because many low-tariff Southerners had left Congress after their states declared their secession. Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documented the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election where Abraham Lincoln's was recognized as a protectionist and supporting the Morrill Tariff bill. Reinhard noted, this bill helped Lincoln to secure support in the important electoral college states; Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.
Still as all these issues were occurring in Congress the people continued to find disinterest in what President Jackson had created in 1832 and Congress nor any president after Jackson had yet decided to repeal a standing army in the several states.
The Second Amendment, like other provisions within the Constitution, was born of a combination of compromise and necessity, where the people of the founders generation had become acutely aware of the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, particularly those which established a tragic deficiency in the system of national defense which the States were the primary source in providing this role. The Constitutional Convention was called to seek redress in the potential risks of an encroachment on the Rights of the People outlined within the spectrum of the Articles of Confederation. The Framers experience with Great Britain made them all to aware of the dangers a large standing army posed to encroach individual liberty, while there was a broad agreement that a stronger federal military was needed, there was insight that a large and permanent National Armed Force would be met by the people with strong resistance. In accordance to the Emerson Case; “The primary shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation was that the central government it provided for was too weak” “ US v. Emerson 270 F 3D 203, 236 (5th Cir. 2001)
In an Americus Curiae filed by Several Retired Officers of the US Military in the case District of Columbia et. Al vs. Heller 554 US 570 (2008) counsel wrote:
“The Second Amendment, which enshrines the preexisting right to personal firearm ownership in the Constitution, offered a solution agreeable to all concerned. For those (Primarily Anti-Federalists) Concerned with the threat posed by a large national army to domestic tranquility, guaranteeing the right to “keep and bear arms” in the Constitution ensured that the People could act as a direct check against any tyrannical impulses this national army might harbor. As both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, the national army, no matter how fierce, could never overtake a body politic armed and trained to defend its liberty.”
The Framers ensured that the people could act as a direct check on any threat to domestic tranquility that a standing army might present a federal army would be powerless against citizens trained to carry arms. The size of any standing army would not “exceed one hundredth Part of the whole number of souls; or “twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms or approximately twenty-five or thirty thousand men” (Federalist No. 46 James Madison).
The framers also understood the what threats a large standing army imposed upon the people whereupon they articulated this in the Militia Clause of ART. I, § 8 CL. 15 allowing the federal government to call upon the people to defend the nation in times of need, thus reducing the demand for a massive federal army.
US v. Emerson 270 F 3D 203, 236 (5th Cir. 2001)
(“[F]ederal militia powers obviated the need for, or (at least) minimized the likelihood of, a large standing army being kept in existence”)
Citizens role in each State, in defense of liberty, whether threatened domestically or from an enemy abroad, thus is necessary and depends on citizens having ready access to arms and those arms being equal to any arms a federal Standing Army would be issued. These citizens were recognized as fully voluntary not enlisted or hired by any State or federal militia. These citizens arms also are to be considered adequate to arms which any standing army would be issued.
(See The Federalist No. 29 (Alexander Hamilton) ). “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Should The Government impose Any Limits To What Arms Citizens Should Be Entitled To Own?
A Publication: A Democratic Federalist, Pennsylvania Herald Oct. 17, 1787 asked: “What then will there be to oppose to their encroachments? Should they ever pretend to Tyrannize over the people, their standing army will silence every popular effort….” The founders recognized and ensured through the Second Amendment the citizens could act as a direct check on any threat to domestic tranquility that a standing national army my represent; an army created by the central government would be powerless against the people of the States who were trained to arms.
In US v. Miller the “Sentiments of the time strongly disfavored standing armies” and the court ruled that the weapons that a person owned, in order to be constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment; the arms had to be used by and distributed to the US military. In the case of Miller, the question involved the possession a sawed off shot gun. Though the lower court ruled against Miller it was later reversed in Prinz v US. The question arose if a Sawed off shot gun was a government issued weapon prior to Miller; the answer is yes.
In American Munitions 1917-1919 Benedict Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War (1919) Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.. pp. 185–186. It states:
"When American troops were in the heat of the fighting in the summer of 1918, the German government sent a protest through a neutral agency to our Government asserting that our men were using shotguns against German troops in the trenches. The allegation was true; but our State Department replied that the use of such weapons was not forbidden by the Geneva Convention as the Germans had asserted. Manufactured primarily for the purpose of arming guards placed over German prisoners, these shotguns were undoubtedly in some instances carried into the actual fighting. The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers. The shell provided for these guns each contained a charge of nine heavy buckshot, a combination likely to have murderous effect in close fighting. "
The story in the Miller case began with the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal law regulating firearms. Prior to the NFA, it was believed the Constitution did not grant the federal government this power.
The new law levied a prohibitive $200 dollar tax on machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Government officials passed this law under the argument they were the weapons of choice for the criminal gangs during prohibition. This law was enacted during a period when the central government was in a determined effort to expand federal police powers at the expense of the States. (See The strange case of United States v. Miller Dr. Michael S. Brown (2001) Enter Stage Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism.)
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was reversed in Prinz v US, where the court determined the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, they determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. Though the Court did not attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment. It is clear the right of a person to own firearms that equate to those used as “Ordinary military equipment” or contribute to the common defense” today would be inclusive of the right for the people to own a wide variety of arms, used by the military today.
The militia consisted of the people bearing “Their own arms when called to active service” by the central government, “Arms which they kept and hence knew how to use” (See US v. Emerson 270 F 3D 203 at 235 (5th Cir. Ct. 2001). And by guaranteeing this right, citizens would have the skill needed to usefully bear them in defense of the nation, should the need arise. (US v Miller 307 US 174, 178-79)
Several Presidents also have recognized the need for the people to own military equipment grade arms, One during the time he commanded the Allied Forces, during WWII. General Dwight D Eisenhower observed “Any young man that has ahead of him prospective Service in the armed forces will do well to learn all he can about the military rifle… expertness in its use cannot be over emphasized” Letter from Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower Commander in Chief Allied Force Headquarters To Dr. M.J. Damlos Clevland Civilian Marksman Ass’n Aug 16,1943 (5A)
Individual gun ownership has a direct national security benefit; deterring foreign aggressors of attacking the United States. Those inclined to attack this country realize that for such an invasion to succeed, they would not only be forced to defeat a first rate military, They would also be required to defeat a people equally armed, trained, and prepared to defend its sovereignty . This principle has been passed down from the founders generation involving the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, The Spanish American War WWI and the Hawaiian Islands December 7, 1941. Each time the people of the States have proven that contributing to the defense of this nations defense depends upon owning and knowledge of how to use arms. Without the command or blessing from the Several States.
Another World War II veteran and president also attested civilian marksmanship was important “through competitive matches and sports in coordination with the (NBPRP), The National Rifle Association fills an important role in our national defense effort, and fosters in an active and meaningful fashion the spirit of the Minuteman. Letter from: John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. To: Franklin L. Orth Executive Office Presidnet, national Rifle Assoc. (March 20, 1961 (11A)
Are there any studies which show proof Citizens should be entitled to own the same arms as the Military?
In a recent Rand Corp. report they discovered that training periods i.e Basic Training, are not as effective at elevating performance quality as much as lifelong training . “Many studies suggest that it is the accumulation of training over a lifetime that has the largest effect on individual performance, rather than simply training in the previous six months” It was also reported those with previous experience or training in a variety of military-oriented tasks would have a better performance than the novice.
Jennifer Kavanagh, Rand National Defense Research Institute, Determinants of productivity for Military personnel; A Review of findings on the Contribution of Experience, Training, and Aptitude to Military Performance (2005)
In an earlier report published by Rand Corporation they noted that even the trainees with no previous experience assigned to units with a high number of experienced shooters showed a higher numbers of qualified marksman in their scores . This report explained that this was most likely due to Marksmanship instructors not needing to spend as much time with the experienced shooters, and or those with prior experience shared their knowledge and were providing additional coaching to the inexperienced shooters.
(See Restructuring Military Education and Training: Lessons from Rand Research 1 (1997) by John D Finkler And Paul S. Steinberg. The court also ruled that; “An effective Militia requires not only that people have guns, but that they be able to shoot them with more danger to their adversaries than themselves Silveira v Lockyer 328 F3D 567 (9th Cir 2003)
CONCLUSION: Evidence proves through Court decisions; Research reports; letters from Presidents and military officers; and writings by those who birthed this country with having expressed the people should be capable to preserve their liberty- that the Second Amendment should not be interpreted in such a way that the government encroaches upon the right of the people to own firearms of their personal choice. As long as the arms are “ordinary military equipment” which is “used for the common defense”.
