by: the Common Costitutionalist
The Huffington Post writes that Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Conference of National Black Churches last Wednesday that the right to vote was threatened across the country.
“The reality is that in jurisdictions across the country, both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history,” Holder told the audience, made up of black church and political leaders, during a faith leaders summit in Washington.
Foul! Foul! Separation of Church & State! Sorry; couldn’t resist.
“If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and will approve that change,” Holder said. (comment: which would be never) “When a jurisdiction fails to meet its burden in proving that a voting change will not have a racially discriminatory effect, we will object.” (comment: which would be always)
Once again, as it always is with this administration, it’s all about race.
HuffPo continues by stating that Voter ID laws, which require voters to present official government identification before they cast a ballot in an elections, have become a hot-button issue this election cycle.
Ooh; official government identification.What is this, Nazi Germany; “Papers Please”. You mean like a driver’s license or non-drivers state I.D.? That official identification?
HuufPo claims that critics of the voter I.D. laws say that the groups most likely to be harmed by the rules — blacks, Latinos, the poor, and college students — are groups that are key parts of the Democratic voting bloc. Name one college student that doesn’t have a photo I.D.?
Their “study” found the restrictions fall into five major categories: (1) requirements that voters provide specific kinds of government-issued photo ID to vote or have their votes counted; (2) requirements to provide documentary proof of citizenship in order to register and vote; (3) new restrictions on voter registration; (4) cutbacks on the availability of early and absentee voting; and (5) actions permanently depriving previously incarcerated citizens of their right to vote.
So, first you have to prove who you are by showing a photo I.D. Tragic! Get your butt down to the DMV and get an I.D. It costs less than a couple of packs of smokes these days. Heck, some states are starting to give them out. All you have to do is get there.
Second: You have to actually prove that you are a citizen to vote? Those bastards!
Does this sound as asinine to you as it does me?
Third: The new restrictions are that states are finally figuring out the “Same day Registration” nonsense. It makes it harder to cheat when they have time to check. States are also wising up to the phony “ACORN” type registration drives, where dead people, Mickey Mouse & Abe Lincoln are mysteriously registered to vote.
Fourth: Early voting is a complete crock. It’s not as if election day just sneaks up you. You should kinda know when it comes around. Do voters have no responsibility in this country?
Fifth: They describe it as “incarcerated citizens”. Call them what they are, felons, and almost all can regain their right to vote after they’ve done their time.
The bottom line is, these so-called advocates for the “disenfranchised” just want the right to continue to cheat if they so choose and we are racists if we stand in their way. If any citizen is “disenfranchised”, it is because they choose to be.
I’ve compiled a list of things, off the top of my head, for which one would need a photo I.D. I’m sure there are many more but here are some that come to mind.
To get a job, many employers require to see a photo I.D. You need an I.D. to test drive and purchase a car, to open a bank account, to close a bank account, to buy a house, to rent an apartment, to apply for any loan, to buy booze, to buy cigarettes, to receive welfare, unemployment or food stamps.
As long as one never has to do, or purchase, any of those things, I guess they wouldn’t need an I.D.
Voting should be treated as a privilege in this country. I’ve spoken to more than just a few immigrants from communist countries about this subject. They tell me it’s absurd that so many in this country take the vote for granted. They’re right!
by: the Common Constitutionalist
I’m not one for proposing & enacting new legislation. In my opinion, America has too many laws already. Most could be repealed without the general population even realizing it. The repeal of many of them would have little effect on our lives.
That being said, I recently reprinted a column from one of my heroes, Walter E. Williams; economist & occasional fill in host for El Rusbo.
In the article he explains the problem with federal spending; that every congressman & senator in Washington tries to take as large a piece of the federal pie home to his or her district. He describes their political success as how much “Bacon they can bring home”.
Williams then goes on to explain how & why this spending is simply unsustainable, but understands their attempt at legitimizing the taking. It would sound good for a bit, but what would be the point in refusing the money. If they don’t take it home, someone else will, so why not grab it.
You may link to this article here
That got me thinking. There ought to a law! Wow, never thought I’d say that, but in this case, there ought.
So, I hereby propose a new bill: If a congressman or senator is bold enough to refuse money from the feds for his or her state, the amount they refuse cannot be spent elsewhere. If they have the courage to decline federal funds, the amount they forebear would automatically be deducted from next years budget.
