Sunday, February 28, 2010


This one hits close to home for bloggers. We are constantly "borrowing" the thoughts of others to expand upon. It's really kind of the core activity around here. Of course, bloggers tend to be honest about it, giving credit and links to the original sources. The professional media does the same thing,though but they generally treat their stories as original works with usually no mention of sources.

I tend to trust the bloggers.

Click here for Ioannes' comments on the Constitution Party copyright and patents plank.

Bookmark and Share

Friday, February 26, 2010


"With uncharacteristic bluntness, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke warned Congress on Wednesday that the United States could soon face a debt crisis like the one in Greece, and declared that the central bank will not help legislators by printing money to pay for the ballooning federal debt.

Recent events in Europe, where Greece and other nations with large, unsustainable deficits like the United States are having increasing trouble selling their debt to investors, show that the U.S. is vulnerable to a sudden reversal of fortunes that would force taxpayers to pay higher interest rates on the debt, Mr. Bernanke said...

..."We're not going to monetize the debt," Mr. Bernanke declared flatly, stressing that Congress needs to start making plans to bring down the deficit to avoid such a dangerous dilemma for the Fed."
Washington Times

If this is the truth, if the Fed refuses to inject any more money into the system, we've reached the end game. Congress will either have to cut spending across the board, including social programs like Medicare and Social Security or interest rates will have to go up to attract investors to our bonds. That still wouldn't attract enough money to feed this beast. As countries like Greece begin to fold money should start flowing our way as we'll be seen as the last safe place to put it. This will help, for a short while.

The reality of the situation is that the line of credit is being closed. I've thought that we had two possible ways out of the mess we're in; hyper-inflate or collapse ourselves. It looks as though we may be choosing the latter. Good. This may give us more control as we bring it down.

What this means though, is breathtaking. The American people are going to have to live within their means, not just now but into the future. No more unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare) and no more creative bookkeeping. We either must accept fiscal sanity or we will cease to exist. We will no longer be an empire and will return to something closer to what our Founders intended this country to be.

Our standard of living will fall. We will have to rely on ourselves, our families and our social networks. The days of giant government are drawing to a close and along with it the nanny state. If the government does shrink to survive, this is going to be tough.

But the important thing is that we will survive. And we'll come out stronger on the other end. America has been through tough times before and we can do it again. We have the resources we need to survive within our borders. We have the political system that works, if we follow the Constitution. Most importantly, we have the people. We may whine and complain but in the end I'll take a dozen Americans over a hundred of anybody else when the going gets tough.

So let's hope that we are making the right decision and bringing this thing down on our own terms. I don't know if the politicians have the stomach for it and I'm sure that most people won't even see it coming. So I hope that if this is the plan that maybe somebody will speak to the people and explain it. We all need to understand and accept it; get on board and get to work. This will take more than a village; it will take a nation.

Bookmark and Share


If we used chemical waste and animal dung as filler we could make our yields seem a lot higher, too.

"China extended its position as the world’s leading food producer in 2008, when its agricultural production jumped 30%, measured by value, World Trade Organization data show.

Chinese farm production rose to $759,94 billion in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available, from $584,25 billion in 2007, according to a note by the WTO secretariat, circulated on the WTO website and dated February 23."
Business Day

Bookmark and Share


Leave it up to the Marines. General Conway got right to the heart of the matter when asking how these political games impact battle readiness. This is the question that should be at the forefront of any discussion.

The fact is that as a percentage of the population homosexuals make up only 2%-5%. The number of homosexuals on active duty is even lower. This leads me to the conclusion that all of this is about politics, an attempt to show support for a really small special interest in hopes of garnering votes from the larger population of liberal constituents. This is all about the good of the politicians with no regard for the welfare of those that put their lives on the line in battle.

A repeal of the law as it stands is wrong and quite possibly evil in so far as it affects battle readiness and soldier safety. Keep politics out of the military.

"The head of the US Marines said on Thursday he opposed ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the first top officer to break openly with President Barack Obama over the issue.
General James Conway told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he disagreed with Obama's plan to repeal the ban.

"My best military advice to this committee, to the (defense) secretary, and to the president would be to keep the law such as it is."

Conway said the current policy worked and any bid to lift the ban should answer the question: "do we somehow enhance the war fighting capabilities of the United States Marine Corps by allowing homosexuals to openly serve?"

Bookmark and Share


Could someone get the USCCB and the bishops to explain to me HOW health care is a basic human right? It may be a basic need and as a Christian I may be obligated by my faith to help if someone is injured but no one has a claim on another's labor to supply them health care.

It's this leftist dribble that is so infuriating the average Catholic. The bishops need to stick to teaching the truth, not promoting beliefs that are antithetical to the Catholic faith.

So I have a question: if access to health care is my right is it sinful for a doctor to charge me for an office visit? Because I can't think of any other right that has a cost associated with its exercise. My rights belong to me by birth and cause no burden to others. My rights do not require action by others. Speech, thought, faith, defense, happiness, liberty. None of these require anything from anyone. That is the nature of a right. Healthcare, on the other hand, requires the labor of another. Do I have a claim on another's labor? Of course not; no more than I do on their wealth, for they are one and the same.

It is time for the bishops to stop the lying; lying done to support political causes. Teach us the truth. Do your job and quit sucking up to your friends in the Progressive movement.

"The evening before the White House Health care Summit in Washington, the U.S. Catholic bishops urged political leaders to commit to enacting “genuine” reform that will protect the life, dignity, consciences and health of all.

“The Catholic bishops have long supported adequate and affordable health care for all, because health care is a basic human right,” their letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) explained."
Catholic News Agency

Bookmark and Share


Hopefully this is just the beginning. The only way that we are going to get changes made at the USCCB is by withholding our money from them. Individual bishops need to lead their Diocese in this effort. This has the side benefit of allowing the average Catholic to get some idea of where their bishop stands.

"The Diocese of Green Bay in Wisconsin has chosen to withhold its annual funding of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) until further information has been gathered on allegations that recently surfaced.

The CCHD, which is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. bishops, has recently come under fire for alleged connections with a network of community organizations that have promoted homosexual causes and abortion advocacy. In response to recent allegations the CCHD subcommittee has been investigating claims.

The Diocese of Green Bay's newspaper The Compass reported on Wednesday that Bishop David Ricken has decided to send his diocese's donations only to CRS and Peter's Pence, citing his need for more time to assess CCHD's situation locally and nationally."
Catholic News Agency

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, February 25, 2010


For the answer from the Constitution Party click here.