By Earl Lofland
April 13, 2011
On April 12, at 4:30 AM the South Carolina Militia mustered Cadets from the Citadel also known as South Carolina Military Academy, who launched an attack upon Ft Sumter with cannon fire lasting for 32 hours, until the commander; US Army Maj. Robert Anderson surrendered the fort to South Carolina, marking the beginning of the “War Between the States”. Many school books teach the War was about freeing Slaves. Yet there are many more issues that were involved besides just the topic of slavery among the several States in the Union, dating as far back as 1798.
If you ask people today where the first shots were fired that started the War, and who fired the first shots, an alarming amount of people answer with the Federal government fired the first shots on April 12. And some believe the first battle was the Battle of Gettysburg. Disturbingly because many people were uninterested in American history in school, almost two centuries have passed, where States have had to endure a standing army, that has lead up to people today growing so accustomed to a standing federal military force. They rally around at celebrations waving flags; shouting slogans, and wearing logos saying: “Support the Troops”. However, when you look at the reason the Second Amendment was created the threat of a standing army was one of the most dangerous concerns the people of the States seen as threat to either diluting or ultimately eliminating their individual liberty. In 1798 Congress and the President, John Adams first began to take these dangerous steps - an encroachment of the rights of the people of each State, when the Union Congress passed, and President Adams signed into law; the Alien Seditions Act, leading to Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison retaliating with the Kentucky Virginia Resolutions, later to be known as the ‘Principles of 98’ or the “Nullification Crisis”.
The Citadel Bulldogs as they are known today. From the city of what used to be known as Charles Town South Carolina, (today known as Charleston, SC) were among the members of that States militia. After Major Anderson surrendered the fort to the Citadel and State of South Carolina's militia on April 13, 1861, the Union Army was then permitted to leave the fort without the threat of being harmed or captured. Outraged by South Carolina's arrogance and the embarrassment of the Union Army being physically removed from the State, Republican President Mr. Lincoln ordered the Secretary of War, Mr. Simon Cameron to muster 3 regiments from each of the States in the Union of States in retaliation against the seven states who were now called seditionists, for deciding to separate themselves from an overpowering and unbalanced government, that since 1798 had continuously encroached upon the rights of the people of the States . Five days later; on April 17, 1861, Virginia also voted and seceded from the Union.
In a Letter to the Secretary of War the Governor of Virginia wrote:
Executive Department, Richmond, Va., April 15, 1861. Hon. Simon Cameron, Secretary of War: Sir: I have received your telegram of the 15th, the genuineness of which I doubted. Since that time I have received your communications mailed the same day, in which I am requested to detach from the militia of the State of Virginia "the quota assigned in a table," which you append, "to serve as infantry or rifleman for the period of three months, unless sooner discharged." In reply to this communication, I have only to say that the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such use or purpose as they have in view. Your object is to subjugate the Southern States, and a requisition made upon me for such an object - an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution or the act of 1795 - will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and, having done so, we will meet it in a spirit as determined as the administration has exhibited toward the South.
– Respectfully, John Letcher
In the following weeks Maryland and 6 other states voted on secession where Just before April 29, The Secretary of War ordered the US Army to go into Maryland to detain each member of the Maryland General Assembly who would vote in favor of secession. This was an further encroachment on States rights. Which prevented the people of Maryland from leaving the Union as it was known would happen if all the member s of Maryland’s state Convention had been permitted to vote.
The principles of nullification was originally accepted in 1814 by the Hartford Convention of New Englanders as well as many in the south, who recognized the Kentucky Virginia Resolutions as a protection against federal encroachments on their rights, and remained a point of contention; eventually leading to the crisis that erupted in 1832 with the Unions passage of The Tariff of 1832. Despite pleas from Southern representatives, who failed to moderate the protective barriers erected in earlier legislation, South Carolina called a state convention that passed a decision to nullify both, the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 within their borders, and threatened to secede if the federal government attempted to collect those tariff duties. This struggle between the business owners and people of the several States which formed a Union in 1787 went back and forth until 1860 when the predominantly agricultural states finally were threatened by seeing their economy collapse under the unbalanced tariffs which were leveraged to appease the industrial northern states business owners from paying an equal share in the operations of the central government. Robert Hayne (of Webster-Hayne Debate fame) resigned from the Senate to run for governor of South Carolina, and John C. Calhoun resigned as vice president, to take Mr. Hayne’s seat in the Senate. Both men spearheaded the nullification drive. Making the issue a real possibility of secession and the very threat of war was now seen.
President Jackson immediately offered his thought on this matter, that nullification was tantamount to treason, following the same path that occurred in 1798 with the passage of the Alien Seditions Act, ordering the dispatch of naval ships to the Charleston harbor and began deploying US military to Fort Sumter and other federal fortifications. This outraged the people of many States, reminding them of a similar action which occurred not but 70 years prior- leading up to the States forming a union and ultimately Declaring war against Great Britain and the English Army. The Unions Congress supported President Jackson however and passed a Force Bill in early 1833 authorizing Jackson to use a standing army to enforce the tariff measures. A standing army continued to occupy the States up until the outbreak of the War in 1861. US Forces were continuously marching against the will of the people of the States just as what occurred during the 1700's with the King of England and the British Army.
Meanwhile Henry Clay again took up his role as the Great Compromiser. On the same day the Force Bill passed, he secured passage of the Tariff of 1833. This latter measure provided for the gradual reduction of the tariff over 10 years down to the level which had existed in 1816. This compromise was acceptable to Calhoun who was not yet successful finding other states to support nullification. President Jackson signed both measures. South Carolina repealed its nullification measure, but then nullified the Force Bill and Mr. Jackson ignored this action. Though the issue died down, the outrage of a standing army and the other problems related to tariffs did not entirely go away, where they gradually morphed into the principles of States Decisions of nullification eventually leading to the secession of seven Southern states and the formation of the Confederacy.
In 1861, just one month before Mr. Lincoln took over the WH the SenatePassed the Morrill Tariff only possible because many low-tariff Southerners had left Congress after their states declared their secession. Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documented the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election where Abraham Lincoln's was recognized as a protectionist and supporting the Morrill Tariff bill. Reinhard noted, this bill helped Lincoln to secure support in the important electoral college states; Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.
Still as all these issues were occurring in Congress the people continued to find disinterest in what President Jackson had created in 1832 and Congress nor any president after Jackson had yet decided to repeal a standing army in the several states.
The Second Amendment, like other provisions within the Constitution, was born of a combination of compromise and necessity, where the people of the founders generation had become acutely aware of the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, particularly those which established a tragic deficiency in the system of national defense which the States were the primary source in providing this role. The Constitutional Convention was called to seek redress in the potential risks of an encroachment on the Rights of the People outlined within the spectrum of the Articles of Confederation. The Framers experience with Great Britain made them all to aware of the dangers a large standing army posed to encroach individual liberty, while there was a broad agreement that a stronger federal military was needed, there was insight that a large and permanent National Armed Force would be met by the people with strong resistance. In accordance to the Emerson Case; “The primary shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation was that the central government it provided for was too weak” “ US v. Emerson 270 F 3D 203, 236 (5th Cir. 2001)
In an Americus Curiae filed by Several Retired Officers of the US Military in the case District of Columbia et. Al vs. Heller 554 US 570 (2008) counsel wrote:
“The Second Amendment, which enshrines the preexisting right to personal firearm ownership in the Constitution, offered a solution agreeable to all concerned. For those (Primarily Anti-Federalists) Concerned with the threat posed by a large national army to domestic tranquility, guaranteeing the right to “keep and bear arms” in the Constitution ensured that the People could act as a direct check against any tyrannical impulses this national army might harbor. As both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers, the national army, no matter how fierce, could never overtake a body politic armed and trained to defend its liberty.”
The Framers ensured that the people could act as a direct check on any threat to domestic tranquility that a standing army might present a federal army would be powerless against citizens trained to carry arms. The size of any standing army would not “exceed one hundredth Part of the whole number of souls; or “twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms or approximately twenty-five or thirty thousand men” (Federalist No. 46 James Madison).
The framers also understood the what threats a large standing army imposed upon the people whereupon they articulated this in the Militia Clause of ART. I, § 8 CL. 15 allowing the federal government to call upon the people to defend the nation in times of need, thus reducing the demand for a massive federal army.
