This one issue will be my TOP priority when elected.
By Stephen Singer, Associated Press Writer | June 5, 2006
NEW LONDON, Conn. --City officials voted Monday night to begin eviction proceedings against residents who refuse to leave their riverfront homes, signaling the end may be near in an eminent domain dispute that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Article Tools
The City Council approved the action 5-2, authorizing the city attorney to take the necessary steps, including possible court action, to evict the remaining two families and obtain the properties. A lawyer for the families said they are considering continuing their battle with the city.
About 100 people packed the meeting room, a hallway and an adjacent room.
The small city has been trying for a decade to redevelop the once vibrant Fort Trumbull neighborhood along the Thames River. Seven homeowners challenged the city's plans to seize their properties and build a hotel, convention center and upscale condominiums, saying eminent domain can't be used to make way for private development.
But a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling last year upheld the city's right to take the homes. The court, however, said states were free to restrict eminent domain seizures, and many already have. A proposal to change Connecticut's law died in this year's state legislative session.
Since the Supreme Court ruling, all but two families have settled with the city and agreed to leave.
Michael Cristofaro, one of the Fort Trumbull holdouts, spoke out against the property seizures.
"Just give us back our deeds," Cristofaro said. "You are not being straight with us or the public. You are not listening to the general public."
Cristofaro singled out five of the seven council members who favor taking the property.
"You are a disgrace to the city, the state and the nation," he said.
One Fort Trumbull resident, William Von Winkle, agreed to a settlement with the city Monday, just minutes before the City Council meeting began, The Day of New London reported. The terms were not disclosed.
Scott Bullock, a lawyer for the Arlington, Va.-based Institute for Justice who represents the residents, said the homeowners can still fight the city. He said they'll be considering appeals to state government to ask that state funding for the development be pulled. He said they also may engage in civil disobedience.
"This is a civil rights struggle to save poor and working class people from eminent domain abuse," he said.
City Councilor Robert Perro supported the effort to remove the families. He said the issue has been through state agencies and three courts.
"This was a plan that was well thought out," he said. "The development of this peninsula needs to move forward."
But Charles Frink, one of the two councilors who opposed seizing the properties, criticized supporters, saying they should admit they made a mistake.
"I can't accept a possible reduction in taxes by having neighbors thrown out of their property," he said. "This is morally abhorrent to me. I refuse to profit from my neighbor's pain."
Gov. M. Jodi Rell had proposed letting the holdouts remain in their homes but giving the city the right of first refusal if the houses ever were sold.
New London Mayor Elizabeth Sabilia predicted before the meeting that Rell's proposal would not be approved.
"The balance of councilors are staying the course," said Sabilia, who also votes on the council.
The vote came five days after a deadline for settlements to be reached with the remaining property owners.
One local resident who spoke Monday night, Donald Harrington, was against Rell's plan.
"What right has she got to tell the city of New London what to do?" he asked.
The eviction process, which may include another court fight, could take a month to three months. But that's negligible in a land dispute that has been up and down the court system over several years.
"You know how some things take on a life of their own?" Sabilia said. "This thing is like a cat. It's taken on nine lives."
Bullock said he didn't think the city wants the publicity that will come with razing the homes.
"It would be a disaster, evicting Susette Kelo from that pink house that nearly everybody in the nation recognizes by now, when you've got a proposal from the governor on the table," he said.
Kelo, a 49-year-old nurse who bought her home in 1997, became the lead plaintiff in the court battle and has refused to sell, as has Cristofaro.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
School board looks at another tax increase
I don't know when the voters of Springfield are going to wake up. Every time a tax increase is passed onto the taxpayer do you walk into your bosses office and request a pay raise in the same amount equilevant to all the increases?
As a business owner it is quite difficult to pass on these increases since in some regards you will lose more business by doing this. I don't know how long the American taxpayer is going to put up with constant revenue demands by local, state, and federal government branches. I'm beyond the point of tolerating them which is why I decided to run for political office so changes can be made.
We collected over 7000 signatures to have the city of Springfield audited, but the education system in this town is exempt from that audit. We only required 5000 verifiable city residents registered to vote to sign. I believe we have more than enough for Claire McCaskills office to certify this and start looking into the expenditures of this city to find out where 215 million dollars on an annual basis is going.
Of course some of the local media outlets are doing there best to misinform the people, but that is to be expected since they are all part of the same network which gave us a $100,000.00 street paved with bricks outside of a building owned by our very own Tommy Carlson. Can you say PRIVILEDGED TREATMENT? I would like to have my street repaired since it floods out when it rains, I won't hold my breathe.
The cost of this audit is going to be $.53 for every man, woman, and child residing within the city limits. It is costing us almost $1400.00 for every man, woman, and child to sit on our hands and do nothing.
It is time to change government and the taxpayers choice is
MARTZ4MISSOURI
candidate for the 139th district
Members want more money for 2006-07 budget.
By Cory de Vera
News-Leader
Voters shouldn't be surprised that their Springfield Public Schools taxes go up this year.
They did, after all, approve a $96.5 million bond issue, which will be paid with an 18-cent jump in the debt service rate.
Reliable Imports
But if the school board goes through with its current plans, the total increase could be as high as 25 cents per $100 of assessed property value. That's because members are considering using their authority to increase the operating tax 5 to 7 cents to balance the proposed 2006-07 budget.
In board discussions at public meetings last month, the plan drew little to no opposition.
Board member Bruce Renner said he supports the increase because it means the district will be able to add teachers, reducing class size.
"I really felt like we needed that," he said.
Other budget additions will include expanding pre-school programs, adding the A+ Program at Kickapoo and Hillcrest high schools, and training for a new curricular approach at Pipkin Middle School.
An increase of 5 to 7 cents on the operating tax rate would raise $1.6 million for the district and cost the owner of a $100,000 home between $9.50 and $13.30. Along with the 18-cent increase on the debt service tax rate, that same homeowner could see a jump of $47.50 over what he or she paid in school taxes on 2005's property tax bill.
Director of Financial Services Cherie Alderson told the News-Leader the increase is a possibility, but the board won't know whether it will need to invoke the increase until all the books are closed on the 2005-06 school year later this year. The board must pass the 2006-07 budget before July 1.
A DELAYED INCREASE
Voters actually did approve an operating tax rate of up to $3.14 cents in June 2004, when they approved a two-phase operating tax increase. The first phase was a 15-cent jump that went into effect on the 2004 tax bill. The second phase, a 10-cent hike, was authorized to go into effect on the 2005 tax bill.
But in August, 2005 the board learned that property assessments had grown faster than anticipated, and collecting that full increase would produce more revenue than they told taxpayers during the 2004 campaign.
They were anticipating collecting $6.2 million, but had they imposed the full 25-cent hike, they would have collected closer to $9.8 million. So instead of collecting the approved increase, they rolled the operating tax rate back to $3.
Now, Renner says, the district needs some of that rollback.
"I feel we are providing everything we promised voters at less than the amount they approved," he said. "Even at 5 to 7 cents more, that is less than they approved."
TRANSPORTATION
Resident Ann Grace came to a board meeting last summer to argue against last year's rollback. The fact that the rate is going up again does not bother her.
"I thought it was silly that they dropped it down," said Grace, who at the time headed a committee to raise money for unmet needs at Parkview High.
"I thought they had enough commitments that they really didn't need to go rolling it back."
Resident Mel Hall came to the board last summer to plead for a restoration of transportation. She said she's disappointed that the board still isn't considering it a priority.
"I have to drive my son to school, we can't afford to pay the fees," said Hall, the single mom of a student at Study Middle School.
"It's hard to find a place to park, and it is dangerous the way people fly through there. I don't see how the school system is so unconcerned about busing issues," she said.
Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, the district kicked more than 2,000 elementary and middle school children off buses when it changed eligibility for bus service from those living farther than one mile from school to those living farther than 1.5 miles from school. The move was expected to save $421,000 a year. If space is available, a family can pay to ride.
Renner said he is concerned about safety and a new transportation director is reviewing policies. Current policy, Renner said, considers mileage only, and in most cases does not make allowances for children who must cross major roads.
"I don't think anything will change by fall, but I think as the new director gets in there, he will see what he can do," said Renner.
As a business owner it is quite difficult to pass on these increases since in some regards you will lose more business by doing this. I don't know how long the American taxpayer is going to put up with constant revenue demands by local, state, and federal government branches. I'm beyond the point of tolerating them which is why I decided to run for political office so changes can be made.
We collected over 7000 signatures to have the city of Springfield audited, but the education system in this town is exempt from that audit. We only required 5000 verifiable city residents registered to vote to sign. I believe we have more than enough for Claire McCaskills office to certify this and start looking into the expenditures of this city to find out where 215 million dollars on an annual basis is going.
Of course some of the local media outlets are doing there best to misinform the people, but that is to be expected since they are all part of the same network which gave us a $100,000.00 street paved with bricks outside of a building owned by our very own Tommy Carlson. Can you say PRIVILEDGED TREATMENT? I would like to have my street repaired since it floods out when it rains, I won't hold my breathe.
The cost of this audit is going to be $.53 for every man, woman, and child residing within the city limits. It is costing us almost $1400.00 for every man, woman, and child to sit on our hands and do nothing.
It is time to change government and the taxpayers choice is
MARTZ4MISSOURI
candidate for the 139th district
Members want more money for 2006-07 budget.
By Cory de Vera
News-Leader
Voters shouldn't be surprised that their Springfield Public Schools taxes go up this year.
They did, after all, approve a $96.5 million bond issue, which will be paid with an 18-cent jump in the debt service rate.
Reliable Imports
But if the school board goes through with its current plans, the total increase could be as high as 25 cents per $100 of assessed property value. That's because members are considering using their authority to increase the operating tax 5 to 7 cents to balance the proposed 2006-07 budget.
In board discussions at public meetings last month, the plan drew little to no opposition.
Board member Bruce Renner said he supports the increase because it means the district will be able to add teachers, reducing class size.
"I really felt like we needed that," he said.
Other budget additions will include expanding pre-school programs, adding the A+ Program at Kickapoo and Hillcrest high schools, and training for a new curricular approach at Pipkin Middle School.
An increase of 5 to 7 cents on the operating tax rate would raise $1.6 million for the district and cost the owner of a $100,000 home between $9.50 and $13.30. Along with the 18-cent increase on the debt service tax rate, that same homeowner could see a jump of $47.50 over what he or she paid in school taxes on 2005's property tax bill.
Director of Financial Services Cherie Alderson told the News-Leader the increase is a possibility, but the board won't know whether it will need to invoke the increase until all the books are closed on the 2005-06 school year later this year. The board must pass the 2006-07 budget before July 1.
A DELAYED INCREASE
Voters actually did approve an operating tax rate of up to $3.14 cents in June 2004, when they approved a two-phase operating tax increase. The first phase was a 15-cent jump that went into effect on the 2004 tax bill. The second phase, a 10-cent hike, was authorized to go into effect on the 2005 tax bill.
But in August, 2005 the board learned that property assessments had grown faster than anticipated, and collecting that full increase would produce more revenue than they told taxpayers during the 2004 campaign.
They were anticipating collecting $6.2 million, but had they imposed the full 25-cent hike, they would have collected closer to $9.8 million. So instead of collecting the approved increase, they rolled the operating tax rate back to $3.
Now, Renner says, the district needs some of that rollback.
"I feel we are providing everything we promised voters at less than the amount they approved," he said. "Even at 5 to 7 cents more, that is less than they approved."
TRANSPORTATION
Resident Ann Grace came to a board meeting last summer to argue against last year's rollback. The fact that the rate is going up again does not bother her.
"I thought it was silly that they dropped it down," said Grace, who at the time headed a committee to raise money for unmet needs at Parkview High.
"I thought they had enough commitments that they really didn't need to go rolling it back."
Resident Mel Hall came to the board last summer to plead for a restoration of transportation. She said she's disappointed that the board still isn't considering it a priority.
"I have to drive my son to school, we can't afford to pay the fees," said Hall, the single mom of a student at Study Middle School.
"It's hard to find a place to park, and it is dangerous the way people fly through there. I don't see how the school system is so unconcerned about busing issues," she said.
Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, the district kicked more than 2,000 elementary and middle school children off buses when it changed eligibility for bus service from those living farther than one mile from school to those living farther than 1.5 miles from school. The move was expected to save $421,000 a year. If space is available, a family can pay to ride.
Renner said he is concerned about safety and a new transportation director is reviewing policies. Current policy, Renner said, considers mileage only, and in most cases does not make allowances for children who must cross major roads.
"I don't think anything will change by fall, but I think as the new director gets in there, he will see what he can do," said Renner.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Things that will always bother me
This is not meant to include all people into these groups, however in most cases the vast majority will fit the description.
like;
why do republicans still believe that the party is the party of smaller government
why democrats are determined to bring socialism to our way of life
why libertarians think it is OK to use government services(I don't care if your paying taxes)
how people can be offended at a piece of paper because it contains an essence of morality.
why there are no species of gay animals
why both political parties of power believe defending the Constitution of the US is optional
why do parents go out of there way to try to make there children wards of the state with problems that are mostly behavioral.(by today's definition). ie.. ADHD, ADD, Bipolar, Autism
before you jump to conclusions I have one son that can and would've been diagnosed as autistic, the other had been diagnosed ADHD. It is truly amazing what a change in diet and close parenting can do to alleviate these issues.
why people that complain of weight problems make frequent trips to the buffet line
why alcoholics and smokers are said to have an addiction. I've had problems with both but since have kicked both habits. It's called WILL POWER.
why people have children they can't afford
why parents can't teach there children to accept responsibility for their actions and why parent don't accept responsibility for how they raise the children.
why people get married only to get divorced if life becomes to hard. Yes long term marriages have had problems as well, they just get worked through.
why Rush thinks he's correct over 98% of the time, it's easy to do when you cover items that are already in your court.
why people of religion feel compelled to use government to create a perfect role model society.
how children born before the 70's managed to stay alive when government wasn't mandating everything.
why people think there vote belongs to either the democrats or republicans
why people will order the jumbo size burger and fries then order a diet coke/pepsi.
I have more of these but I would like to save some for later
VOTE4MARTZ
District 139 State Representative
like;
why do republicans still believe that the party is the party of smaller government
why democrats are determined to bring socialism to our way of life
why libertarians think it is OK to use government services(I don't care if your paying taxes)
how people can be offended at a piece of paper because it contains an essence of morality.
why there are no species of gay animals
why both political parties of power believe defending the Constitution of the US is optional
why do parents go out of there way to try to make there children wards of the state with problems that are mostly behavioral.(by today's definition). ie.. ADHD, ADD, Bipolar, Autism
before you jump to conclusions I have one son that can and would've been diagnosed as autistic, the other had been diagnosed ADHD. It is truly amazing what a change in diet and close parenting can do to alleviate these issues.
why people that complain of weight problems make frequent trips to the buffet line
why alcoholics and smokers are said to have an addiction. I've had problems with both but since have kicked both habits. It's called WILL POWER.
why people have children they can't afford
why parents can't teach there children to accept responsibility for their actions and why parent don't accept responsibility for how they raise the children.
why people get married only to get divorced if life becomes to hard. Yes long term marriages have had problems as well, they just get worked through.
why Rush thinks he's correct over 98% of the time, it's easy to do when you cover items that are already in your court.
why people of religion feel compelled to use government to create a perfect role model society.
how children born before the 70's managed to stay alive when government wasn't mandating everything.
why people think there vote belongs to either the democrats or republicans
why people will order the jumbo size burger and fries then order a diet coke/pepsi.