I've never understood how the draft could be constitutionally permissible. We have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Being drafted definitely deprives you of the last two and has a definite possibility of depriving you of the first. Besides, if we have to go to war I would much rather have soldiers that made a free will choice defending the country than a bunch of conscripts.

Bookmark and Share


"The Obama administration may expand efforts to ease the housing crisis by banning all foreclosures on home loans unless they have been screened and rejected by the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program.

The proposal, reviewed by lenders last week on a White House conference call, “prohibits referral to foreclosure until borrower is evaluated and found ineligible for HAMP or reasonable contact efforts have failed,” according to a Treasury Department document outlining the plan."

It seems like this overrides the contract entered into between the homeowner and the lender. If that's the case, all contracts lose their binding power. If that's the case, why in the hell would any bank ever lend anybody any money ever again?

By the way, if this goes into effect all home mortgagor's that have homes that are underwater should default as a group, overwhelm the system and live rent free for years while they try to get it straightened out. Immoral, perhaps. Effective, most definitely.


"Mayor Dave Bing said Wednesday he "absolutely" intends to relocate residents from desolate neighborhoods and is bracing for inevitable legal challenges when he unveils his downsizing plan.

In his strongest statements about shrinking the city since taking office, Bing told WJR-AM (760) the city is using internal and external data to decide "winners and losers." The city plans to save some neighborhoods and encourage residents to move from others, he said.

"If we don't do it, you know this whole city is going to go down. I'm hopeful people will understand that," Bing said. "If we can incentivize some of those folks that are in those desolate areas, they can get a better situation."
Detroit News

I think we have just seen the future. If you choose to live in an urban environment, dependent upon public services, you will sacrifice your autonomy. This is perfectly reasonable and completely evil. This is the very essence of central planning, reminiscent of Soviet Central Committees and gray concrete warehouses called apartments.

But what can cities do? The tax base that supported the web of government services that have supported the urbanites very existence depends on the redistribution of wealth; wealth that is no longer available to the planners as the economy collapses. Sewers, electric, food, protection and even water; access to all of these rely on access to a common pool of wealth, a social contract that is being destroyed by economic depression. To retain these services cities must necessarily shrink.

What about the suburbs? They have the same problem as the cities but on a much larger and far less manageable scale. As the economy contracts, eventually to a point far below that of the Great Depression of the 1930's suburbs will cease to exist. They are too large and scattered to be serviced by the limited public utilities yet too populated to support the people that live there from the land alone. The suburbs will turn into a no mans land of those living on the edge of existence until even they are no more. The American dream will turn into a junk yard, a giant outdoor warehouse of materials for those that survive.

St. Michael, defend us!

Bookmark and Share


So how long did the depression last in the '30's, when the government did almost exactly the same things it's doing now? Why should we believe any recovery is in sight if this crisis dwarfs that one?

"Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Tuesday the U.S. economic recovery was "extremely unbalanced," driven largely by high earners benefiting from recovering stock markets and large corporations.

Small businesses and the jobless are still suffering from the aftermath of a credit crunch that was "by far the greatest financial crisis, globally, ever" -- including the 1930s Great Depression, said Greenspan in an address to a Credit Union National Association conference."

Bookmark and Share


"...Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) wants this same FDA, with its dismal safety record, to regulate dietary supplements. The Dietary Supplement Safety Act (DSSA), S. 3002 (text of this bill posted on Senator McCain's website), that McCain has introduced with one cosponsor, would repeal key provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to “more effectively regulate dietary supplements that may pose safety risks unknown to consumers.”

Just another limited government, free market, conservative Republican in action. Isn't this why we have pharmacists? Let us purchase whatever drugs we want. We are responsible for ourselves. If we have a question we can go to the pharmacist or even the internet for our answer. I trust both (and my own intelligence) far more than I do the FDA.

Where is the authority for the FDA in the Constitution?

Bookmark and Share


"A day after a storm dumped more than a foot of snow, causing tens of thousands of people to lose power and stalling air and rail traffic, weather-weary Northeast residents braced for a repeat — a second storm packing potentially damaging wind gusts up to 50 mph and possibly more than another foot of snow.

The second part of the two-day, 1-2 winter punch was expected Thursday, and the National Weather Service said the storm would be "significant and long-lasting...

...The National Weather Service criticized State College, Pa.-based Accuweather Inc. for referring to the storm that way and for saying it would be "hurricane-like" and a "monster." NWS meteorologist Craig Evanego said the terminology was "almost inciting the public, inciting panic."

Accuweather called the NWS criticism "unfounded" and said there's nothing wrong with using language that gets people's attention when the situation calls for it."

It just makes you wonder why those crazy "preppers" have a generator, some water and a little extra food around, doesn't it? Being prepared is just so, oh I don't know, apocalyptic, isn't it?

Bookmark and Share


"The world’s most powerful investors have been advised to buy farmland, stock up on gold and prepare for a “dirty war” by Marc Faber, the notoriously bearish market pundit, who predicted the 1987 stock market crash.

The bleak warning of social and financial meltdown, delivered today in Tokyo at a gathering of 700 pension and sovereign wealth fund managers...

...“The next war will be a dirty war,” he told fund managers: "What are you going to do when your mobile phone gets shut down or the internet stops working or the city water supplies get poisoned?”
Times Online

I guess my question would be what good will farmland do you if everything goes to hell in the cities and you still live there?

I live in the country and I hate to break it to the money guys but just owning land does not make it productive. It takes a lot of hard work to get a piece of ground to produce enough to support you. And what about networks? You choose to live in the city and the people you know will live there, too. You can't expect to pick up and come out here and have instant friends. And believe me, you WILL need friends when things come apart. You may have money but it won't mean a thing if the system that supports it has disappeared. You can't eat gold, either.

People in the country will try to help if we can but if there is a dirty war we'll be busy just getting by out here and working with the people we know. Real skills will have a market. Playing games with other peoples money will not. So ask yourself before you escape to the country; what do you bring to the party? Your land will be fallow, your skills will be useless and no one will know who you are. We will never have seen you at church, at social functions or working on community projects. Your kids won't have gone to our schools and you won't even speak our language. All of the jokes that your sophisticated, urban friends and you have made about us poor hayseeds will come back to haunt you. You won't understand our culture and you may not be able to accept it.

If you truly believe that the world as we know it is about to come apart then you need to make significant changes to your life now, not after the event happens. If you knew that the Titanic was going to sink would you have boarded anyway, assuming that there would be room on a lifeboat?

Dr. Faber's advice to buy farmland does not go far enough. Buy farmland and move to it, now, while the gettin's good. Establish yourself in the community and show you can be trusted and that you have some useful skill. Learn to be one of us because all of us will have to work towards a common goal together if we are to survive what I believe is coming. We won't have the time or the resources to carry others that should support themselves. Those that don't work won't eat.

