About Me

Name: RickeyB
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
My other stuff

Monetary Conspiracy Theory

Posted by RickeyB on Sunday, July 03, 2011 10:10:18 PM
[ It's not like they didn't know what would happen, they'd done it before: ]

August 1929 the FED began to tighten money.

October 24th, 1929, the FED called in all of their 24-hour broker call loans. The brokers and their customers had to dump their stocks to pay the loans no matter what price they had to sell them for. The market tumbled and that day was called Black Thursday.

 
[ So they did it again... why??? ] 

The Central bankers' Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in 1988 in the "Basel I" regulations imposed an 8% capital reserve standard on member central banks. This almost immediately threw Japan into a 15 year economic depression. In 2004 Basel II imposed "mark to the market" capital valuation standards that required international banks to revalue their reserves according to changing market valuations (such as falling home or stock prices). The US implemented those standards in November, 2007. In December 2007, the US stock market collapsed and credit began drying up as banks withheld loans to comply with the 8% capital requirement as collateral valuations began to drop. [Emphasis added And when was it, exactly, when the housing bubble burst???] The snowball effect of tightening credit, which reduces economic activity and values further, which resulted in further tightening of credit, etc., has produced a worldwide depression which is worsening.

Those capital standards have not been relaxed despite the crushing effects on the world economy* the credit contraction it requires has caused. Why? Because:


"The purpose of this financial crisis is to take down the U.S. dollar as the stable datum of planetary finance and, in the midst of the resulting confusion, put in its place a Global Monetary Authority [GMA - run directly by international bankers freed of any government control] -a planetary financial control organization" - Bruce Wiseman

 [ It's not a conspiracy theory when you can watch it happening... Now go to the MoneyMasters web site and see what we can do about it. There IS a cure! ] 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Citizen's Petition for Redress of Grievances

Posted by RickeyB on Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:05:28 AM

Petition for Redress of Grievances

To the President of the United States and the Senators and Representatives of  the United States:

 Expressing the sense of a Citizen of the United States that the President should immediately and unequivocally call for the enforcement of existing immigration laws in order to reduce the threat of a terrorist attack and to stop illegal migration into the United States.

Whereas a primary duty of the Federal Government is to secure the homeland and ensure the safety of United States Citizens and lawful Residents;

 Whereas the criminal presence of ten to twenty million individuals of various nationalities (in violation of U.S. laws) constitutes a de facto invasion of illegal migrants;

 Whereas communities and cities in several States are now under control (by sheer weight of numbers) of illegal migrants;

 Whereas as a result of the attacks on this country on September 11, 2001, perpetrated by al Qaida terrorists on United States soil, the United States is engaged in a global war on terrorism;

 Whereas it is impossible to determine which illegal migrants are terrorists;

 Whereas almost 6 years after those attacks, there is still a failure to secure the borders of the United States against illegal migrants;

 Whereas the failure to enforce immigration laws in the interior means that illegal migrants face little or no risk of apprehension or removal once they are in the country;

 Whereas the failure to enforce ALL immigration laws to the fullest extent of the law is a violation of the oath of office of the President of the united States, the Attorney General of the United States, and the Secretary of Homeland Security of the United States and therefore the crimes of Perjury, derelicition of duty, and malfeasance of office;

 Whereas granting amnesty to illegal migrants, or even proposing legislation or efforts for amnesty for illegal migrants, serves only to generate more invasion;

 Whereas if illegal migrants can enter and remain in the United States with impunity, so, too, can terrorists enter and remain while they plan, rehearse, and then carry out their attacks;

 Whereas the failure to control and to prevent invasion of the United States increases the likelihood that terrorists will succeed in launching catastrophic or harmful attacks on United States soil: and

 Whereas the Government of Mexico actively encourages invasion of the United States by, among other things, publishing `how to' books and urging State and local entities to accept the matricula consular as valid identification;

 Now, therefore, be it

 Resolved by th Congress of the United States, that--

 (1) the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall immediately use every tool available to them to secure the borders against invasion;

 (2) the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall immediately use every tool available to them to identify and prosecute employers who employ, harbor, and/or transport criminal illegal migrants in violation of law;

 (3) the President shall announce publicly that he will oppose any proposal to grant legal status, or amnesty, to illegal migrants and that he and the Secretary of Homeland Security will use every tool available to stop invasion of the United States and to develop procedures for the removal of illegal migrants from the United States;