I have more of these but I would like to save some for later
VOTE4MARTZ
District 139 State Representative
Saturday, June 03, 2006
An eventful weekend
This weekend I had the pleasure of dining with Mr. Neal Boortz. This event was hosted by our local talk radio affliate KSGF 1260 AM and 104.1 FM. The event was held at Hickok's Restaurant here in downtown Springfield in the third floor loft. I arrived about 15 minutes early to find approximately 50 or so people had already arrived. There was an open cash only bar, which since I don't drink adult beverages anymore, I avoided it and found the area where the iced tea was being served.
The radio station made sure each attendee received the latest edition of the paperback version of the FairTax book. I already had the hard bound cover but hey a book that I could loan out to others to bring them on board with the idea. I found Mr. Boortz and asked him to sign my book since everyone else was doing the same. I also discovered that I would be sitting at the same table as Neal which would allow for some delighteful conversation. At the table there was five individuals and Neal. Mary and Elizabeth were mother and daughter, Melissa attended the event solo as did Dave and I.
Sitting at the same table as Neal allowed for various conversations to turn into many topics since Neal can't stay on topic longer then 3 or 4 minutes, which his radio show is built on. During dinner we discussed various political issues and how to get LP candidates to become more news worthy.
I believe we have a great slate of candidates this year for various local and state offices and we need to get the message across that we can make a difference in political circles when elected. Too many people today believe that there vote either belongs to the republican or democrat candidate, when in all reality your vote belongs to you. You should vote for the candidate that best represents your ideology and avoid the party line voting process.
I will work tirelessly to bring Constitutional government back to Missouri.
My platform will consist of lower taxes on all individuals and companies that actually pay taxes, less restrictions on businesses within the state boundry.
I am very pro family since I myself have been married for twenty years and have two teenage sons. My wife and I have home schooled both of our children almost since they were able to walk.
I am comfortable enough with my religion that I understand that there are people that don't believe in the bible or any religious dogma. I will not use governmental force to create legislation to force compliance of any religious belief with these individuals.
I consider myself a pro-life candidate, however I won't use governemt to try to change anything relating to Roe vs Wade without constitutional considerations.
I don't believe government should be funding any type of abortion nor do I believe government should be funding any type of abstinence programs. There are plenty of private organizations that use private funding to educate people seeking the education. Parents need to take a more active role in educating their children, instead of thinking the large bureaucratic babysitting service will do it for them.
Parents it isn't the governments job to teach your children about religion or sex, nor is it the job of government to babysit your children while your working to afford the large amount of debt that society seems to choose to endeavor into.
We as a government body shouldn't be forcing anyone into compliance on matters that aren't governmental. In recent years local authorities have used government force and strong arm tactics to force compliance of the Breathe Easy Missouri program.
As a non smoker I do like the FACT that I can walk into a restaurant and enjoy my food without the lingering cigarette smoke, however that should have been a decision for the business owner not government. I would bet many businesses would've determined on there own whether they had more smoking clients or non-smoking. It isn't up to the government to tell these business owners how to run their PRIVATE business.
A sign that hung on my own office door stated the following "I choose to make this establishment a non smoking one before government mandates I do so."
That is exactly how easy it is for business to regulate itself. I as a consumer can better regulate business by choosing not to spend my dollars there. I do this already with Wal-Mart. The great business uses governmental force and eminent domain to take property from individual land owners so they can build there stores for the masses. I staunchly oppose eminent domain being used for this purpose and I won't support anyone that does business that way.
Stand up for what is RIGHT and put a true proven constitutionalist in public office. I will be the first person to resign should I vote for something that would be against the writing of the constitution, unlike the current crop of politicians that use the document for shanty paper.
VOTE4MARTZ
state representative district 139
The radio station made sure each attendee received the latest edition of the paperback version of the FairTax book. I already had the hard bound cover but hey a book that I could loan out to others to bring them on board with the idea. I found Mr. Boortz and asked him to sign my book since everyone else was doing the same. I also discovered that I would be sitting at the same table as Neal which would allow for some delighteful conversation. At the table there was five individuals and Neal. Mary and Elizabeth were mother and daughter, Melissa attended the event solo as did Dave and I.
Sitting at the same table as Neal allowed for various conversations to turn into many topics since Neal can't stay on topic longer then 3 or 4 minutes, which his radio show is built on. During dinner we discussed various political issues and how to get LP candidates to become more news worthy.
I believe we have a great slate of candidates this year for various local and state offices and we need to get the message across that we can make a difference in political circles when elected. Too many people today believe that there vote either belongs to the republican or democrat candidate, when in all reality your vote belongs to you. You should vote for the candidate that best represents your ideology and avoid the party line voting process.
I will work tirelessly to bring Constitutional government back to Missouri.
My platform will consist of lower taxes on all individuals and companies that actually pay taxes, less restrictions on businesses within the state boundry.
I am very pro family since I myself have been married for twenty years and have two teenage sons. My wife and I have home schooled both of our children almost since they were able to walk.
I am comfortable enough with my religion that I understand that there are people that don't believe in the bible or any religious dogma. I will not use governmental force to create legislation to force compliance of any religious belief with these individuals.
I consider myself a pro-life candidate, however I won't use governemt to try to change anything relating to Roe vs Wade without constitutional considerations.
I don't believe government should be funding any type of abortion nor do I believe government should be funding any type of abstinence programs. There are plenty of private organizations that use private funding to educate people seeking the education. Parents need to take a more active role in educating their children, instead of thinking the large bureaucratic babysitting service will do it for them.
Parents it isn't the governments job to teach your children about religion or sex, nor is it the job of government to babysit your children while your working to afford the large amount of debt that society seems to choose to endeavor into.
We as a government body shouldn't be forcing anyone into compliance on matters that aren't governmental. In recent years local authorities have used government force and strong arm tactics to force compliance of the Breathe Easy Missouri program.
As a non smoker I do like the FACT that I can walk into a restaurant and enjoy my food without the lingering cigarette smoke, however that should have been a decision for the business owner not government. I would bet many businesses would've determined on there own whether they had more smoking clients or non-smoking. It isn't up to the government to tell these business owners how to run their PRIVATE business.
A sign that hung on my own office door stated the following "I choose to make this establishment a non smoking one before government mandates I do so."
That is exactly how easy it is for business to regulate itself. I as a consumer can better regulate business by choosing not to spend my dollars there. I do this already with Wal-Mart. The great business uses governmental force and eminent domain to take property from individual land owners so they can build there stores for the masses. I staunchly oppose eminent domain being used for this purpose and I won't support anyone that does business that way.
Stand up for what is RIGHT and put a true proven constitutionalist in public office. I will be the first person to resign should I vote for something that would be against the writing of the constitution, unlike the current crop of politicians that use the document for shanty paper.
VOTE4MARTZ
state representative district 139
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
HELP WANTED: U.S. CONGRESS
I can't and won't lay claim to this great article so therefore the person I received it from will be the beneficiary which is why I left the e-mail address on this post. I don't know who William Jud is or where he got this article but it is SPOT ON.
VOTE4MARTZ
a more constitutional Missouri legislature is all I'll promise.
----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLIAM JUD"
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: editorial: HELP WANTED: U.S. CONGRESS
William Jud
27 May 2006
U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
U.S. Constitution, Article 6: ". . .Senators and Representatives . . .shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: (Congress shall have power) "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1: "Before he (the President) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'."
These are among the many jobs that the U.S. Constitution requires the President, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives to do. Failure to do any of those jobs is sufficient grounds to terminate the employment of the President, a Senator, or a Representative.
Legislative Malpractice is further justification for removal from office. Not only are some members of Congress not doing their Constitutionally assigned jobs for the American people, as Article 6 requires, they are actively engaged in tearing down America and in giving America's enemies "Aid and Comfort."
The best thing to come from the recent, massive Street Demonstrations of Illegal Aliens (NOT illegal Immigrants), was to show unequivocally the huge and growing size of the problem, the mindset of the demonstrators, and their aggression toward these United States.
Demonstrators carried Mexican flags. Demonstrators proudly flaunted their Mexican nationality and their rejection of any desire to become U.S. citizens. Their message, loud and clear, was 'Screw you Gringos. We're just here for the money and welfare benefits."
The other message was "This is OUR land. We will drive you Gringos out and take back your land for Mexico."
The Mexican organization MEChA - Moviemiento Estudiantil Chicano de AZTLAN (Chicano Student Movement) is a student organization militantly demanding the Mexican "Reconquista" or "re-conquest" of our southwestern states that after the Revolution would be returned to Mexico.
MEChA's 'El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán' (the spiritual plan for Aztlán) states: "In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán [Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington] from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our
responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent."
MEChA's premise is fraudulent. Ancestors of most modern Mexicans were Europeans who immigrated to Mexico from Spain, displacing Mexican Indians who lived there. Mexico was originally a Spanish colony that conquered Aztecs and other tribes in that region.
To be consistent in their demand for land repatriation, Mexicans demonstrating on U.S. streets would have to 'reclaim Aztlan' for the Mexican Indians. Everyone else in Mexico who is not a direct, full-blooded descendent of the original Mexican Indians is a 'foreign European' who must return to Spain.
The Mexican street demonstrators are a hostile, invading army. They fully intend to overthrow the U.S. Government and install their own brand of International Socialism. They fully intend to push out existing U.S. citizens and take our land and property. They come as thieves under the camouflage of 'Guest Workers.' 'Guest Workers' never go home.
Congress and President Bush are aiding, abetting, and giving comfort to this invading army of Mexicans. They do this in violation of the requirements for holding office as stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, and Article 3, Section 3. Failure to protect U.S. citizens is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article 6. Senators and Representatives who refuse to protect U.S. citizens from the Illegal
Aliens hostile invading army are in violation of their Oath or Affirmation to 'support this Constitution.' If those elected officials remain in office they do so fraudulently, criminally and illegally. Those elected officials must be removed from office immediately and permanently.
Thirty nine Senate Democrats and 23 Republicans approved an immigration bill that gives amnesty to Illegal Aliens already here. Those 62 Senators are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Article 6, and Article 1, Section 8. Those 62 Senators voided their office. If they remain in office they do so illegally, unconstitutionally, and criminally.
We will see what happens with this immigration legislation in the House of Representatives, and with President Bush. But the House has its own internal housecleaning to do.
Socialism and the U.S. Constitution are mortal enemies. A person can be a Socialist, or can support the Constitution, but cannot do both.
Within the House of Representatives is an internal organization, the Democratic Socialists of America, DSA, and another called the Progressive Democrats of America populated by ultra-left Socialist Democrats in Congress.
Congressional Socialists are closely linked with Communist and Socialist organizations dedicated to overthrowing the U.S. government. Several of those subversive organizations were organizers of the Illegal Aliens Street Demonstrations of recent weeks. Those subversive organizations work tirelessly toward violent overthrow of the U.S. government and conversion of America to Socialism/Communism. To achieve this end, all of America's land, wealth and property must be given away to Mexico and Third World nations. White, Christian Americans must be eliminated.
Where are the "good-hearted folks" that President Bush said will be our Guest Workers (who never go home)? We are importing Revolutionaries and potential Terrorists, not helpers who "will do the work that Americans will not do." Congress and President Bush are giving Aid and Comfort to a hostile invading army bent on our complete destruction. Does that sound like Treason? You bet it does!
The Senate's immigration bill includes eventual U.S. citizenship for the Illegals. Illegals will get Earned Income Credit refunds on their taxes. The U.S. government must get the okay from the Mexican government to build a border security fence. Social Security retirement payments will go to Illegals and survivor payments to their families. In-state college tuition is authorized for Illegals. Can't-be-fired employment is guaranteed, at prevailing (not minimum) wage. Taxpayer dollars will flood into Immigrant Rights Socialist/Communist organizations that supported the
street demonstrations.
Treason? YES! Legislative malpractice? YES! Sufficient grounds for immediate termination of service of a whole bunch of Senators and Representatives? HELL YES!
Every elected official who votes, or voted, in favor of the Senate immigration bill needs to be removed from office immediately and prosecuted as an Enemy of these United States.
It's time for wholesale housecleaning in Congress.
Remember this Congressional sellout during the coming national elections.
VOTE4MARTZ
a more constitutional Missouri legislature is all I'll promise.
----- Original Message -----
From: "WILLIAM JUD"
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 11:03 AM
Subject: editorial: HELP WANTED: U.S. CONGRESS
William Jud
27 May 2006
U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
U.S. Constitution, Article 6: ". . .Senators and Representatives . . .shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . ."
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8: (Congress shall have power) "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1: "Before he (the President) enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'."
These are among the many jobs that the U.S. Constitution requires the President, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives to do. Failure to do any of those jobs is sufficient grounds to terminate the employment of the President, a Senator, or a Representative.
Legislative Malpractice is further justification for removal from office. Not only are some members of Congress not doing their Constitutionally assigned jobs for the American people, as Article 6 requires, they are actively engaged in tearing down America and in giving America's enemies "Aid and Comfort."
The best thing to come from the recent, massive Street Demonstrations of Illegal Aliens (NOT illegal Immigrants), was to show unequivocally the huge and growing size of the problem, the mindset of the demonstrators, and their aggression toward these United States.
Demonstrators carried Mexican flags. Demonstrators proudly flaunted their Mexican nationality and their rejection of any desire to become U.S. citizens. Their message, loud and clear, was 'Screw you Gringos. We're just here for the money and welfare benefits."
The other message was "This is OUR land. We will drive you Gringos out and take back your land for Mexico."
The Mexican organization MEChA - Moviemiento Estudiantil Chicano de AZTLAN (Chicano Student Movement) is a student organization militantly demanding the Mexican "Reconquista" or "re-conquest" of our southwestern states that after the Revolution would be returned to Mexico.
MEChA's 'El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán' (the spiritual plan for Aztlán) states: "In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán [Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington] from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our
responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. We are free and sovereign to determine those tasks which are justly called for by our house, our land, the sweat of our brows, and by our hearts. Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent."
MEChA's premise is fraudulent. Ancestors of most modern Mexicans were Europeans who immigrated to Mexico from Spain, displacing Mexican Indians who lived there. Mexico was originally a Spanish colony that conquered Aztecs and other tribes in that region.