US v. Emerson 270 F 3D 203, 236 (5th Cir. 2001)
(“[F]ederal militia powers obviated the need for, or (at least) minimized the likelihood of, a large standing army being kept in existence”)
Citizens role in each State, in defense of liberty, whether threatened domestically or from an enemy abroad, thus is necessary and depends on citizens having ready access to arms and those arms being equal to any arms a federal Standing Army would be issued. These citizens were recognized as fully voluntary not enlisted or hired by any State or federal militia. These citizens arms also are to be considered adequate to arms which any standing army would be issued.
(See The Federalist No. 29 (Alexander Hamilton) ). “To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Should The Government impose Any Limits To What Arms Citizens Should Be Entitled To Own?
A Publication: A Democratic Federalist, Pennsylvania Herald Oct. 17, 1787 asked: “What then will there be to oppose to their encroachments? Should they ever pretend to Tyrannize over the people, their standing army will silence every popular effort….” The founders recognized and ensured through the Second Amendment the citizens could act as a direct check on any threat to domestic tranquility that a standing national army my represent; an army created by the central government would be powerless against the people of the States who were trained to arms.
In US v. Miller the “Sentiments of the time strongly disfavored standing armies” and the court ruled that the weapons that a person owned, in order to be constitutionally protected under the Second Amendment; the arms had to be used by and distributed to the US military. In the case of Miller, the question involved the possession a sawed off shot gun. Though the lower court ruled against Miller it was later reversed in Prinz v US. The question arose if a Sawed off shot gun was a government issued weapon prior to Miller; the answer is yes.
In American Munitions 1917-1919 Benedict Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War (1919) Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.. pp. 185–186. It states:
"When American troops were in the heat of the fighting in the summer of 1918, the German government sent a protest through a neutral agency to our Government asserting that our men were using shotguns against German troops in the trenches. The allegation was true; but our State Department replied that the use of such weapons was not forbidden by the Geneva Convention as the Germans had asserted. Manufactured primarily for the purpose of arming guards placed over German prisoners, these shotguns were undoubtedly in some instances carried into the actual fighting. The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers. The shell provided for these guns each contained a charge of nine heavy buckshot, a combination likely to have murderous effect in close fighting. "
The story in the Miller case began with the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal law regulating firearms. Prior to the NFA, it was believed the Constitution did not grant the federal government this power.
The new law levied a prohibitive $200 dollar tax on machine guns and sawed off shotguns. Government officials passed this law under the argument they were the weapons of choice for the criminal gangs during prohibition. This law was enacted during a period when the central government was in a determined effort to expand federal police powers at the expense of the States. (See The strange case of United States v. Miller Dr. Michael S. Brown (2001) Enter Stage Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism.)
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), was reversed in Prinz v US, where the court determined the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, they determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. Though the Court did not attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment. It is clear the right of a person to own firearms that equate to those used as “Ordinary military equipment” or contribute to the common defense” today would be inclusive of the right for the people to own a wide variety of arms, used by the military today.
The militia consisted of the people bearing “Their own arms when called to active service” by the central government, “Arms which they kept and hence knew how to use” (See US v. Emerson 270 F 3D 203 at 235 (5th Cir. Ct. 2001). And by guaranteeing this right, citizens would have the skill needed to usefully bear them in defense of the nation, should the need arise. (US v Miller 307 US 174, 178-79)
Several Presidents also have recognized the need for the people to own military equipment grade arms, One during the time he commanded the Allied Forces, during WWII. General Dwight D Eisenhower observed “Any young man that has ahead of him prospective Service in the armed forces will do well to learn all he can about the military rifle… expertness in its use cannot be over emphasized” Letter from Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower Commander in Chief Allied Force Headquarters To Dr. M.J. Damlos Clevland Civilian Marksman Ass’n Aug 16,1943 (5A)
Individual gun ownership has a direct national security benefit; deterring foreign aggressors of attacking the United States. Those inclined to attack this country realize that for such an invasion to succeed, they would not only be forced to defeat a first rate military, They would also be required to defeat a people equally armed, trained, and prepared to defend its sovereignty . This principle has been passed down from the founders generation involving the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, The Spanish American War WWI and the Hawaiian Islands December 7, 1941. Each time the people of the States have proven that contributing to the defense of this nations defense depends upon owning and knowledge of how to use arms. Without the command or blessing from the Several States.
Another World War II veteran and president also attested civilian marksmanship was important “through competitive matches and sports in coordination with the (NBPRP), The National Rifle Association fills an important role in our national defense effort, and fosters in an active and meaningful fashion the spirit of the Minuteman. Letter from: John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. To: Franklin L. Orth Executive Office Presidnet, national Rifle Assoc. (March 20, 1961 (11A)
Are there any studies which show proof Citizens should be entitled to own the same arms as the Military?
In a recent Rand Corp. report they discovered that training periods i.e Basic Training, are not as effective at elevating performance quality as much as lifelong training . “Many studies suggest that it is the accumulation of training over a lifetime that has the largest effect on individual performance, rather than simply training in the previous six months” It was also reported those with previous experience or training in a variety of military-oriented tasks would have a better performance than the novice.
Jennifer Kavanagh, Rand National Defense Research Institute, Determinants of productivity for Military personnel; A Review of findings on the Contribution of Experience, Training, and Aptitude to Military Performance (2005)
In an earlier report published by Rand Corporation they noted that even the trainees with no previous experience assigned to units with a high number of experienced shooters showed a higher numbers of qualified marksman in their scores . This report explained that this was most likely due to Marksmanship instructors not needing to spend as much time with the experienced shooters, and or those with prior experience shared their knowledge and were providing additional coaching to the inexperienced shooters.
(See Restructuring Military Education and Training: Lessons from Rand Research 1 (1997) by John D Finkler And Paul S. Steinberg. The court also ruled that; “An effective Militia requires not only that people have guns, but that they be able to shoot them with more danger to their adversaries than themselves Silveira v Lockyer 328 F3D 567 (9th Cir 2003)
CONCLUSION: Evidence proves through Court decisions; Research reports; letters from Presidents and military officers; and writings by those who birthed this country with having expressed the people should be capable to preserve their liberty- that the Second Amendment should not be interpreted in such a way that the government encroaches upon the right of the people to own firearms of their personal choice. As long as the arms are “ordinary military equipment” which is “used for the common defense”.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Who Won?
Despite the establishment's fear mongering, if the government "shut down,” the Treasury Department would continue to sell debt, the printing presses would have rolled on, the IRS would still have seized your hard-earned property on time (currency), They would have been able to gain more interest on what you paid in to the IRS, because you would not be getting any back on schedule, But they would still be imposing late fees for you if you didn't pay them on time!!! The POLICE state would still have cameras and boots on the ground to conduct surveillance on you, the TSA would have remained in airports to sexually assault you.
LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS OH MY The government is shutting down! Help .. I had so many people calling me with these comments:
Pick up the phone!!! Help.. I have a question!!!
Dread Fear!!!
TERROR!!! TERRROR!! I am Afraid!!!!!
THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUTTING DOWN!!! The Government is shutting down. OH NO!! TERROR..... I kid you not!!!!!!! It reminds me of Chicken Little;
THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!
People .. People.. Lets be logically here ok? These so called “leaders” (More like the Grand Whizz ards or are they the lizards? of Oz), they were not serious, It was all hyped up on a sugar high hoax to make you afraid!!! Or they would:
Audit the Federal Reserve, They would Investigate and press charges on those that have been treasonous! Ending the Federal Reserves ability to control our economic future without any accountability or oversight.
Then they would abolish the Federal Reserve!!!.
- They would cut $900 billion from the budget.
This year. And that would only be for starters. Doing away with all the Initialized Agencies that are making the decisions in government. That the Congress is supposed to be doing!
They would pass an Act titled "The Balanced Budget ACT, A Statute and not another cumbersome Amendment) An Act with legitimate spending restrictions.
They would allow us to make our own health care decisions by downsizing the Dept of Health until it was all operated under each state and these bureaucrats that hold positions of Secretary, Directors, Under Secretary's, Advisors, etc. They all would be looking for a job in the private sector. and the operation of the State Health Care system would operate through legislation passed by the State and US Elected officials.
The implementation of a program to force Americans to buy bureaucrat-approved insurance should END (should never have started in the first place)!!!! And put elected officials in government responsible for doing the job they were ELECTED to do themselves!