 (4) The President shall issue an Executive Order stating that the Executive Branch recognises the sovereignty and authority of the several States to enforce any and all laws passed by the Congress pursuant to the Constitution of the United States including immigration laws;

 (5) the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall seek the assistance of State and local law enforcement personnel in enforcing immigration laws, fully reimburse the States for all costs incurred for preventing illegal entry of, detecting, detaining, processing, and transferring to U.S. custody for deportation criminal illegal migrants; and

 (6) the President and the Secretary of State shall inform Mexico that any further actions it takes to encourage invasion of the United States by illegal migrants will be viewed as an act of war and abrogation by Mexico of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago of 1848 as well as interference with our domestic laws in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The abrogation of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago by Mexico automatically returns our two countries to a state of war without a declaration of war by the Congress being necessary.

Your Name
Address
City, State, Zip
Telephone Number
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Federal Police

Posted by RickeyB on Friday, May 13, 2011 11:31:28 PM
From the U.S. Marshals Service "History" page:
 
"Even after the creation of more than 50 specialized federal law enforcement agencies during the 20th century, the Marshals retained the broadest jurisdiction and authority. For over 200 years now, U.S. Marshals and their Deputies have served as the instruments of civil authority used by all three branches of government. Marshals have been involved in most of the major historical episodes in America's past."

Why? Why do we have more than 50 specialized federal law enforcement agencies? I think we only need one, the U.S. Marshals Service. Think about it. More than fifty different agencies with multi-layer supervisory and administrative structures. Look at all the money we could save if we consolidated all those agencies under the Marshals Service and deleted all those high-paying positions. The Marshals Service was the first federal police agency, established (under a different name) in 1789 so it should be the one we keep.
 
What do you think?
 
 
 
Tags: police  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AZ, Immigration Law, and the U.S. Constitution

Posted by RickeyB on Friday, May 13, 2011 11:10:50 PM
I keep hearing that the Constitution delegates the exclusive authority to enforce immigration laws to the Federal Government.
 
Prove it. Show me. Give the exact Article, Section, and Paragraph in the Constitution that says that. No, it's not in the supremacy clause. That just says that the Constitution and "the laws enacted in Pursuance thereof..." shall be the supreme law of the land. In other words, the Constitution and Federal Laws trump State laws. It doesn't say anything about authority to enforce the laws.
 
Article I, Section 8 lists the powers granted to the Congress by the Constitution. One of those is "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ...". The Congress has done that in Title 8, United States Code. Establishing a rule does not grant any authority, much less exclusive authority, to enforce the law. The authority to enforce the law is granted to the President in Article 2, Section 3. Unfortunately, like it always does, the Congress far exceeded the power granted to it by the Constitution in Title 8, USC. READ Title 8. Most - actually, almost all - of what's in there has nothing to do with "an Rule of Naturalization" but rather addresses migration or importation of Persons into a State or States.
 
Article I, Section 9 says in the first paragraph "The migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
 
What does that mean "the States" "shall think proper to admit,"??? Why doesn't it say "as the United States establishes by law are proper to admit"??? Could it be that the States have the authority to admit or refuse to admit any migrant unless the Congress prohibits entry or establishes conditions and or procedures the migrant must satisfy to be admitted?
 
My last arguement is "The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007". It was introduced and voted on as two separate bills, one in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate. They each recognised that the States have the authority to enforce immigration laws.

From the House of Representative's bill, H.R.1645, 110th Congress 1st Session, March 22, 2007:

"‘‘SEC. 240D. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND TRANSFER OF ALIENS TO FEDERAL CUSTODY.

‘‘(a) AUTHORITY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, law enforcement personnel of a State, or a political subdivision of a State, have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody (including the transportation across State lines to detention centers) an alien for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws of the United States in the normal course of carrying out the law enforcement duties of such personnel. This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by a Federal law."

From the Senate bill, S.1348, 110th Congress 1st Session, May 9th, 2007, starting at about the middle of page 201:

‘‘SEC. 240D. LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY OF STATES AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS AND TRANSFER OF ALIENS TO FEDERAL CUSTODY.

"(a) AUTHORITY.Notwithstanding any other provision of law, law enforcement personnel of a State, or a political subdivision of a State, have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to Federal custody (including the transportation across State lines to detention centers) an alien for the purpose of assisting in the enforcement of the criminal provisions of the immigration laws of the United States in the normal course of carrying out the law enforcement duties of such personnel. This State authority has never been displaced or preempted by a Federal law."