To be consistent in their demand for land repatriation, Mexicans demonstrating on U.S. streets would have to 'reclaim Aztlan' for the Mexican Indians. Everyone else in Mexico who is not a direct, full-blooded descendent of the original Mexican Indians is a 'foreign European' who must return to Spain.
The Mexican street demonstrators are a hostile, invading army. They fully intend to overthrow the U.S. Government and install their own brand of International Socialism. They fully intend to push out existing U.S. citizens and take our land and property. They come as thieves under the camouflage of 'Guest Workers.' 'Guest Workers' never go home.
Congress and President Bush are aiding, abetting, and giving comfort to this invading army of Mexicans. They do this in violation of the requirements for holding office as stated in the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, and Article 3, Section 3. Failure to protect U.S. citizens is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article 6. Senators and Representatives who refuse to protect U.S. citizens from the Illegal
Aliens hostile invading army are in violation of their Oath or Affirmation to 'support this Constitution.' If those elected officials remain in office they do so fraudulently, criminally and illegally. Those elected officials must be removed from office immediately and permanently.
Thirty nine Senate Democrats and 23 Republicans approved an immigration bill that gives amnesty to Illegal Aliens already here. Those 62 Senators are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, Article 6, and Article 1, Section 8. Those 62 Senators voided their office. If they remain in office they do so illegally, unconstitutionally, and criminally.
We will see what happens with this immigration legislation in the House of Representatives, and with President Bush. But the House has its own internal housecleaning to do.
Socialism and the U.S. Constitution are mortal enemies. A person can be a Socialist, or can support the Constitution, but cannot do both.
Within the House of Representatives is an internal organization, the Democratic Socialists of America, DSA, and another called the Progressive Democrats of America populated by ultra-left Socialist Democrats in Congress.
Congressional Socialists are closely linked with Communist and Socialist organizations dedicated to overthrowing the U.S. government. Several of those subversive organizations were organizers of the Illegal Aliens Street Demonstrations of recent weeks. Those subversive organizations work tirelessly toward violent overthrow of the U.S. government and conversion of America to Socialism/Communism. To achieve this end, all of America's land, wealth and property must be given away to Mexico and Third World nations. White, Christian Americans must be eliminated.
Where are the "good-hearted folks" that President Bush said will be our Guest Workers (who never go home)? We are importing Revolutionaries and potential Terrorists, not helpers who "will do the work that Americans will not do." Congress and President Bush are giving Aid and Comfort to a hostile invading army bent on our complete destruction. Does that sound like Treason? You bet it does!
The Senate's immigration bill includes eventual U.S. citizenship for the Illegals. Illegals will get Earned Income Credit refunds on their taxes. The U.S. government must get the okay from the Mexican government to build a border security fence. Social Security retirement payments will go to Illegals and survivor payments to their families. In-state college tuition is authorized for Illegals. Can't-be-fired employment is guaranteed, at prevailing (not minimum) wage. Taxpayer dollars will flood into Immigrant Rights Socialist/Communist organizations that supported the
street demonstrations.
Treason? YES! Legislative malpractice? YES! Sufficient grounds for immediate termination of service of a whole bunch of Senators and Representatives? HELL YES!
Every elected official who votes, or voted, in favor of the Senate immigration bill needs to be removed from office immediately and prosecuted as an Enemy of these United States.
It's time for wholesale housecleaning in Congress.
Remember this Congressional sellout during the coming national elections.
When is a taxcut not really a taxcut??
For the answer to that question you might want to call your representative and ask them about all the increases to registrations and other various FEES which will be rising this year.
To show how corrupt politics really is our current Senator Mr. Kit Bond is espousing the virtues of taxcuts down at the O'Reilly warehouse this afternoon. Meanwhile the "fishwrapper" finally got one right and with facts to support their claim. Every now and then even The News Leader will hold itself to the same standard that it requires of activist groups in and amoungst the peoples of Springfield, MO.
Our republican lead legislature knows that a tax increase would be a death nail to their political longevity, so they pass on TAX increases in other forms.
I can hear the reply from many as I type this "I don't own a boat so this is going to bother me" or "it's only an additional(fill in the blank)per year and besides the bigger boats are getting accessed a much larger portion then I am." Well I don't personally own a boat either and with these current increases I won't be purchasing one. User fees are set up so the people using the water ways are supposed to pay for the upkeep which sounds like a good idea, so then WHY isn't the government school system set-up that way???
A link to our states budget is below good luck in locating the appopiation for our waterways in this massive 587 page document. This is only the transportation portion of the budget.
http://www.oa.mo.gov/bp/budreqs2007/dept/Modot1.pdf
Boat fee increase awaits governor's decision
By David A. Lieb
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JEFFERSON CITY — For many Missourians, Memorial Day weekend marks the traditional start of the summer boating season. But before this year's season ends, boaters could be paying more for the privilege of revving their motors on Missouri's rivers and lakes.
Missouri's boat registration fee would more than double for small boats and nearly quadruple for the biggest ones under a bill passed by the General Assembly and awaiting a signature decision by Gov. Matt Blunt.
Fees also could rise for the millions of Missourians who get their drinking water from public systems, as opposed to private wells. And various state and local governmental bodies could gain new discretion to raise fees on everything from honorary highway signs to the landowners in local drainage districts.
The Republican-led General Assembly remained opposed to new taxes during its 2006 legislative session. But lawmakers found fee increases not quite as repulsive.
The higher boating fees are perhaps the most obvious increase.
About 315,000 boats are registered in Missouri, excluding canoes, rowboats and other solely paddle-powered vessels. The legislation would raise fees to $25 for the smallest boats (shorter than 16 feet) and $150 for the largest boats (stretching more than 40 feet long).
Based on the number of boats in each category, the fee increase should generate almost $5 million annually for the state — $3 million more than the state now receives.
The new money would go to Missouri State Water Patrol, which has lamented for some time its low salaries and high mileage on its trucks and boats.
The higher boat charges essentially are user fees, meaning the people who use the waterways are the most likely to benefit.
Many of the other bills also are user fees.
For example, the annual fees charged for public water connections would rise more than 60 percent to fund the water quality duties of the Department of Natural Resources.
To show how corrupt politics really is our current Senator Mr. Kit Bond is espousing the virtues of taxcuts down at the O'Reilly warehouse this afternoon. Meanwhile the "fishwrapper" finally got one right and with facts to support their claim. Every now and then even The News Leader will hold itself to the same standard that it requires of activist groups in and amoungst the peoples of Springfield, MO.
Our republican lead legislature knows that a tax increase would be a death nail to their political longevity, so they pass on TAX increases in other forms.
I can hear the reply from many as I type this "I don't own a boat so this is going to bother me" or "it's only an additional(fill in the blank)per year and besides the bigger boats are getting accessed a much larger portion then I am." Well I don't personally own a boat either and with these current increases I won't be purchasing one. User fees are set up so the people using the water ways are supposed to pay for the upkeep which sounds like a good idea, so then WHY isn't the government school system set-up that way???
A link to our states budget is below good luck in locating the appopiation for our waterways in this massive 587 page document. This is only the transportation portion of the budget.
http://www.oa.mo.gov/bp/budreqs2007/dept/Modot1.pdf
Boat fee increase awaits governor's decision
By David A. Lieb
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JEFFERSON CITY — For many Missourians, Memorial Day weekend marks the traditional start of the summer boating season. But before this year's season ends, boaters could be paying more for the privilege of revving their motors on Missouri's rivers and lakes.
Missouri's boat registration fee would more than double for small boats and nearly quadruple for the biggest ones under a bill passed by the General Assembly and awaiting a signature decision by Gov. Matt Blunt.
Fees also could rise for the millions of Missourians who get their drinking water from public systems, as opposed to private wells. And various state and local governmental bodies could gain new discretion to raise fees on everything from honorary highway signs to the landowners in local drainage districts.
The Republican-led General Assembly remained opposed to new taxes during its 2006 legislative session. But lawmakers found fee increases not quite as repulsive.
The higher boating fees are perhaps the most obvious increase.
About 315,000 boats are registered in Missouri, excluding canoes, rowboats and other solely paddle-powered vessels. The legislation would raise fees to $25 for the smallest boats (shorter than 16 feet) and $150 for the largest boats (stretching more than 40 feet long).
Based on the number of boats in each category, the fee increase should generate almost $5 million annually for the state — $3 million more than the state now receives.
The new money would go to Missouri State Water Patrol, which has lamented for some time its low salaries and high mileage on its trucks and boats.
The higher boat charges essentially are user fees, meaning the people who use the waterways are the most likely to benefit.
Many of the other bills also are user fees.
For example, the annual fees charged for public water connections would rise more than 60 percent to fund the water quality duties of the Department of Natural Resources.
North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA
In the not to distant future this will be the scene played out on the North American Continent along with Central America.
the crowd gathers outside to hear the upcoming speeches, after all this is a historic milestone in history of the world. people are laughing and cheering the newly elected President of the NAU(north american union).
Hector Gonzales waves to the crowd as he steps to the podium:
Thank You all for casting your ballots in this historic reclaiming of the North American Continent. I now present your newly elected President Gustavo Cerna
the crowd at this point is deafening while the newly elected leader steps to the podium;
My fellow citizens this has been a grueling battle and I commend my opponents for keeping this election above the board. You are here in Mexico City to witness a crowning achievement and over 100 years of work has finally seen its truition. Not once did your political leaders not have your best interest when we devised a plan to protect the homeland from terrorist attack.
The leaders of Canada and the United States, as well as Mexico have worked diligently behind the scenes to make sure that the outlying borders would be protected from hostile actions.
the crowd roars its approval;
During the early part of this century it appeared that the United States and Mexico were destined to have a border battle to achieve supremacy of the Rio Grande and the territories that border it. It appeared the citizens of the former United States were willing to allow these two neighbors to go to war to defend an imaginery line to determine who was and wasn't a citizen of the US. The background work for this one country was started by the very leaders of vision that we must maintain today as we move into the coming global government.
Ladies and gentlemen had it not been for President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister Martin we would not be standing here united as one.
the crowd roars its approval;
We still have much to do however the seperatist movement from the former United States is losing the mentality and courage to fight. I predict by the end of my term that the terrorist that reside within our borders will be brought to justice and our global community will be able to prosper in harmony.
You might laugh at my portrayal of how it is going to be in the very near future, but I remind you at one time we were a very PATRIOTIC nation which knew the meaning of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Our esteemed vice chair of the GCLP tried to reserve a float space for our cities annual Independence Day parade only to have been given "the deer in the headlight looks" at his request.
He was told the annual july 4th parade still had space available for our float. PITIFUL.
Immigration
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 30, 2006
Related Stories
Let Illegal Aliens Support Amnesty RINOs
In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.
SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.
Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:
In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.
This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.
Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.
And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:
The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.
Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.
What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.
Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.
Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.”
The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”
The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)
The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:
Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)
What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:
While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.
The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)
Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.
Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.
the crowd gathers outside to hear the upcoming speeches, after all this is a historic milestone in history of the world. people are laughing and cheering the newly elected President of the NAU(north american union).
Hector Gonzales waves to the crowd as he steps to the podium:
Thank You all for casting your ballots in this historic reclaiming of the North American Continent. I now present your newly elected President Gustavo Cerna
the crowd at this point is deafening while the newly elected leader steps to the podium;
My fellow citizens this has been a grueling battle and I commend my opponents for keeping this election above the board. You are here in Mexico City to witness a crowning achievement and over 100 years of work has finally seen its truition. Not once did your political leaders not have your best interest when we devised a plan to protect the homeland from terrorist attack.
The leaders of Canada and the United States, as well as Mexico have worked diligently behind the scenes to make sure that the outlying borders would be protected from hostile actions.
the crowd roars its approval;
During the early part of this century it appeared that the United States and Mexico were destined to have a border battle to achieve supremacy of the Rio Grande and the territories that border it. It appeared the citizens of the former United States were willing to allow these two neighbors to go to war to defend an imaginery line to determine who was and wasn't a citizen of the US. The background work for this one country was started by the very leaders of vision that we must maintain today as we move into the coming global government.
Ladies and gentlemen had it not been for President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister Martin we would not be standing here united as one.
the crowd roars its approval;
We still have much to do however the seperatist movement from the former United States is losing the mentality and courage to fight. I predict by the end of my term that the terrorist that reside within our borders will be brought to justice and our global community will be able to prosper in harmony.
You might laugh at my portrayal of how it is going to be in the very near future, but I remind you at one time we were a very PATRIOTIC nation which knew the meaning of INDEPENDENCE DAY. Our esteemed vice chair of the GCLP tried to reserve a float space for our cities annual Independence Day parade only to have been given "the deer in the headlight looks" at his request.
He was told the annual july 4th parade still had space available for our float. PITIFUL.
Immigration
by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted May 30, 2006
Related Stories
Let Illegal Aliens Support Amnesty RINOs
In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.
SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.
Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:
In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.
This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.
Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.
And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:
The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.
Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.
What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.
Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.
Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.”
The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”
The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)
The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:
Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)
What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:
While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.
The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)
Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.
Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.
Friday, May 26, 2006
the news leader is at it again
For any title in the News-Leader to include the word FACT is just truly unbelievable. This is after all the same paper that has misrepresented a petition drive to have the city audited, a misrepresentation of a pro american rally as being anti-immigrant.
Lets be focused News Leader and when you call the pot black make sure you also look in a mirror and call the kettle the same.
I don't know whether I'm for or against another coal buring, I'm more a nuclear power plant type since I believe it to be more ecologically sound. Does anyone know what they do once they remove all the coal out of the ground?
Keep SW2 debate focused on facts
VOTE4MARTZ
Opponents' group tries to play dirty-tricks game.
Certain opponents of the proposed new Southwest 2 coal-fired power plant are up to their same old political games.
Yesterday, the Ratepayers for Affordable Utilities held a City Utilities-bashing session in an attempt to convince voters to turn down the June 6 ballot issue that would fund a 300-megawatt coal plant.
We have no problem with folks who disagree that Southwest 2 is the best, most reasonable solution to Springfield's future power needs.
We have no problem with Ratepayers spokesman Lee Gannaway taking potshots at CU's management. That's his prerogative.
But we do have a problem with Gannaway and his band of naysayers trying to present inaccurate information to voters at the last minute. That's what they did with a misleading flier that was mailed out days before the election two years ago. That's what they tried yesterday by taking facts about energy costs out of context.
Voters should listen to the Ratepayers' call to check the facts.
When they do, they'll find that group's arguments on the salient facts related to Southwest 2 miss the mark.
Amid all the rhetoric spilled by the opponent group at its news conference Wednesday, one point stood out. The Ratepayers believe that the better option for voters is to turn down the Southwest 2 plant and force City Utilities to enter into an agreement to be partial owners of a proposed huge plant in Oklahoma known as the Tenaska/GRDA project. To back its claim, the Ratepayers group points to the consultant's study paid for by CU to compare a variety of possible alternatives to Southwest 2.
The cheapest of those was the Tenaska project.