The thing is that if you can't see moving to the country when times are good because the rural life just doesn't appeal to you, what makes you think you'll last out here when the SHTF? Get your mind right, boy! (I suddenly feel like Strother Martin.) What is coming will require as much of a mental adjustment and toughness as it will a physical toughness. If you can't make that adjustment now you won't make it later.

Bookmark and Share


Cicero would be sad to find himself quite at home in these United States where legislature has not changed in 2045 years, for like the Roman Senate before it, the US Congress is guilty of having and fostering both too much liberty, and too much pleasure.

History goes 'round and 'round and nothing ever really changes, most especially politics and human nature. Read Ioannes' most recent commentary on the Constitution Party Platform here.

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


Finally, news that makes sense. If more snow and colder weather is a sure indication of global warming then I think it only logical that more layoffs would equal more job creation.

"The number of mass layoffs by U.S. employers edged up in January as manufacturers stepped up job cuts, data showed on Tuesday, but probably not enough to alter views that the economy is on the brink of creating jobs."

Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people.
The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Alice: How do you know I'm mad?
The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.
Alice: And how do you know that you're mad?
The Cat: To begin with, a dog's not mad. You grant that?
Alice: I suppose so,
The Cat: Well, then, you see, a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad.
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

Bookmark and Share


So how do you reconcile these two stories? One hand doesn't know what the other is reporting and the government is losing its ability to control the media and the message. The truth is leaking out. It's almost as though the powers that be don't care if we know. They're getting sloppy. Why?

"New housing starts rose 21 percent in January from a year ago, the Census Bureau said today, to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 591,000.

That's up from a record low pace of 479,000 units per year seen in April, but still well off the 1 million to 2 million-a-year range that's been the norm for five decades. During the last boom, housing starts peaked at 2.07 million in 2005.

Single-family home starts were up 36 percent from a year ago, to a seasonally adjusted rate of 484,000 per year."

"The worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression took its toll on the private housing market in January as the Commerce Department announced that builders started the fewest number of homes on a seasonably adjusted basis since the agency began keeping those records in 1959.

Builders broke ground on an annual rate of 466,000 houses and apartments last month, a 16.8 percent drop below the upwardly revised December estimate of 560,000 and a whopping 56.2 percent below the rate of 1,064,000 units in January 2008, the Commerce Department said.

The number was far below the 529,000 starts that had been predicted in a Bloomberg News survey."
Washington Times

Bookmark and Share


As the average American starts to think like their grandparents the old do it yourself mentality will take hold. Why pay someone else to do what you can do yourself?

What affect will this have on the "service" economy. With so many earning a living by doing the simple jobs people used to do themselves the return of frugality will drive the depression even deeper.

Bookmark and Share


I'm a strong supporter of the use of sales and excise taxes in place of an income tax. It looks as though Missouri may be the first state in the nation to use a version of this known as the Fair Tax. I've posted a few excepts regarding this below.

The last excerpt raises an interesting question; should private schools be exempted from this tax? I would have to say yes, as long as public schools are supported with tax dollars. I say this for the same reason that I believe vouchers should be issued to taxpayers that choose to educate their children outside of the government system. You shouldn't have to pay twice for the same service others pay only once for. But I would take that further. I believe that all taxes collected to support education should be collected locally and spent locally. There is no reason for the state, much less the federal government to have any say in how my children are educated. The parents should be involved in the entire educational process, from hiring the teachers to establishing the curriculum. Keeping the money local would insure that.

There is an old one room school house just down the road from where I live. I drive by it all the time and think of how well that old system worked, bringing us Jefferson, Madison, Thoreau and George Washington Carver. Some were educated in the public schools, some at home and some learned on their own; but all were educated without teachers unions and government interference. The system worked then and it will work now.

Another objection raised to the fair tax in the same article is that the increase in taxes on goods sold will drive consumers across the border to shop in neighboring states. Missouri is "the" border state with eight states adjoining our border so this may be a valid observation. However, the law as it is written will only increase the current sales tax by .885 percent. I find it hard to believe that with this minor increase in cost many people will drive very far to save a couple bucks when gas is $3 per gallon. It just wouldn't make sense.

I like the Fair Tax but not as a stand alone piece of legislation. If the fair tax is going to be enacted it needs to include a Constitutional Amendment that makes it impossible to reinstate the income tax and all of the other taxes it replaces. From what I understand, the Missouri proposal does not include this. For this reason I cannot support it. I talked to someone at Missouri State Senator Griesheimer's office today and he confirmed my fears. Of course, he assured me that it would never happen. Right.

I'm glad that the discussion is happening and I hope that a Fair Tax is eventually passed in Missouri and in America. We just need to make sure it's done right. These damned politicians cannot be trusted. They'll find a way to screw us. Keep your eyes on 'em.

"SCS/SJR 29 - Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment replaces the state individual and corporate income tax, the corporate and bank franchise tax and state sales and use tax with a tax on the sale, use, or consumption of taxable property and services equal to five and eleven-one hundredths percent beginning January 1, 2012."
Missouri Senate

"The Missouri House gave final approval to a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish the state income tax and replace it with a FairTax system.

The proposal would raise the state sales tax from 4.225 percent to 5.11 percent and eliminate the 6 percent personal income tax and 6.25 percent corporate income tax on business earnings. Accompanying the sales tax rate hike would be a substantially broadened sales tax base that would include all purchases. Estate taxes would remain on the books.

The proposal would create the distribution of a monthly tax rebate check to cover the cost of any taxes incurred up to the federal poverty level, which is $26,000 for a family of four."
Fair Tax Blog

"Normally I’d be enthused about a tax simplification scheme, but a proposal being heard in the Missouri Senate this week is simply stupid. SJR 29 would seek to replace all corporate and individual income taxes with a state sales tax on all products and services sold in Missouri. The tax would apply not only to traditional retail items, but to services like private and parochial school tuition, apartment rentals and the purchase of new homes.

The Missouri bill is modeled on a national proposal called the “Fair Tax” which has more merit if applied on a national scale. But since Missouri is the most bordered state in the union, the effect of a Missouri-only Fair Tax would lead to a massive exodus of retail spending from the state, and in places like Kansas City, a massive exodus of citizens.

Beyond these depressive effects, there is a central injustice in the proposal – charging parents who sacrifice to send their children to private or parochial schools a sales tax on the tuition they pay. The tax is initially pegged at 5.11 percent, but could go significantly higher if it does not achieve the revenue collected under the current system."
Catholic Key


A local newspaper, "The Eureka-Pacific Current News Magazine" published a letter to the editor yesterday from Susan Cunningham, a local lefty that has a long history of writing socialist diatribes to the local journals. I'd print a copy of her letter here but cannot find it online because the Current has the worst website I've ever seen.