Did you notice the last line in the quote from each bill? Do you think they would put that in there if it wasn't true? It was also in the predecessor to H.R.1645 (I don't remember what its number was, but I probably have the pdf file. I downloaded everything I could find on the subject then posted links to it all over the Internet.)

Nowhere in the Constitution or in Title 8, USC are the States prohibited from enforcing Federal laws.

Now look in Article 2, Section 3, where among the duties of the President you will find "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,". That means that there is a Constitutional mandate that the President ensure that the laws passed by the Congress and signed by a President are fully enforced. By the way, a crime is "the breaking of any law either by performing a prohibited action or failing to perform a required action". That means that misdemeanors are crimes.

I'm pretty sure that failing to perform a Constitutionally mandated duty fits within the definition of "dereliction of duty" and might fit "malfeasance of office" in a situation where failing to perform the duty has resulted in the deaths of citizens of the United States or other persons present whether authorized or unauthorized. Failing to perform a Constitutionally mandated duty also violates the President's Oath of Office where he swears (or affirms) that he "will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States". Violating an oath is one of the definitions of PERJURY, and that's a FELONY.

Just one more thing. Look at Article 6. Better yet, I'll quote the second paragraph here:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The Constitution and the Laws of the United States... shall be the supreme Law of the United States... and the Judges of every State shall be bound thereby. WHY? Why would the Judges of every State be bound by the Law of the Land if the States were prohibited from enforcing the Law of the Land?

Well???

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The President

Posted by RickeyB on Friday, May 13, 2011 11:01:07 PM
In my last essay I ended by ranting about President Bush. I accused him of being a traitor to the Constitution and having violated his oath of office. I'll finish that rant now.
 
I know a little bit about oaths. I swore one when I enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in 1966, and then again each time I re-enlisted, until I retired in 1986. While mine was not identical to the President's oath of office, "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" is in both his and mine. I swore another oath when I was appointed a law enforcement officer for the State of Florida in 1995 and the main difference in it was the addition of "and the Constitution of the State of Florida..." following the phrase above. The funny thing is, neither of those oaths was conditional upon continued service in the Air Force or the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. There was no expiration or termination clause or condition. I wrote this so you'd know that I take oaths very seriously.
 
Unfortunately, the same can not be said about the presidents we have had since 1965. We had an immigration reform act enacted then, then another one (claimed to be the last one) 21 years later in 1986, then an attempt to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007 21 years after that. What's special about the number 21? Anyway, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 1986 is the current law, as amended several times. Before the 1986 bill was passed it was estimated to give amnesty to 1 million illegal aliens but it turned out to be 3 million. The 2007 bill was estimated to give amnesty to 10-12 million illegal aliens but if the same 3:1 ratio held it would have been 30 to 36 million! Fortunately, activists were able to defeat that bill. I helped with that as much as I could.
 
The reason we have that many illegal aliens is that the President has refused to perform his Constitutionally mandated duty that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Every president since 1965 has picked which laws he will enforce (through his Attorney General / Justice Department) and which ones he will ignore. President Bush has actually encouraged the migration of illegal aliens across our southern border.
 
[NOTE: The oath of office for the President of the United States as specified by the Constitution of the United States from Article 2, Section 1, paragraph 7:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—‘‘I do solemly 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.’’"]
 
To "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" the President must perform the duties assigned to him by the Constitution of the United States to the best of his ability. By refusing to enforce the immigration laws of the United States the President has failed to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" as mandated by the Constitution and thereby broke his oath of office. The breaking of any oath or formal promise is the second definition of perjury in my dictionary, so the President, George W. Bush, has committed perjury, a felony.
 
You can download the current immigration law in pdf format, Title 8, USC  from the House of Representatives web site. Speaking of Title 8, I challenge anyone to download it and find where the Executive is given any discretion in applying and enforcing the law.
 
Now Barak Obama is the President and he is taking his cues from the way George Bush executed the Office of President of the United States. He has gone far beyond anything President Bush ever did in picking and choosing which laws he will have enforced and which ones he will ignore. He has also gone far beyond perjury with his agenda to "Fundamentally Transform" the United States and all the way to subversion and treason.
 
More on that later.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Whose House is it?