Gannaway said Wednesday that consultants Black & Veatch endorsed that move over building Southwest 2. He pointed to the letter from the consultants as proof.
He's just plain wrong.
The consultants did say the Tenaska project is the lowest-cost of the other alternatives considered by CU, but it says clearly, in a sentence Gannaway conveniently ignored, that "B&V concludes that SW2 is the most economic baseload alternative for the CU system."
It doesn't get much clearer than that. CU General Manager John Twitty made that point in a later news conference. The Tenaska/GRDA proposal would cost 5.04 cents per kilowatt hour — and that's assuming the project gets an air permit, which it lacks. Southwest 2's cost is lower, 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
What bothers us most about Ratepayers attempt to mislead voters is that it waited so long to make its point. Other opponent groups have been publicly engaged in this city's debate over power alternatives for more than two years.
They, too, disagree with CU over its decision to seek approval for SW2. They think there are better, cleaner alternatives, and they've argued for them and given voters a chance to make a decision. They haven't made the debate personal, as Gannaway did Wednesday. They simply disagree.
Voters should keep that in mind as the debate over future energy needs reaches its fevered pitch in coming days. Look for facts, not rhetoric.
We believe you'll see, as we do, that Southwest 2 is good for our city's future.
Lets be focused News Leader and when you call the pot black make sure you also look in a mirror and call the kettle the same.
I don't know whether I'm for or against another coal buring, I'm more a nuclear power plant type since I believe it to be more ecologically sound. Does anyone know what they do once they remove all the coal out of the ground?
Keep SW2 debate focused on facts
VOTE4MARTZ
Opponents' group tries to play dirty-tricks game.
Certain opponents of the proposed new Southwest 2 coal-fired power plant are up to their same old political games.
Yesterday, the Ratepayers for Affordable Utilities held a City Utilities-bashing session in an attempt to convince voters to turn down the June 6 ballot issue that would fund a 300-megawatt coal plant.
We have no problem with folks who disagree that Southwest 2 is the best, most reasonable solution to Springfield's future power needs.
We have no problem with Ratepayers spokesman Lee Gannaway taking potshots at CU's management. That's his prerogative.
But we do have a problem with Gannaway and his band of naysayers trying to present inaccurate information to voters at the last minute. That's what they did with a misleading flier that was mailed out days before the election two years ago. That's what they tried yesterday by taking facts about energy costs out of context.
Voters should listen to the Ratepayers' call to check the facts.
When they do, they'll find that group's arguments on the salient facts related to Southwest 2 miss the mark.
Amid all the rhetoric spilled by the opponent group at its news conference Wednesday, one point stood out. The Ratepayers believe that the better option for voters is to turn down the Southwest 2 plant and force City Utilities to enter into an agreement to be partial owners of a proposed huge plant in Oklahoma known as the Tenaska/GRDA project. To back its claim, the Ratepayers group points to the consultant's study paid for by CU to compare a variety of possible alternatives to Southwest 2.
The cheapest of those was the Tenaska project.
Gannaway said Wednesday that consultants Black & Veatch endorsed that move over building Southwest 2. He pointed to the letter from the consultants as proof.
He's just plain wrong.
The consultants did say the Tenaska project is the lowest-cost of the other alternatives considered by CU, but it says clearly, in a sentence Gannaway conveniently ignored, that "B&V concludes that SW2 is the most economic baseload alternative for the CU system."
It doesn't get much clearer than that. CU General Manager John Twitty made that point in a later news conference. The Tenaska/GRDA proposal would cost 5.04 cents per kilowatt hour — and that's assuming the project gets an air permit, which it lacks. Southwest 2's cost is lower, 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour.
What bothers us most about Ratepayers attempt to mislead voters is that it waited so long to make its point. Other opponent groups have been publicly engaged in this city's debate over power alternatives for more than two years.
They, too, disagree with CU over its decision to seek approval for SW2. They think there are better, cleaner alternatives, and they've argued for them and given voters a chance to make a decision. They haven't made the debate personal, as Gannaway did Wednesday. They simply disagree.
Voters should keep that in mind as the debate over future energy needs reaches its fevered pitch in coming days. Look for facts, not rhetoric.
We believe you'll see, as we do, that Southwest 2 is good for our city's future.
The House smells like bacon again.
Can someone please explain to me why the federal government has decided that the
Agricultural Dept. has a budget of this size??
What type of crops does the government grow to have this type of budget?
I wonder how much of this budget is required to pay ranchers and farmers not to raise cattle and the like or to grow crops?
The House smells like bacon after having passed the $18.4-billion 2007 Agriculture Department appropriations bill, 378-46. The bill may be $96 million less than its FY 2007 predecessor, but it's still $564 million more than the President requested. Meanwhile, several billion dollars of extra spending was approved for FY2007; again, above President Bush's request. An alternate lower budget was indeed proposed by Reps. Mike Pence and Jeb Hensarling; all too tellingly, though, it garnered only 94 Republican votes.
VOTE4MARTZ
House Majority Leader John Boehner revealed his legislative agenda for the coming year, but with congressional Republicans focused on November and no record worth speaking of, no one seems to care. If Boehner really wants to capture the attention of those who brought him and the rest of the Republican bench to the dance, he will focus on the legislative agenda as outlined by Mr. Pence and the Republican Study Committee. Here in our humble editorial shop, let's just say we're not holding our breath.
In ethics news, video surveillance of Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson shows him accepting $100,000 in cash from an FBI informant. $90,000 of that money was later found in the congressman's freezer during a search of his home (talk about frozen assets!). Jefferson will likely be charged with taking bribes from indicted businessman Vernon Jackson in exchange for helping Jackson to secure deals for his telecommunications holdings in Africa.
A Saturday night raid (with warrant) on Jefferson's congressional offices in Washington has caused a scramble on Capitol Hill to circle the wagons. Citing concerns over "constitutionality," Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement condemning the search of Jefferson's office and demanding that the papers taken be returned.
Since when, exactly, is Congress concerned about something so arcane as constitutionality? This spectacle of representatives claiming super-constitutional rights won't play well with voters already turned off by this arrogant Congress. It is precisely this imperious attitude that has obstructed Petition to Investigate and Indict John F. Kerry for acts of treason. President Bush has now ordered the seized documents sealed while the House and Justice Department seek a resolution to this so-called infringement upon the Legislative Branch.
Agricultural Dept. has a budget of this size??
What type of crops does the government grow to have this type of budget?
I wonder how much of this budget is required to pay ranchers and farmers not to raise cattle and the like or to grow crops?
The House smells like bacon after having passed the $18.4-billion 2007 Agriculture Department appropriations bill, 378-46. The bill may be $96 million less than its FY 2007 predecessor, but it's still $564 million more than the President requested. Meanwhile, several billion dollars of extra spending was approved for FY2007; again, above President Bush's request. An alternate lower budget was indeed proposed by Reps. Mike Pence and Jeb Hensarling; all too tellingly, though, it garnered only 94 Republican votes.
VOTE4MARTZ
House Majority Leader John Boehner revealed his legislative agenda for the coming year, but with congressional Republicans focused on November and no record worth speaking of, no one seems to care. If Boehner really wants to capture the attention of those who brought him and the rest of the Republican bench to the dance, he will focus on the legislative agenda as outlined by Mr. Pence and the Republican Study Committee. Here in our humble editorial shop, let's just say we're not holding our breath.
In ethics news, video surveillance of Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson shows him accepting $100,000 in cash from an FBI informant. $90,000 of that money was later found in the congressman's freezer during a search of his home (talk about frozen assets!). Jefferson will likely be charged with taking bribes from indicted businessman Vernon Jackson in exchange for helping Jackson to secure deals for his telecommunications holdings in Africa.
A Saturday night raid (with warrant) on Jefferson's congressional offices in Washington has caused a scramble on Capitol Hill to circle the wagons. Citing concerns over "constitutionality," Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement condemning the search of Jefferson's office and demanding that the papers taken be returned.
Since when, exactly, is Congress concerned about something so arcane as constitutionality? This spectacle of representatives claiming super-constitutional rights won't play well with voters already turned off by this arrogant Congress. It is precisely this imperious attitude that has obstructed Petition to Investigate and Indict John F. Kerry for acts of treason. President Bush has now ordered the seized documents sealed while the House and Justice Department seek a resolution to this so-called infringement upon the Legislative Branch.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
royality chooses no sides
Since when does the average american have this type of power, or vocalise the thought they they can bring law enforcement to its knees. Get over it Dennis the "crook" was caught with his fingers in the cookie jar(so to speak) now let the JUSTICE system run its course.
Kudo's to AG Gonzales for letting the pompous elected representative they AREN"T above the law and aren't above reproach.
VOTE4MARTZ
district 139
Hastert demands FBI return documents
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago
House Speaker Dennis Hastert demanded Wednesday that the FBI surrender
documents it seized and remove agents involved in the weekend raid of
Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record)'s office, under what
lawmakers of both parties said were unconstitutional circumstances.
"We think those materials ought to be returned," Hastert said, adding
that the FBI agents involved "ought to be frozen out of that (case) just
for the sake of the constitutional aspects of it."
The Saturday night search of Jefferson's office on Capitol Hill brought
Democrats and Republicans together in rare election-year accord, with
both parties protesting agency conduct they said violated the
Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.
"Not anyone here is above the law," Pelosi told reporters Tuesday, as
she prepared to meet with the House speaker. But, she added, "I think
you've seen abuse of power of the executive branch over this weekend."
A day earlier, Hastert, R-Ill., complained personally to President Bush
about raid. Other House officials have predicted that the case would
bring all three branches together at the Supreme Court for a
constitutional showdown.
But while most leaders of both parties stand together in opposition to
an executive branch raid of a legislative branch office, party leaders
are acting on different political agendas.
Democrats, hoping to exploit Republican scandals on Capitol Hill and
regain control of Congress, are making it known that Jefferson, of
Louisiana, is no longer welcome on the House's most prestigious panel,
the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
For his part, Jefferson, who has denied wrongdoing, remains defiant.
"I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New
Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain, long-term political
strategy," Jefferson said Tuesday. "If asked, I would respectfully decline."
His spokeswoman, Melanie Roussell, added that Jefferson will not resign
from Congress.
Republicans are being careful to avoid defending Jefferson while
standing up for the separation of powers in an increasingly tense
relationship with the White House over its use of executive power.
In April, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., personally
told Bush that "the president doesn't have a blank check" during a
discussion of Bush's domestic wiretapping program.
Hastert kept up the drumbeat after the FBI's raid of Jefferson's office.
"My opinion is that they took the wrong path," Hastert said after
meeting with Bush in the White House. "They need to back up, and we need
to go from there."
The developments are the beginning of what lawmakers predict will be a
long dispute over the FBI's search of Jefferson's office last weekend.
Historians say it was the first raid of a representative's quarters in
Congress' 219 years.
FBI agents searched Jefferson's office in pursuit of evidence in a
bribery investigation. The search warrant, signed by U.S. District Court
Judge Thomas Hogan, was based on an affidavit that said agents found
$90,000 in cash wrapped and stashed in the freezer of Jefferson's home.
White House officials said they did not learn of the search until after
it happened. They pledged to work with the Justice Department to soothe
lawmakers.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tried to strike a conciliatory tone,
saying, "We have a great deal of respect for the Congress as a coequal
branch of government." But he also defended the search: "We have an
obligation to the American people to pursue the evidence where it exists."
Officials said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had
discussed Jefferson's situation with several fellow senior lawmakers and
there was a consensus that he should step aside, preferably voluntarily,
at least until his legal situation was clarified. It was not clear
whether she or an emissary approached Jefferson. The officials who
described the developments did so on condition of anonymity, citing the
delicacy of the situation.
Justice Department officials said the decision to search Jefferson's
office was made in part because he refused to comply with a subpoena for
documents last summer. Jefferson reported the subpoena to the House on
Sept. 15, 2005.
Kudo's to AG Gonzales for letting the pompous elected representative they AREN"T above the law and aren't above reproach.
VOTE4MARTZ
district 139
Hastert demands FBI return documents
By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago
House Speaker Dennis Hastert demanded Wednesday that the FBI surrender
documents it seized and remove agents involved in the weekend raid of
Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record)'s office, under what
lawmakers of both parties said were unconstitutional circumstances.
"We think those materials ought to be returned," Hastert said, adding
that the FBI agents involved "ought to be frozen out of that (case) just
for the sake of the constitutional aspects of it."
The Saturday night search of Jefferson's office on Capitol Hill brought
Democrats and Republicans together in rare election-year accord, with
both parties protesting agency conduct they said violated the
Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.
"Not anyone here is above the law," Pelosi told reporters Tuesday, as
she prepared to meet with the House speaker. But, she added, "I think
you've seen abuse of power of the executive branch over this weekend."
A day earlier, Hastert, R-Ill., complained personally to President Bush
about raid. Other House officials have predicted that the case would
bring all three branches together at the Supreme Court for a
constitutional showdown.
But while most leaders of both parties stand together in opposition to
an executive branch raid of a legislative branch office, party leaders
are acting on different political agendas.
Democrats, hoping to exploit Republican scandals on Capitol Hill and
regain control of Congress, are making it known that Jefferson, of
Louisiana, is no longer welcome on the House's most prestigious panel,
the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
For his part, Jefferson, who has denied wrongdoing, remains defiant.
"I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New
Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain, long-term political
strategy," Jefferson said Tuesday. "If asked, I would respectfully decline."
His spokeswoman, Melanie Roussell, added that Jefferson will not resign
from Congress.
Republicans are being careful to avoid defending Jefferson while
standing up for the separation of powers in an increasingly tense
relationship with the White House over its use of executive power.
In April, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., personally
told Bush that "the president doesn't have a blank check" during a
discussion of Bush's domestic wiretapping program.
Hastert kept up the drumbeat after the FBI's raid of Jefferson's office.
"My opinion is that they took the wrong path," Hastert said after
meeting with Bush in the White House. "They need to back up, and we need
to go from there."
The developments are the beginning of what lawmakers predict will be a
long dispute over the FBI's search of Jefferson's office last weekend.
Historians say it was the first raid of a representative's quarters in
Congress' 219 years.
FBI agents searched Jefferson's office in pursuit of evidence in a
bribery investigation. The search warrant, signed by U.S. District Court
Judge Thomas Hogan, was based on an affidavit that said agents found
$90,000 in cash wrapped and stashed in the freezer of Jefferson's home.
White House officials said they did not learn of the search until after
it happened. They pledged to work with the Justice Department to soothe
lawmakers.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tried to strike a conciliatory tone,
saying, "We have a great deal of respect for the Congress as a coequal
branch of government." But he also defended the search: "We have an
obligation to the American people to pursue the evidence where it exists."
Officials said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had
discussed Jefferson's situation with several fellow senior lawmakers and
there was a consensus that he should step aside, preferably voluntarily,
at least until his legal situation was clarified. It was not clear
whether she or an emissary approached Jefferson. The officials who
described the developments did so on condition of anonymity, citing the
delicacy of the situation.