A stand-alone government website would be established to keep score of every congressman and senator, as it were. Every dime they took for there state as well as what they refused. There would be no where to hide.
I believe many conservative lawmakers would be happy to refuse federal graft if they thought it could make a difference to do so. Presently, as described above, there is no benefit.
A lawmaker could triumphantly return to their district with the rightful claim that he or she actually did cut the budget by X amount instead of the current excuses of why it can’t be done, or worse, the shady lies that it is being done, when they know it is all accounting gimmickry.
Would it balance the budget? Nope. Would it decrease our deficit or debt? Only fractionally.
What it may do is begin to change the mindset of congress, that one man really can make a difference and if enough of them jumped on the bandwagon, it could very well have an impact.
It would also be a great campaigning tool. A big spender would be a lot easier to spot and thus run against.
from: The Godfather
Our government thinks that if we give money to nations that want to destroy us that somehow they’ll learn to like us. Don’t believe it. They only think we’re stupid and weak. The money we’ve sent to these backward and violent regimes have only been used to prop up dictators who keep most of the money for themselves. When their rulers are finally overthrown, the people blame the United States for keeping the tyrants in power.
How well did our foreign aid do in Egypt? How is it doing in Syria with the slaughter of innocent children? All foreign aid should be stopped. If wealth redistribution is hurting the poor in the United States, why do we think it’s going to help in other nations? What we should be exporting is a worldview that — moral, religious, economic, and political — that will help these nations transform themselves.
How much support have the following regimes given the United States when it came time for them to vote at the United Nations? (Following this voting list, take a look at how much foreign aid money we dole out to some of these nations):
- Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time (how quickly they forget)
- Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
- Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
- United Arab Emirates votes against the United States 70% of the time.
- Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
- Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
- Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
- Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
- Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
- Oman votes against the United States 74%of the time.
- Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
- Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
- Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
- Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
- Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
- India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
- Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
- Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
United States Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
- Egypt, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2,000,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
- Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
- Pakistan votes 75% against the United States and receives $6,721,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
- India votes 81%
Once known as the wickedest city in the world when it was the playground of British buccaneers and explorers in the 17th century, little now remains of Port Royal.
However, a campaign supported by the Jamaican government was launched this week to secure UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) world heritage status for the sunken city to put it firmly back on the map.
Surveys by a team of experts are under way to mark the land and sea boundaries of what is regarded as one of the most important archeological sites in British history as part of the bid to UNESCO.
A seven-mile spit of golden sand arcs around Kingston bay protecting the capital. At the far end lies the small fishing village of Port Royal (of “Pirates of the Caribbean” fame), which was once a bustling city and key British outpost in the 1600s.
The port, which boasted a population of 7,000 and was comparable to Boston during the same period, was a playground for buccaneers like Henry Morgan, who docked in search of rum, women and boat repairs.
England seized Jamaica from the Spanish in 1655 under the orders of Oliver Cromwell with the aim of establishing a trading base in the Spanish New World.
Merchants and pirates flocked to the new settlement and Port Royal soon became synonymous for excess. There was one tavern for every 10 residents and boasted a thriving prostitution trade.
The city became known as “the Sodom of the New World”, with contemporary writer Charles Leslie noting in his history of Jamaica of the buccaneers: “Wine and women drained their wealth to such a degree that… some of them became reduced to beggary. They have been known to spend 2 or 3,000 pieces of eight in one night and one gave a strumpet 500 to see her naked.”
However, on June 7, 1692, an earthquake and tsunami decimated the coastline, submerging two-thirds of the city and killing an estimated 2,000 people.
The port remained a key strategic British naval base, but the debauchery was washed away with the tsunami. Fort Charles, where Lord Nelson was once stationed, sank three and a half feet during the earthquake but remains standing to this day.
Despite the village being littered with remnants of British military installations, many of the historic colonial buildings are dilapidated.
But in recent decades, underwater excavations have turned up artifacts including cannonballs, wine glasses, ornate pipes, pewter plates and ceramic plates dredged from the muck just offshore. The partial skeleton of a child was found in 1998.
At a press conference on Tuesday, experts said it is among the top British archaeological sites in the Western Hemisphere and should be protected for future generations.