They would strengthen our national security. One way would be to place an ultimatum on the table.... Either Obaman to recall all our ground- and air forces from foreign countries and for all military installations to be transitioned and reinstituted over to to their respective State militia. Or, Congress would demand Impeachment hearings to begin on Reagan, Bush I Bush II Clinton And Obama for the illegal use our military to police the world, nation-build, and enforce the United Nations' dictates. and begin dimantling NATO,But none of that will happen until you unseat both the Democrats and Republicans from Power.
Repeal the Patriot Act, and annul the TSA, and ending the many other ways government intrudes into our personal lives.
Surgically dismantle the Social Security System; In such a way it would not harm those who have paid in or are on the system now, at the same time stop manditory seizure of a persons property under the Social Security Agency.
The list of what is not being addressed could go on and on, which further proves how the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats are ignoring their oaths to defend the Constitution. And actually doing everything they can to destroy Individual citizens Liberty.
Government doesn't need a tune-up. It's time for a complete overhaul, which is why a real shutdown was needed. Actually unseating the Democart and Republican Party would be a step in the right direction. (but that is only one step)
Instead, America is in for more posturing for the cameras glamour, blame game and how much their Partys won (both of them using that one Guess that means it was a tie and no one realy won)! –
These are all traits more expected of Kleptocrats than elected officials.
America's debt crisis is a natural consequence of a system so infested with statist ideals that less than $39 billion in cuts to a multi-trillion dollar budget nearly brings these kleptocrats in OUR government to their knees cowering on facts that the 100 billion dollar promise that was later expressed after the elections as only a symbolic move, that ended up with so little in cuts it is nothing more than proving both Established Sides are just that. So deeply rooted with the same goal of bigger government targeting stripping citizens of their rights that they even go out warning you if you pull that tree up, there will be a huge hole. People think.
Actually, that hole left there will only take a little hard work and dedication from Americans to fill in the gap with individualism... INDEPENDENCE Something the Founders recognized and wanted to create - a government that would not infringe on that!
Yet you go and vote every two years, for out of control legislators and their dangerous policies under the disinformation you need them (like an abused spouse needs more abuse) which has brought us to this point in our history.
They are Established Party Hawgs all the established deep rooted politics are to be blamed for this. There are many who are not to blame, because they have been fighting to prevent the two established factions from further destroying our country.
I am not about to stop working for freedom to restore a federal government. Not only limited in its power, but putting back the proper protocols for who has that limited power and its size and how it is actually to function. A federal government which is operating only within the confines of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions (US and States).
I hope you will take advantage of these current events to discuss the role of government on the local, state, and federal levels and spread our message to your family, friends, and neighbors who are constantly bombarded by the establishment's tired rhetoric.
Invite people to join the Constitution Party and help us, by helping yourselves take back All of your lives from the established government's control.
Only in the truest realization of what Liberty is, can we find effective, lasting solutions to these challenges our nation is faced with today, ensuring future generations have something better.
In Liberty,
Earl Lofland, State Chairman
Constitution Party of Delaware
P.O. Box 272
Clayton,DE
19938
302 653 7205
LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS OH MY The government is shutting down! Help .. I had so many people calling me with these comments:
Pick up the phone!!! Help.. I have a question!!!
Dread Fear!!!
TERROR!!! TERRROR!! I am Afraid!!!!!
THE GOVERNMENT IS SHUTTING DOWN!!! The Government is shutting down. OH NO!! TERROR..... I kid you not!!!!!!! It reminds me of Chicken Little;
THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!
People .. People.. Lets be logically here ok? These so called “leaders” (More like the Grand Whizz ards or are they the lizards? of Oz), they were not serious, It was all hyped up on a sugar high hoax to make you afraid!!! Or they would:
Audit the Federal Reserve, They would Investigate and press charges on those that have been treasonous! Ending the Federal Reserves ability to control our economic future without any accountability or oversight.
Then they would abolish the Federal Reserve!!!.
- They would cut $900 billion from the budget.
This year. And that would only be for starters. Doing away with all the Initialized Agencies that are making the decisions in government. That the Congress is supposed to be doing!
They would pass an Act titled "The Balanced Budget ACT, A Statute and not another cumbersome Amendment) An Act with legitimate spending restrictions.
They would allow us to make our own health care decisions by downsizing the Dept of Health until it was all operated under each state and these bureaucrats that hold positions of Secretary, Directors, Under Secretary's, Advisors, etc. They all would be looking for a job in the private sector. and the operation of the State Health Care system would operate through legislation passed by the State and US Elected officials.
The implementation of a program to force Americans to buy bureaucrat-approved insurance should END (should never have started in the first place)!!!! And put elected officials in government responsible for doing the job they were ELECTED to do themselves!
They would strengthen our national security. One way would be to place an ultimatum on the table.... Either Obaman to recall all our ground- and air forces from foreign countries and for all military installations to be transitioned and reinstituted over to to their respective State militia. Or, Congress would demand Impeachment hearings to begin on Reagan, Bush I Bush II Clinton And Obama for the illegal use our military to police the world, nation-build, and enforce the United Nations' dictates. and begin dimantling NATO,But none of that will happen until you unseat both the Democrats and Republicans from Power.
Repeal the Patriot Act, and annul the TSA, and ending the many other ways government intrudes into our personal lives.
Surgically dismantle the Social Security System; In such a way it would not harm those who have paid in or are on the system now, at the same time stop manditory seizure of a persons property under the Social Security Agency.
The list of what is not being addressed could go on and on, which further proves how the vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats are ignoring their oaths to defend the Constitution. And actually doing everything they can to destroy Individual citizens Liberty.
Government doesn't need a tune-up. It's time for a complete overhaul, which is why a real shutdown was needed. Actually unseating the Democart and Republican Party would be a step in the right direction. (but that is only one step)
Instead, America is in for more posturing for the cameras glamour, blame game and how much their Partys won (both of them using that one Guess that means it was a tie and no one realy won)! –
These are all traits more expected of Kleptocrats than elected officials.
America's debt crisis is a natural consequence of a system so infested with statist ideals that less than $39 billion in cuts to a multi-trillion dollar budget nearly brings these kleptocrats in OUR government to their knees cowering on facts that the 100 billion dollar promise that was later expressed after the elections as only a symbolic move, that ended up with so little in cuts it is nothing more than proving both Established Sides are just that. So deeply rooted with the same goal of bigger government targeting stripping citizens of their rights that they even go out warning you if you pull that tree up, there will be a huge hole. People think.
Actually, that hole left there will only take a little hard work and dedication from Americans to fill in the gap with individualism... INDEPENDENCE Something the Founders recognized and wanted to create - a government that would not infringe on that!
Yet you go and vote every two years, for out of control legislators and their dangerous policies under the disinformation you need them (like an abused spouse needs more abuse) which has brought us to this point in our history.
They are Established Party Hawgs all the established deep rooted politics are to be blamed for this. There are many who are not to blame, because they have been fighting to prevent the two established factions from further destroying our country.
I am not about to stop working for freedom to restore a federal government. Not only limited in its power, but putting back the proper protocols for who has that limited power and its size and how it is actually to function. A federal government which is operating only within the confines of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions (US and States).
I hope you will take advantage of these current events to discuss the role of government on the local, state, and federal levels and spread our message to your family, friends, and neighbors who are constantly bombarded by the establishment's tired rhetoric.
Invite people to join the Constitution Party and help us, by helping yourselves take back All of your lives from the established government's control.
Only in the truest realization of what Liberty is, can we find effective, lasting solutions to these challenges our nation is faced with today, ensuring future generations have something better.
In Liberty,
Earl Lofland, State Chairman
Constitution Party of Delaware
P.O. Box 272
Clayton,DE
19938
302 653 7205
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Riding Down The Road To Ruin
By Earl Lofland
March 22, 2011
I am not interested in liberal nor conserative talking points. and Americans only objective should be to ensure those who take the Oath of office uphold that law, and the other laws of this land, that they are not violated by those in power, (by the way; the oath of office is a US Code, violating it is a violation of the US Code- it is therefore a crime called perjury).
John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the French Government all support this attack. Constitutionalist understand what’s wrong with that picture.
It is obvious as the nose on ones face. They are all the same rotting fruit falling from the same tree.
In accordance to the Powers of War Act 1973, this administration has clearly committed war crimes by launching an attack on a sovereign country that posed no threat to the US and who did not properly address Congress, other than sending them a "letter" . This action It is not only a violation of the Constitution. It also subverts the very laws that were passed to preserve and prevent such actions from occuring. A person usurping too much power away from the People and Congress.