Justice Department officials said the decision to search Jefferson's
office was made in part because he refused to comply with a subpoena for
documents last summer. Jefferson reported the subpoena to the House on
Sept. 15, 2005.
Monday, May 22, 2006
FBI Raid Angers Some on Hill
There are two different sources on this story which is why both are linked. If this doesn't give you enough courage to cast your ballot for someone other then a democrat or a republican(let's not forget Jack Abramoff or Mr. "Duke" Cunningham)nothing will.
The total corruption of members of both parties flies in the face of those of us that work hard play by the rules and achieve success even tho' BIG BROTHER is trying his damnest to hold us back.
I hold NO allegiances to anyone or any group. My campaign is self funded. Neither of my businesses have benefited in any manner from government regulation.
I can be trusted to bring FISCAL responsibility back to Jeff City, and bring back constitutional compliance.
VOTE4MARTZ
state house district # 139
Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Mon May 22 2006 10:00:41 ET
Saturday nightÂ’s FBI raid on the office of Rep. William Jefferson
(D-La.) surprised and angered House officials, who were not told that
the Rayburn House Office Building search was to take place until one
hour beforehand, offering the latest sign that federal prosecutors are
using increasingly aggressive tactics in their pursuit of allegedly
corrupt lawmakers.
This is believed to be the first-ever FBI raid on a Congressional
office, ROLL CALL reports.
Documents filed in support of the search show that the Justice
Department is assembling a wide-ranging case against the veteran
Democratic lawmaker.
At this time, Jefferson is being investigated for bribery, wire fraud,
bribery of a foreign official and conspiracy to bribe foreign officials,
according to an affidavit filed by an FBI agent in support of the search
warrant.
But the Justice Department and FBI agents are also looking at “least
seven other schemes in which Congressman Jefferson sought things of
value” in return for official acts, the affidavit states.
That suggests that additional avenues for prosecuting Jefferson could be
revealed soon. The FBI has two confidential witnesses who are offering
testimony against Jefferson, as well as undercover audio and video tapes
of him allegedly asking for and receiving bribes worth potentially
millions of dollars in exchange for his help in putting together African
telecommunications deals for U.S. firms, according to the affidavit.
On one videotape, the FBI filmed Jefferson allegedly receiving $100,000
in cash from one of their cooperating witnesses. Most of the money was
later recovered in a raid of Jefferson¹s home, reports ROLL CALL's John
Bresnahan.
Jefferson and his family members allegedly received payments from both
sides of the telecom deals, with money coming from the American and
Nigerian firms through companies controlled by the Jeffersons, his two
brothers and son-in-law, according to the FBI affidavit.
Developing...
The total corruption of members of both parties flies in the face of those of us that work hard play by the rules and achieve success even tho' BIG BROTHER is trying his damnest to hold us back.
I hold NO allegiances to anyone or any group. My campaign is self funded. Neither of my businesses have benefited in any manner from government regulation.
I can be trusted to bring FISCAL responsibility back to Jeff City, and bring back constitutional compliance.
VOTE4MARTZ
state house district # 139
Source: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm
Mon May 22 2006 10:00:41 ET
Saturday nightÂ’s FBI raid on the office of Rep. William Jefferson
(D-La.) surprised and angered House officials, who were not told that
the Rayburn House Office Building search was to take place until one
hour beforehand, offering the latest sign that federal prosecutors are
using increasingly aggressive tactics in their pursuit of allegedly
corrupt lawmakers.
This is believed to be the first-ever FBI raid on a Congressional
office, ROLL CALL reports.
Documents filed in support of the search show that the Justice
Department is assembling a wide-ranging case against the veteran
Democratic lawmaker.
At this time, Jefferson is being investigated for bribery, wire fraud,
bribery of a foreign official and conspiracy to bribe foreign officials,
according to an affidavit filed by an FBI agent in support of the search
warrant.
But the Justice Department and FBI agents are also looking at “least
seven other schemes in which Congressman Jefferson sought things of
value” in return for official acts, the affidavit states.
That suggests that additional avenues for prosecuting Jefferson could be
revealed soon. The FBI has two confidential witnesses who are offering
testimony against Jefferson, as well as undercover audio and video tapes
of him allegedly asking for and receiving bribes worth potentially
millions of dollars in exchange for his help in putting together African
telecommunications deals for U.S. firms, according to the affidavit.
On one videotape, the FBI filmed Jefferson allegedly receiving $100,000
in cash from one of their cooperating witnesses. Most of the money was
later recovered in a raid of Jefferson¹s home, reports ROLL CALL's John
Bresnahan.
Jefferson and his family members allegedly received payments from both
sides of the telecom deals, with money coming from the American and
Nigerian firms through companies controlled by the Jeffersons, his two
brothers and son-in-law, according to the FBI affidavit.
Developing...
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Standing for Stronger Borders and Against Amnesty
By looking at the title of this speech one would think it came from Ronald Reagan, JFK, Newt Gingrich, Bob Doornan, Ron Paul or anyother well known constitutionalist representative. Yeah I know Ronald Reagan didn't have a constitutionalist presidency as he went right along with the status quo of unconstitutional spending and other areas that were deemed shady.
This article right here folks is why the "liberal" "conservative" monikers don't hold water. I would bet Sean Hannity was beside himself that Robert KKK Byrd is more conservative on this issue then he is. That's right everyone Robert KKK Byrd is a democrat and by all accounts has been labeled a "liberal" and even Mr. Byrd stands for what is right when it comes to "illegal immigration"
Of course those on the so-called "right-side" of the argument will proclaim that Senator Byrd is in complete agreement with the "conservative" side for once. I doubt that to be the case, Mr. Byrd seems pretty stuck in his ways on this issue and I doubt he has changed his opinion.
Do we label Senator Byrd a "liberal" when his viewpoint doesn't agree with our own?? That seems to be the fortay of the well listened to windbags on the radio.
I doubt if Senator Byrd and I agree on much, but i won't label him to suit myself, I'll just consider him another reason why the voter apathy gets larger by the day.
News organizations seeking more information should contact Senator Byrd's Communications Office at (202) 224-3904.
April 4, 2006
Standing for Stronger Borders and Against Amnesty
In the Senate on April 4, Senator Byrd talked about the dangers of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants in the United States. There are millions of people waiting in line in their home countries to come into the United States legally; those people should not be forced to wait even longer because others have chosen to flaunt the law. Rewarding those who break the laws would serve to encourage more people to rush the borders and break the laws. Senator Byrd’s remarks are below.
Today, I speak on the Specter-Leahy substitute to S. 2454, the Frist Border Security bill.
At the present time, the Frist bill contains no amnesty for illegal aliens. However, if the Specter-Leahy Substitute is adopted, it would effectively attach a massive amnesty for eight to twelve million illegal aliens. And provide those illegal aliens with a path to U.S. citizenship. According to immigration experts, the pending substitute amendment – with its guest-worker program, and amnesty for undocumented aliens – would open the gates to thirty million legal and illegal immigrants over the next decade.
I oppose this amnesty proposal – absolutely and unequivocally. I urge the Senate to pass a clean border security bill like the House did – without amnesty, without a guest-worker program, and without an increase in the annual allotment of permanent immigrant visas.
For more than four years, the nation has wondered how 19 terrorists managed to penetrate our border defenses to carry out the September 11 attacks. It chills the blood to think of those terrorists crossing our borders not once, but several times in the months before the attack – easily outsmarting our border security checks to plot their dastardly scheme. They walked among us as tourists, students, and business travelers. Three of them even stayed in the United States as illegal aliens.
Today, more than four years later, our country remains dangerously exposed to terrorists seeking to penetrate our border defenses. Since September 2001, an estimated two million new illegal immigrants have successfully beaten our border and interior security, and are now settled in the United States. That’s two million new illegal immigrants since the Government pledged to regain control of the border after the 9/11 attacks.
Our immigration agencies are plagued with management and morale problems. They still do not have an exit-entry system with interoperable, biometric watch lists to accurately identify who is entering the country. We still cannot tell who is leaving the country. The requirement for foreign visitors to use biometric, machine-readable passports continues to be delayed, exempting millions of aliens each year from background checks. The Administration, still, stubbornly refuses to support the resources our border and interior enforcement agencies need to effectively do their jobs.
Meanwhile, the immigrant population continues to surge. The Center for Immigration Studies calculates that 1.5 million immigrants are settling both legally and illegally in the United States each year. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that immigration will be a major cause of the population of the United States increasing to 400 million people in less than 50 years.
The National Research Council estimates that the net fiscal cost of this massive immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year, with the infrastructure of our nation – our schools, our health care system, our transportation and energy networks – increasingly unable to absorb this untenable surge in the population.
Many tout the additional border and interior enforcement personnel authorized since September 2001, but the president’s budget has not come anywhere close to funding those authorizations. Homeland security expenditures have been capped at levels that prohibit the Congress from adequately filling the gaps. Senator Gregg and I have had to fight for every additional nickle and dime that goes into our border security. It is never enough.
Immigration enforcement in the United States remains decidedly, half-hearted. We are pulling our punches. Tougher border security mandates are signed into law, but then not fully funded. Statutory deadlines are set, but then indefinitely postponed. Undocumented aliens are denied Social Security cards, but then issued drivers licenses and taxpayer identification numbers. Employers are warned not to hire illegal labor, but then allowed to sponsor, without penalty, their illegal workforce for legal status. Funds are not requested to perform even the barest level of work site enforcement. We send troops abroad ostensibly so that we don’t have to fight terrorists on American streets, but then we turn a blind-eye to millions of unauthorized, undocumented, unchecked aliens – any one of whom could be a potential terrorist.
When lawmakers and the so-called pundits comment that our current system is unworkable, it’s because we haven’t really tried to make it work. The contradictions in our immigration policies are undeniable. Lawmakers decry illegal immigration, but then advocate amnesty proposals which only encourages more illegal immigration. Advocates may try to distance themselves from that word – “amnesty”. They may characterize their proposals as “guest-worker” programs or “temporary visas”, but the effect is the same – to waive the rules for lawbreakers, and to legalize the unlawful actions of undocumented workers and the businesses that illegally employ them.
Amnesties are the dark and sinister underbelly of our immigration process. They tarnish the magnanimous promise of a better life enshrined on the base of the Statue of Liberty. They minimize the struggle of all those who dutifully followed the rules to come to this country, and of all those who are still waiting abroad to immigrate legally. Amnesties undermine that great egalitarian and American principle that the law should apply equally and fairly to everyone. Amnesties perniciously decree that the law shall apply to some, but not to all.
Amnesties can be dangerous, dangerous proposals. Amnesties open routes to legal status for aliens hoping to circumvent the regular security checks. By allowing illegal aliens to adjust their status in the country, we allow them to bypass State Department checks normally done overseas through the visa and consular process. One need only look to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, where one of the terrorist leaders had legalized his status through an amnesty, to clearly see the dangers of these kinds of proposals.
Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders, in the interior, and in its processing of immigration applications. It only took nineteen temporary visa holders to slip through the system to unleash the horror of the September 11 attacks. The pending proposal would shove 30 million legal and illegal aliens -- many of whom have never gone through a background check -- through our border security system, in effect, flooding a bureaucracy that is already drowning. It’s a recipe for utter disaster.
Amnesties beget more illegal immigration – hurtful, destructive illegal immigration. They encourage other undocumented aliens to circumvent our immigration process in the hope that they too can achieve temporary worker status. Amnesties sanction the exploitation of illegal foreign labor by U.S. businesses, and encourage others businesses to hire cheap and illegal labor in order to compete.
President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the time, I supported amnesty based on the same promises we hear today – that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement would stem the flow of illegal immigration. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work today. The 1986 amnesty failed miserably. After 1986, illegal immigrant population tripled from 2.7 million aliens, to 4 million aliens in 1996, to 8 million aliens in 2000, to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens today.
In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after amnesty, waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers. The result is always the same – for every group of illegal aliens granted amnesty, a bigger group enters the country hoping to be similarly rewarded.
The pending substitute amendment embodies this same flawed model. It’s more of the same – more amnesties, more guest worker programs, more unfunded mandates on our immigration agencies. We ought to be focusing on how to limit the incentives for illegal immigration, and erase the contradictions in our immigration policies that encourage individuals on both sides of the border to flout the law and get away with it.
What’s backwards about the pending substitute amendment is that it is actually rewarding illegal aliens. It rewards illegal behavior. It authorizes illegal aliens to work in the country. It grants illegal aliens a path to citizenship. It pardons employers who illegally employ unauthorized workers. It even repeals provisions in current law designed to deny cheaper, in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.
The pending amendment is a big welcome mat for illegal immigrants. It is a misguided and dangerous proposal that would doom this Congress to the failures of previous Congresses.
The economist John Maynard Keynes once described the qualification for an economist as being the ability to study the present, in the light of the past, for the purpose of looking into the future. Patrick Henry echoed those sentiments more than a century earlier when he said “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”
Our nation’s experience shows that amnesties do not work. They are dangerous proposals that reward and encourage illegal immigration. Our experience shows that we cannot play games with our border security or American lives could be lost.
I will oppose the Specter-Leahy substitute amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
This article right here folks is why the "liberal" "conservative" monikers don't hold water. I would bet Sean Hannity was beside himself that Robert KKK Byrd is more conservative on this issue then he is. That's right everyone Robert KKK Byrd is a democrat and by all accounts has been labeled a "liberal" and even Mr. Byrd stands for what is right when it comes to "illegal immigration"
Of course those on the so-called "right-side" of the argument will proclaim that Senator Byrd is in complete agreement with the "conservative" side for once. I doubt that to be the case, Mr. Byrd seems pretty stuck in his ways on this issue and I doubt he has changed his opinion.
Do we label Senator Byrd a "liberal" when his viewpoint doesn't agree with our own?? That seems to be the fortay of the well listened to windbags on the radio.
I doubt if Senator Byrd and I agree on much, but i won't label him to suit myself, I'll just consider him another reason why the voter apathy gets larger by the day.
News organizations seeking more information should contact Senator Byrd's Communications Office at (202) 224-3904.
April 4, 2006
Standing for Stronger Borders and Against Amnesty
In the Senate on April 4, Senator Byrd talked about the dangers of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants in the United States. There are millions of people waiting in line in their home countries to come into the United States legally; those people should not be forced to wait even longer because others have chosen to flaunt the law. Rewarding those who break the laws would serve to encourage more people to rush the borders and break the laws. Senator Byrd’s remarks are below.
Today, I speak on the Specter-Leahy substitute to S. 2454, the Frist Border Security bill.
At the present time, the Frist bill contains no amnesty for illegal aliens. However, if the Specter-Leahy Substitute is adopted, it would effectively attach a massive amnesty for eight to twelve million illegal aliens. And provide those illegal aliens with a path to U.S. citizenship. According to immigration experts, the pending substitute amendment – with its guest-worker program, and amnesty for undocumented aliens – would open the gates to thirty million legal and illegal immigrants over the next decade.