Anyway, Ms. Cunningham seems to be upset that some of us are calling for the reassertion of states rights and the Tenth Amendment. She seems to believe that if we just " to each other, respect each other and work together" everything will be alright. I suppose we should all hold hands and sing kumbaya, too.

Ms. Cunningham believes that a strong central government and a whole host of social programs can cure anything. She has bought into the lie. Further, she is either ignorant of history or so ideologically driven that she is blind to it. This isn't supposition on my part. I've been reading her letters for years.

I wrote a reply to her letter which is so long it will never be published (I'll submit it though. Sometimes I think the local paper is happy to have something to take up some column inches) but since I have this blog and I've now got something to fill space I figured I'd go ahead and post it here.

On page 16A of the February 2010 issue 2 your newspaper published a letter from Susan Cunningham addressing the issue of state sovereignty and states rights. She believes that the states hold a position inferior to that of the federal government, a view that would have been totally foreign to our Founding Fathers. Ms. Cunningham is echoing the sentiments of political leaders that harken back to the Whig party, from which sprang the Republican Party and its first President, Abraham Lincoln.

Ms. Cunningham writes that she is “…not sure how states can become “sovereign” without seceding…”. I would like to help clear this up for her. States are sovereign political entities because their sovereignty was given to them by the people that make up the members of the state.

Sovereignty exists in the individual. He receives it from God along with his unalienable rights. Man possesses rights and sovereignty because God extends them to us as a gift. The Founders recognized this. Individuals working together in an act of free will created states, endowing the states with a portion of human sovereignty and rights, a loan if you will. Those states, acting at the direction of their citizens and through their chosen representatives, created the federal government with first, the Articles of Confederation and finally with the Unites States Constitution. The states do not hold an inferior position to the federal government but in fact hold a position of superiority. The citizens are then in turn superior to the states. The lesser cannot create the greater and all government in America is created by the people and meant to serve them. From the Declaration of Independence:

“…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The Founders recognized the superiority of the states. In their writings they consistently acknowledge the fact that the states superseded and created the federal government and that the states were to hold a position of higher rank over the federal government. Alexander Hamilton, a champion of strong central government, had this to say in Federalist 32:

“But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.”

James Madison in Federalist 45 says this:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite.”

And Thomas Jefferson in The Kentucky Resolves of 1798:

“…That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government…”

So you see, Ms. Cunningham, the idea of sovereign and independent states was central to the design of our Republic. The primary purpose of the federal government was to be, according to Madison, “… exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected.” The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution addresses this point specifically:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution list the eighteen powers specifically granted by the states to the federal government as a loan.

It’s true that the Supreme Court decided that the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause expanded the powers of government beyond the limits established by Article 1 Section 8 but this is not what the Founders intended. Of course, one must ask why the Founders wrote a specific list of eighteen powers granted to the federal government if they intended the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause to give carte blanche to the legislature. James Madison warned of the consequences of just such a decision, consequences we see played out on a daily basis:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

It is this very usurpation of power by the federal government that those of us that seek the resurgence of state sovereignty hope to curtail. We don’t want secession. We want the Republic to function as it was intended to function, with power coming from the people, through the states and to the federal government, not the other way around as we have it now.

Like most supporters of a strong central government Ms Cunningham places Abraham Lincoln high upon a pedestal. She brings up the War Between the States and correctly points out that it was a war over the issue of states rights but she never tells us how the South believed those rights were violated. Ms. Cunningham then goes on to dismiss the issue of states rights as “rhetoric”, just words, all sound and fury signifying nothing. She tries to change the subject to slavery in a backhanded attempt to point to it as a primary cause when this is not the case. She goes so far as to quote Lincoln's words in the Gettysburg Address:

“…conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

Wonderful words yet said for political affect, not because he believed them. Like most members of the Lincoln cult Ms. Cunningham neglects to quote the words from Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address:

“…I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so…

…No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Nor does she quote these words from the same address, the words that give the real reason Lincoln started a war that killed over 500,000 Americans:

“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

For, while Lincoln felt no obligation to the enslaved, he was more than willing to go to war to collect taxes and tariffs. And that was the real cause of the war, tariffs and taxes imposed on the states in a manner that violated the Constitution and state sovereignty.

We are facing a similar situation today as the federal government forces unfunded mandates on the states, forcing them to pay for programs that the Founders would have never allowed and that violate the clear intent of the Constitution. The states must take back the power that is rightfully theirs and restore the Republic to a sound and sustainable footing. Few want secession and to say that this is the purpose of those that want strong sovereign states is a lie. We want our country back and we want to be left alone! If secession were the only course left after everything else had been tried, well then I suppose, so be it. The destruction of our Constitution and the slavery of a Socialist Utopia are not the answer and not an option. The Constitution and its original intent must be preserved, for the good of America and the world.

My favorite President, Jefferson Davis had this to say:

"I love the Union and the Constitution, but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it.''

I think that accurately sums up the feelings of a goodly number of Americans today. Pray that we can find our way through this without destroying ourselves.

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, February 23, 2010


"Why do we in these United States have an economic crisis, a racial crisis, a health care crisis, an energy crisis, a climate change crisis, and all the other crises that go along with these? It is because we have abandoned morality, righteousness and holiness."

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Read Ioannes's latest post on the Constitution Party platform here.

Bookmark and Share


While I agree with Hudson's sentiments I'm struck with foreboding. Just as the Democrats have hijacked the USCCB so can the Republicans manipulate any sort of movement from the right. I like the idea of Catholic Tea parties in so far as they are driven by individuals and an organic anger, but they would be terribly easy to co-opt if the leaders aren't careful. Too far to the right is no better than too far to the left. If Catholicism is the central driving force behind any such group then good, but if the driving force is political then it will lead to evil.

"At the American Conservative Union's recent annual meeting, Deal Hudson, president of the Catholic Advocate, hosted an event with the theme “It's time for a Catholic Tea Party.”

The annual meeting of the ACU, called the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) took place in Washington D.C. from Feb. 18-20.

Hudson told attendees of the Catholic Advocate event that “it was time for Catholics to realize they don't need permission from their bishops to become politically active.”

Hudson's remarks were made in the context of a campaign to “reform the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD)” that he is helping lead. The CCHD, which is under jurisdiction of the U.S. bishops, has recently come under fire for its alleged connections with a network of community organizations that have promoted abortion and the homosexual agenda.