Though Bush did go to Congress, all he obtaines was an "Authorization for the Use of Military Force", rather than a declaration of war. He cited Section 4 of the POWA which gave him 60-90 days to complete the mission. 7 years later we were still involved in Iraq, (Not quite Constitutional I would say), but better than nothing, At least Mr. Bush did go before Congress. Not to say the Iraq War didn't violate the law, but still when Mr. Bush cited section 4 of the Powers of War Act. If memory serves correctly. This gave him 60-90 days to complete the mission. And after that time expired, he was then acting in violation of the Powers of War ACT, until congress decided to pass a resolution to extend the time of our military involvment. Yet he never gave an accurate exit strategy. And that little photo op "Mission Accomplished" was nothing more than subversion of the definition for use of military forces. The entire administration, in my opinion should have been charged with war crimes by Congress. They falsified records, lied before the UN Counsel, and lied to Congress with the doctored letters that did not show the facts that Saddam Did NOT pose an imminent threat to the US. In violation of Section 2 of the Powers of Wars Act. Just as Obama has clearly done in the illegal use of US military and its equipment against a sovereign country that has not posed an imminent threat of attack against the US.
Despite having a crushing $14 Trillion national debt, and Congress even thinking about raising the debt ceiling, with a $1.5 Trillion annual budget deficit, and a dire 15.9% unemployment rate (using the real but still underestimated u6 rate); the financial drain to help Japan, Obama committed America to yet another war in the Muslim world. Our military and national budget are already stretched to the limit and all he seems to think about is playing with military ordinances which goes completely against the very campaign he ran on to be elected.
Perhaps the Nobel Peace Priz Committee should also consider giving Obama another Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences since he’s driving the U.S. into insolvency.
John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the French Government all support this duplicitous attack. Conservatives understand what’s wrong with that picture.
The Constitution Party of Delaware openly opposes
America’s involvement in yet another war during these dire economic times. Benjamin Harrison a signer of the Declaration of Independence once said that we are not to be the Police of the world. This includes meddling in a civil war of an Arab country that has little strategic value and for which Congress was not officially consulted.
Benjamin Harrison stated that America serves the world best not as a policeman (or benefactor), but rather as a beacon of hope, liberty and that comes only through the knowledge of Who Christ Jesus is.
None of those missiles and none of those coalition jet pilots will be able to discern the difference between pro-Gadhafi civilians or anti-Gadhafi civilians since they all have weapons. We have no real idea who the rebels are or their true political agenda; some even having ties to Al Qaeda. Obama like his predicessor has no clear objective, no clear definition of victory and no clear exit strategy .
Former first lady Laura Bush Recently, went public with a plea that foreign aid be spared in pending budget cuts. Here is the reason why I oppose republicrats. her lavish banquets and hobnobbing does not qualify her to be statesman (woman) anymore than visiting the NASA Center makes her an astrophysicist.
Like many political insiders, and make no mistake Mrs Bush, you are one, you like the others with a D or R behind your name find it easy to give away other people's money. We should remember, the money we give to foreign lands is borrowed, and to be paid back by future generations with interest. Also, let American voters not forget, contributions to foreign beneficiaries by no means is voluntary - They are forcefully collected through taxes.
As Congressman David Crockett once said Mrs. Bush, It is not yours to give. feel free to donate all the money you wish to your worthy mission...
"Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
March 22, 2011
I am not interested in liberal nor conserative talking points. and Americans only objective should be to ensure those who take the Oath of office uphold that law, and the other laws of this land, that they are not violated by those in power, (by the way; the oath of office is a US Code, violating it is a violation of the US Code- it is therefore a crime called perjury).
John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the French Government all support this attack. Constitutionalist understand what’s wrong with that picture.
It is obvious as the nose on ones face. They are all the same rotting fruit falling from the same tree.
In accordance to the Powers of War Act 1973, this administration has clearly committed war crimes by launching an attack on a sovereign country that posed no threat to the US and who did not properly address Congress, other than sending them a "letter" . This action It is not only a violation of the Constitution. It also subverts the very laws that were passed to preserve and prevent such actions from occuring. A person usurping too much power away from the People and Congress.
Though Bush did go to Congress, all he obtaines was an "Authorization for the Use of Military Force", rather than a declaration of war. He cited Section 4 of the POWA which gave him 60-90 days to complete the mission. 7 years later we were still involved in Iraq, (Not quite Constitutional I would say), but better than nothing, At least Mr. Bush did go before Congress. Not to say the Iraq War didn't violate the law, but still when Mr. Bush cited section 4 of the Powers of War Act. If memory serves correctly. This gave him 60-90 days to complete the mission. And after that time expired, he was then acting in violation of the Powers of War ACT, until congress decided to pass a resolution to extend the time of our military involvment. Yet he never gave an accurate exit strategy. And that little photo op "Mission Accomplished" was nothing more than subversion of the definition for use of military forces. The entire administration, in my opinion should have been charged with war crimes by Congress. They falsified records, lied before the UN Counsel, and lied to Congress with the doctored letters that did not show the facts that Saddam Did NOT pose an imminent threat to the US. In violation of Section 2 of the Powers of Wars Act. Just as Obama has clearly done in the illegal use of US military and its equipment against a sovereign country that has not posed an imminent threat of attack against the US.
Despite having a crushing $14 Trillion national debt, and Congress even thinking about raising the debt ceiling, with a $1.5 Trillion annual budget deficit, and a dire 15.9% unemployment rate (using the real but still underestimated u6 rate); the financial drain to help Japan, Obama committed America to yet another war in the Muslim world. Our military and national budget are already stretched to the limit and all he seems to think about is playing with military ordinances which goes completely against the very campaign he ran on to be elected.
Perhaps the Nobel Peace Priz Committee should also consider giving Obama another Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences since he’s driving the U.S. into insolvency.
John Kerry, John McCain, Nancy Pelosi, Lindsey Graham, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times and the French Government all support this duplicitous attack. Conservatives understand what’s wrong with that picture.
The Constitution Party of Delaware openly opposes
America’s involvement in yet another war during these dire economic times. Benjamin Harrison a signer of the Declaration of Independence once said that we are not to be the Police of the world. This includes meddling in a civil war of an Arab country that has little strategic value and for which Congress was not officially consulted.
Benjamin Harrison stated that America serves the world best not as a policeman (or benefactor), but rather as a beacon of hope, liberty and that comes only through the knowledge of Who Christ Jesus is.
None of those missiles and none of those coalition jet pilots will be able to discern the difference between pro-Gadhafi civilians or anti-Gadhafi civilians since they all have weapons. We have no real idea who the rebels are or their true political agenda; some even having ties to Al Qaeda. Obama like his predicessor has no clear objective, no clear definition of victory and no clear exit strategy .
Former first lady Laura Bush Recently, went public with a plea that foreign aid be spared in pending budget cuts. Here is the reason why I oppose republicrats. her lavish banquets and hobnobbing does not qualify her to be statesman (woman) anymore than visiting the NASA Center makes her an astrophysicist.
Like many political insiders, and make no mistake Mrs Bush, you are one, you like the others with a D or R behind your name find it easy to give away other people's money. We should remember, the money we give to foreign lands is borrowed, and to be paid back by future generations with interest. Also, let American voters not forget, contributions to foreign beneficiaries by no means is voluntary - They are forcefully collected through taxes.
As Congressman David Crockett once said Mrs. Bush, It is not yours to give. feel free to donate all the money you wish to your worthy mission...
"Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.
Monday, March 7, 2011
The Science of Deception
The Science of Deception
By Earl Lofland
March,7,2011
Explaining what occurred in the 2010 election is intended to enlighten other conservatives about the reason why Christine O’Donnell did not win. The national leadership of the GOP and its financial backers did not have any interest in Christine O’Donnell, nor other candidates like her to be placed in office. It doesn’t matter if they are running for local, county, state, or federal office. The chain of command still applies. Whoever the National Party doesn’t support, the state Party leadership will not support. If the leadership of the state party changes to more conservative views, the national will provide the least amount of support the states candidates.
Conservative voters should ask what marketing firm was behind the making of the advertisement Christine O’Donnell ran; "I am not a witch" It was obvious to many who know the science of Political selections it was aired to drive down her voter approval ratings, and shift more public interest from the moderate Republican voters to vote for Chris Coons over Christine. Some will find this hard to believe although the evidence clearly shows the National Party and its financial contributors do not hold the same interest as the local conservative voters, especially those in Delaware.