I oppose this amnesty proposal – absolutely and unequivocally. I urge the Senate to pass a clean border security bill like the House did – without amnesty, without a guest-worker program, and without an increase in the annual allotment of permanent immigrant visas.
For more than four years, the nation has wondered how 19 terrorists managed to penetrate our border defenses to carry out the September 11 attacks. It chills the blood to think of those terrorists crossing our borders not once, but several times in the months before the attack – easily outsmarting our border security checks to plot their dastardly scheme. They walked among us as tourists, students, and business travelers. Three of them even stayed in the United States as illegal aliens.
Today, more than four years later, our country remains dangerously exposed to terrorists seeking to penetrate our border defenses. Since September 2001, an estimated two million new illegal immigrants have successfully beaten our border and interior security, and are now settled in the United States. That’s two million new illegal immigrants since the Government pledged to regain control of the border after the 9/11 attacks.
Our immigration agencies are plagued with management and morale problems. They still do not have an exit-entry system with interoperable, biometric watch lists to accurately identify who is entering the country. We still cannot tell who is leaving the country. The requirement for foreign visitors to use biometric, machine-readable passports continues to be delayed, exempting millions of aliens each year from background checks. The Administration, still, stubbornly refuses to support the resources our border and interior enforcement agencies need to effectively do their jobs.
Meanwhile, the immigrant population continues to surge. The Center for Immigration Studies calculates that 1.5 million immigrants are settling both legally and illegally in the United States each year. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that immigration will be a major cause of the population of the United States increasing to 400 million people in less than 50 years.
The National Research Council estimates that the net fiscal cost of this massive immigration ranges from $11 billion to $22 billion per year, with the infrastructure of our nation – our schools, our health care system, our transportation and energy networks – increasingly unable to absorb this untenable surge in the population.
Many tout the additional border and interior enforcement personnel authorized since September 2001, but the president’s budget has not come anywhere close to funding those authorizations. Homeland security expenditures have been capped at levels that prohibit the Congress from adequately filling the gaps. Senator Gregg and I have had to fight for every additional nickle and dime that goes into our border security. It is never enough.
Immigration enforcement in the United States remains decidedly, half-hearted. We are pulling our punches. Tougher border security mandates are signed into law, but then not fully funded. Statutory deadlines are set, but then indefinitely postponed. Undocumented aliens are denied Social Security cards, but then issued drivers licenses and taxpayer identification numbers. Employers are warned not to hire illegal labor, but then allowed to sponsor, without penalty, their illegal workforce for legal status. Funds are not requested to perform even the barest level of work site enforcement. We send troops abroad ostensibly so that we don’t have to fight terrorists on American streets, but then we turn a blind-eye to millions of unauthorized, undocumented, unchecked aliens – any one of whom could be a potential terrorist.
When lawmakers and the so-called pundits comment that our current system is unworkable, it’s because we haven’t really tried to make it work. The contradictions in our immigration policies are undeniable. Lawmakers decry illegal immigration, but then advocate amnesty proposals which only encourages more illegal immigration. Advocates may try to distance themselves from that word – “amnesty”. They may characterize their proposals as “guest-worker” programs or “temporary visas”, but the effect is the same – to waive the rules for lawbreakers, and to legalize the unlawful actions of undocumented workers and the businesses that illegally employ them.
Amnesties are the dark and sinister underbelly of our immigration process. They tarnish the magnanimous promise of a better life enshrined on the base of the Statue of Liberty. They minimize the struggle of all those who dutifully followed the rules to come to this country, and of all those who are still waiting abroad to immigrate legally. Amnesties undermine that great egalitarian and American principle that the law should apply equally and fairly to everyone. Amnesties perniciously decree that the law shall apply to some, but not to all.
Amnesties can be dangerous, dangerous proposals. Amnesties open routes to legal status for aliens hoping to circumvent the regular security checks. By allowing illegal aliens to adjust their status in the country, we allow them to bypass State Department checks normally done overseas through the visa and consular process. One need only look to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, where one of the terrorist leaders had legalized his status through an amnesty, to clearly see the dangers of these kinds of proposals.
Our immigration system is already plagued with funding and staffing problems. It is overwhelmed on the borders, in the interior, and in its processing of immigration applications. It only took nineteen temporary visa holders to slip through the system to unleash the horror of the September 11 attacks. The pending proposal would shove 30 million legal and illegal aliens -- many of whom have never gone through a background check -- through our border security system, in effect, flooding a bureaucracy that is already drowning. It’s a recipe for utter disaster.
Amnesties beget more illegal immigration – hurtful, destructive illegal immigration. They encourage other undocumented aliens to circumvent our immigration process in the hope that they too can achieve temporary worker status. Amnesties sanction the exploitation of illegal foreign labor by U.S. businesses, and encourage others businesses to hire cheap and illegal labor in order to compete.
President Reagan signed his amnesty proposal into law in 1986. At the time, I supported amnesty based on the same promises we hear today – that legalizing undocumented workers and increasing enforcement would stem the flow of illegal immigration. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work today. The 1986 amnesty failed miserably. After 1986, illegal immigrant population tripled from 2.7 million aliens, to 4 million aliens in 1996, to 8 million aliens in 2000, to an estimated 12 million illegal aliens today.
In that time, the Congress continued to enact amnesty after amnesty, waiving the Immigration Act for lawbreakers. The result is always the same – for every group of illegal aliens granted amnesty, a bigger group enters the country hoping to be similarly rewarded.
The pending substitute amendment embodies this same flawed model. It’s more of the same – more amnesties, more guest worker programs, more unfunded mandates on our immigration agencies. We ought to be focusing on how to limit the incentives for illegal immigration, and erase the contradictions in our immigration policies that encourage individuals on both sides of the border to flout the law and get away with it.
What’s backwards about the pending substitute amendment is that it is actually rewarding illegal aliens. It rewards illegal behavior. It authorizes illegal aliens to work in the country. It grants illegal aliens a path to citizenship. It pardons employers who illegally employ unauthorized workers. It even repeals provisions in current law designed to deny cheaper, in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.
The pending amendment is a big welcome mat for illegal immigrants. It is a misguided and dangerous proposal that would doom this Congress to the failures of previous Congresses.
The economist John Maynard Keynes once described the qualification for an economist as being the ability to study the present, in the light of the past, for the purpose of looking into the future. Patrick Henry echoed those sentiments more than a century earlier when he said “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”
Our nation’s experience shows that amnesties do not work. They are dangerous proposals that reward and encourage illegal immigration. Our experience shows that we cannot play games with our border security or American lives could be lost.
I will oppose the Specter-Leahy substitute amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Senators urge farmers to rally behind aid plan
Senators urge farmers to rally behind aid plan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. farmers and ranchers should sign electronic petitions to support a Congressional proposal for $4 billion in agricultural disaster aid the White House has vowed to veto, a handful of senators said on Tuesday.
can anyone find the justification for this in the Constitution. Once more we have elected representatives not abiding by the oath of office. The Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to misappropiate the taxpayers money in this fashion. This is why the farmers are urged to have crop insurance.
The Senate approved the aid as part of a $108.9 billion spending bill to help pay for the war in
Iraq. But the White House has threatened a veto because of the disaster aid and $10 billion in other spending it does not want.
Just how does crop insurance help the war in Iraq? Can you spell special interest program to constituents? Sorry readers but this is clearly a republican sponsored bill with democrat undertones.
House and Senate negotiators still must write a final version of the bill.
Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mark Dayton of Minnesota urged producers to sign the on-line petition.
Well at least we have mention of the democrat offenders. I wonder why no news media types will ask them where they garner the authority to do this type of spending?
"We have a pretty stiff test ahead of us," Dorgan said, to keep the disaster aid in the spending bill and prevent a veto. "We're here to encourage farmers across the country (to sign the petition). This is important."
Farmers just like the elderly rely on subsidies to make a living. I guess when business gets hard I as well should approach congress for my handout. Just kidding I can do for myself, I don't need government thinking for me.
Lincoln said it was possible that negotiations over the final version of the bill would not begin until June.
At least were safe for a few more days, grab a hold of your wallet after that though. There will be no stopping this spending until each and everyone of them is kicked out of office.
"I don't know when conferees will meet," said Dorgan, one of the Senate negotiators. He suggested House Republicans were stalling as a prelude to trying to kill Senate-backed provisions.
At this point then I'm happy we still have republicans that realize the money isn't theirs to spend willy nilly. Could be the HoR just wants to appropiate it some where else.
The petition was available at Dorgan's Web site, http://dorgan.senate.gov and also on Dayton's site, http://dayton.senate.gov. Dorgan said he expected other senators would put the petition on their sites too.
I recommend going to these sites and explaining to these people why the vast majority of people are against this type of spending.
Along with offering aid to producers on losses that exceed 35 percent, the bill would give grain, cotton and soybean growers a payment to offset rising energy prices.
Are they going to give the Owner operator truck driver one of these subsidies as well? Without trucks America stops. That is not even up for debate, should the American truckdriver shut down for 3 straight days our economy would be in the toilet. These trucking companies operate on a limited profit margin and I'm sure rising fuel cost is hurting the truckdriver/owner just as much as it is the farmer.
"general welfare" would mean all those that have been hampered by the high energy cost, not just a select few.
You want to see change in the political machine, then kick out the old and in with the new.
Martz4Missouri
district 139
state representative
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. farmers and ranchers should sign electronic petitions to support a Congressional proposal for $4 billion in agricultural disaster aid the White House has vowed to veto, a handful of senators said on Tuesday.
can anyone find the justification for this in the Constitution. Once more we have elected representatives not abiding by the oath of office. The Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to misappropiate the taxpayers money in this fashion. This is why the farmers are urged to have crop insurance.
The Senate approved the aid as part of a $108.9 billion spending bill to help pay for the war in
Iraq. But the White House has threatened a veto because of the disaster aid and $10 billion in other spending it does not want.
Just how does crop insurance help the war in Iraq? Can you spell special interest program to constituents? Sorry readers but this is clearly a republican sponsored bill with democrat undertones.
House and Senate negotiators still must write a final version of the bill.
Democratic Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mark Dayton of Minnesota urged producers to sign the on-line petition.
Well at least we have mention of the democrat offenders. I wonder why no news media types will ask them where they garner the authority to do this type of spending?
"We have a pretty stiff test ahead of us," Dorgan said, to keep the disaster aid in the spending bill and prevent a veto. "We're here to encourage farmers across the country (to sign the petition). This is important."
Farmers just like the elderly rely on subsidies to make a living. I guess when business gets hard I as well should approach congress for my handout. Just kidding I can do for myself, I don't need government thinking for me.
Lincoln said it was possible that negotiations over the final version of the bill would not begin until June.
At least were safe for a few more days, grab a hold of your wallet after that though. There will be no stopping this spending until each and everyone of them is kicked out of office.
"I don't know when conferees will meet," said Dorgan, one of the Senate negotiators. He suggested House Republicans were stalling as a prelude to trying to kill Senate-backed provisions.
At this point then I'm happy we still have republicans that realize the money isn't theirs to spend willy nilly. Could be the HoR just wants to appropiate it some where else.
The petition was available at Dorgan's Web site, http://dorgan.senate.gov and also on Dayton's site, http://dayton.senate.gov. Dorgan said he expected other senators would put the petition on their sites too.
I recommend going to these sites and explaining to these people why the vast majority of people are against this type of spending.
Along with offering aid to producers on losses that exceed 35 percent, the bill would give grain, cotton and soybean growers a payment to offset rising energy prices.
Are they going to give the Owner operator truck driver one of these subsidies as well? Without trucks America stops. That is not even up for debate, should the American truckdriver shut down for 3 straight days our economy would be in the toilet. These trucking companies operate on a limited profit margin and I'm sure rising fuel cost is hurting the truckdriver/owner just as much as it is the farmer.
"general welfare" would mean all those that have been hampered by the high energy cost, not just a select few.
You want to see change in the political machine, then kick out the old and in with the new.
Martz4Missouri
district 139
state representative
Monday, May 15, 2006
Highlights of President Bush's Speech
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Monday, May 15, 2006; 9:10 PM
-- Highlights of President Bush's speech:
_ BORDER PROBLEMS:
Bush said the United States does not have complete control of its borders and millions of people who have sneaked across the border have stayed in this country, living in the shadows of society.
Since both political parties contributed to this problem is anyone amazed? After all it is a Constitutional duty to defend the borders. I guess congress critters along with the president are extremely to busy spending our money.
_ NATIONAL GUARD:
Bush said the federal government will pay for up to 6,000 National Guard troops to be deployed to the southern border. They will serve in two-week rotations, meaning that over the course of a year a total of 156,000 troops could be involved. He said Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities; that duty will be performed by the Border Patrol. Guard units will work in support positions.
In other words they will walk around an look like they are trying to stop the influx of the problem. The National Guard troops should also be involved in the detainment of people until the Border Patrol arrives to handle the arrest.
_ TEMPORARY WORKER PROGRAM:
Bush called for a temporary worker program allowing foreign workers to enter the United States for jobs for a limited period of time. They would be required to return to their home countries at the conclusion of their stay.
Like this has ever worked in my lifetime. What he really means to say is you can come up here an perform work and when that job is over you can blend into our society and once another amnesty program passes you'll be a citizen.
_ EMPLOYERS:
It is against the law to hire an illegal immigrant, and Bush said employers must be held to account for their employees. He said a tamper-proof identification card for every legal foreign worker would help with law enforcement and leave employers with no excuse for violating the law.
This will be a national ID card for everyone, and the amount of information being stored on it will make privacy right groups cringe.
_ PATH TO CITIZENSHIP:
Bush said it is not realistic to deport the millions of people illegally living in the United States. "I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty; it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen."
Smoke" pot" GO TO JAIL, break into the country retain your job and eventually you'll become a good productive citizen. It is quite a good idea I had when I donned my hip waders to watch this display of "conservatism"
_ ASSIMILATION:
Bush said that Americans "are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America."
Micheal Savage has been saying it for years; Borders, language, culture. These people don't want to assimilate into our culture they really want to assimilate us in the manner of the Borg on Voyager.
_ APPEAL TO CONGRESS:
Bush said he was speaking directly to members of the House and Senate in appealing for a comprehensive immigration bill. "All elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all," he said. The House passed a law-and-order immigration bill that would erect fences along the Mexican border and treat people who sneak across borders as felons to be deported. The Senate began debate Monday on a broader bill.
Check you wallet when this one is done. It could be they may have to raise the debt ceiling again to contain this one within the ballpark. Be very aware of overladen pork in this as well.
I probably wouldn't build a fence but definite security measures would need to be in place quickly, since for years the congress critters with the help of the President has allowed the OATH OF OFFICE to mean exactly NOTHING.
Is ignoring your oath of office an impeachable offense?