Posted by RickeyB on Friday, May 13, 2011 10:04:03 PM
The People's House? Who does Representative (Majority Leader) Steny Hoyer (D-MD) think he's talking to? He said on national TV (Fox News, relayed from CSPAN) that "I believe that when challenged this House rises to it's responsibilities." The House of Representatives has only those responsibilities it is given authority for in the Constitution of the United States. It has been acting so far beyond it's authority for so long they can't even look back and see the line they've crossed.
In actuality, the House has risen far above the level of its competence. How does the "Peter Principle" go? 
 
To see where I'm coming from, click on the Davey Crockett story. It's kind of a long article, but please be patient and read it all. Some people think the story is fiction but it doesn't matter if it is or not. The principles remain the same either way.
 
One problem that we have is that both houses of our Congress have established their own little quasi-kingdom. They have decided that they own the United States and the citizens of the United States are their subjects. They've spent decades building a system where they disburse money from the Treasury to specific groups of citizens in order to keep getting themselves re-elected to their congressional seats. Their system works and they use it to gain tighter and tighter control over the lives of the citizens.
 
The elections of 2010 sent them a warning message, though. Some of them got the message and some didn't. Now our duty is to duplicate that in the 2012 elections. We must come together with one common goal, to replace all those in the House of Representatives who have been there longer than two years and all those in the Senate who have been there longer than six years. The Congress was supposed to be made up of citizen legislators, not professional politicians. We must also elect a President who believes in the United States Constitution and will work within its limits. After we do these things we have 98 years of communist subversion to undo. That's going to take a long time.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Anchor Babies

Posted by RickeyB on Tuesday, May 25, 2010 1:00:23 PM
Enough complaining, here's one suggestion for how to "fix" the anchor baby problem. See Title 8, United States Code, Sections 1101 and 1401:

§1101 (a) (15) amend "The term 'immigrant' means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens--"

to read "The term 'immigrant' means every admitted alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens--"

This change is necessary to clarify that an illegal/unauthorized alien is NOT included in the definition of an immigrant.

SUBCHAPTER III

PART I

§1401 The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

add (a)(1) if and only if at least one parent is a citizen of the United States, or

(a)(2) if both parents are citizens of the United States a person born in the United States is a Natural or Native citizen, or

(a)(3) if and only if both parents are Native citizens then a person born in the United States is a Natural Born citizen referenced by Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. No other distinction or difference can be drawn or inferred between different types of citizenship.

(a)(4) if either parent is an illegal/unauthorized alien then a person born in the United States acquires the citizenship of the father, or if the father is not present or is unknown then of the mother.

This change is necessary to clarify terms used elsewhere in the law. It is placed here to ensure that it is understood to apply directly to persons entering the United States regardless of if they are immigrants, nonimmigrants, or illegal/unauthorized aliens.

There, that should do it and it doesn't require a Constitional Amendment or Comprehensive Immigration Reform. We don't need immigration reform, we need Law Enforcement reform.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Did you see this?

Posted by RickeyB on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 12:34:24 AM

You're gonna love this! These two guys do the math (and show their work!) to prove that the AGW conjecture violates several laws of physics and that the scientists proposing/promoting it thoroughly trash the Scientific Method. This link will take you to the abstract for their paper, from there you can take the link to download it (115 page pdf, 1.5MB) so you can read the whole thing.

They rip the whole AGW scam/fraud to shreds and now the debate really is over! I knew that something like this would come up sooner or later. Between scientists like these two guys and the whistleblower emails/documents - and let's not forget Harry Read Me, the AGW fraudsters are done, stick a fork in them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arizona's Immigration Law & Title 8, United States Code

Posted by RickeyB on Friday, April 30, 2010 3:14:46 AM
Is Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal entry unconstitutional? It appears that current law authorizes Arizona to do what she has done. Paragraphs 1 through 8 define what we call the "287g" program for local and state law enforcement officers to be trained to perform immigration law enforcement. Look below at what paragraphs 9 and 10 say, though. 
§ 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees

(g) Performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local law.

(9) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require any State or political subdivision of a State to enter into an agreement with the Attorney General under this subsection.

(10) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State—

(A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or

(B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.
 
It appears to me that Arizona is just complying with 8USC1357(g)(10)(B) and is authorized by current law to do so. In addition, the state can enroll in and use the eVerify system to determine if a person is legally present in the U.S., not to mention checking the NCIC database to see if they are a criminal at large.
 