Anyone who studied the science behind political campaigns realizes what occurred with Christine’s campaign, and others like hers. While the majority of their supporter usually work tirelessly, hoping to change things nationally at the state level-- Delaware proved in the 2010 elections,(as well as in 2008) there is little chance to force redirection onto the national party and their financial contributors to side with conservatives on a state level, especially with a state like Delaware and the number of electoral votes it carries in national elections. National leadership always holds higher stakes and thus more leverage in controlling what will occur on the state level in elections especially in Delaware. And the Republican national party would rather have someone like Chris Coons in office compared to a Christine O’Donnell based on the number of moderate republicans who are in office across the country.
There is a political riff between the conservative and the moderate republicans in Delaware due to the political war within Delaware’s Republican Party. The outcome will most likely cause a split in the party, where some members will decide to leave the party. Either to form a new party, or look for another party that best fits their political views. In Delaware, a vast majority of Moderates could end up switching over to the Democrat party in hopes to bring more Blue Dog Democrats in over the social liberal democrats if the Conservative side wins.
However if the Moderates gained control of the Republican party there will be some voters who will look for another conservative party to support. If the Conservatives decided to stay with a party controlled by moderates, many new conservative voters would also see the party having a more liberal dialog, not much different than the Democrat party.
By Earl Lofland
March,7,2011
Explaining what occurred in the 2010 election is intended to enlighten other conservatives about the reason why Christine O’Donnell did not win. The national leadership of the GOP and its financial backers did not have any interest in Christine O’Donnell, nor other candidates like her to be placed in office. It doesn’t matter if they are running for local, county, state, or federal office. The chain of command still applies. Whoever the National Party doesn’t support, the state Party leadership will not support. If the leadership of the state party changes to more conservative views, the national will provide the least amount of support the states candidates.
Conservative voters should ask what marketing firm was behind the making of the advertisement Christine O’Donnell ran; "I am not a witch" It was obvious to many who know the science of Political selections it was aired to drive down her voter approval ratings, and shift more public interest from the moderate Republican voters to vote for Chris Coons over Christine. Some will find this hard to believe although the evidence clearly shows the National Party and its financial contributors do not hold the same interest as the local conservative voters, especially those in Delaware.
Anyone who studied the science behind political campaigns realizes what occurred with Christine’s campaign, and others like hers. While the majority of their supporter usually work tirelessly, hoping to change things nationally at the state level-- Delaware proved in the 2010 elections,(as well as in 2008) there is little chance to force redirection onto the national party and their financial contributors to side with conservatives on a state level, especially with a state like Delaware and the number of electoral votes it carries in national elections. National leadership always holds higher stakes and thus more leverage in controlling what will occur on the state level in elections especially in Delaware. And the Republican national party would rather have someone like Chris Coons in office compared to a Christine O’Donnell based on the number of moderate republicans who are in office across the country.
There is a political riff between the conservative and the moderate republicans in Delaware due to the political war within Delaware’s Republican Party. The outcome will most likely cause a split in the party, where some members will decide to leave the party. Either to form a new party, or look for another party that best fits their political views. In Delaware, a vast majority of Moderates could end up switching over to the Democrat party in hopes to bring more Blue Dog Democrats in over the social liberal democrats if the Conservative side wins.
However if the Moderates gained control of the Republican party there will be some voters who will look for another conservative party to support. If the Conservatives decided to stay with a party controlled by moderates, many new conservative voters would also see the party having a more liberal dialog, not much different than the Democrat party.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Reality Checks Are Not Based Upon Fiat Money
In Bold and or Bold Italics I will Break the article down published in the Delaware State News Titled:
"Demonstrators rally to save ‘American dream’ By Jamie-Leigh Bissett"
DOVER — About 200 Delawareans rallied on the steps of Legislative Hall in Dover on Saturday to "demand an end to the attack on workers’ rights."
Lets put this in a more factual standing. PUBLIC UNION WORKERS
"We're here today to stand in solidarity with Wisconsin workers and American families everywhere," said event organizer Ann Nolan of Lewes. "After a devastating recession and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, regular Americans cannot take another hit."
Point 2 similar as Point 1 And addendum though. The recession and thousands of jobs lost . Unions Do not care about Non Union Members. Attempt to cross a Picket line and work where they are picketing.
Ms. Nolan and the hundreds of other demonstrators that included teachers and other public sector workers from the First State said the "Rally to Save the American Dream" was part of a national day of action, with events happening in all 50 state capitals.
If they want to save the AMERICAN DREAM Then they should stop indoctrinations of students with all the Ed Programs Death Ed Sex Ed etc. They also should conduct actual model of learning opposed to the Skinner Pavlovian techniques that have been brought in to the PUBLIC Sector through Non profits like the Carnage Foundation Ford Foundation Rockefeller Foundation et al.
She said the reason behind the demonstration stems from protests in Wisconsin, where workers have been fighting for nearly two weeks against a bill proposed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker that would eliminate a union’s right to collectively bargain for benefits and work conditions.
They should feel fortunate that the governor has not taken on a more Constitutional Ideal to Shut down all Public schools and Transit all students into a private learning system of the parents choice Through a rebate to the tax payer of the existing budget that has been allotted for the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. BY the way If this were to occur in Delaware? It would be Constitutional! And As governor. I would impose such a measure.
Gov. Walker said the bill would help solve the state’s nearly $3.6 billion shortfall, while union members believe the bill is a ploy to strip them of their rights.
While the Union fights to keep their right of collective bargaining the Students rights parents rights and anyone elses rights who are not a union member is infringed. This is actually illegal! Laws must be for all or none
"Right now, the American Dream is slipping away for millions of us, and we're here today to say enough is enough. It’s time for our government to work for us, and not just corporations and millionaires," Ms. Nolan said.
The Dream slipped way dating back to the 1980's . The American Dream began right after the WWII and it ballooned and then exploded in the 1980's And ever since Both Democrats and Republicans have been stripping that away Piece by piece. Wake up ! and smell the Hawg slop!
The American Dream became the totalitarian nightmare And Public Unions are as much to blame as the politicians in office. Tytler gave a description of what occurs after about 200 years and the stages of a Democracy.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy
Joanne Cabry, who is a retired teacher from Rehoboth Beach, said even though Wisconsin is hundreds of miles away, their fight is Delaware’s fight.
War is the means to an end, and the end is always governed by Politics.
Sun Tzu said this! in Art of War.
Therefore if this is a FIGHT. This makes it a war. And that war is Union vs non Union.
"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere," she said, borrowing a quote from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
And I too will borrow a quote from the same man.
"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
Is this protest right? To answer that; question: is anyone being excluded? Answer: Yes, Non Union workers and students are who are being damaged. Therefore, though it may be popular to mimic the protesting that has occurred the last two years. It may be a safe thing even politic to rally around the very people who support Public Unions (Public Elected officials AKA Politicians) But it does not qualify for being right. Nor does it qualify as a Constitutional RIGHT.
"We're all in this together," added Deborah Schultz of Lewes. "It’s all about power to them.
Incorrect it is about diverting power away from the government. And Government Public workers is still government! and Not the people!
They’re trying to divert attention away from themselves and turn people against each other.
As I said... They are a diversion and manipulating the facts, and what is actually Constitutional in policy and principle.
If the public sector gets less, that doesn't mean the private sector will get more."
And if the public sector gets on board and realizes that the the problem is called FEDERAL RESERVE then maybe we can all do something to actually RESTORE our Constitutional Republic instead of handing it over to Social elites who only wish to demonize those opposed to an Authoritarian Kleptocratic Form of Government.
Jon Holland, a pilot living in Dover, said the whole thing "upsets me. It’s not right to demonize people who are trying to bargain themselves a better life, or to blame our problems on one group of people."
He is absolutely right! And when Union workers demonize non union members what is that? A Hypocritical Comment maybe??
Demonstrators at Saturday’s rally held signs that read, "Cut bonuses, not teachers," "Unions make us strong," and "Like weekends? Thank unions."
Show me where the Public Schools have done anything more than cost Taxpayers more money; where they have produced across the board equal education among all races. and where there is not class warfare not being taught in the classrooms.
This was what No Child Left behind was to solve and Race to the Flop as well. And other programs dating back to the Johnson Years. And all of them failed in doing anything other than cost tax payers more while their children and they receive less for their tax dollar (investments)!
Unions have no place in the publics government. It infringes upon the rights of those who do not wish to be a union member and are forced to send their children to schools that are run by a public Unionized government further indoctrinating them with union propaganda.
Those who came to the rally were people of all ages and walks of life, which was the point, said John Johnson, himself a Local 234 Transport Workers Union of America member.