Vote 4 change
Vote Martz4Missouri
tom martz
The Associated Press
Monday, May 15, 2006; 9:10 PM
-- Highlights of President Bush's speech:
_ BORDER PROBLEMS:
Bush said the United States does not have complete control of its borders and millions of people who have sneaked across the border have stayed in this country, living in the shadows of society.
Since both political parties contributed to this problem is anyone amazed? After all it is a Constitutional duty to defend the borders. I guess congress critters along with the president are extremely to busy spending our money.
_ NATIONAL GUARD:
Bush said the federal government will pay for up to 6,000 National Guard troops to be deployed to the southern border. They will serve in two-week rotations, meaning that over the course of a year a total of 156,000 troops could be involved. He said Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities; that duty will be performed by the Border Patrol. Guard units will work in support positions.
In other words they will walk around an look like they are trying to stop the influx of the problem. The National Guard troops should also be involved in the detainment of people until the Border Patrol arrives to handle the arrest.
_ TEMPORARY WORKER PROGRAM:
Bush called for a temporary worker program allowing foreign workers to enter the United States for jobs for a limited period of time. They would be required to return to their home countries at the conclusion of their stay.
Like this has ever worked in my lifetime. What he really means to say is you can come up here an perform work and when that job is over you can blend into our society and once another amnesty program passes you'll be a citizen.
_ EMPLOYERS:
It is against the law to hire an illegal immigrant, and Bush said employers must be held to account for their employees. He said a tamper-proof identification card for every legal foreign worker would help with law enforcement and leave employers with no excuse for violating the law.
This will be a national ID card for everyone, and the amount of information being stored on it will make privacy right groups cringe.
_ PATH TO CITIZENSHIP:
Bush said it is not realistic to deport the millions of people illegally living in the United States. "I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law, to pay their taxes, to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty; it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen."
Smoke" pot" GO TO JAIL, break into the country retain your job and eventually you'll become a good productive citizen. It is quite a good idea I had when I donned my hip waders to watch this display of "conservatism"
_ ASSIMILATION:
Bush said that Americans "are bound together by our shared ideals, an appreciation of our history, respect for the flag we fly and an ability to speak and write the English language. English is also the key to unlocking the opportunity of America."
Micheal Savage has been saying it for years; Borders, language, culture. These people don't want to assimilate into our culture they really want to assimilate us in the manner of the Borg on Voyager.
_ APPEAL TO CONGRESS:
Bush said he was speaking directly to members of the House and Senate in appealing for a comprehensive immigration bill. "All elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all," he said. The House passed a law-and-order immigration bill that would erect fences along the Mexican border and treat people who sneak across borders as felons to be deported. The Senate began debate Monday on a broader bill.
Check you wallet when this one is done. It could be they may have to raise the debt ceiling again to contain this one within the ballpark. Be very aware of overladen pork in this as well.
I probably wouldn't build a fence but definite security measures would need to be in place quickly, since for years the congress critters with the help of the President has allowed the OATH OF OFFICE to mean exactly NOTHING.
Is ignoring your oath of office an impeachable offense?
Vote 4 change
Vote Martz4Missouri
tom martz
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Once more the fish wrapper shows its true colors.
Roses & Thorns
# A THORN: To ourselves, for not passing out the blame properly in last week's thorn when we improperly credited a radio talk show host for organizing an anti-immigration rally on Cinco de Mayo. The event was organized by a coalition of members from the Constitution Party of Missouri, the Missouri League of the South and supporters of the Fair tax. We should have included them in our thorn, and now we do.
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060513/OPINIONS01/605130319/1006/OPINIONS02
Here once again the majority of people are being labeled as anti-immigrant. Hey snooze loser get a clue, most people aren't getting angry at people that immigrate here LEGALLY. The problems come in when people commit a misdemeanor entering the country illegally then the felonies occur when they use forged documentation to get jobs in the U.S.
If the editorial board could possibly pull there collective heads out of their arses long enough to breathe fresh air they might actually get a clue.
To the editorial board;
Article 4 section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, read it, learn it, comprehend it, then write stories on HOW the federal government is failing in there Constitutional duties. The founding fathers realized how important the freedom of speech is, but I would bet they believed the news medias job was to report the truth.
Your advertisement to get on the editorial board proclaims you must back up your assertations with facts, I guess the current board didn't have to meet that obligation.
VOTE
Martz4Missouri
district 139
# A THORN: To ourselves, for not passing out the blame properly in last week's thorn when we improperly credited a radio talk show host for organizing an anti-immigration rally on Cinco de Mayo. The event was organized by a coalition of members from the Constitution Party of Missouri, the Missouri League of the South and supporters of the Fair tax. We should have included them in our thorn, and now we do.
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060513/OPINIONS01/605130319/1006/OPINIONS02
Here once again the majority of people are being labeled as anti-immigrant. Hey snooze loser get a clue, most people aren't getting angry at people that immigrate here LEGALLY. The problems come in when people commit a misdemeanor entering the country illegally then the felonies occur when they use forged documentation to get jobs in the U.S.
If the editorial board could possibly pull there collective heads out of their arses long enough to breathe fresh air they might actually get a clue.
To the editorial board;
Article 4 section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, read it, learn it, comprehend it, then write stories on HOW the federal government is failing in there Constitutional duties. The founding fathers realized how important the freedom of speech is, but I would bet they believed the news medias job was to report the truth.
Your advertisement to get on the editorial board proclaims you must back up your assertations with facts, I guess the current board didn't have to meet that obligation.
VOTE
Martz4Missouri
district 139
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
why republicans & democrats should be given the BOOT
I don't need to say much on this. The democrats want them to have free access in order to garners votes. The republicans wnat them here freely because the business lobby puts large dollars into the campaign coffers.
Still think there is a difference?
Everyday I'm not in Jeff City allows a individual or company getting entitlements to remain happy.
VOTE4MARTZ
state representative candidate for the 139th district
Officials disclaim Bulletin 'tipping' report
By Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is refuting a Daily Bulletin report that the U.S. Border Patrol provided information to the Mexican government about the whereabouts of civilian border watch groups.
Read the disputed article: U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols
See the Mexican Government Web page: www.sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/reporte3
"Today's report by the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, `U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols,' is inaccurate," read the statement issued Tuesday evening. "Border Patrol does not report activity by civilian, non-law enforcement groups to the government of Mexico."
Kristi Clemens, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, would not elaborate on the agency's statement other than to say the U.S. gives information to Mexican officials under the rules of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, which provides foreign nationals being detained by a government the right to consular access.
"This is the same agreement that protects United States citizens when they travel to foreign countries," according to the statement.
An August 2005 document, "Third Report on the Activities of Vigilantes" -- posted on Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site -- suggests U.S. officials were giving out more details than required by the Vienna Convention. Part of that information was the location of U.S. citizens participating in volunteer border patrols.
The Daily Bulletin reported on the contents of that document and two others on the Mexican Web site in a story published in Tuesday's editions.
Mexican consulates also went beyond the boundaries of the Vienna Convention, asking U.S. Border Patrol officials to provide them with information on "vigilantes" operating along the U.S. border, according to the August 2005 document.
Some of the information cited in the Mexican document originally was given only to U.S. Border Patrol and law enforcement officials, border watch organizers said.
"Nobody but law enforcement and Border Patrol knew where we were at," said Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol. "So how is our base address on a Mexican government document dated last August? Nobody, not even media, had this information."
Ramirez said he revealed the location of his base camp only to local and federal officials. The Mexican document gives the exact location of his group's site, which was on private property near San Diego.
According to Ramirez, the group had no encounters at that site with undocumented migrants, which would have been the only cause for that information to be revealed under the Vienna Convention.
On Monday, Mario Martinez, a U.S. Customs and Border spokesman, told the Daily Bulletin that when illegal immigrants are apprehended in the U.S., they have the right, under the Convention, to be represented by their country's consulate office and to information regarding their apprehension.
Information contained in a Border Patrol agent's field report, which is filed when a person is caught, would reveal the location of the detainee and therefore the area where the volunteer group is operating, Martinez said.
Martinez did not deny that information on the border volunteers was being shared with the Mexican government. He added that the group's whereabouts also were identified by numerous media outlets.
However, the Mexican report also contains specific information on civilian groups operating much farther inside the United States.
For example, the document notes that 50 Minuteman volunteers work in Chicago, focusing mainly on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Minuteman volunteers said specific information -- such as the number of volunteers and their plans -- could have been provided only by law enforcement officials at that time. The document credits the various Mexican consul general offices in the U.S. with providing the information to the Mexican Foreign Secretary for the reports.
"How did they know the number of volunteers in Chicago? And why should the Mexican government care?" asked Connie Hair, spokeswoman for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in Washington, D.C.
The three reports on the Mexican Web site documented the activities of the civilian groups based on concerns the Mexican government had about volunteer patrols on the border in 2005, said Rafael Laveaga, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C.
"The Border Patrol does not report activity of the Minutemen to the Mexican consulate," Laveaga said. "But it's all a matter of perception. If a migrant requests to have counsel, which is their right under the Vienna Convention, then the information is provided to the counsel."
Throughout the Mexican government's reports on "vigilantes," it is noted that Mexican consulates in the U.S. contacted Border Patrol officials seeking U.S. cooperation in reporting instances of civilians monitoring the border. Among such requests:
The Mexican consul in Presidio, Texas, asked the Marfa Sector's Border Patrol chief to alert them if the U.S. detected any volunteer activity.
In Phoenix, consulate officials asked the Border Patrol to notify them if civilian groups apprehended any undocumented migrants so consulate representatives could interview them.
In San Diego, the document referred to a meeting with Border Patrol Chief Darryl Griffen stating that "Mr. Griffen reiterated to the undersecretary his promise to notify the General Consul right away when the vigilantes detain or participate in the detention of any undocumented migrant."
"It appears the border reports are the tip of the iceberg," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which began patrolling the border last April.
Such requests from Mexico, and U.S. officials acquiescing to them, are not new, say Border Patrol agents.
Scott James, a former Tucson agent, resigned after eight years of service in February, citing a lack of support for agents by the Department of Homeland Security.
He said that U.S. Border Patrol officials provided office space inside their headquarters to Mexican consulate officials, allowed the consulate to dictate the agents' activities, and gave the consulate information on ongoing investigations.
Such courtesies were not extended to consulate offices of other countries, James said.
Sara A. Carter can be reached by e-mail at sara.carter@dailybulletin.com or by phone at (909) 483-8552.
Still think there is a difference?
Everyday I'm not in Jeff City allows a individual or company getting entitlements to remain happy.
VOTE4MARTZ
state representative candidate for the 139th district
Officials disclaim Bulletin 'tipping' report
By Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer
U.S. Customs and Border Protection is refuting a Daily Bulletin report that the U.S. Border Patrol provided information to the Mexican government about the whereabouts of civilian border watch groups.
Read the disputed article: U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols
See the Mexican Government Web page: www.sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/reporte3
"Today's report by the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, `U.S. tipping Mexico to Minuteman patrols,' is inaccurate," read the statement issued Tuesday evening. "Border Patrol does not report activity by civilian, non-law enforcement groups to the government of Mexico."
Kristi Clemens, a spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, would not elaborate on the agency's statement other than to say the U.S. gives information to Mexican officials under the rules of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, which provides foreign nationals being detained by a government the right to consular access.
"This is the same agreement that protects United States citizens when they travel to foreign countries," according to the statement.
An August 2005 document, "Third Report on the Activities of Vigilantes" -- posted on Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site -- suggests U.S. officials were giving out more details than required by the Vienna Convention. Part of that information was the location of U.S. citizens participating in volunteer border patrols.
The Daily Bulletin reported on the contents of that document and two others on the Mexican Web site in a story published in Tuesday's editions.
Mexican consulates also went beyond the boundaries of the Vienna Convention, asking U.S. Border Patrol officials to provide them with information on "vigilantes" operating along the U.S. border, according to the August 2005 document.
Some of the information cited in the Mexican document originally was given only to U.S. Border Patrol and law enforcement officials, border watch organizers said.
"Nobody but law enforcement and Border Patrol knew where we were at," said Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol. "So how is our base address on a Mexican government document dated last August? Nobody, not even media, had this information."
Ramirez said he revealed the location of his base camp only to local and federal officials. The Mexican document gives the exact location of his group's site, which was on private property near San Diego.
According to Ramirez, the group had no encounters at that site with undocumented migrants, which would have been the only cause for that information to be revealed under the Vienna Convention.
On Monday, Mario Martinez, a U.S. Customs and Border spokesman, told the Daily Bulletin that when illegal immigrants are apprehended in the U.S., they have the right, under the Convention, to be represented by their country's consulate office and to information regarding their apprehension.
Information contained in a Border Patrol agent's field report, which is filed when a person is caught, would reveal the location of the detainee and therefore the area where the volunteer group is operating, Martinez said.
Martinez did not deny that information on the border volunteers was being shared with the Mexican government. He added that the group's whereabouts also were identified by numerous media outlets.
However, the Mexican report also contains specific information on civilian groups operating much farther inside the United States.
For example, the document notes that 50 Minuteman volunteers work in Chicago, focusing mainly on employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Minuteman volunteers said specific information -- such as the number of volunteers and their plans -- could have been provided only by law enforcement officials at that time. The document credits the various Mexican consul general offices in the U.S. with providing the information to the Mexican Foreign Secretary for the reports.
"How did they know the number of volunteers in Chicago? And why should the Mexican government care?" asked Connie Hair, spokeswoman for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in Washington, D.C.
The three reports on the Mexican Web site documented the activities of the civilian groups based on concerns the Mexican government had about volunteer patrols on the border in 2005, said Rafael Laveaga, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C.
"The Border Patrol does not report activity of the Minutemen to the Mexican consulate," Laveaga said. "But it's all a matter of perception. If a migrant requests to have counsel, which is their right under the Vienna Convention, then the information is provided to the counsel."
Throughout the Mexican government's reports on "vigilantes," it is noted that Mexican consulates in the U.S. contacted Border Patrol officials seeking U.S. cooperation in reporting instances of civilians monitoring the border. Among such requests:
The Mexican consul in Presidio, Texas, asked the Marfa Sector's Border Patrol chief to alert them if the U.S. detected any volunteer activity.
In Phoenix, consulate officials asked the Border Patrol to notify them if civilian groups apprehended any undocumented migrants so consulate representatives could interview them.
In San Diego, the document referred to a meeting with Border Patrol Chief Darryl Griffen stating that "Mr. Griffen reiterated to the undersecretary his promise to notify the General Consul right away when the vigilantes detain or participate in the detention of any undocumented migrant."
"It appears the border reports are the tip of the iceberg," said Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, which began patrolling the border last April.
Such requests from Mexico, and U.S. officials acquiescing to them, are not new, say Border Patrol agents.
Scott James, a former Tucson agent, resigned after eight years of service in February, citing a lack of support for agents by the Department of Homeland Security.
He said that U.S. Border Patrol officials provided office space inside their headquarters to Mexican consulate officials, allowed the consulate to dictate the agents' activities, and gave the consulate information on ongoing investigations.
Such courtesies were not extended to consulate offices of other countries, James said.
Sara A. Carter can be reached by e-mail at sara.carter@dailybulletin.com or by phone at (909) 483-8552.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Can the News Leader be trusted?
Last Friday our local talk show radio host held a rally described as a "Pro American Rally." I've been to a few of these events in the past and to be down right honest it consist of average people waving American flags and standing up for what is right.
Our local rag, which our talk show host calls the "fish wrapper" decided to pen this gathering of people as an "anti-immigration rally."
I'm not aware of to many people on this continent as being anti-immigrant, however when we discuss the laws of this nation and those that break the laws of coming here, then that is a different topic.
As a Libertarian I have no qualms with people trying to gain entry into this country to try to better themselves, after all it seems natural to do so. Every country has immigration laws which need to be abided by to make sure the element of people coming across the border are the type of individuals we want here. I'm not being picky but I don't want those that want to drain the generosity of the taxpayer in this country. We have enough welfare deadbeats and we shouldn't import more from other countries.
News Leader("fish wrapper") your completely off base with this story and you should make an official apology to those in attendance at the rally, I won't hold my breathe waiting on it to be published.
Tom Martz
candidate for 139 district
I chose to not allow government to think for me, I vote Libertarian.
Our local rag, which our talk show host calls the "fish wrapper" decided to pen this gathering of people as an "anti-immigration rally."
I'm not aware of to many people on this continent as being anti-immigrant, however when we discuss the laws of this nation and those that break the laws of coming here, then that is a different topic.
As a Libertarian I have no qualms with people trying to gain entry into this country to try to better themselves, after all it seems natural to do so. Every country has immigration laws which need to be abided by to make sure the element of people coming across the border are the type of individuals we want here. I'm not being picky but I don't want those that want to drain the generosity of the taxpayer in this country. We have enough welfare deadbeats and we shouldn't import more from other countries.
News Leader("fish wrapper") your completely off base with this story and you should make an official apology to those in attendance at the rally, I won't hold my breathe waiting on it to be published.
Tom Martz
candidate for 139 district
I chose to not allow government to think for me, I vote Libertarian.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
When governments overstep there authority
Is this possible? Some will tell you that our elected officials have the authority to do as they wish, after all we gave them the power through the ballot box.
In the private sector when an employee doesn't perform they end up losing their job.
What happens in the public sector? These people are given extreme job security and the voters have many loopholes that must be jumped through in order to get rid of incompetence.
Our very own city council has turned on the wishes of the people an instituted a ban on PitBull dogs. I've already written a blog that deals with this issue but now the voters are circulating a petition to get this measure on the ballot.
Eight members of a city council went against 50+ citizens of this city to show them who was the boss of the city.
Eight members passed an ordinance and it will require I believe 4000 signatures to get this measure placed on the ballot. Just doesn't seem right does it?
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm#towardspeople
Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards People?
Well, many of the fanciers of the breed would yell out a resounding, "No.", in spite of the fact that 'pit bulls' kill more humans than most of the other dog breeds combined.
"Oh, no. They were bred to be friendly towards humans." is the mantra one will often hear repeated. This idea flies in the face of the statistics. No other "breed" (although the term 'pit bull' is generally considered to be a group of breeds) has killed as many Americans as have 'pit bulls'. (NB: We have not yet confirmed an unprovoked dog-related fatality in Canada officially attributed to a 'pit bull'.)
Does this mean that 'pit bulls' are inherently dangerous towards people? Even if we believed all the myths about 'pit bulls', the statistics still point to the fact that only a tiny percentage of the 'pit bulls' in society are ever involved in biting incidents. For instance, if there are at least 50,000 'pit bulls' in Canada, and we theorized an astounding 25 'pit bull' attacks, that would still mean that 99.9% of 'pit bulls' are never involved in attacks. Surely 99.9% of a population shouldn't have to pay the price for the transgressions of such a tiny minority.
So, are 0.1% of 'pit bulls' inherently aggressive towards humans? No, again. Even those 'pit bulls' that have been involved in serious biting incidents can be rehabilitated through responsible ownership and ethical training techniques. Only those who have never been successful at re-training dogs believe it can't be done. (Read about Dr. C. W. Meisterfeld's documentary, "The Unique Nature of Man's Best Friend: Rehabilitated 'Pit Bulls'")
Breed specific legislation isn't a very good idea and neither is trying to define a vicious breed. Back in the 70's most people were terrified of Doberman Pinchers, to the extent that Hollywood bought into the hype an made quite a few movies with these killers dogs as the stars.
The 80's brought us to German Sheppard attacks; http://www.spdrdogs.org/breeds/gsd.html
"Children: Children are okay providing no roughhousing or chase games are permitted. Young children should ALWAYS be with an adult and NEVER left unattended with ANY dog.
This breed makes a great family pet when properly trained, and will love and protect your children almost to a fault. It can be suspicious of your children's friends, which could lead to a biting incident if the child shows fear or flight.
Other animals: The Shepherd may want to chase small animals, cars, bikes, joggers and may be dog-aggressive. It is essential to train and socialize a Shepherd with people, other dogs and all household pets".
The next link will take you to an actual website that talks about the different breeds of dogs that have been known to attack. From your lovable Pomerian to a Chihuahua, and and all dogs or most animals for that manner can attack and damage someone.
Like normal the city council knees jerked and without thinking of the better good of the city they done what was best for the city council.
I choose not to let government think for me, which is why I won't vote for a republican or democrat.
Tom Martz
candidate for the 139 district
In the private sector when an employee doesn't perform they end up losing their job.
What happens in the public sector? These people are given extreme job security and the voters have many loopholes that must be jumped through in order to get rid of incompetence.
Our very own city council has turned on the wishes of the people an instituted a ban on PitBull dogs. I've already written a blog that deals with this issue but now the voters are circulating a petition to get this measure on the ballot.
Eight members of a city council went against 50+ citizens of this city to show them who was the boss of the city.
Eight members passed an ordinance and it will require I believe 4000 signatures to get this measure placed on the ballot. Just doesn't seem right does it?
http://www.goodpooch.com/MediaBriefs/GPpitbulls.htm#towardspeople
Are 'Pit Bulls' Naturally Aggressive Towards People?
Well, many of the fanciers of the breed would yell out a resounding, "No.", in spite of the fact that 'pit bulls' kill more humans than most of the other dog breeds combined.
"Oh, no. They were bred to be friendly towards humans." is the mantra one will often hear repeated. This idea flies in the face of the statistics. No other "breed" (although the term 'pit bull' is generally considered to be a group of breeds) has killed as many Americans as have 'pit bulls'. (NB: We have not yet confirmed an unprovoked dog-related fatality in Canada officially attributed to a 'pit bull'.)
Does this mean that 'pit bulls' are inherently dangerous towards people? Even if we believed all the myths about 'pit bulls', the statistics still point to the fact that only a tiny percentage of the 'pit bulls' in society are ever involved in biting incidents. For instance, if there are at least 50,000 'pit bulls' in Canada, and we theorized an astounding 25 'pit bull' attacks, that would still mean that 99.9% of 'pit bulls' are never involved in attacks. Surely 99.9% of a population shouldn't have to pay the price for the transgressions of such a tiny minority.
So, are 0.1% of 'pit bulls' inherently aggressive towards humans? No, again. Even those 'pit bulls' that have been involved in serious biting incidents can be rehabilitated through responsible ownership and ethical training techniques. Only those who have never been successful at re-training dogs believe it can't be done. (Read about Dr. C. W. Meisterfeld's documentary, "The Unique Nature of Man's Best Friend: Rehabilitated 'Pit Bulls'")
Breed specific legislation isn't a very good idea and neither is trying to define a vicious breed. Back in the 70's most people were terrified of Doberman Pinchers, to the extent that Hollywood bought into the hype an made quite a few movies with these killers dogs as the stars.
The 80's brought us to German Sheppard attacks; http://www.spdrdogs.org/breeds/gsd.html
"Children: Children are okay providing no roughhousing or chase games are permitted. Young children should ALWAYS be with an adult and NEVER left unattended with ANY dog.
This breed makes a great family pet when properly trained, and will love and protect your children almost to a fault. It can be suspicious of your children's friends, which could lead to a biting incident if the child shows fear or flight.
Other animals: The Shepherd may want to chase small animals, cars, bikes, joggers and may be dog-aggressive. It is essential to train and socialize a Shepherd with people, other dogs and all household pets".
The next link will take you to an actual website that talks about the different breeds of dogs that have been known to attack. From your lovable Pomerian to a Chihuahua, and and all dogs or most animals for that manner can attack and damage someone.
Like normal the city council knees jerked and without thinking of the better good of the city they done what was best for the city council.
I choose not to let government think for me, which is why I won't vote for a republican or democrat.
Tom Martz
candidate for the 139 district
Friday, May 05, 2006
Cinco de Mayo
A thirst for information led me to research why this has become such a festive day here in the US. After all the significance of this day could and should be compared to any of the battles that led up to the final battle of the "War between the States" for those of you that are government educated that would be the Civil War.
Before you get to harsh I realize the difference between the two. The Mexican army was trying to prevent an invading French force from occupying Mexico. The French invasion was done with numbers that should've assured victory however the fighting force that stopped the aggresion was ill equipped and not very well trained compared to the French troops. In modern day we only need to look back to the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan to see how some governments can mistake a determined bunch of people.
My question is WHY is this considered a day of festivities here in the U.S.?
Do we as Americans celebrate the following battles
1. Battle of Antietam
2. Battle of Gettysburg
3. Battle of Fredericksburg
4. Battle of Shiloh
No we don't however we as Americans celebrate the quest for and success of our independence from England. Not some battles that led up to the blessed event
http://clnet.ucla.edu/cinco.html
Cinco de Mayo is a date of great importance for the Mexican and Chicano communities. It marks the victory of the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla. Althought the Mexican army was eventually defeated, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to represent a symbol of Mexican unity and patriotism. With this victory, Mexico demonstrated to the world that Mexico and all of Latin America were willing to defend themselves of any foreign intervention. Especially those from imperialist states bent on world conquest.
Cinco de Mayo's history has its roots in the French Occupation of Mexico. The French occupation took shape in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. With this war, Mexico entered a period of national crisis during the 1850's. Years of not only fighting the Americans but also a Civil War, had left Mexico devastated and bankrupt. On July 17, 1861, President Benito Juarez issued a moratorium in which all foreign debt payments would be suspended for a brief period of two years, with the promise that after this period, payments would resume.
The English, Spanish and French refused to allow president Juarez to do this, and instead decided to invade Mexico and get payments by whatever means necessary. The Spanish and English eventually withdrew, but the French refused to leave. Their intention was to create an Empire in Mexico under Napoleon III. Some have argued that the true French occupation was a response to growing American power and to the Monroe Doctrine (America for the Americans). Napoleon III believed that if the United States was allowed to prosper indescriminantly, it would eventually become a power in and of itself.
In 1862, the French army began its advance. Under General Ignacio Zaragoza, 5,000 ill-equipped Mestizo and Zapotec Indians defeated the French army in what came to be known as the "Batalla de Puebla" on the fifth of May.
In the United States, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to be known as simply "5 de Mayo" and unfortunately, many people wrongly equate it with Mexican Independence which was on September 16, 1810, nearly a fifty year difference. Over, the years Cinco de Mayo has become very commercialized and many people see this holiday as a time for fun and dance. Oddly enough, Cinco de Mayo has become more of Chicano holiday than a Mexican one. Cinco de Mayo is celebrated on a much larger scale here in the United States than it is in Mexico. People of Mexican descent in the United States celebrate this significant day by having parades, mariachi music, folklorico dancing and other types of festive activities.
There really is no reason why this day should be celebrated here in the U.S. Maybe we should hold a celebration on September 16 which IS the DAY that Mexico achieved independence.
Tom Martz
candidate for the 139th HoR district
VOTE for a true change and someone that won't let personal feelings come between me and the Constitution.
Before you get to harsh I realize the difference between the two. The Mexican army was trying to prevent an invading French force from occupying Mexico. The French invasion was done with numbers that should've assured victory however the fighting force that stopped the aggresion was ill equipped and not very well trained compared to the French troops. In modern day we only need to look back to the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan to see how some governments can mistake a determined bunch of people.
My question is WHY is this considered a day of festivities here in the U.S.?
Do we as Americans celebrate the following battles
1. Battle of Antietam
2. Battle of Gettysburg
3. Battle of Fredericksburg
4. Battle of Shiloh
No we don't however we as Americans celebrate the quest for and success of our independence from England. Not some battles that led up to the blessed event
http://clnet.ucla.edu/cinco.html
Cinco de Mayo is a date of great importance for the Mexican and Chicano communities. It marks the victory of the Mexican Army over the French at the Battle of Puebla. Althought the Mexican army was eventually defeated, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to represent a symbol of Mexican unity and patriotism. With this victory, Mexico demonstrated to the world that Mexico and all of Latin America were willing to defend themselves of any foreign intervention. Especially those from imperialist states bent on world conquest.
Cinco de Mayo's history has its roots in the French Occupation of Mexico. The French occupation took shape in the aftermath of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48. With this war, Mexico entered a period of national crisis during the 1850's. Years of not only fighting the Americans but also a Civil War, had left Mexico devastated and bankrupt. On July 17, 1861, President Benito Juarez issued a moratorium in which all foreign debt payments would be suspended for a brief period of two years, with the promise that after this period, payments would resume.
The English, Spanish and French refused to allow president Juarez to do this, and instead decided to invade Mexico and get payments by whatever means necessary. The Spanish and English eventually withdrew, but the French refused to leave. Their intention was to create an Empire in Mexico under Napoleon III. Some have argued that the true French occupation was a response to growing American power and to the Monroe Doctrine (America for the Americans). Napoleon III believed that if the United States was allowed to prosper indescriminantly, it would eventually become a power in and of itself.
In 1862, the French army began its advance. Under General Ignacio Zaragoza, 5,000 ill-equipped Mestizo and Zapotec Indians defeated the French army in what came to be known as the "Batalla de Puebla" on the fifth of May.
In the United States, the "Batalla de Puebla" came to be known as simply "5 de Mayo" and unfortunately, many people wrongly equate it with Mexican Independence which was on September 16, 1810, nearly a fifty year difference. Over, the years Cinco de Mayo has become very commercialized and many people see this holiday as a time for fun and dance. Oddly enough, Cinco de Mayo has become more of Chicano holiday than a Mexican one. Cinco de Mayo is celebrated on a much larger scale here in the United States than it is in Mexico. People of Mexican descent in the United States celebrate this significant day by having parades, mariachi music, folklorico dancing and other types of festive activities.
There really is no reason why this day should be celebrated here in the U.S. Maybe we should hold a celebration on September 16 which IS the DAY that Mexico achieved independence.
Tom Martz
candidate for the 139th HoR district
VOTE for a true change and someone that won't let personal feelings come between me and the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)