As for "show me your papers", has anyone ever had a traffic cop come to your driver's side window and say "show me your papers"? Or might the officer just say "driver's license and registration, please". What happens if you refuse to show the officer your driver's license and/or registration? How is asking to see a driver's license or vehicle registration any different from asking to see a "green card" (I've been told that it is actually blue). Just think about it, and about other times you might have been asked for your driver's license, like to cash a check.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush's Resignation???

Posted by RickeyB on Friday, October 24, 2008 8:54:17 PM
I received the following via email:

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The resignation speech George W. Bush should give:

 Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time.

If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell

And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.
 
 Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named 'Clinton' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that t, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks we just need to sit down and talk to Iran and things would be better (what the hell do you think we have been doing behind the scenes), and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel.
 
Did you sleep through high school or what?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.
That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive.. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that.

When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'
 
Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet.

It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.
 
I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too.

That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it.  

Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America .

Some of you know what I mean.

The rest of you, kiss off.

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran
Obama already has his copy.
 
_________________________________________________________
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Motivating Conservatives

Posted by RickeyB on Thursday, October 23, 2008 1:57:25 PM

Keep it up, Michael Medved, you're doing great. To racist, bigot, and xenophobe you've added stupid (lack of common sense) and demented. That's a great way to convince and motivate the Conservative base to join your cause and help get McCain elected.

Maybe, just MAYBE, it wasn't such a good idea to throw Conservatives under the bus to get Hispanic and moderate Democrat votes. What's done is done, though, now suffer the consequences of your actions.

It's a gross mistake to confuse anger with racism, bigotry, xenophobia, hatred, stupidity (lack of common sense), or dementia. Generating more anger is a bad tactic to use when you're asking for help.

Actually, it's much more than a mistake, it's racist, bigoted, xenophobic, hateful, stupid, and demented. How does that shoe fit on the other foot? Who am I to apply those labels to you? Who are YOU, G.W. Bush, Mel Martinez, or John McCain to apply those labels to me? You don't know the first thing about me other than that I disagree with you, and that's all you need to know to call me those names.
 
I'm not going to "take my ball and go home in a fit of pique". I'm going to take my VOTE and go join another team where they will listen to me, value my input, not denigrate me or my opinions, and play by the rules. For you and the other faux intelligentsia that would be the Constitution Party and my candidate is Dr. Charles Baldwin.
 
That you and your Republican Party have abandoned the Constitution of the United States is amply displayed by every action you have taken on behalf of the United States over the last eight years. You in the Republican Party are so misguided that you don't even know that the things you've done or attempted to do are unconstitutional. I can not and WILL NOT be a part of that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

An American Sovereign

Posted by RickeyB on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 9:45:51 AM

First let me specify that when I use you, we, our, or other similar pronouns I am talking about all Citizens of the United States, natural born or naturalized, including myself.

That said, I want to point out that I capitalized the word 'Citizens' above, and I did it for a very good reason. I want to emphasize the true source of all power in the United States, political, social, economic, or otherwise. I want to refresh in everyone's mind the meaning of the word "sovereign" as it applies in the United States of America. (Please excuse me while I talk to myself for a bit)

"What? It doesn't apply here, we've never had a sovereign ruler."

Think again. I am a Sovereign Citizen of the Sovereign State of Tennessee by birth, and of the Sovereign State of Florida by my choice of residence.

"Some sovereign. You don't rule over anything."

"Actually, I do. I rule over my life and exercise my unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness subject only to the limitation that I not violate the same rights of other Citizens. In concert with the other Citizens of Florida and by virtue of my vote, I rule over the state of Florida in accordance with its Constitution. The same is true with our Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress. They represent us in determining what the laws of the United States are or will be."

"If you take that to its logical conclusion, you are claiming that the Citizens of the United States are the actual rulers of the nation. However, the Constitution limits your authority, so therefore it is sovereign to you."

"Not even close. The Constitution can not change any single thing about the Citizens, but the Citizens can change the Constitution by amendment, so the Constitution is subject to the Citizens, that is, the Citizens are sovereign to the Constitution. That is as it should be, since Citizens created the Constitution, not the other way around. Gotcha."

"OK, I give up. Now tell me how we got in the mess we find ourselves in today. Who is to blame for it?"