Clarifying what he means by a “Catholic Tea Party,” Hudson said, “We are not calling for the dismantling of the USCCB, not at all. Episcopal conferences are fully mandated by the documents of Vatican II and the Code of Cannon Law.”

“But,” Hudson continued, “we want the USCCB to be managed in a way that does supplant the role and responsibility of the laity and programs like the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. In the case of USCCB programs like the CCHD a serious overhaul is necessary to prevent Catholic money from being spent on organizations supporting abortion and same-sex marriage.”

“$2,000,000 has been spent this way and it needs to stop,” Hudson claimed.

The conservative leader expressed another reason for the Catholic laity to become politically active, saying that they have relied too often on Evangelical organizations and have “lacked confidence” in participating in Catholic political activism.

Following his address, Hudson introduced Florida Senatorial candidate Marco Rubio, whom he described as a man who “will not compromise” and invited him to give some brief commentary. Also present was Matt Smith, vice president of Catholic Advocate and co-host of the event."
Catholic News Agency

Bookmark and Share


Why can't the USCCB just come out with guns blazing? They know that, based on his record, Obama will do whatever he can to make sure abortion is funded in whatever health control plan he can shove down our throats. So why the nice talk, the “perhaps he wants to leave this to further discussion”? My guess is that they don't want to offend their pals in the Democrat Party. My guess is that political power means more than the truth. I could be wrong and often am but, with all of the provable connections between the Bishop's Conference and the DNC what should I think? The USSCB has conflated Catholic teaching with Marxist "social justice" so many times that I can't trust their motives. Political corruption is destroying the moral authority of the American Catholic Church.

"President Barack Obama’s Monday proposal of a revamp of health care legislation drew criticism but also cautious speculation from various pro-life leaders. While some criticized the proposal’s lack of abortion funding restrictions, one commentator from the U.S. bishops’ office suggested the president may want “further discussion” on the issue.

The president did not propose any changes to the Senate health care bill’s restrictions on federal funding for abortions, The Los Angeles Times reports. The bill would require any woman buying a subsidized health plan with abortion services to pay separately for the abortion insurance benefit.

Seeking comment on the president’s proposal, CNA contacted Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Secretariat of Pro-life Activities. He responded in an email on Monday.

“We have said that the House bill's position on abortion funding is acceptable and the Senate bill's is not,” Doerflinger told CNA. “The President's proposal, which is really a summary of points rather than a detailed legislative proposal, says he hopes to combine features of the House and Senate bills, but the proposal says nothing about abortion or abortion funding.

“Perhaps he wants to leave this to further discussion.”
Catholic News Agency

Bookmark and Share


"Oil prices rose above $80 a barrel Monday in Asia, extending a three-week rally as investors expect the U.S. central bank to keep interest rates near zero to help fuel economic growth, which would boost crude consumption."
AP News

Is it just me or does there exist some sort of disconnect between common sense and the investor class? If the price of crude goes up the price of fuel will go up with it. In America and from what I've seen, most of the world, we are in a depression. People can barely afford the basics. If the price of fuel goes up, don't these financial geniuses understand that demand will fall? And along with demand will go the rest of the economy?

This investors are looking to make short term profit at the expense of the long term good. This is not only unsound from a common sense standpoint but I would also argue it is immoral. The world is awash in oil. There is no reason, besides greed, that it should be at $80 per barrel. Right or wrong, the fact is the world depends on reasonably priced oil to function. Without it we collapse. And a few will profit from the suffering.

This is Peak Oil in action.

Bookmark and Share


I haven't been working lately yet I haven't, not even once, felt the urge to beat my wife. Is something wrong with me? Have these flower print pajama pants (my wife made them for herself but they are too big for her, they're comfy and I'm secure in my masculinity, or at least I was until I read the Senators comment, so what the heck) I'm wearing somehow sucked the manliness from me? To make a full recovery should I beat my wife and call it good or perhaps should I go looking for another to beat to make sure I'm fully cured?

Is there nothing that these politicians won't say to advance an agenda? Maybe, just once, we could hear something intelligent from Washington. We pay these guys enough.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested Monday that domestic violence by men has increased due to U.S. joblessness.

Reid, speaking in the midst of a Senate debate over whether to pass a $15 billion package meant to spur job creation, appeared to argue that joblessness would lead to more domestic violence.

"I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand," Reid said on the Senate floor. "Why? Men don't have jobs."
The Hill

Bookmark and Share


In today's installment of his commentary on the Constitution Party Platform Ioannes examines the plank titled "Bring Government Back Home". He quotes paragraph 1885 of Catechism of the Catholic Church and its discussion on the role of "subsidiarity" which states:

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

According to The Acton Institute subsidiarity is defined as:

(The tenet) that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.

This is a vitally important concept that seems to be lost on many today, including the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. The very basis of the American Republic is subsidiarity; the understanding that all rights come from God through man who in turn lends some of them to the state. Because of this all the power of the state rests in God through the individual, not in the Federal Government as so many believe today. The closer to the individual the center of political power lies the better for society. The Constitution Party supports the Tenth Amendment which states clearly and succinctly:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Until, through our power at the ballot box, we force our politicians to understand and accept the limited power we have lent to them and they begin to act accordingly Americans can never be free. The Constitution Party understands its limits and thus respects and honors our freedom and our God given authority over the government.

Vote Constitution Party!

Bookmark and Share

Monday, February 22, 2010


Read Ioannes' third installment of his series on the Constitution Party Platform, this time regarding its plank on The Sanctity of Life.

It's vital we understand that the options as they are presented to us through the media are not the only options available. The Constitution Party is the third largest party in the country. It can win and it can make a difference.

Bookmark and Share


For all of you that laugh at us "preppers" this is what a bank holiday means. These types of laws are in place to slow down a run on the bank if panic sets in. So, if you couldn't get access to your money for seven days would you eat or go hungry? If no one can get their money for seven days what do you think the chances are of some level of social disorder breaking out, further complicating your lives. ARE YOU PREPARED?

Bookmark and Share


Ioannes over at Commentarius de Prognosticis is running a series of commentaries on the platform of the Constitution Party over the next few weeks. Here is an excerpt from his first installment:

"This blogsite has been exceedingly critical of the Democrat Party, and rightly so given its policies supporting the infanticide of the unborn and the legitimatization of homosexual relationships. But we have been mostly silent on the Republican Party. It is therefore time to state clearly what we do support, and that is the principles of the US Constitution Party. Its platform is the closest to the teachings of Holy Mother Church."

I too am an ardent supporter of the Constitution party and agree whole heartedly with the paragraph above. I'm going to link back to each of the forthcoming articles in hope of spreading the word to as many people as possible about this great alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. Neither of the traditional parties can be trusted to do what they promise; well maybe the Democrats. They've been pretty upfront about their Progressivism lately.

We always hear that a vote for a third party is wasted. We hear that a party like the
Constitution Party will just take votes away from the Republicans and give the election to the Democrats. If this is the case then so be it. I can no longer vote Republican if I am offered a candidate from the Constitution Party. I have thrown away my votes for the last 20 years, punching the Republican ticket in vain hope that the size of the Federal Government would be reduced to its Constitutional limits. Instead, I've been given expanding government and increasing involvement with wars and empire building in foreign countries. And now we are faced with a cataclysmic collapse of our entire Republic. Both wings of the Progressive Party are responsible. So why should I vote for either ever again?

The first installment at Commentarius de Prognosticis can be found
here and the second here. Read them and go to the Constitution Party website for further information. I'll post additional entries from Ioannes as they become available.

All of us that consider ourselves conservatives need to support the efforts of the U.S. Constitution Party. We have to start somewhere to bring Constitutionally sane government back to America. We know through long and bitter experience that the Republicans are no more likely to accomplish this goal than the Democrats. It's time for a different way to be tried.

Vote for the Constitution; vote Constitution Party!

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, February 20, 2010


It's an election year and their still going to try to shove healthcare through. Why? What is so important about this that they're willing to risk everything to get it passed? Control, power, wealth? All of these are important to politicians yet I've never seen them so fixated on gaining any of them that they are willing to lose it all. They aren't even trying to hedge their bets.

Maybe it's not they, just he. Maybe Obama is so ideologically driven that none of the traditional political rules apply. Maybe he's so blinded by ideology and his own faith in his superior moral position that he figures we'll eventually come 'round to his point once we see that he just wants the "best" for us. After all, plebeians can't be expected to understand such complex matters; they need to be led.

Obama is courting political disaster but he is too arrogant and narcissistic to see it. Or maybe he knows something we don't. This whole healthcare thing is politically counterintuitive. Somethings up and it can't be good for the Republic. I'm interested to see if the Democrat Party goes along with this. Personal survival generally trumps party loyalty with any politician.

Personally, I'm getting tired of this and I would imagine so are a number of others. This is probably what they're hoping for; to wear us down. We may be tired of it but I think the administration is in for a surprise if they think we'll roll over. Is it possible they could be this inept? I don't think so and that's what worries me.

"President Barack Obama is expected to publish his healthcare plan as early as Sunday or Monday, combining features of the two Democratic bills passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, congressional aides and healthcare advocates said on Friday.

The administration's bill will aim to jump-start the stalled healthcare overhaul and comes just days ahead of a planned televised White House summit with congressional Republicans, who are calling on Democrats to scrap the bills and start over with a far less sweeping proposal.
Democrats are struggling to push healthcare legislation over the finish line in the face of sagging public support and solid Republican opposition bolstered by recent election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey.

The legislation the White House will post on its website is expected to reflect common ground negotiated over the past several weeks by House and Senate Democratic leaders.
Those agreements are likely to be combined as a privileged budget reconciliation bill, which only needs a simple 51-vote majority to pass the 100-member Senate instead of the 60-vote supermajority that has become routine in the Senate and gives Republicans power to block the healthcare bill."

Bookmark and Share

Friday, February 19, 2010


"Greek drivers lined up for gas at the few stations still open Friday as a customs strike against government austerity measures left many pumps running dry.

The fuel shortage was the first serious consequence of growing labor protests against the Socialist government's emergency spending cuts program, aimed at easing the debt crisis in Greece and shoring up market confidence.

Customs workers have extended their strike against salary freezes and bonus cuts through next Wednesday, when unions across Greece will hold a general strike that is set to bring the country to a standstill."
Yahoo Finance

This is what is coming to America. We are going to see the same sort of protests from unions and others as it finally becomes apparent to all that the country cannot pay its bills and will be forced to cut spending. When people laugh at those of us that are called "preppers" they need to understand that this is what we are preparing for. How long do you think it will take for the food to disappear from the shelves and the fuel from the gas station when the trucks aren't running? In some cases only a day.

So start to prepare for what is probably not all that far off. In the last week the government has started to put out news stories to the major media about spending cuts and tax increases, even going as far as to include Social Security and Medicare. The President is busy creating commissions and study groups to try and distract us from the inevitable. The Fed is showing the first signs of raising interest rates. Producer prices are on the rise while the cost of goods sold has been deflating. More jobs are being lost everyday. The Euro is on the verge of collapse. And to top it all off, it sure seems like the Obama administration is doing all they can to justify a war with Iran, most likely in hopes of saving the economy.

Ugly, ugly times are right around the corner. Start to prepare yourselves and your families while there is still some time left. When we start to collapse I think it will happen quickly and will come as a complete surprise to most. Try not to be caught in the wreck.

Remember, Greece is our future.

Bookmark and Share


"Personhood Mississippi, a citizen-led grassroots organization, submitted over 130,000 signatures late yesterday, becoming the fourth ballot initiative since 1992 to fulfill the requirement of 89,285 voter signatures – 17,857 per Congressional district.

The signatures were collected in order to put a Personhood amendment on the ballot, affirming the personhood rights of all humans.

105,000 of the submitted signatures were certified as valid by 82 different County Circuit Clerks. The abundance of signatures broke the state record for signatures in every other initiative in Mississippi history.

Comprised of all volunteers, Personhood Mississippi laid claim to over 2,000 volunteers and over 1,000 churches."

“Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hearby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.”
Personhood Mississippi

So this idea of personhood seems rather arcane and removed from your daily concerns, does it? Well, lets see if we can't clear it up a bit. In the Constitution it is the "person" that is referred to as the one that possesses the rights. As an example:

Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.. (A slave was not extended this right because they lacked personhood)

The Constitution exists to protect the rights of the people from the power of the government because the Founders recognized that all rights pass from God through the people to the government. However, because a dog is not a person he would not possess the inherent natural rights of a human being.


human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
Merriam Webster

The easiest way to legally exclude a class of beings from the protections possessed by man would be to declare them as something other than human. This is what the Supreme Court did in both the Dred Scott Case and Roe v. Wade. Blacks and babies were declared non human through the denial of their personhood.

"The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who ... form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives.... The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement [people of Aftican ancestry] compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them."
Dred Scott Decision

"Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade in 1973, “The appellee and certain amici [pro-lifers] argue that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
Personhhod USA

Note that it in the Dred Scott decision the Court makes clear that the rights of Africans come from the government, not from God, because they are "a subordinate and inferior class of beings". Africans were not considered human for if they were: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." (Roe V. Wade)

So you see, personhood is THE issue. If a baby in the womb is accorded personhood then it deserves all of the rights and protections granted by God and guaranteed in the Constitution. In this modern age, with all of the medical and scientific data available that makes it abundantly clear just how human the fetus is, the denial of its personhood is barbaric; no less than the enslavement of a people because of their perceived inferiority. Further, the harvest of babies to support the research into disease is even more barbaric than the traffic in human flesh that was the slave trade, for at least the slave retained his life!

What may seem to be a minor issue of wording carries the weight of slavery or freedom, life or death. America's original sin was slavery. We have paid and are still paying the cost of this sin. As a society we have repented, accepted our responsibility and tried to repair the damage. But the wages of this particular sin have been high.

Abortion transcends slavery by a magnitude unimaginable. The price we will pay for it is beyond comprehension. We have killed millions upon millions of innocent children in this country in the name of convenience and narcissism. And we have yet to repent.

As things start to come apart for America and the world remember what we've done. Beg for God's forgiveness and mercy. We work for a wage and when our work is sin our wages are death. America has been working overtime.

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, February 18, 2010


"Lent is not an orgy of Pelagian self improvement..."

St. Mary Magdalen Blog

Bookmark and Share


"..Prepping masks a wide range of stances and ideologies. But the more people are prepared, the more they are likely to have an apocalyptic way of thinking," said Professor Barry Brummett, of the University of Texas-Austin."

"Be Prepared!"
Boy Scout Motto
Boy Scouts of America

Damn those Scouts and their endless apocalyptic haranguing!!

"Tess Pennington, 33, is a mother of three children, and lives in the sprawling outskirts of Houston, Texas. But she is not taking the happy safety of her suburban existence lightly.

Like a growing army of fellow Americans, Pennington is learning how to grow her own food, has stored emergency rations in her home and is taking courses on treating sickness with medicinal herbs.

"I feel safe and more secure. I have taken personal responsibility for the safety of myself and of my family," Pennington said. "We have decided to be prepared. There all kinds of disasters that can happen, natural and man-made."

Pennington is a "prepper", a growing social movement that has been dubbed Survivalism Lite. Preppers believe that it is better to be safe than sorry and that preparing for disaster – be it a hurricane or the end of civilisation – makes sense."

How come the desire to be self sufficient is seen as such a menace that it is belittled and besmirched at every opportunity? Is it a threat? Maybe. If your belief system revolves around state control and its necessity for your very survival then perhaps the idea of an independent populace is somewhat disconcerting. Maybe if you feel queasy when presented with the idea that something more than just having the nanny state take care of your every need may be on the horizon, then yes, you may feel threatened.

If you want to stick your head in the ground and pretend that a Katrina or a Haiti can't happen to you then go ahead. Most of us that try to stay prepared do so in anticipation of a natural disaster, be it a snow storm, tornado or earthquake. We have lost power where I live for nearly a week in the recent past. Being prepared made it much easier to deal with.

I am concerned that the country and the world for that matter are on the verge of a meltdown and if it happens I will be prepared, at least as well as I can be. And I will try to convince those around me to be prepared, too. We're all going to be in whatever happens together. At the very least, people that prepare for an emergency will lessen the burden on what's left of the social services system as it tries (and fails, look at Katrina) to take care of those that didn't. So get off our backs, will ya'. We aren't freaks at the sideshow. We are doing what my grandparents did after the Depression. They learned that you can't count on government when the going gets tough so keep a little food in the fruit cellar. And BE PREPARED!

Bookmark and Share


Does anyone remember Ft. Sumter?

Since the Coinage Act of 1792 specifies that our money must contain precious metals I don't see anything wrong with the legislation being proposed by Rep. Pitts. It seems as though he is just insisting that the government follow its own rules.

Bonny Blue Flags are starting to fly across America once again!

"South Carolina Rep. Mike Pitts has introduced legislation that would mandate that gold and silver coins replace federal currency as legal tender in his state.

As the Palmetto Scoop first reported, Pitts, a Republican, introduced legislation this month banning "the unconstitutional substitution of Federal Reserve Notes for silver and gold coin" in South Carolina.

In an interview, Pitts told Hotsheet that he believes that "if the federal government continues to spend money at the rate it's spending money, and if it continues to print money at the rate it's printing money, our economic system is going to collapse."


"And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper, of the following denominations, values and descriptions..."

Coinage Act of 1792

Bookmark and Share


Just another reason why I'll never vote Republican again. Note that in this interview Paul claims to have attempted to bring this legislation forward when the Republicans, the "party of life" controlled both Houses and the Presidency but "...I couldn’t get people too interested in it". I'm sure that's because it was perceived as something that would rock the boat; maybe make fund raising for re-election a bit more difficult. So more babies died because it wasn't politically expedient to stand up and protect them, or at the very least try to do something.

So, as far as I'm concerned, a pox on both their houses. I'm voting for the Constitution Party wherever I have the chance. I'm tired of being played for a fool and I'm tired of being party to the murder of innocent children because I supported a party that will do nothing to protect them.

"...I don’t think there is anything wrong with trying to move the courts in that direction, but there is a lot faster way of doing that. And that is to restrict or limit the jurisdiction of the abortion issue from the federal courts. And I have a piece of legislation that would do that where if a Roe v. Wade incident came up again like it did in Texas a long time ago, it could not be heard by the federal courts and the state law then would stand.

That law restricting this jurisdiction can be done by a majority vote in the House and the Senate and the President’s signature. I have worked on that, especially when we had the majority as Republicans – but I couldn’t get people too interested in it. I think we could do it quicker.

It isn’t the perfect solution. The argument I hear against it is “oh, all you’re doing is legalizing abortion in the states.” But if you don’t do something like that, you allow the federal government to stand and legalize it for every single state. I see it as an answer and that doesn’t restrain anybody from trying to amend the Constitution, or waiting to change the Supreme Court. But I think many, many abortions would be prevented, just think if we had passed that back in 1975. You know some states may still have abortions, but there would be a lot of states would not have it. We would have to work within our states, and that, of course, is the way the Constitution is written, and that is the reason I pushed it in that direction."

Life Site News

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, February 17, 2010


If this farmer wants to raise cows, for whatever reason, where does the Fed get off trying to regulate his activity? The last time I checked the Constitution it only authorizes Fed regulation of interstate commerce. As far as I can tell from this story, no one has accused this guy of shipping anything across state lines.

If a farmer has a milk cow and I need milk I should be able to buy it from him. Isn't this a free market economy? If he sells me tainted milk because he was sloppy in his methodology well then I won't buy from him again and neither will anyone else that I tell about it. This will force him to clean up his act or get out of the milk business.

In reality the chances of fresh raw milk causing me any problems are slight. People have been drinking milk for a long time, well before the nanny state created an agency to protect us. So, if we need to save money I've got a suggestion for a cut.

"Kinzers, PA - At 9:40 a.m. last Thursday, February 4, only a few miles from the scene of the Nickel Mines Amish massacre of 2006, another drama against the Amish began as agents of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) came onto the property of Amish farmer Dan Allgyer, without permission, claiming to be conducting an investigation. Agents Joshua Schafer and Deborah Haney, from the Delaware FDA office, drove past Allgyer's "No Trespassing" signs and up his driveway almost to his barn, where Allgyer happened to be outside. Allgyer approached the car, the agents got out and Allgyer asked them why they were there. They produced a piece of paper, asked Allgyer if he was Dan Allgyer, which Allgyer confirmed, asked him his middle initial and phone number, entered the information on the paper, told Allgyer they were there to do an inspection and started reading the paper to him, saying it gave them jurisdiction to be there.

The agents - Schafer did most of the talking - said they had a right to be there because "you produce food for human consumption." Dan asked why they believed that and they said, "Well, you have cows. You cannot be consuming all the milk you produce." They further stated, "If you get a milk truck in to move all this milk you sell milk to the public, therefore we have jurisdiction."

Dan said, "This is a private farm, I do not sell anything to the public."


Bookmark and Share


The states here in America need to pay attention to what happens to Greece. When they refuse to cut spending and go bankrupt, then turn to Uncle Sam for help, they can kiss their sovereignty goodbye. Europe is a preview of our future. We are all about to become slaves to the state; just another brick in the wall.

"The council of EU finance ministers said Athens must comply with austerity demands by March 16 or lose control over its own tax and spend policies altogether. It if fails to do so, the EU will itself impose cuts under the draconian Article 126.9 of the Lisbon Treaty in what would amount to economic suzerainty.

While the symbolic move to suspend Greece of its voting rights at one meeting makes no practical difference, it marks a constitutional watershed and represents a crushing loss of sovereignty."

The Telegraph

Bookmark and Share


I love history, especially the ugly bits that no one seems to write about. So, in honor of Black History Month, I thought that I'd post the excerpt below from Black Genocide. My guess is that nothing about the Progressive Eugenics Movement and its intention to eliminate the black people will be taught in the government schools, much less the involvement of such luminaries as W.E.B. DuBois. Nor will they mention that this extermination carries on today through the offices of Planned Parenthood which continues to focus on black neighborhoods when choosing sites for abortion clinics.

According to Day Gardner of the National Black Pro Life Union:

Margaret Sanger went on to become the founder of Planned Parenthood an organization that makes most of its blood money by killing children—especially black children.

Abortion providers are still being located for the most part in black neighborhoods and are still delivering the same old message–that black, poor children, living in urban areas–are not worthy of life. America would be a better place without black people.

The KKK brutally killed about 3500 black people since it began in 1865—Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood is responsible for the more than 17 million black deaths since 1973.

Every day more than 5000 babies are slaughtered by the blades of the abortion butchers—decapitated, ripped apart…killed.

How can America say we are better than the regimes of the Holocaust, Darfur, Sudan or China if we allow the butchering of America’s innocent children to continue?

This is Black History Month. Let’s remember why the killing began and then vow in Jesus’ name to end it…picture that!

You can't say it much more clearly than that.

So go over to Black Genocide and read the full article excerpted below. We need to understand who we are and how we got here and why we deserve what is coming. All of us; white, black, yellow and all of the rest. We're in this together, all part of an epic and all encompassing battle against evil. It will take all of us, working not just as a country but as a people, as individual members of the one body, Jesus Christ. We must recognize our common humanity and cast off the prejudicial divisions created by Satan himself. We must and we will overcome, but only through the power of Christ.

Pray for unity. Pray for understanding and pray for repentance for the sins we have committed, both as individuals and as members of the body. Only through the cleansing of sin will we be able to wear the armor of righteousness required for the coming battle.

"The Harlem clinic and ensuing birth control debate opened dialogue among black about how best to improve their disadvantageous position. Some viewed birth control as a viable solution: High reproduction, the believed, meant prolonged poverty and degradation. Desperate for change, others began to accept the "rationale" of birth control. A few embraced eugenics. The June 1932 edition of The Birth Control Review, called "The Negro Number," featured a series of articles written by blacks on the "virtues" of birth control.

The editorial posed this question: "Shall they go in for quantity or quality in children? Shall they bring children into the world to enrich the undertakers, the physicians and furnish work for social workers and jailers, or shall they produce children who are going to be an asset to the group and American society?" The answer: "Most [blacks], especially women, would choose quality … if they only knew how."

DuBois, in his article "Black Folk and Birth Control, " noted the "inevitable clash of ideals between those Negroes who were striving to improve their economic position and those whose religious faith made the limitation of children a sin." He criticized the "mass of ignorant Negroes" who bred "carelessly and disastrously so that the increase among [them] … is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly."

DuBois called for a "more liberal attitude" among black churches. He said they were open to "intelligent propaganda of any sort, and the American Birth Control League and other agencies ought to get their speakers before church congregations and their arguments in the Negro newspapers [emphasis added]."

Charles S. Johnson, Fisk University’s first black president, wrote "eugenic discrimination" was necessary for blacks. He said the high maternal and infant mortality rates, along with diseases like tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria and venereal infection, made it difficult for large families to adequately sustain themselves.

Further, "the status of Negroes as marginal workers, their confinement to the lowest paid branches of industry, the necessity for the labors of mothers, as well as children, to balance meager budgets, are factors [that] emphasize the need for lessening the burden not only for themselves, but of society, which must provide the supplementary support in the form of relief." Johnson later served on the National Advisory Council to the BCFA, becoming integral to the Negro Project.

Writer Walter A. Terpenning described bringing a black child into a hostile world as "pathetic." In his article "God’s Chillun," he wrote:

The birth of a colored child, even to parents who can give it adequate support, is pathetic in view of the unchristian and undemocratic treatment likely to be accorded it at the hands of a predominantly white community, and the denial of choice in propagation to this unfortunate class is nothing less than barbarous [emphasis added].

Terpenning considered birth control for black as "the more humane provision" and "more eugenic" than among whites. He felt birth control information should have first been disseminated among blacks rather than the white upper crust. He failed to look at the problematic attitudes and behavior of society and how they suppressed blacks. He offered no solutions to the injustice and vile racism that blacks endured."

Bookmark and Share