“There is outstanding potential here. Submerged towns like this just do not exist anywhere else in the Americas,” said Robert Grenier, a Canadian underwater archaeologist who has worked closely with UNESCO.
Donny Hamilton, Texas A&M University nautical archaeologist, said the consulting team has completed the fieldwork for the world heritage assessment and is working on a management plan.
Port Royal could become a sustainable attraction for tourists but first “there’s got to be something above the ground that people are going to want to come and see,” Mr Hamilton said.
Jamaican officials and businessmen have announced various strategies to renovate the ramshackle town over the years, including plans for modern cruise liners and a Disney-style theme park featuring actors dressed as pirates.
Some area businessmen have grown exasperated with the slow pace of development.
Attribution: UK Telegraph
by: Walter E. Williams
Our nation is rapidly approaching a point from which there’s little chance to avoid a financial collapse. The heart of our problem can be seen as a tragedy of the commons. That’s a set of circumstances when something is commonly owned and individuals acting rationally in their own self-interest produce a set of results that’s inimical to everyone’s long-term interest. Let’s look at an example of the tragedy of the commons phenomenon and then apply it to our national problem.
Imagine there are 100 cattlemen all having an equal right to graze their herds on 1,000 acres of commonly owned grassland. The rational self-interested response of each cattleman is to have the largest herd that he can afford. Each cattleman pursing similar self-interests will produce results not in any of the cattlemen’s long-term interest — overgrazing, soil erosion and destruction of the land’s usefulness. Even if they all recognize the dangers, does it pay for any one cattleman to cut the size of his herd? The short answer is no because he would bear the cost of having a smaller herd while the other cattlemen gain at his expense. In the long term, they all lose because the land will be overgrazed and made useless.
We can think of the federal budget as a commons to which each of our 535 congressmen and the president have access. Like the cattlemen, each congressman and the president want to get as much out of the federal budget as possible for their constituents. Political success depends upon “bringing home the bacon.” Spending is popular, but taxes to finance the spending are not. The tendency is for spending to rise and its financing to be concealed through borrowing and inflation.
Does it pay for an individual congressman to say, “This spending is unconstitutional and ruining our nation, and I’ll have no part of it; I will refuse a $500 million federal grant to my congressional district”? The answer is no because he would gain little or nothing, plus the federal budget wouldn’t be reduced by $500 million. Other congressmen would benefit by having $500 million more for their districts.
What about the constituents of a principled congressman? If their congressman refuses unconstitutional spending, it doesn’t mean that they pay lower federal income taxes. All that it means is constituents of some other congressmen get the money while the nation spirals toward financial ruin, and they wouldn’t be spared from that ruin because their congressman refused to participate in unconstitutional spending.
What we’re witnessing in Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and other parts of Europe is a direct result of their massive spending to accommodate the welfare state. A greater number of people are living off government welfare programs than are paying taxes. Government debt in Greece is 160 percent of gross domestic product. The other percentages of GDP are 120 in Italy, 104 in Ireland and 106 in Portugal. As a result of this debt and the improbability of their ever paying it, their credit ratings either have reached or are close to reaching junk bond status.
Here’s the question for us: Is the U.S. moving in a direction toward or away from the troubled EU nations? It turns out that our national debt, which was 35 percent of GDP during the 1970s, is now 106 percent of GDP, a level not seen since World War II’s 122 percent. That debt, plus our more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, has led Standard & Poor’s to downgrade our credit rating from AAA to AA+, and the agency is keeping the outlook at “negative” as a result of its having little confidence that Congress will take on the politically sensitive job of tackling the same type of entitlement that has turned Europe into a basket case.
I am all too afraid that Benjamin Franklin correctly saw our nation’s destiny when he said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
Scientists say a fault-line running across Alaska could cause tsunamis of the same magnitude as the Japanese disaster of March last year.
A particular section of the fault near the Semidi Islands has not ruptured since at least 1788, and measurements on this area – which lies four to five kilometers (2-1/2 to 3 miles) under water – reveal the pressure is accumulating rapidly.
If the Pacific Ocean plate slips, as happened in the geographically-similar Tohoku subduction zone off the coast of Japan, a tsunami could occur – and could wreak havoc as far away as Hawaii and California.
According to Discovery.com, scientists are now investigating the underwater fault-line in the hope of estimating the likelihood of danger to the U.S. and to the Hawaiian islands.
The last time a slip between the Alaskan plates occurred, it led to the Good Friday Earthquake, on March 27, 1964, which was the most powerful earthquake in U.S. history – a 9.2 magnitude earthquake and led to 145 deaths.
Tsunamis also occurred in this area in 1947 and 1957, while a magnitude 7.4 earthquake occurred in the area last June, but as its location did not lead to a tsunami, a brief tsunami warning was recalled shortly afterwards.
Many of these deaths happened hundreds of miles away from the epicenter of the earthquake – with 90% caused by tsunamis.
The Japanese quake, which measured 9.0 magnitude, led to a 10-meter-high (33 ft) tsunami and ended up killing an estimated 18,000 people.
Attribution: Eddie Wrenn, Discovery
by: Kathleen Marquard & the Common Constitutionalist
Pop Quiz: Who said this? Marx, Lenin, Mao, Michael Moore?
“Global sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
In 1992, twenty years ago this summer, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development was unveiled to the world at the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio.
In his opening remarks at the ceremonies at the Earth Summit, Maurice Strong stated: “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle, which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”
Sheesh! Take away the environmental crap and it sounds like Woodrow Wilson could have penned it.
George H.W. Bush was in Rio for the ceremonies and graciously signed on for America so that our overburdened Congress wouldn’t have to spend the time reviewing the document, thus learning then, what dastardly deeds were in store for us — that protecting the environment would be used as the basis for controlling all human activity and redistributing our wealth.
A year later Clinton established his President’s Council for Sustainable Development, which would embed the guidelines of Agenda 21 into public policy to be administered by the federal government via all departments. In doing this, Bush(41) and Clinton set up Agenda 21 as ruling authority, i.e., implementing a U.N. plan to become U.S. policy across the whole nation and bleeding into every county and town. And both succeeding presidents have evidently fully endorsed and implemented Agenda 21 through every department of the federal government.
Here is how the UN described Agenda 21 in one of its own publications in a 1993 article entitled “Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet: “Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by EVERY person on Earth…it calls for specific changes in the activities of ALL people… Effective execution of Agenda 21 will REQUIRE a profound reorientation of ALL humans, unlike anything the world has ever experienced.”
So, it sounds as if we may have to make some minor changes to our lifestyle.
In simple terms, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the end of civilization as we know it. It is the end of private property, the elevation of the collective over the individual. It is the redistribution of America’s wealth to the rest of the world (actually the global elites and progressive intellectuals); it is the end of the Great American Experiment and the Constitution.
Before we go any further, I know what you’re thinking. It’s been in effect since 1993, but I don’t see any drastic changes to this country. What’s the big deal? Remember this; National Healthcare was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. I’ll give Progressives props; they don’t give up. They’ll just keep pushing their agenda through generations and the foundation has already been laid.
According to its authors, the objective of Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is to integrate economic, social and environmental policies in order to achieve reduced consumption, social equity, and the preservation and restoration of biodiversity (the 3Es of sustainability – Social Equity; Economic Prosperity; and Ecological Integrity). They insist that every societal decision be based on environmental impact, focusing on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
You will need to memorize these new vocabulary words if you are to be a good citizen of the world:
Open space, smart growth, smart food, smart buildings, regional planning, walkable, bikeable, foodsheds, viewsheds, consensus, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, social justice, heritage, carbon footprints, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, community service.
After reading this laundry list of Agenda 21 words, you may now see that some have already found their way into our lexicon. Those who control the language, control the argument, thus control the agenda.
This is not just policy but a complete restructuring of life as we know it. We not only will be taught how we must live, but where we are allowed to live; how many children we may have; taught how to think and what is acceptable thinking; told what job we will be allowed to have; taught how we can worship and what we will be allowed to worship; and we (especially our children) will be brainwashed into believing that the individual must cede all to the collective.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Private property and free-market economics will be replaced by public private partnerships and a planned central economy. Social justice will usurp individual rights. Social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people “to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.” – in other words, the redistribution of wealth. This will be achieved through an organizational structure of land use controls; control of energy and energy production; control of transportation; control of industry; control of food production; control of development; control of water availability; and control of population size and growth. And all will be decreed under the guise of environmental protection and sustainability.
Agenda 21 is nothing more than worldwide centralized command & control. They only wish to control all aspects of our lives. Is that too much ask?