"You are. I am, We are. With citizenship comes the responsibility to hold ourselves (and our elected officials) accountable for our (their) actions. We've allowed our elected officials to assume authority and power we never delegated to them through our Constitution. We failed to discipline them by replacing them with more responsibile Citizens. By failing to discipline them we have encouraged them to go farther and farther in enacting laws which are blatantly against the Constitution and beyond their authority."

"What are our priorities? What should they be? What must we do?"

"I never thought much about my priorities when I was younger. My immediate responsibilities were clear and my options were limited by my personal choices and limited opportunities. I raised a family paycheck to paycheck like so many others and had no time for other considerations. Now that I am older, my sons are grown and my wife is ex, I can easily see that I should have made time for other considerations and that I wasn't addressing ALL of my responsibilities. While I was busy with day to day survival, the ground was crumbling away under my (and my sons') feet and I couldn't even see it. Now that I can see it I wonder if I have enough time left and can develop enough influence to do something about it."

"What my and previous generations has sent around has come back around in the forms of apathy towards or regarding government and ignorance of the principles and ideals upon which the society and government of the United States of America were founded. Apathy is a mental and psychological cancer which has spread deep and wide through our society."

If there is any cure for it, the cure has to lie in motivating and energizing the people to re-assume their role as governers of the government. So here we are. Thank you for your time.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We're in BIG Trouble!

Posted by RickeyB on Friday, October 10, 2008 2:25:51 PM

Have you seen anything on The Money Masters? I just found their web site, they support a Monetary Reform Act which would eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank and put the Treasury Department back in charge of printing money (United States Notes instead of Federal Reserve Notes). Watch The Fed and Tell 300 Million People 

I think you will find this interesting. I did. My imagination can't even stretch around it.

Short version: If you control the money supply, you control the country no matter who is elected to the government. The Federal Reserve Bank (FED - common useage) controls the money supply for the United States. It is an independant bank, not a part of the U.S. government like the Treasury is.

Every Federal Reserve Note (U.S. currency) is a loan certificate for money that comes from the FED. The U.S. Treasury prints Federal Reserve Notes then SELLS THEM to the FED for the cost of the printing. The FED then uses those Federal Reserve Notes to buy U.S. Treasury Notes which pay interest at maturity. Right now we are paying $400BILLION each year in interest on Treasury Notes to use Federal Reserve Notes for our currency. Our whole economy is based on credit, not money, and even the credit we use is borrowed on credit.

WHY? It's TOTALLY unnecessary! The U.S. Treasury can print U.S. Treasury Notes and put them in circulation to replace an equal number of Federal Reserve Notes, then return those FED notes by using them to buy back the U.S. Treasury Notes. We could replace ALL FED notes with Treasury notes in ONE year! Just think about it: eliminate that part of the National Debt represented by the FED Reserve Notes in circulation (all of it?), eliminate a $400Billion annual expense, and regain control of our economy AT THE SAME TIME!
 
We need to do more than just regain control of the currency. We need to re-separate banking from speculation, i.e. stocks, bonds, mortgages, etc. We also need to require that banks have a 100% reserve on deposits. No more Fractional Reserves. Those are part of the Monetary Reform Act at the first link at the top of the page.
 
I've heard talk of injecting liquidity into the economy, there's a credit crunch, people and businesses can't get credit, the U.S. has a credit economy... isn't there a little too much credit involved here? I think we need to take away our government's credit card, close our FED account, and revert to a CASH economy. Do you think that's too big a step, that we can't do it? Creating the FED in the first place was a big step, and that was done during a depression! We can do it. We can abolish the FED and Fractional Reserve banking.
 
The second thing we need to do is to implement the Fair Tax Act. One tax and done, collected at the point of retail sale. No deductions from your paycheck for any Federal taxes at all. No Income Tax returns, no deductions, no tax credits (because no Income Tax withheld). No tax lawyers, no tax paperwork, no April 15th deadline. You can download the PDF at http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTax-NTJ-Final-042407.pdf to see an extensive analysis of the performance of the Fair Tax over a period of years. The home page for it is at http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer where you will find many links to more information. Before you blow this off, you need to think about it very carefully. Do you think that what you put on your Income Tax Return is the only amount that Federal Taxes cost you? Think again... approximately 22% of the price of everything you buy is attributed to compliance costs of federal taxes. Have you ever had a lawyer, or a company like H&R Block do your taxes? Businesses do! That expense is a part of their cost of doing business. They can only recoup that money by including it in the prices of their goods sold. They have other compliance costs, too, perhaps some readers can comment on that (FICA employer's share, unemployment insurance, etc).
 