All were UNION or family members of Unions or Supporters for something that is Unethical in regards to the principles of the Founding documents. to include ALL not some who may be in a union.
"This is not a black issue. This is not a white issue. This is a working-class issue," he said.
Incorrect, It is a UNION ISSUE
Edward "Pedro" Miller of Lewes echoed Mr. Johnson’s sentiments, saying "There would be no middle class without unions."
There is no middle class!!!! It was destroyed a long time ago! Thanks to the Federal Reserve and laws that public elected officials have passed that destroyed the "Middle Class". You are either wealthy making over $100,000.00 a year or you are poor, and living below the Cost of Living. ThanksReagan and each Congress during all 8years of his tenure for that!
He added that the "American Dream will only be a memory if we don't do something.
The American Dream is to restore that which was destroyed, that dates back prior to when anyone at that rally was born! Unless they are as old as Mr. Frank Buckles the Last surviving WWI Vet who just passed away.
"America was once the greatest country in the world. It still can be, but we have to do something about it."
Yes it was! But I have to pour cold water on their hopey changy dream there.
Thanks to both the political parties and their support of Banking Cartel and their Business Plot,that began .. Just about the time of when the War Between the States broke out... Or earlier, all that is now a part of American History that gets very little acknowledgement. Because it goes against the agenda of the very ones who had created the Business Plot to begin with.
Tom Steele, of Newark and an Amtrak 3095 union member, said he is "tired of being manipulated by big business and politicians."
And Americans Private UNION members AND NON UNION members are tired of being Manipulated
He said he is also "mad as hell" about the attack on union workers, to which the protestors loudly cheered in agreement.
Personally I am not against private unions. I realize why they were created. Because of families like the Carnagies and Rockefellers. Fords Getty Schwabs et al would exploit men women and children as slaves to build their empire. That eventually marched on the Campaign platform and on in to local state and federal government seats.
Phillip Bannowsky of Newark, who led the crowd in songs like "Union Made," the lyrics of which include, "You can't scare me. I'm sticking to the union ... ’til the day I die," and chants such as, "Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Where did all the money go? Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Union busting has got to go," said those attacking workers’ rights view those not trying to get rich as the enemy.
Where did all the money go? That is a very good question!!! Again I point back to the Federal Reserve and their illegal henches the IRS
"They view everyone who works for a living as the enemy," he said.
Now that is a real joke. Not everyone who works is a UNION MEMBER And again I challenge anyone to cross a Union Picket line to seek work and see what happens!!!
And though the ralliers on Saturday all strongly believed in what they were fighting for, some, like Skip Paulman of Newark, were disappointed with the turnout.
Hmm Maybe it is because there are still a lot of people who recognize the real problem?
"I expected to see every union worker here today. Where are they? This is our livelihood, man," he said.
Maybe there is a light at the end of this tunnel, and maybe it isn't an oncoming freight train? Maybe some UNION Members realize . Like Martin Luther King said in 1964
But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
"Demonstrators rally to save ‘American dream’ By Jamie-Leigh Bissett"
DOVER — About 200 Delawareans rallied on the steps of Legislative Hall in Dover on Saturday to "demand an end to the attack on workers’ rights."
Lets put this in a more factual standing. PUBLIC UNION WORKERS
"We're here today to stand in solidarity with Wisconsin workers and American families everywhere," said event organizer Ann Nolan of Lewes. "After a devastating recession and hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, regular Americans cannot take another hit."
Point 2 similar as Point 1 And addendum though. The recession and thousands of jobs lost . Unions Do not care about Non Union Members. Attempt to cross a Picket line and work where they are picketing.
Ms. Nolan and the hundreds of other demonstrators that included teachers and other public sector workers from the First State said the "Rally to Save the American Dream" was part of a national day of action, with events happening in all 50 state capitals.
If they want to save the AMERICAN DREAM Then they should stop indoctrinations of students with all the Ed Programs Death Ed Sex Ed etc. They also should conduct actual model of learning opposed to the Skinner Pavlovian techniques that have been brought in to the PUBLIC Sector through Non profits like the Carnage Foundation Ford Foundation Rockefeller Foundation et al.
She said the reason behind the demonstration stems from protests in Wisconsin, where workers have been fighting for nearly two weeks against a bill proposed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker that would eliminate a union’s right to collectively bargain for benefits and work conditions.
They should feel fortunate that the governor has not taken on a more Constitutional Ideal to Shut down all Public schools and Transit all students into a private learning system of the parents choice Through a rebate to the tax payer of the existing budget that has been allotted for the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. BY the way If this were to occur in Delaware? It would be Constitutional! And As governor. I would impose such a measure.
Gov. Walker said the bill would help solve the state’s nearly $3.6 billion shortfall, while union members believe the bill is a ploy to strip them of their rights.
While the Union fights to keep their right of collective bargaining the Students rights parents rights and anyone elses rights who are not a union member is infringed. This is actually illegal! Laws must be for all or none
"Right now, the American Dream is slipping away for millions of us, and we're here today to say enough is enough. It’s time for our government to work for us, and not just corporations and millionaires," Ms. Nolan said.
The Dream slipped way dating back to the 1980's . The American Dream began right after the WWII and it ballooned and then exploded in the 1980's And ever since Both Democrats and Republicans have been stripping that away Piece by piece. Wake up ! and smell the Hawg slop!
The American Dream became the totalitarian nightmare And Public Unions are as much to blame as the politicians in office. Tytler gave a description of what occurs after about 200 years and the stages of a Democracy.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy
Joanne Cabry, who is a retired teacher from Rehoboth Beach, said even though Wisconsin is hundreds of miles away, their fight is Delaware’s fight.
War is the means to an end, and the end is always governed by Politics.
Sun Tzu said this! in Art of War.
Therefore if this is a FIGHT. This makes it a war. And that war is Union vs non Union.
"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere," she said, borrowing a quote from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
And I too will borrow a quote from the same man.
"Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
Is this protest right? To answer that; question: is anyone being excluded? Answer: Yes, Non Union workers and students are who are being damaged. Therefore, though it may be popular to mimic the protesting that has occurred the last two years. It may be a safe thing even politic to rally around the very people who support Public Unions (Public Elected officials AKA Politicians) But it does not qualify for being right. Nor does it qualify as a Constitutional RIGHT.
"We're all in this together," added Deborah Schultz of Lewes. "It’s all about power to them.
Incorrect it is about diverting power away from the government. And Government Public workers is still government! and Not the people!
They’re trying to divert attention away from themselves and turn people against each other.
As I said... They are a diversion and manipulating the facts, and what is actually Constitutional in policy and principle.
If the public sector gets less, that doesn't mean the private sector will get more."
And if the public sector gets on board and realizes that the the problem is called FEDERAL RESERVE then maybe we can all do something to actually RESTORE our Constitutional Republic instead of handing it over to Social elites who only wish to demonize those opposed to an Authoritarian Kleptocratic Form of Government.
Jon Holland, a pilot living in Dover, said the whole thing "upsets me. It’s not right to demonize people who are trying to bargain themselves a better life, or to blame our problems on one group of people."
He is absolutely right! And when Union workers demonize non union members what is that? A Hypocritical Comment maybe??
Demonstrators at Saturday’s rally held signs that read, "Cut bonuses, not teachers," "Unions make us strong," and "Like weekends? Thank unions."
Show me where the Public Schools have done anything more than cost Taxpayers more money; where they have produced across the board equal education among all races. and where there is not class warfare not being taught in the classrooms.
This was what No Child Left behind was to solve and Race to the Flop as well. And other programs dating back to the Johnson Years. And all of them failed in doing anything other than cost tax payers more while their children and they receive less for their tax dollar (investments)!
Unions have no place in the publics government. It infringes upon the rights of those who do not wish to be a union member and are forced to send their children to schools that are run by a public Unionized government further indoctrinating them with union propaganda.
Those who came to the rally were people of all ages and walks of life, which was the point, said John Johnson, himself a Local 234 Transport Workers Union of America member.
All were UNION or family members of Unions or Supporters for something that is Unethical in regards to the principles of the Founding documents. to include ALL not some who may be in a union.
"This is not a black issue. This is not a white issue. This is a working-class issue," he said.
Incorrect, It is a UNION ISSUE
Edward "Pedro" Miller of Lewes echoed Mr. Johnson’s sentiments, saying "There would be no middle class without unions."
There is no middle class!!!! It was destroyed a long time ago! Thanks to the Federal Reserve and laws that public elected officials have passed that destroyed the "Middle Class". You are either wealthy making over $100,000.00 a year or you are poor, and living below the Cost of Living. ThanksReagan and each Congress during all 8years of his tenure for that!
He added that the "American Dream will only be a memory if we don't do something.
The American Dream is to restore that which was destroyed, that dates back prior to when anyone at that rally was born! Unless they are as old as Mr. Frank Buckles the Last surviving WWI Vet who just passed away.
"America was once the greatest country in the world. It still can be, but we have to do something about it."
Yes it was! But I have to pour cold water on their hopey changy dream there.
Thanks to both the political parties and their support of Banking Cartel and their Business Plot,that began .. Just about the time of when the War Between the States broke out... Or earlier, all that is now a part of American History that gets very little acknowledgement. Because it goes against the agenda of the very ones who had created the Business Plot to begin with.
Tom Steele, of Newark and an Amtrak 3095 union member, said he is "tired of being manipulated by big business and politicians."
And Americans Private UNION members AND NON UNION members are tired of being Manipulated
He said he is also "mad as hell" about the attack on union workers, to which the protestors loudly cheered in agreement.
Personally I am not against private unions. I realize why they were created. Because of families like the Carnagies and Rockefellers. Fords Getty Schwabs et al would exploit men women and children as slaves to build their empire. That eventually marched on the Campaign platform and on in to local state and federal government seats.
Phillip Bannowsky of Newark, who led the crowd in songs like "Union Made," the lyrics of which include, "You can't scare me. I'm sticking to the union ... ’til the day I die," and chants such as, "Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Where did all the money go? Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Union busting has got to go," said those attacking workers’ rights view those not trying to get rich as the enemy.
Where did all the money go? That is a very good question!!! Again I point back to the Federal Reserve and their illegal henches the IRS
"They view everyone who works for a living as the enemy," he said.
Now that is a real joke. Not everyone who works is a UNION MEMBER And again I challenge anyone to cross a Union Picket line to seek work and see what happens!!!
And though the ralliers on Saturday all strongly believed in what they were fighting for, some, like Skip Paulman of Newark, were disappointed with the turnout.
Hmm Maybe it is because there are still a lot of people who recognize the real problem?
"I expected to see every union worker here today. Where are they? This is our livelihood, man," he said.
Maybe there is a light at the end of this tunnel, and maybe it isn't an oncoming freight train? Maybe some UNION Members realize . Like Martin Luther King said in 1964
But, conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because one's conscience tells one that it is right."
Monday, February 21, 2011
Public v Private and home schooling
As Americans are witnessing in Wisconsin, soon this will spread into other states as well. The Protest in Wisconsin is a political struggle between the people of the state vs State union workers who are a part of the state operated education system.
Remember, in all things, where there are two or more oppents it should be recognized as a war:
"War is the means to an end . And that end is always governed by Politics".
Sun Tzu.
Just as a sword has two edges, so does political struggles. And what took place when Americans marched on Washington DC and to the town hall meetings opposing bigger government, SEIU, and laws that were being passed without reading the bills, gave a blow to the Train wreck agenda of government attempting to take control over the people.
I am posting a video here .
Pay attention to the footage about 45-60 seconds into the news cast, the upper balcony where you will see a flag hanging over the railing.
Question
Why has someone hung a flag from Puerto Rico over the banister in a Wisconsin Sate Building?
This protest is being managed by a perspective managment team!
The objective for the flag is to generate racial tension against their opponents. It is a tactic that has been used for centuries. by attacking anyone who opposes this movement as discriminating against hispanics or other minorities in order to achieve giving the public this false perception, there has to be something put in place to persuade their argument. (A False flag- in this case the flag of Puerto Rico).
If any governor who faces what is happening now in Madison WI is dedicated at saving their state, he will have to "destroy it in order to save it".
This is a war tactic. That I will explain
The strategy would include dismantling the public school system in the state. By Placing all the students on a temporary vacation, similar to what FDR done with the Banks during the great depression; through the governor(s) signing several executive orders.
Giving the private schools in their state adequate time to hire ample teachers and other staffing,
Also to begin a transition of state school property either purchased or leased to private schools (Creating a boost in the private sector job market growth)
Taking tax dollars that are already appropriated for state funded schools to operate during this and the upcoming fiscal year and transfering those funds into vouchers, for parents and guardians to use for students to be transferred into a private school of the parent/Guardians choice, with as little harmed in the students education.
Keeping the Board of Education in the state only in the capacity of supervising state mandated studies required by the state, and taught in the private charter and home schooling programs.
State employees funded through the states education system would then be terminated effective immediately (with UI compensation for 26 weeks) and given the responsibility of seeking gainful employment within that 26 weeks in a competitive private market. Instead of contributing to the problems related to the ever growing size of government and forcing the state to continually increase in taxes to help pay for the failing public schools system.
Wisconsin could be the first beta test state for such a remarkable idea, that could build and grow in popularity from state to state.
This would also decrease students being "Fundamentally illiterate" as the recent statistics are showing, where over 59 million people in America who have graduated high school, and are either "semi fundamentally illiterate or Fundamentally illiterate".
It has also been proven students who are taught in private schools are at a higher grade level in learning than those in the public schools. While increasing the students literacy and learning skills, this alo would take on the task to downsize the state government; Decreasing the need for higher taxes; targeting these problems at a state level first.
Ground up principles.
This is where Delawareans and other states need to support any governors who would recognize such an idea now. Or, find someone to back as their states governor in 201 who would enact this experiment. It would also be crucial to have an Attorney General who would be supportive of these Governors and this proposed experiment as well.
Earl Lofland
Remember, in all things, where there are two or more oppents it should be recognized as a war:
"War is the means to an end . And that end is always governed by Politics".
Sun Tzu.
Just as a sword has two edges, so does political struggles. And what took place when Americans marched on Washington DC and to the town hall meetings opposing bigger government, SEIU, and laws that were being passed without reading the bills, gave a blow to the Train wreck agenda of government attempting to take control over the people.
I am posting a video here .
Pay attention to the footage about 45-60 seconds into the news cast, the upper balcony where you will see a flag hanging over the railing.
Question
Why has someone hung a flag from Puerto Rico over the banister in a Wisconsin Sate Building?
This protest is being managed by a perspective managment team!
The objective for the flag is to generate racial tension against their opponents. It is a tactic that has been used for centuries. by attacking anyone who opposes this movement as discriminating against hispanics or other minorities in order to achieve giving the public this false perception, there has to be something put in place to persuade their argument. (A False flag- in this case the flag of Puerto Rico).
If any governor who faces what is happening now in Madison WI is dedicated at saving their state, he will have to "destroy it in order to save it".
This is a war tactic. That I will explain
The strategy would include dismantling the public school system in the state. By Placing all the students on a temporary vacation, similar to what FDR done with the Banks during the great depression; through the governor(s) signing several executive orders.
Giving the private schools in their state adequate time to hire ample teachers and other staffing,
Also to begin a transition of state school property either purchased or leased to private schools (Creating a boost in the private sector job market growth)
Taking tax dollars that are already appropriated for state funded schools to operate during this and the upcoming fiscal year and transfering those funds into vouchers, for parents and guardians to use for students to be transferred into a private school of the parent/Guardians choice, with as little harmed in the students education.
Keeping the Board of Education in the state only in the capacity of supervising state mandated studies required by the state, and taught in the private charter and home schooling programs.
State employees funded through the states education system would then be terminated effective immediately (with UI compensation for 26 weeks) and given the responsibility of seeking gainful employment within that 26 weeks in a competitive private market. Instead of contributing to the problems related to the ever growing size of government and forcing the state to continually increase in taxes to help pay for the failing public schools system.
Wisconsin could be the first beta test state for such a remarkable idea, that could build and grow in popularity from state to state.
This would also decrease students being "Fundamentally illiterate" as the recent statistics are showing, where over 59 million people in America who have graduated high school, and are either "semi fundamentally illiterate or Fundamentally illiterate".
It has also been proven students who are taught in private schools are at a higher grade level in learning than those in the public schools. While increasing the students literacy and learning skills, this alo would take on the task to downsize the state government; Decreasing the need for higher taxes; targeting these problems at a state level first.
Ground up principles.
This is where Delawareans and other states need to support any governors who would recognize such an idea now. Or, find someone to back as their states governor in 201 who would enact this experiment. It would also be crucial to have an Attorney General who would be supportive of these Governors and this proposed experiment as well.
Earl Lofland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)