Eliminate the compliance costs and the costs of goods sold go down by that amount. Add in the Fair Tax at point of sale and the price goes back up to what it was before. No net change to the consumer. Note that the price the buyer sees already includes the Fair Tax, but the amount of tax included is shown on the cash register receipt (for the total of the sale, not for each item). Every time you buy something you will see exactly how much you are "contributing" to the Federal Government. You will have a vested interest in knowing what the government wants to spend money on, and how much it will cost. You will be able to control how much the government gets from you by controlling your spending. The government will know that to get the maximum amount in taxes from you, they have to keep you happy! Power to the people!
 
I almost forgot... some people will say that the reduced cost of goods sold will not be passed on to the retailers, and thereby to the customers. They will just keep the difference as profit. Yeah, right. That will last about as long as it takes their competitors to reduce their wholesale prices... a computer operation that takes about 1/10th of a second. Companies like WalMart aggressively negotiate the prices they pay for goods for resale. Other companies with less competition might not cut their prices at first, but customers will see the lack of prices jumping on other goods and know that they are being ripped off. Companies will pass the savings on or watch their sales drop like a rock.

I SUGGEST that the FED, NAFTA, SPP, North American Community/Union, and Amero are ALL TIED TOGETHER! The links are tenuous right now, but too many things are happening that complement each other for all of them to be purely circumstantial.

More later...
Tags: Fed  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush Doctrine

Posted by RickeyB on Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:14:46 AM
The Bush Doctrine is widely accepted to refer to the National Security Strategy report presented by President Bush in September of 2002. In section III of that paper you will find the following points listed:
  • direct and continuous action using all the elements of national and international power. Our immediate focus will be those terrorist organizations of global reach and any terrorist or state sponsor of terrorism which attempts to gain or use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or their precursors;
  • defending the United States, the American people, and our interests at home and abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders.While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country; and
  • denying further sponsorship, support, and sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities. We will also wage a war of ideas to win the battle against international terrorism. This includes:
  • using the full influence of the United States, and working closely with allies and friends, to make clear that all acts of terrorism are illegitimate so that terrorism will be viewed in the same light as slavery, piracy, or genocide: behavior that no respectable government can condone or support and all must oppose;
  • supporting moderate and modern government, especially in the Muslim world, to ensure that the conditions and ideologies that promote terrorism do not find fertile ground in any nation;
  • diminishing the underlying conditions that spawn terrorism by enlisting the international community to focus its efforts and resources on areas most at risk; and
  • using effective public diplomacy to promote the free flow of information and ideas to kindle the hopes and aspirations of freedom of those in societies ruled by the sponsors of global terrorism.
In the second item of the list you will find the phrase "to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists". Some people will take that one phrase out of the whole document to represent the whole document. If those people were correct I submit that Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran would each have a multitude of places that glow in the dark by now.
 
There's also a National Security Strategy 2006 linked from the White House website. Do (some) people call it the "New Bush Doctrine"? If not, why not? Surely there is at least one phrase in it they can pull out and rant about.
 
Speaking of ranting, I'm sure there are some who, if they read this, would rant about what I've written here and call me a "Bush Apologist" if not something much worse. Nothing could be farther from the truth. IMNSHO (in my not-so-humble opinion) George Bush is a traitor to the Constitution of the United States and to his oath of office. He failed - no, refused! - to perform the duties of his office which are mandated by the Constitution and he violated his oath of office. That's another rant and it's late soooo, wait for it.
/R
 
Tags: president  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GOP Platform re: Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

Posted by RickeyB on Monday, September 15, 2008 4:34:05 PM

We may have to hold their feet to the fire, but here's what the GOP Platform says is the Republican position is. From the GOP platform:

http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf

We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people's rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government's past failures to enforce the law.

If they fail to keep this promise I expect the Republican party to shed registrations like a snake shedding its skin. That would be detrimental since only registered Republicans can get SaraCuda chosen for the Republican candidate in 2012 if McCain decided to break another promise and run for a second term.

I won't vote for McCain, but I will vote for Palin. If he rides her apron strings into the White House, so be it. I want the opportunity to dump him in four years and put Palin/Jindal in the White House.

What do you get when you cross a Pit Bull with a Barracuda? A Marxist's worst nightmare!
Tags: Palin   mccain  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »